Mike wrote on May 4, 2008 7:45 PM:Jean Doktor is right, we need more clowns. Sdraoul's pompous posts should be required reading.

sdraoul wrote on May 4, 2008 8:22 PM:What hypocritical knowledge-deficient people posted to day in response to me. The most ignorant is Alf.

For his benefit and those who have never understood the Constitution, here is the position I take:

The word "people" is used three times in the first four amendments, not "citizens."

In the 5th Amendment, the word person is used twice, not citizen. And, it says "nor shall any PERSON...be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..." The word citizen appears nowhere in the 5th Amendment.

The 6th Amendment uses the word "witnesses" not citizen "witnesses.”

In the 9th and 10 Amendments, the word "people" is used, not citizen.

Finally, in the 14th Amendment not only are the words "All persons born or naturalized" definitively used to define natural born citizenship but the 14th clearly states that all PERSONS are covered by equal protection of U.S. law; to wit:

"Nor shall any state DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR DENY ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

How my Constitutional Law professors are proud. They taught me to read and study the Constitution and to research relevant court cases that interpret the document.

They obviously didn't educate the posters here for they post like they have never read the Constitution.

Mike wrote on May 4, 2008 8:27 PM:Jean Doktor is right, we need more clowns. Fortunately, we've got pompous posts from sdraoul, constitutional scholar, for comic relief.

Pluto wrote on May 4, 2008 9:36 PM: Very sorry to see that Mark Baird's worthy project is bundled with anti-immigrant nonsense.

Floyd wrote on May 5, 2008 1:30 AM:Mark Baird's project has nothing to do with immigration and none of his comments have anything to do with immigration. He does take a potshot at illegal aliens, but does not address the issue of immigration.

Yokozuna to Pluto wrote on May 5, 2008 6:22 AM:Re: last night's 9:36 post: I agree with your post but would add "especially when many of the members of the armed forces are not U.S. citizens". Does Mr. Baird screen these Marines and sailors for citizenship? It was a cheap shot.

Our neighborhood wrote on May 5, 2008 6:43 AM:is celebrating Cinco de Mayo tonight with hamburgers and hot dogs. I am glad Mexico is not mad at the USA for taking California, Arizona and Texas away from the Mexicans. It is nice both countries can celebrate this event.

Artsyrat prop wrote on May 5, 2008 6:53 AM:Give me a petition...I'm voing no on Proposition 99 and voting YES on Prop 98. Let's move forward...away from government control. It's obvious that rent control is not working, open your eyes. Protecting our personal way of life right in our livingrooms is so important!! Stop our governments from using eminent domain to steal our personal security and refuge, our homes, farms and businesses, vote YES on 98. Vote no on Prop 99.

Yokozuna to Floyd wrote on May 5, 2008 6:55 AM:Sorry friend, you need to reread the letter. Mr. Baird refers to "non" Americans, not illegals. I interpreted that to mean non-citizen. There are many people in the US that are here legally that are not citizens.

Celebrate the th of May... wrote on May 5, 2008 7:27 AM:...by not doing anything. We started our own little boycott last year when we found out that the two upscale Mexican restaurants we frequented 3-4 times a month hired numerous illegals (we got to know the staff and they came right out with it during conversation). We just simply stopped going there. We can't control it everywhere, but we surely can do something little by little once we know it's right there in our faces.

Hector wrote on May 5, 2008 7:52 AM:Cinco de Mayo is, like St. Patrick's Day, just another reason for Americans to get drunk and act like fools.

Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 8:00 AM:From yesterday, "sdraoul" at 5:17PM, made a valid point by pointing out that the 14th Amendment says "Nor shall any state DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR DENY ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.". Too bad he missed the point that "Person" does NOT mean "Citizen". Over and over and over again he deflects away from the primary point that the FIRST part defines who is a LEGAL CITIZEN. Too bad that he also chooses to ignore the FIRST PART of that sentence which is "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States;"(emphasis mine). He still does not get that part of the 14th Amendment deals with CITIZENS RIGHTS and another deals with the rights of EVERYONE who is on our land. Regards, Alf.

Im worried ... wrote on May 5, 2008 8:03 AM:Saw this on a sign while coming to work this morning:

Obama = Bitter?
Clinton = Truthful?
McCain = Angry?

This pretty much sums up our selections.

Sad!!

Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 8:05 AM:One more thing, "sdraoul", I can tell how well I am doing by the number of INSULTS in your posts. It is interesting to note how each of us addresses the other and how many INSULTS are used. You do need to learn the art of debate and some manners. Regards, Alf.

To Celebrate wrote on May 5, 2008 8:06 AM:Would you please tell us the names of these restaurants? 64wko

Eat at home wrote on May 5, 2008 8:26 AM: You think it's just Mexican restaurants that rely on low-wage workers without papers? Mark Baird's "patriots" wouldn't work for those wages or they'd be in those kitchens right now. Our privileged lifestyle is based on those workers. If you don't like it, I suggest you stay home and eat mayo sandwiches on white bread.

Surfer wrote on May 5, 2008 8:35 AM:Alf[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 8:05 AM: Oh so true, big kahuna. If I had my way, I would close his peepers for him. See ya brah.

Pluto wrote on May 5, 2008 8:35 AM: Mel Gallegos is right. Sunday's 60 Minutes had a segment about the fact that Texas has recently released 17 prisoners who spent many years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. Turns our the Dallas D.A. from 1951-1987 was corrupt and pursued convictions by any means necessary. Not only did innocent men spend decades in prison (some were executed), but the real criminals got away with it. Our criminal justice system is very arbitrary, imperfect, unjust, often corrupt. Under these circumstances, the death penalty is a disgrace.

Pluto wrote on May 5, 2008 8:56 AM: Surfer's 8:35am disgusting, low-life threat has no place on this blog. Please remove ASAP. And calling himself Surfer is an insult to surfers. He should call himself Goon, Killer or Hit Man.

Down in the Valley wrote on May 5, 2008 9:06 AM:Thank you HirePatriots.com! I am a resident of Oceanside and have hired these fine young men a couple of times now. I can't afford to pay them much, but always make them a big tray of home made cookies to take with them, along with a big thank-you for serving our country. We needed a palm trimed up once. I posted my request and recieved so many responses - all from polite, trusted servicemen! The job was completed with hard work and a smile. Why would anyone hire someone off the street, when you can hire a patriot?

sdraoul wrote on May 5, 2008 9:12 AM:Alf simply doesn't understand the Constitution. Different sentences in the same amendment or original section have different subjects. The 14th defines who is a citizen, yes. In a different sentence it defines who is protected by equal protection of the law and due process and that subject -- persons -- is all-inclusive not limited to citizens. Her might look up the Slaughterhouse Cases from the 1870s when this subject was addressed.

In Plyler v. Doe, the word “persons” was well parsed by the court in a modern sense and stands today for that case hasn’t even begun to be challenged in the years since it was decided.

As far as insults are concerned, Alf doesn't understand debate at all.

The deconstruction of an opponent's ideas by any means is acceptable (We just celebrated Niccolo Machiavelli’s birthday; he is my hero). When one assumes a holier-than-thou attitude trying to replicate the words of Zeus, that someone must be shown to be a mere mortal. Insults buttress one’s position against ignorance for ignorance is invincible to the ignorant.

If Alf continues to pimp the Constitution by false statements, he can. As most who read these comments don’t know the Constitution, his views are acceptable to them. Intelligent people will take a closer look at the Constitution (and relevant court cases available at FindLaw.com) and see something different, just as the U.S. Supreme Court has mostly done for over 200 years.

Alf seems to think that the construction of the Constitution means one thing in the 2nd Amendment where one sentence is used (“a well-regulated militia”) and that it can be interpreted as two different subjects and in the 14th where different sentences actually do have different subjects.

Alf’s interpretation seems to insult those who wrote the 14th . On the other hand, the Slaughterhouse Cases did interpret the 14th and that interpretation stands today 135 years late despite Alf’s limited view.

Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 9:14 AM:Well, "Surfer" at 8:35AM, thanks. Please tell me that your post was not a threat as "Pluto" at 8:56AM believes. Regards, Alf.

Sorry Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 9:18 AM:But ANY PERSON means ANY PERSON. You are wrong on this one son.

To To Celebrate wrote on May 5, 2008 9:22 AM:"Would you please tell us the names of these restaurants?" No I can't because I made that up. Just go to any restaurant that has Mexicans working there and ask! Or better yet don't go to any restaurant that has Mexicans working there just to be on the safe side.

Surfer wrote on May 5, 2008 9:33 AM:Pluto[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 8:56 AM: You do not determine what or whom has a place on this blog. My post was not addressed to you or the blog but to Alf. I spoke for myself as Surfer not for surfers. And for the record sdrauol has displayed so many discourtesies and personal insults to all member that he does deserve two black eyes.

The list grows wrote on May 5, 2008 9:43 AM:Hey surfer you can add esteban, el jefe, asteroid, and el guero to your hit list.

Yokozuna to Surfer wrote on May 5, 2008 9:52 AM:Thank you for explaining that you were not talking about taking a life, just a mere assault and battery. I feel so much better now.:-)

Hire a Patriot wrote on May 5, 2008 10:05 AM:"I can't afford to pay them much, but always make them a big tray of home made cookies to take with them, along with a big thank-you for serving our country." Well at least they can feed their families with your big tray of homemade cookies! Maybe your big thank you will put some gas in their tanks! Why don't you pay them what they are worth? No props for you.

I am Bitter Too wrote on May 5, 2008 10:06 AM:Im worried ...
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 8:03 AM:
Saw this on a sign while coming to work this morning:

Obama = Bitter?
Clinton = Truthful?
McCain = Angry?

This pretty much sums up our selections.

Sad!!

If you aren't bitter then you haven't been paying attention. So sad for you.

Homeowner wrote on May 5, 2008 10:08 AM:Artsyrat prop (6:53 a.m.) has it completely backwards.
I agree that all eminent domain in which any private property is taken and then turned over to another private entity is wrong. Not only that, but it clearly violates the 5th Amendment's prohibition of any taking except for public use, and the Supreme Court decision was grossly in error.
However, the addition of a second provision (invalidating and prohibiting all rent control) in Prop 98 is a gross overreach, not to mention rendering the proposition unconstitutional.
In contrast, while I agree that Prop 99 does not go far enough, it is at least a step in the right direction, and the home you own and actually live in does merit special protection. Prop 99 does nothing to prevent future expansion to include other property, but it at least protects homes, which is better than nothing, and does pass Constitutional muster.
Vote No on Prop 98 and Yes on Prop 99.

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 10:41 AM:The paucity of comments on the current Richard Rider column is a good indication that we no longer have sufficient outrage to even express our ire about political corruption.

Politicians receive rational pay, and then hide their other benefits – and their unmentioned benefits add up very quickly, particularly car benefits and pensions.

We have become complacent with political corruption. It is instilled in our system to the point where only Mexico's narco-corruption murder rate makes us look better by comparison.

A race to the bottom.

Impersonators wrote on May 5, 2008 11:03 AM:I wrote the original "Celebrate" at 7:27, then someone at 8:06 asked me to name the restaurants I mentioned. Well, whomever wrote on my behalf at 9:22 saying, "I made that up..." is obviously quite the little instigator.

Sorry, 9:22, but you have no clue of which you speak. Considering that I worked at one of the places I mentioned (and quit when I found out what the owners were doing), perhaps you should think before you decide to lie.

Artsyrat prop wrote on May 5, 2008 11:07 AM:To Homeowner. I'm a homeowner as well. The only reason you think I have it completely backwards is because you disagree with my point of view. I really don't have it completely backwards and I know a lot of people who agree with me. I guess we'll see come June 3rd, huh. Now if we can just get people to actually vote...........
Vote NO on Prop 99.

Down in the Valley wrote on May 5, 2008 11:18 AM:As to the negative comment posted by "Hire a Patriot" at 10:05 AM: I feel so sorry for you! You read a positive comment and turned it into a negative. For anyone who read my comment posted at 9:06 AM, and feels that these fine young men were jilted - well, they were paid what they asked for the job. No haggeling at all. Plus we always give them a big tip(and the cookies)! Sorry to dissapoint you "Hire a Patriot" (and I doubt you ever have), but most folks out there ARE willing to pay a decent wage to those who are willing to actually work for it. Such as the outstanding young men and women who serve our country and are looking to supplement their incomes via Hirepatriots.com. I highly recommend this program!

Im worried ... wrote on May 5, 2008 11:37 AM:I am Bitter Too
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 10:06 AM:

Huh?? What does being bitter have to do with the pathetic selection of politicians we have to choose from? Our country has a lot more talent available than these "Three Stooges!"

Realist wrote on May 5, 2008 11:58 AM:I agree totally with Norman Phillips. If people would plan ahead and SLOW DOWN on the freeways, think of all the gas we would save. Prices would drop easily, and families would have more money to spend on other necessities.

Chris wrote on May 5, 2008 12:22 PM:So it turns out that the letter by Jack Davis for May 3 stating that Ehud Barak was willing to give the Palestinians 97% of the west bank was bogus. I spent a lot of time on this one and it turnes out that the US and Israel lied, surprise, about all this generousity that Barak offered the Palestinians. Just type in Barak's offer at camp David and read it for your self. There is a lot to it and too much for me to go into here. Quite frankly I am tired of these cluless people comming out here and trashing William Dreu for his letters when in fact they are accurate.

KenDog wrote on May 5, 2008 12:31 PM:I gotta go with YES ON 98! Any initiative that curbs in government's power is good by me! If you need persuading, just look at the many messes Morris Vance has created in Vista! Put the brakes on gevernment's meddling with private property! YES ON 98! And NO NEW CITY HALL!!

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 12:41 PM:Jimmy Valentine, Roger Hedgecock’s Sancho Panza, has written a great paean to the homeless today.

First, he credits them, properly, for having sighted most of the more than a dozen illegal smuggling boats that have been intercepted (sometimes belatedly) trying to deposit drugs and nascent dishwashers into our country. Valentine recommends deputizing them with cell-phones and organizing them into a coast-watch, after all they are there on the beach 24/7.

He then adds that the homeless are a true benefit to the country. They not only consume little (so they have virtually no “carbon footprint”) but they hang around outside stores and discourage consumerism.

The homeless actually could sell their lifestyle as a carbon offset even to those who use solar power and drive hybrids! The TV ads tell us that a train can carry a ton of freight 400 miles on a gallon of fuel – and the homeless ride trains, so a train can carry 13 homeless, 400 miles on a gallon of fuel! That is enough to offset some of Al Gore’s private jet travel! (It would take a lot of homeless to offset the Governator’s daily Gulfstream IV trips from his LA mansion to Sacramento!)

Valentine says that the homeless serve many other benefits as good modern green citizens – they save countless cans & bottles from the dump and get them recycled (this is work even illegals will not do!); they use almost no soap, water, or cosmetics; they wear recycled clothing…

I might add that the homeless have honored Michelle Obama’s plea that we avoid “corporatism” – in fact they have adopted Rev. Wright’s plea that they avoid “middle-classism.”

To paraphrase Obama’s slogan: “THEY are the ones we have been waiting for!”

hardtack wrote on May 5, 2008 12:55 PM:To whom it may concern: I gave Adam Smith credit for some words in my May 4, 11:37 AM post only to avoid plagiarism. Otherwise, I would have proudly presented Smith’s profound, eternal truism as my own, had I known that crediting Adam Smith would provoke irrational conclusions.

The fact that I quote Adam Smith should not lead a reasonable person to assume that I, endorse all of Smith’s economic premises. For example: Karl Marx is the source of some excellent quotes. If I happen to use one in the future, it should not indicate that I, ipso facto, endorse all of Marx’s economic premises – such as rent control and progressive tax rates.

Whereas, publication of The Wealth of Nations was timed perfectly (1776) to influence our Founders toward free trade and individual liberty, and against government tariffs and subsidies, it was not infallible. Some of Smith’s premises have been officially rejected by such notable successors as Jean Baptiste Say (1767 - 1832), Frederic Bastiat (1801 - 1850), Ludwig von Mises (1881 - 1973), Milton Friedman (1912 - 2006), and Murray N. Rothbard (1926 - 1995). Any one of whom I may decide to quote in the future – accompanied, of course, by some boilerplate disclaimer, along the lines my second paragraph, to keep minds from running amok.

To whomever wrote on May 5, 2008 1:05 PM:Okay so tell us which restaurants are they?

Yes on wrote on May 5, 2008 1:21 PM:Agree with KenDog. Keep the government out of my affairs and their hands out of my wallet! Any idea how many millions Mayor Vance has blown as Mayor and before as city manager? The numbers are staggering! Why does he want to support 99? Because he can interfere more with private property!!! And why won't he fess up about why he was fired as city manager? The guy is devious, for sure!!

Chris to Chris misinformed wrote on May 5, 2008 1:24 PM:Replying to your blog for May 3, the Jews in Palestine are not the decendents of the ancient Isrealites and the reason they won the wars is because of their advanced weapons. Quite frankly you blogs are a good example of why we need to keep religion out of our government. Making decisions based of supersticious nonsense is a recipe for disaster.

I notice that SDRaoul wrote on May 5, 2008 1:26 PM:struck out on his use of the Ark decision to prove his open border, anti American activism. Now he goes for Plyler vs Doe. The Constitution DOES mandate education for ALL children in the US, to a certain age. But NO other benefits, except EMERGENCY care. It does NOT state the children of illegal aliens are citizens, no matter how you try and spin it. WE THE PEOPLE means Americans, SD, and ALL who ARE American, know this. Sadly, SD won't stop until he and his 20+ million minions have destroyed America and the Americans for whom the Constitution he loves to quote, was written.

Patriot wrote on May 5, 2008 1:40 PM:What the 14th Amendment says is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was supposed to exclude granting automatic citizenship on any child whose allegience to the United States is not complete. If a child's parents have not renounced allegience to their native country by taking an oath of allegience to the United States, they are still citizens of that country, and that country still has a claim on the parents and the child living in the United States. In that instance, there is not complete allegience between the child and the United States. The child is entitled to equal protection under the law, as are all persons, but not citizenship.

ShawnP wrote on May 5, 2008 1:56 PM:To I'm Worried at 9:37 am --- I respect your right to your opinion and your free speech, and will defend that right (military 28 years and counting), but please don't degrade the beloved Three Stooges by comparing them to the three losers who are vying to become our next President. The Three Stooges are (or should be) national treasures, they were so talented and gave so much for so many years. The upcoming election really worries/concerns me, even scares me a little bit....

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 2:12 PM:Alf: “[w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because
we are final.” Justice Jackson Brown v. Allen, 1953.

There is supposed to be a check and balance in the system, but the Congress, which is certainly capable of declaring what the citizenship rules are, absent a substantive Court declaration is impotent.

Has been, is, and will be.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to touch the issue, and benign neglect dictates continuation of the terrible status quo.

Surfer wrote on May 5, 2008 2:44 PM:Alf: They have not printed by reply to your question. So, I'll just make it short. No, it was just an off the cuff remark. Real threats on this blog would be stupid as the computer address is attached to each submission. Pluto just misinterpreted and over reacted. Anyway, I didn't really mean it. Apologies to all.
Mea Culpa Mea Maxima Culpa.

Homelessness wrote on May 5, 2008 2:50 PM:Reardon at 12:41 continues to show his contempt for the poor in the way he ridicules them and parodies the harsh conditions they live in to put down serious issues aimed at solving real problems.
The cruelty of conservatives never ceases to amaze me.
Just curious, Reardon - is your screen name meant as a take off (variant spelling) of the Ayn Rand hero Hank Rearden in Atlas shrugged?

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 3:01 PM:To Homelessness: Yes.

Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 3:18 PM:Well, "Surfer" at 2:44PM, thanks for answering. No problem. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 5, 2008 3:37 PM:Well, "sdraoul" at 9:12AM, Alf does NOT "seem to think that the construction of the Constitution means one thing in the 2nd Amendment where one sentence is used (“a well-regulated militia”) and that it can be interpreted as two different subjects and in the 14th where different sentences actually do have different subjects". Alf looks at logical statements. If "sdraoul" sees an "and" in the Second Amendment, he must be hallucinating for there is no "and". He fails to consider that at the time the Constitution was written, every male person (Citizen) was a potential member of the militia AS WELL AS at one time there was a REQUIREMENT for all able-bodied men to keep and bear arms. In the 14th Amendment, however, there is, in fact an "and", it is that "and" that requires BOTH the being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States AND being either born here or being naturalized (the LEGAL way) in order to be a Citizen of the United States. Regards, Alf.

To I notice that SDRaoul wrote on May 5, 2008 3:50 PM:You may think that the people crossing the border are the ones responsible for dstroying America and the Americans for whom the Constitution was written. However, you're wrong about that. the damage was actually done by the 1962/1963 Supreme Court decision Engle v Vitale.

To to I notice wrote on May 5, 2008 4:08 PM:WOW!!! an actual believer in God!!! I am thrilled and honored to make your acquaintance!!! I went to Catholic school for elementary education and magically, I, and my classmates, each in classes of 50, got excellent, well rounded, educations. I don't know of a single HS drop out and most went on to college. Imagine that?

Im worried ... wrote on May 5, 2008 4:15 PM:ShawnP
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 1:56 PM:

Shawn, I apologize! It just amazes (and disgusts) me that these three are the best we can up with!!

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 4:32 PM:Being a Liberal means never having to say, “I’m Sorry.”

1. Liberals oppose drilling in ANWR et al, meaning higher fuel prices that hurt the poor.
2. Liberals oppose vouchers, locking poor Blacks in failing inner city schools.
3. Liberals support Ethanol, which raises food prices for the poor, worldwide.
4. Liberals oppose Wal-Mart, which brings cheaper food for the poor.
5. Liberals banned DDT, which means malarial has killed 20 million poor Africans.
6. Liberals fight nuclear power, so high energy prices hurt the poor.
7. Liberals support union work rules, driving Rust Belt manufacturing out, hurting the Rust Belt poor.
8. Liberals oppose enforcing immigration laws, driving wages down and hurting American poor.
9. Liberals oppose strong criminal laws, loosing criminals to prey on the poor.
10. Liberals oppose new sources of water, and the resulting high water prices hurt the poor.
11. Liberals support higher gas taxes, hurting the poor.
12. Liberals oppose a gas tax holiday, hurting the poor.
13. Liberals oppose coal gasification, hurting the poor.
14. Liberals oppose building freeways, costing jobs, increasing SMOG, which hurts the poor.
15. Liberals support Mass Transit, leaving the poor fewer choices for jobs, hurting the poor
16. Liberals oppose wind power off Cape Cod, a liberal stronghold, raising energy prices & hurting the poor
17. Liberals oppose building dams, causing higher energy prices which hurt the poor
18. Liberals support Global Warming policies that will harm the economy and hurt the poor

Note that all of the problems mentioned, and many I have not even thought of, fall disproportionately on the poor. The rich – even the middle class – can withstand the pain. We live in well-protected neighborhoods, send our children to private schools, and compensate for increasing fuel and food prices with fewer double-mocha, skim-cream, single-sweetener lattes with whipped-cream topping.

Not ALL liberals support or oppose each and every enumerated item, but their fellow liberals are the leaders in doing so, and they stay silent so they will be accepted into the Liberal fellowship. Their silence is assent to these outrageous policies.

Three D wrote on May 5, 2008 4:35 PM:Comments addressed to SDRaoul at 3:50 p.m. are completely absurd.
The case cited of Engle v Vitale is the one in which a very bland, non-denominational school prayer was outlawed from the New York City Schools.
What possible difference do you think the public "vain repetition" of a completely meaningless one-sentence "prayer" (in complete violations of Jesus' commands in Matthew chapter 6) had to anyone? It was not a prayer - it was a mockery of serious prayer.
How is a public PRAYER not an "establishment of religion" prohibited by the First Amendment?
Why do you think the government can (or should) do a better job of religious indoctrination of children than parents, families or churches?

To all a nice wrote on May 5, 2008 4:39 PM:Cinco de mayo when Americans celebrate the taking of California, Texas and Arizona from the mexicans!

HOPEFUL wrote on May 5, 2008 4:51 PM:A better sign reading:

OBAMA = HOPEFUL
Hillary = SHRILL
McCain = BELLICOSE

I am hopeful

who is BITTER wrote on May 5, 2008 4:57 PM:The most bitter man in American is George W. Bush.

To Homelessness wrote on May 5, 2008 5:17 PM:Homelessness
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 2:50 PM:
Reardon at 12:41 continues to show his contempt for the poor in the way he ridicules them and parodies the harsh conditions they live in to put down serious issues aimed at solving real problems.
The cruelty of conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

To Homelessness: The one real strength of our country is that ALL individuals have the opportunity, regardless of race, religion, socio-economic background, etc., to achieve whatever they wish to achieve. A very successful black businessman once said, "Government cannot give me as much as I can earn. I only ask that government not create barriers to impede my progress."

It finally happened... wrote on May 5, 2008 6:14 PM:Reardon took over where Ron left off. I finally had to start skipping Reardon's posts. Arrivaderchi, Reardon.

Liberal wrote on May 5, 2008 6:16 PM:Reardon continues to repeat the same false hate speech against liberals, even though each point has been repeatedly addressed. Many of these statements completely misstate liberal views, meaning that Reardon is either dishonest or lacking in knowledge of liberal positions.
Liberals oppose oil drilling and want clean, cheap, renewable energy.
Liberals want public education dollars to spent in ways that are accountable, not for private profiteers.
Liberals do not support ethanol, as Reardon has repeatedly been informed - ethanol is supported by Pres Bush and Big Corporate agribusinesses.
Liberals oppose the Wal-Mart which depends on perpetuating a culture of poverty for its client base.
Liberals banned DDT in the USA which destroys the environment. Liberals consider targeted use in selected tropical areas feasible, but have no control over African local warlord squabbles, which is the real cause of poverty in Africa (liberals can't even get public policy passed in this country, much less Africa).
Liberals oppose nuclear power, which is expensive and too dangerours for any private insurer to cover. We support clean, renewable energy.
Liberals oppose gas tax holidays which reduce infrastructure support, and increase demand (and ultimately price) for pollutant fuel sources, as every economist has stated.
Liberals support both Mass Transit AND freeways (not tollways which favor rich with tax subsidies) where they are environmentally feasible, maximizing choices, which are opposed by conservatives who hate the poor and ridicule the homeless.
Liberals support hydroelectric clean renewable energy, but do want to ensure environmental safeguards.
Liberals support vigorous action to reverse human contributions to global warming, since global warming would be devastating to the economy and cause massive human suffering to rich and poor alike. Those who promote global warming seek short-term profits at the expense of mass genocide against the entire human race.

Roger wrote on May 5, 2008 6:46 PM:"HOPEFUL" at 4:51 PM refers to McCain as bellicose, another liberal myth, or possibly an over reaction to his humorous "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB VERMONT" song.

Homelessness wrote on May 5, 2008 6:49 PM:To the comment at 5:17 p.m.
You are wrong in your statement that: "ALL individuals have the opportunity, regardless of race, religion, socio-economic background, etc., to achieve whatever they wish to achieve."
Not all people have such opportunity on an equal basis.
Do you seriously believe that the baby born to a crack-addicted single mom in a ghetto or barrio, who has not seen the baby's now-jailed father since the night he was conceived (and doesn't know who her own father is, either, for that matter), has the same, equal opportunity to succeed as the baby who is born to a wealthy or middle-class two-parent stable family from the dominant ethnic culture, which nurtures and encourages the child and fosters love, confidence and self-reliance, not to mention knowing the right contacts for future advancement.
Please note that the two babies had nothing to do with where they were born. It is an accident of nature. But, through nothing they were responsible for, they do not have the same, equal opportunity to achieve whatever they wish to achieve.
You are living in a fairy tale that someone has conned you into believing.

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 7:02 PM:Alas, liberal policies have no father, once they are demonstrated to not work to specifications. Then, opposition is stifled by using terms like “hate speech” and warnings of “genocide against the entire human race..’ These are symptoms of a lost argument, and they are also strong accusations.

Tell me where I am to turn myself in, and if you believe you can substantiate those charges – charge me! But transfer your assets off-shore before you do!

OVERSTATEMENT wrote on May 5, 2008 7:30 PM:It utterly boggles the mind that Reardon at 7:02 p.m., of all people, can criticize liberals for overstating their case or exaggerating, after his bizarre, extreme and highly inaccurate distortions of liberal views.

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 7:49 PM:To Homelessness: All people ARE created equal before the law, but certainly not everywhere – or anywhere – else. Otherwise we would not have an NBA, an NFL, or an Olympics!

Even “opportunities” are obviously not equal – certainly those born with physical or mental handicaps have greater hurdles, and even those with racial and/or socio-economic (I am one of those) hurdles have somewhat greater difficulties, but the greatest equalizer for EVERYONE is education, and THAT IS FREE, K-12.! It is virtually free, 13-14!

Obviously, some people are sidetracked by ennui, or lack of drive, or drugs, or…and we call them societal failures – but that is not society’s fault.

There is absolutely no way to optimize opportunity for everyone, without establishing a fully-functioning fascist society. Some people will always succeed with luck, or good looks, or brains, or drive, or physical skill, or sex, or schooling, or connections, or …

And, some people will not. I cannot imagine a society wherein all people ARE equal, and I cannot imagine a society that could enforce such an equalization.

Ms M wrote on May 5, 2008 7:52 PM:Reardon
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 4:32 PM:Being a Liberal means never having to say, “I’m Sorry.” Readon, when has the conservatives appologized for the way they have literally brought our country to it's knees? You guys go first...then if there is anything left to apologize for........

Reardon wrote on May 5, 2008 7:55 PM:Overstatement: I'll bet you have some specifics, or are you just filled with criticisms.

Oh Roger wrote on May 5, 2008 8:39 PM:McCain was enthusiastically for the Iraq invasion. He wanted more troops there and when finally they were sent last year, he bragged about his idea, which now has been shown to be a weak one. He has said we will never surrender in Iraq and will be there for a long time. He did the bomb Iran comedy, which must've been enjoyed tremendously in Tehran and wherever al Jazeera's news goes out. Probably as popular and "sane" sounding as some of Ahmadinejab's best sound bites sound to us and Israel. He has sought the endorsement of Rev Hagee, who has said many times that he favors an attack on Iran. No, Roger, this is not about one "funny" song. If only!

Apollo wrote on May 5, 2008 9:00 PM:Re: Reardon (7:49 p.m.)
Reardon still doesn't get it. Ho hum, same old, same old.
He says: "There is absolutely no way to optimize opportunity for everyone, without establishing a fully-functioning fascist society … I cannot imagine a society wherein all people ARE equal, and I cannot imagine a society that could enforce such an equalization."
Can he really not discern the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes?
Seems like he realy can't.
That being the case, there is no point to be made. For Reardon.
Any rational person, however, can understand this.
Although it is true we will never overcome all the factors that contribute to inequality (of opportunity, not outcomes) that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can. We also will never overcome all the factors that contribute to damage from earthquakes or hurricanes or lack of energy or hunger or any number of ills in this world. We will never achieve perfection in any of these efforts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can.
And ALL the improvements to society, including PUBLIC education which Reardon suddenly applauds after his earlier denigrations, have been the results of LIBERALS.
Yes, being LIBERAL means never having to say you're sorry.
Even when we fall short, we can look back and see all the ways we have made the world a better place for everyone.
In contrast, conservatism means throwing more obstacles in the path of those who already have the most, while giving more advantages to those who have the most of those.

Hiroshima wrote on May 5, 2008 9:09 PM:They don't want us to see the photos of our soldiers in flag draped coffins because they don't want us to think about it. Google the newly posted photos of Hiroshima and get face to face with a vote for someone who would cause that to innocents and take responsibility if you vote for John McCain. In 2000 we didn't know, but now we do. No excuse. Next time the blood is on your hands.

To great Hollywood scripts wrote on May 5, 2008 11:29 PM:Re Ms Silva, she is NOT married to a Marine. She is divorced from him. The fact that he is or was overseas had nothing to do with her behavior. So I don't see her as a "poor victim" as you put it. Please do not put her in the same class as military wives who truly are sacrificing.

OH PLEASE wrote on May 6, 2008 7:54 AM:Reardon[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 4:32 PM:
Repetitive daily drivel from Reardon. LOL.

Bogie wrote on May 6, 2008 8:10 AM:Oh please, oh please.

TO sdraoul wrote on May 6, 2008 8:29 AM:Re: your first comment. I applaud you for interpreting the Contitution to fit your needs. Now, read the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence. "WE THE PEOPLE..." The very first sentence that sets the tone for the rest that will follow. Is it "We the people visiting, inside, illegally entering..." NO. It is "WE THE PEOPLE OF the United States." Did your English professor influence you at all, or just your ACLU "professor?" The word "OF" means what to you? Webster's dictionary defines the word "of" to mean "used as a function word to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship." So...we the PEOPLE OF, means BELONGING to, which means CITIZEN. Try again with your poisonous words, sir. WE THE PEOPLE/CITIZENS/RESIDENTS "OF" this great nation will NOT allow you to bastardize OUR Constitution to fit your agenda. PLEASE REPLY...I love a good legal debate.

Olaf wrote on May 6, 2008 8:34 AM:Most of you hate Reardon but I have to say he has made some good points. Not all are good and some are mis-represented. But you have to ask yourselfs: "why do you all seperate yourselfs from each other". In other words is there not a middle ground that all can meet on? IF Reardon can agree (and this is a big IF) some of those things he complains about were good for society. Unions brought good things to people. Wal Mart is bad for our economy and way of life (unless you like cheap lead products and slave labor). On the other side shouldn't we still drill for oil somewhere??? Anywhere??? I mean c'mon.. we are doing more harm to the poor (and me) by not then if we drill somewhere? Also are environmentalist a little kooky by blocking everything that is trying to improve the life's of the majority of the citizens? All questions that I am sure if you are EXTREME with your views you will not agree with. But is there not a middle ground. Reardon? Alf??? Everyone else? Or shall we continue to bicker and get nothing done?

Happy Seis de Mayo wrote on May 6, 2008 8:35 AM:To all a nice
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 4:39 PM:
Cinco de mayo when Americans celebrate the taking of California, Texas and Arizona from the mexicans!

Fear not! "Mexicans" will soon have all three of those states back and those states will soon turn into the third-world garbage pail that is now Mexico.

correction wrote on May 6, 2008 8:51 AM:I stated the declaration of independence erronously...it is the PREAMBLE to the CONSTITUTION that states WE THE PEOPLE OF...regards, Alf's biggest fan

Greenergy wrote on May 6, 2008 9:15 AM:Olaf at 8:34 a.m. is to be commended for his effort to find common ground, but makes some errors along with some excellent points.
It seems he does not really understand environmentalism, and has been conned by those like Reardon and Floyd who repeatedly distort and misrepresent it.
No, we do not need to do more drilling, anywhere.
We need alternatives to the internal combustion engine and energy powered by pollution-causing fossil fuels. These technologies are practical and available now and the only reason we don't have them in place is because the long-term costs of environmental and climate devastation are being passed on to others or deferred to future generations. If the true costs of oil were paid by those who use it, it would not be able to compete with solar, wind, geothermal, the hydroelectric power that Reardon falsely said liberals don't support, and hydrogen fuel cells. We need to have an immediate mandate for manufacturers of oil-driven engines to sell more electric and plug-in hybrid cars, even if they have to increase the costs of internal combustion engines to subsidize them until efficiencies generated by economies of scale kick in, thus transferring the real costs back to those who pollute instead of giving them a free (subsidized) ride.
Further, environmentalists do not obstruct projects.
They only demand that they conform to reasonable environmental safeguards.

Bogie wrote on May 6, 2008 9:16 AM:Olaf, " Most of you hate Reardon". Are you serious? I personally don't hate anyone because of their political views. Hell I don't even hate my ex wife, well maybe a little.

To happy seis de mayo wrote on May 6, 2008 1:50 PM:Mexico is not a garbage pail. Or at least not most of it. There are far more beautifull places and people in Mexico than you ignorant types know or care about. Tijuana does not represent Mexico just like Compton does not represent America....

Trent wrote on May 6, 2008 2:15 PM:I heard Hillary talking the other day about eliminating the "No child left behind" programs that haven't been fully implemented because the Dems refuse to fund. But she doesn't have an educational plan to take its place. I have volunteered at an elementary school for 5 years now and became convinced of the "teach to the test" method behind this program. I have seen many kids who might not have blosomed under teaching methods of 15 years ago. The big problem with the program is that teachers have considerably more work to do and are not compensated as they should be. The NEC is behind the harsh criticism and why Hillary is siding against. Bush's Texas experiment worked wonders for the childern of that state inspite of Dems who fought it tooth and nail. I hope this is not the "change" the Dems really want.

Bill wrote on May 6, 2008 3:58 PM:Reardon speaks the truth, it is amazing how so many people have been binded to common since. This liberal movement of political correctness is ruining our country. And anyone who speaks out against them is branded a racist or hate monger. How can any thinking person with common since believe pointing out the truth is racist or hate mongering just baffles me.

Bill wrote on May 6, 2008 4:30 PM:To Liberal
Reardons statement are not false.
Liberals want clean, cheap energy, and I want an SUV that gets 50 mpg, that isnt real either. It means eatting our food.
Your are correct that the education dollars are accontable, and the public education in cities are a dismal failure by that accountability with no choice for the poor.
You stating that libs don't support ethanol is not honest, the libs in fact do. In your words "clean, cheap and renewable".
Libs do oppose Wal-Mart, they say it hurts the community with low paying jobs and hurts local small bussines. The small bussineses usually pay very poorly and offer no chance for advancment and over charge for thier goods and services. Hurting the poor.
WHat does banning DDT have to do with poverty, once again a lib changing the subject. And by the way, most public policy IS determined by libs nowadays.
Libs do opppose nuclear energy, other than hydro electric it is the cheapest energy produced. France gets most of theirs from nuclear and they have a very good safety record.
Libs oppose gas tax holiday. That's true, they are always pro-tax.
Libs do support mass transit but they oppose new freeways. Every new freeway project lately has been opposed by libs on enviromental issues and regardless of the need or the science presented. They always oppose them.
Libs support hydro-electric? Give me an example of a single dam they have supported. Once again it is always oppsed my enviro-libs.
Global warming is an unproven theory and is increasingly loosing support among the scientific community. It appears it is a natural phenomenom based of the cycles of the sun, it has been proven Mars is warming. Explain that.

In short libs make most of their decisions based of emotions and how they "feel" rather than comon sense, logic, and proven science. I admire their concern for man kind and their efforts to improve their condition. But that will only be done by making decissions based of that common sense and sound science.

Olaf wrote on May 6, 2008 4:36 PM:I applaud all those ideas Greenergy. But until then can we continue with what we know. As I see it only the rich are still driving and this cost of gas is just bringing down more of the middle earners then any big companies. The poor are suffering ( and I don't know if Reardon cares or says he cares) but more pain is coming and it will not be fun. If we do nothing but wait for green energy the shock and economic pain maybe too much for the country. Maybe (tongue in cheek) this will be economic Darwinism. Maybe the strong will survive and the herd will be thinned out. Anyway it seems harsh and not very condusive to helping people. Just my 2 cents.

Bill wrote on May 6, 2008 4:55 PM:Greenenergy, you are making the common error that libs make, basing their ideas and thoughts on feelings. You should look at the hard science. Solar and wind energy remain expensive and beyond most peoples means. Hydro is a very good idea, but the enviro-libs always oppose new dams. And do you realize that your electric car is being charged buy coal burning electric plants? And global warming seems to be more of the fucntion of sun cycles than anything we have done.