Wanda wrote on Oct 2, 2008 6:26 AM:Marilyn Werkema assures us: "McCain is an achiever..."

McCain graduated fifth from rock bottom in his class at Annapolis.

james wrote on Oct 2, 2008 6:40 AM:While Gov. Sarah Palin is being grilled on her position on mark-to-market accounting rules, the press can't bother to ask Joe Biden if he could give us a ballpark estimate on when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president -- or maybe take a stab at guessing the decade when televisions were first available to the public. Being interviewed by Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" For those of you who aren't hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed a president who wasn't president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs. Other than that, the statement holds up pretty well. .... Couric was nearly moved to tears by the brilliance of Biden's brain-damaged remark. She was especially intrigued by Biden's claim that FDR had said the new iPhone was the bomb! Here is Couric's full response to Biden's bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and (b) going on TV in 1929: "Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden's strong suits." But when our beauteous Sarah said that John McCain was a better leader on the economy than Barack Obama, Couric relentlessly badgered her for evidence. "Why do you say that?" Couric demanded. "Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama? ... Can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?" The beauteous Sarah had cited McCain's prescient warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Couric, the crackerjack journalist who didn't know FDR wasn't president in 1929, demanded more examples from Palin.

James wrote on Oct 2, 2008 6:42 AM:We are currently in the middle of a massive financial crisis brought on by Fannie Mae. McCain was right on Fannie Mae; Obama was wrong. That's not enough? Not for the affable Eva Braun of evening TV! "I'm just going to ask you one more time," Couric snipped, "not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?" This would be like responding to someone who predicted the 9/11 attacks by saying: OK, you got one thing right. Not to belabor the point, but what else? Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae -- the government-backed institution behind our current crisis. How does the Democratic ticket stack up on other major issues facing the nation, say, gas prices?
Shockingly, Sen. Joe Biden was one of only five senators to vote against the first Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973. This is like having been a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. If Sarah Palin does nothing else, she has got to tie that idiotic pipeline vote around Biden's neck. The Senate passed the 1973 Alaskan pipeline bill by an overwhelming 80-5 vote. Only five senators voted against the pipeline on final passage. Sen. Biden is the only one who is still in the Senate -- the other four having been confined to mental institutions long ago. The stakes were clear: This was in the midst of the first Arab oil embargo. Liberal Democrats, such as senators Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church and Hubert Humphrey, all voted for the pipeline.

But Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation's oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation's enemies by about the same amount.
The only argument against the pipeline was that it would harm the caribou, an argument that was both trivial and wrong. The caribou population near the pipeline increased from 5,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 by 2002. It would have been bad enough to vote against the pipeline bill even if it had hurt the caribou. A sane person would still say: Our enemies have us in a vice grip. Sorry, caribou, you've got to take one for the team. But when the pipeline goes through and the caribou population sextuples in the next 20 years, you really look like a moron. We couldn't possibly expect Couric to ask Biden about a vote that is the equivalent of voting against the invention of the wheel. But couldn't she have come up with just one follow-up question for Biden on FDR's magnificent handling of the 1929 stock market crash?
Or here's a question the public is dying to know: "If Obama wanted a historically delusional vice president, why not Lyndon LaRouche?" At least LaRouche didn't vote against the Alaskan pipeline.

Pooh Bear wrote on Oct 2, 2008 6:57 AM:We don't 'hate' Palin. We hate the idea of her ever becoming President. She is negative, sacrcastic and ill-informed of matters both domestic and foreign. Nuff said. Her old-fashioned bee hive hairdo is something else too. It's like she got left back there somehow along with it.

oh james wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:00 AM:Look how excited james is today! With the VP debate coming up, the right wing talking heads have finally turned their attention to Joe Biden and, what do you know?, scouring his long career of public service, they FOUND some things they can use against him!! Amazing. Look at his vote on this! Look what he said once about that! Look how excited James is to report this to us! James is well trained. He's been sitting at home waiting to be given his information, the information he craves, and now it is given to him and he can hardly contain himself. Thanks, James. Party over country, every time.

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:00 AM:Just one paper....
"OBAMACAN" {Oct 1} @9:03 PM, just one.

It could be a well thought out lesson plan from this PROFESSOR of Constitutional Law. It could even be an article from the prestigious Harvard Law School Review from this magna cum laude highly educated scholar.

All I'm asking, is... give me one thing the guy wrote, and circulated amoung his peers, his University of Chicago peers, the same university where Antonin Scalia taught, and published many, many well thought out legal opinions.
Can you show me just one?

From this 100% self made with amazing achievements of personal responsibility and "rugged individualism?"

Just one....?

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:03 AM:McCain said this on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005:

QUOTE: "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
END Quote

Right on Pooh Bear wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:04 AM:Exactly. We have certain opinions about whether women, even women who are raped, should have a choice about going through with the pregnancy. We have certain expectations about how much our vice president actually knows about the world. We aren't sure someone who is under investigation for abuse of power, and who is trying to obstruct that investigation, has the ethics to be the leader of the free world. We worry when someone who might be our PResident says that our foreign policy decisions come to her from God. That stuff bothers some of us. Go figure.

Roger wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:09 AM:James seems pretty much hung up on Biden's gaffe on FDR.

To Wanda wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:09 AM:Grade average has little to do with success. Just look at GWB. And, many highly successful (achievers)doctors and business people were less than brilliant in school. Success takes a different talent than good grades do.

RE Social Security wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:11 AM:Your key words, "my working in the stock market." I don't work in the stock market and am not savy with stock options. So, I'm not taking my chance put my 5% of Social Security in the stock market.

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:25 AM:Did anyone see this portion of the Democrats bailout draft? Obviously written by Barry Frawank and other liberals who have used Fannie & Freddie like some government housing agency.

"Section 109. Foreclosure Mitigation Efforts.

For mortgages and mortgage-backed securities acquired through TARP, the Secretary must implement a plan to mitigate foreclosures and to encourage servicers of mortgages to modify loans through Hope for Homeowners and other programs. Allows the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancement to avoid foreclosures. Requires the Secretary to coordinate with other federal entities that hold troubled assets in order to identify opportunities to modify loans, considering net present value to the taxpayer."

So, the bottom line here is, when and if this blasphemy passes, we will be in the affordable housing business folks.
And as the unqualified are trotted out when we attempt to sell off their homes, to get our money back, we will hear of the sad, sad tales of how these people will be thrown into the streets, and the Children..... Yes, the Children.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:25 AM:Leave it to Edith Van Kirk to come up with a write in vote for President of the U.S. - and she believes she can do it with a letter to the N.C. Times. But, then, she's for Palin because Alaska is such a wonderful place to live -- even though she hasn't lived there for 50 or 60 years.

And, Ernest Sparks may well have more than $1650 in Social Security benefits, after all, his wife will get 1/2 of what he gets in addition to his claim when he starts collecting even if she never worked a day in her life. and, when he dies? She will get all his benefit, for life. You know, if we hadn't sold our house in a very upscale area near Los Angeles in 1975, I could have sold it for 2 or 3 million a few years ago. That, and $2 or so, will buy me a cup of coffee. Right?

Org. Discrimination wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:43 AM:Marilee Weston is wrong (Oct 1 2008). This is an important issue.

"The basis of not allowing certain organizations to use city, county, state or federally owned property or facilities is that these organizations discriminate in violation of the Constitution.

These organizations, the BSA among them, are free to discriminate to their hearts content -
on private property,
not on public property.

This is not about forcing anything on these organizations.

It is about not allowing discriminatory practices by ANY organization while they are using public property."

Thank you Alf.

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:48 AM:Well, well, well...
I see that although Ole Nance {Nancy Pelosi} is over in the House, she was still able to get her tax break for companies down in American Samoa.
For those interested, and for those who do not scroll past, use the (-), of live inside the echo chamber, it is
Sec. 309 of the Senate bailout bill.

American Samoa, ... American Samoa...
Now where have I heard that term used, in regards to Ole Nance before? Hmmmmmm?

I got it!
Nancy Pelosi represents Star-Kist in her San Francisco district. Hmmmmmm?
As it just so happens, back in January 2007, Democrats passed a new minimum wage bill, but....
Somehow American Samoa was not slated to receive the increase. {what about the Samoans, Nance?!}
And, it just so happens that Star Kist tuna employs 75% of the island's work force. They are making a lot of tuna down there.
So, now to bring this full circle...
Ole Nance had to give regular, everyday working Samoans an increase in the minimum wage, against the will of her task masters, Star-Kist. Star-Kist Tuna is a major employer there, with its headquarters in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district.
So now, she see's an opportunity to offset for her "virtual slavery" in the Pacific, by handing out a tax break to Star-Kist for having to put up with an increase in the minimum wage, when they had purposely lobbied her, on the first wage increase go-round to leave Samoans out. Now, they'll get an offset.
Gotta keep them taskmaster's profits up, so they will fill Ole Nance's campaign coffers.
Did I mention she's paying her hubby through her PAC?
Yes... most ethical Congress. NOT.

Rodeo wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:49 AM:You know what ticks me off? So I am reading a article about a UK watchdog group that is attacking cereals because they don't promote a healthy message. They are blaming the cereals and the cartoon characters of those cereals because they don't promote a healthy message. They are blaming these characters and their cereals for the obesity of children. PLEASE?!? It's the cereals fault because the kid is fat? Oh, come on...how about the kid go outside and PLAY. Get out from in front of the TV and go outside and PLAY. With other friends. Get off of the video games and go outside and PLAY. Or better yet, parents can give them responsibilities and jobs to do, whether it be inside or outside, that helps them burn calories. Assist them in being in an active lifestyle. Not sedentary.

It ain't the manufacturer's fault, it's our own fault for allowing this to happen to our own kids. Sheesh...so much for personal responsibility.

Wanda wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:56 AM:The 7:09 AM poster asks me to "Just look at GWB".

I've done that.

What's your point?

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 7:56 AM:That's pretty funny there...
"james" @6:40 AM:
>>>Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'">>>

To that, I say: Stand Up Chuck!

"Uh, uh, Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up, Chuck. Let 'em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? I tell you what, you're making everybody else stand up, though, pal. I tell you what, stand up for Chuck." ` Old Joe O'Biden
Only thing missing from this guy's act is, a drink, and a cigarette! LOL
Stand Up for Chuck! LOL

Republican Healthcare Socialist wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:00 AM:Another day has come and gone with only more silence from the cowardly Republican Socialists.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous question.
I'm serious.
I want one of the Republican Socialists - Ron, Raoul or Chuck - to answer it:
If nationalizing the nation's largest property and casualty insurance company (AIG) - actually owning and operating it - is "rescuing" capitalism, why is it "socialism" to have single payer public funding of health care through private providers?

Ron flailed around a bit yesterday, in regard to the issue rescuing financial institutions, but once again evaded the core question. He never once even mentioned health care.

Again, I call attention to the article published by NCT yesterday by Rich Lowry, showing the desperate attempt to try to explain why GOVERNMENT ownership/takeover of capital markets "saves" capitalism.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:06 AM:JAMES needs to give credit to the people who do his thinking for him. At 6:40 a.m. he plagiarized, word for word, a column from Ann Coulter. Apparently there's no honor among idiots.

Alf wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:08 AM:The letter from Beth Winchel is pure, unadulterated bunk.
The title, on the other hand, is correct.
I do not know the person Sarah Palin nor do I hate or even dislike the person Sarah Palin.
I do detest and hold in contempt her political, religious, moral and ethical behavior.
Family values?
She and her daughter pregnant before marriage.
Ethics?
"Alleged" abuse of power and actual obstruction of justice.
Morals?
Force rape victims to pay for their own "rape kit".
Political experience?
Convoluted exaggeration, i.e. Russian diplomatic experience because she can "see" Russia.
The list goes on and on.
Applying the "Palin logic" -
I used to work near Miramar, does that make me a "Top Gun" ace?
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:13 AM:JAMES continues to parrot Ann Coulter at 6:42 a. m. He didn't get one word out of order. That's very good for a parrot but pretty stupid for a human.

Alf wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:25 AM:Well, "Org. Discrimination" at 7:43AM,
for right or wrong, I was somewhat corrected yesterday by "Apollo" at 10:13AM.
Also, see the post by "Apollo" at 8:36AM yesterday.
Regards, Alf.

Hating Palin wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:36 AM:I've been watching the You Tube highlights of Palin's interviews. What I see is a woman who is utterly clueless about even the most reasonable questions she is asked. What else I see is a woman who is not afraid, even knowing she knows nothing about the matter at hand, to sit there "without blinking", pretending she can bully her way, pretending her answers are good. This is not about sound bites or "gotcha" moments. This is about a reasonable understanding of the world. It's clear that she and McCain know, in their secret hearts, that she is completely unfit for this run. But they are going to do it anyway. They'll insult American voters. They'll insult women. They don't care about the country at all. If they did, how could they honestly believe that a person who knows more or less nothing about the world, the government, the big picture, is ready to be president? This is disgraceful, and it's obvious. If you defend the choice of Palin, and therefore McCain's judgment in such a crucial, consequential matter, you really are not a patriot, you're an ideologue.

DD Wiz wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:36 AM:Ron v. Obama v. Scalia v. McCain
The post from "Ron" (7:00am) epitomizes either enormous hypocrisy, or else all that is wrong with the "publish or perish" attitude that says only scholars who have published copious volumes of material merit any recognition as "scholars," while dismissing important educational achievement and qualifications, including dismissively ridiculing the prestigious Harvard Law Review as a "school paper."

That doesn't mean, of course, that Obama couldn't satisfy this criterion. You asked for one article published in a high-level, scholarly journal:
Barack Obama: "Renewing American Leadership." Journal: Foreign Affairs July/August 2007

And as usual, "Ron" keeps a double standard. He demands -- demands! -- that "OBAMACAN" cite one, "Just one....?" example of such publication from Obama, comparing to his idol Antonin Scalia, of whom he says, he "published many, many well thought out legal opinions."
I further note that "Ron" doesn't adhere to the same standard he demands of "OBAMACAN" so, "Ron," I'm calling your bluff:

Your turn: From Scalia, can you show me just one?
Just one....?

Oh, and if you need more from Obama, just let me know, and I'll be happy to oblige, in response to your example from Scalia. But it's your turn now -- oh, and be sure not to include anything from the Law Review (I mean "school paper") of any university law school. Thanking you in advance.

"Expired" Law License: Oh, and as to your comment last night at 8:15pm that Barack Obama's law license "expired" in 2002 -- could you provide some documentation for that, please? --from a credible, qualifed source, please?
And that he let it lapse, expire, as opposed to going on inactive status (and do you understand the difference)?

Double Standard: And then please discuss the scholarly credentials of your candidate.
You know, the one you still can't find any positive reason to support?
Remember him?
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:38 AM:AS with most Liberals, capitalism scares them. They find it an unnecessary fear, and wish for a government to control normal, and natural flucuations that occurs within any capitalist structure.
In steps FDR & his New Deal.
Where, Government will now become a full participant within the capitalist system. Slated as both a regulator, and a competitor, and yet, we are told government will remain objective to balance the two. Bull.
If you believe that, I got another bridge to sell you.

You see, that was the FDR pitch. Capitalism had run amuck, and the government needed to rein it in.
Sounds good, right? One problem...
When FDR took the Central Government from a less than 8% of GDP in taxes to run the government, to 20% of GDP, that creates distortions within the capitalist system, which capitalists must then adapt to. Today, that number stands at 29.6% of total GDP.
Also, the Founders did give us a control of run away capitalism, it is the court system, provided by the government.
But the Liberals had a better idea, let's get in there, and tinker with it, and create a system that protects consumers & taxpayers. That's the thinking, right? Well, what are the results?
a 1938 New Deal system Fanne Mae is now belly up, and taxpayers are on the hook for it.
1935, a Social Security program was created, meant to save old people from dire straights during their old age. Where is that program? $13 Trillion in debt. The surpluses siphoned off over many, many decades from politicians we had trusted to do the right thing, and set them aside. Taxpayers are on the hook for it.
1933, FDIC meant to insure {at taxpayer expense} up to $100,000 for memeber banks. This current Senate bill raises that amount up to $250K, while the FDIC only holds $31 billion in reserves, which isn't even enough to cover the first $100K. Taxpayers are on the hook for it.
1974, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Again, meant to save workers pensions after industries went belly up, unfunded and over-promised.
Taxpayers are on the hook for it.

Do ya see the trend here? When the government becomes a full participant within the nation's economy, corruption that would not have normally have occurred, occurs.
When business must go to Washington, or Sacramento, or any other government body to receive permission, be granted favorable treatment {for a cost, of course}, or if they are able through political manipulation harm their competitors to gain market advantage are the results. And the results we have had to live with since FDR decided to make the government a full participant, a competitor, and a sometimes objective regulator.
Objective, only when some career politician isn't trying to get re-elected.

Rodeo wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:39 AM:Here's a plan that I think most would like for this financial crisis. So let's say, they take this 700 billion, divide it amongst all LEGAL citizens of the US that are over the age of 18. Of course, you would have to pay a tax on that money that is given to you, but hey, you are being given money for doing absolutely nothing so quite your complainin!

Now, for those that are in very dire financial strain, or already in the process of foreclosure on your house, you automatically have to put that money towards your mortgage. Don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars. Has to be done. If there is any left, then move on to the next bill you would like to pay off or invest it, put it back into the economy by buying yourself a nice new shiny present by way of the Government.

For all others who are not quite in a dire financial strain. You may do with it as you please. Pay off credit card bills. Invest for your future. Buy yourself something nice.

Point is, this money actually makes an impact on those that need the help the most. And in return, helps out the markets, the banks, the credit people, everyone ends up winning with this plan. So easy, yet apparently so difficult to figure out by our elected congress, who I feel, does not have the average citizen's best interest at their forethoughts.

Nick wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:45 AM:As a Tribal Member of The Cherokee Nation, there is a piece of legislation, that was authored by Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Ca), that is very important to me and my people.
I would like to share this letter adressed to all Citizens of The Cherokee Nation from our Principle Chief Chad Smith:

Last week was eventful in our defense of the Cherokee Nation. We have been defending our sovereign right to self-determination, defending our citizenship laws which removed non-Indian eligibility. We were standing up to Congresswoman Diane Watson from California and others who have tried to attach language to laws that would forbid Cherokee Nation from receiving federal funds. Our main messages about this issues has been that we are a sovereign Nation that has the right to decide citizenship laws and that any conflicts with our laws can and should be decided in a court of law, not by the federal government.

The United States Senate and House of Representatives passed measures last Thursday and Saturday preserving Cherokee Nation’s federal funding for housing services (Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act reauthorization, NAHASDA). The language of the measure stipulated that Cherokee Nation would receive these funds as long as a court order allowing citizenship for non-Indian Freedmen descendants remains in place throughout the tribal court case that will determine their eligibility for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.

I see the language in the bill as a sign that Congress recognizes the sovereignty and authority of tribal courts to settle internal disputes, which should be considered a victory for not only the Cherokee Nation but all tribes.

It is unfortunate that Congress voted to single out an Indian tribe over a disagreement about the tribe’s internal citizenship criteria, but I consider it a good sign that they have decided that this is a matter that should be decided by the courts and not by politics. There are several elected officials who helped us defend our tribal sovereignty: Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Lisa Murkowski (D-Alaska), as well as Congressmen Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) and Steve Pearce (R-N.M.). I thank them for their leadership and for proposing a solution that is not punitive to Cherokee citizens who need housing assistance.

Here is some background information on this issue: Currently, more than 300 non-Indian descendants of Freedmen are suing the Cherokee Nation in tribal district court over a constitutional amendment passed by Cherokee voters in March 2007 that restricted citizenship to people who have an Indian ancestor listed on the Cherokee Nation’s base roll. That amendment effectively ended a one-year period in which non-Indians were allowed to register as citizens based on a 2006 tribal court ruling. Those non-Indian Freedmen whose citizenship is in question have full citizenship rights, including access to social services and the right to vote, because of a May 2007 tribal court order that continues citizenship while the case is pending.

If you would like to read about the facts of the citizenship issue of non-Indian Freedmen, you can look it up online at www.cherokeenationfacts.org and www.meetthecherokee.org

Chad Smith

Principal Chief

You see folks, this is racism at it's finest, and by members of Congress no less.
Diane Watson is black and all the members of The Congressional Black Caucus support this bill.
One more reason I hate Obama. He is also a member of The Congressional Black Caucus and supports this bill.

This is NOT about casino money. Members of our Tribe DO NOT recieve free money like some of our local tribes to here.
This is about our Sovereignty and our right to govern ourselves.
If you can not trace your ancestors directly back to The Dawes Rolls and The Trail of Tears, you DO NOT qualify for enrollment in The Cherokee Nation.
Myself, as well as thousands of other Cherokee, have met these requirements, but for some reason, Diane Watson thinks that 300 blacks should be exempt from the same standards and requirements that so many others have met.
Racism is a bad thing, but there's nothing worse than a whole group in Congress who drip with it.
Cheers, Nick.

Apollo wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:47 AM:Re: Org. Discrimination (7:43 a.m.) and Alf (8:25 a.m.)
Org Discrimination does not quite get the issue right.
Private entities are NOT "free to discriminate to their hearts' content - on private property."
A private business can be sued for discrimination under Civil Rights laws (both federal and state) as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (federal - plus corresponding state equivalents that are even tougher in California).
Religious organizations are exempt from being sued for discrimination on grounds of conscience.
Quasi-public agencies are allowed special low cost (or no cost) access to public facilities.
Private businesses and commercial enterprise are subject to civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws.
Boy Scouts and Catholic Charities have never claimed to be private commercial enterprises.
But they cannot claim to be both a religious organization (exempt from discrimination laws) and a public agency (which gets favored treatment and special access).

I understand this may be way too much "nuance" for some of the simple conservatives to grasp and, again, I encourage all conservatives to get those beta amyloid plaque levels checked for deterioration of cognitive function.

As for Alf's reference to my correcting him yesterday, it was on a minor technical point not related to the above in an otherwise excellent blog.

Jack_D wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:48 AM:I agree 100% with Gary Myers' letter. Vote for the candidate, not the party! I also completely agree with Michael Cone's letter. It's rare to have two well-reasoned letters published in the paper on the same day. Usually the arguments run on the level of "Palin's a Bible-thumping moron" or "Obama will turn us into the old Soviet Union." Thanks, guys.

Uninformed Voters are wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:51 AM:why we are in trouble!
DEMOCRACY ALLIANCE MEMO DETAILS DEM PLAN TO "EDUCATE THE IDIOTS" AND TARGET MINORITIES
Filed Under: Colorado Elections
Topics: AFL-CIO, Andrew Romanoff, Bell Policy Center, Bill Ritter, campaign finance, Colorado Democracy Alliance, Democracy Alliance, Dominic DelPapa, Evan Dreyer, Joan Fitz-Gerald

October 1, 2008
Face The State Staff Report
In a confidential internal memorandum obtained by Face The State (PDF), the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of "operatives" who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state's liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to "educate the idiots," assigned to the state's AFL-CIO union. Among the operation's intended targets: "minorities, GED's, drop-outs."

Individuals named in the document, marked "CONFIDENTIAL," "for internal use only," and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE," are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter's press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as "off-the-record or covert."
Mentioned as a "critical contact" was Dominic DelPapa, a partner at Ikon Public Affairs. DelPapa was at the center of recent controversy stemming from the February leak of a confidential memo he authored detailing a multi-million dollar "foot on throat" attack on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, among others.
CoDA is one of 18 state-based versions of the nationally focused Democracy Alliance, a self-described "investment partnership of business and philanthropic leaders" funding liberal infrastructure nationwide. For more information about the Democracy Alliance in Colorado, see day one and two of Face The State's week-long series on the group.
In a podcast released by the DNC Host Committee Tuesday, national Democracy Alliance founder Rob Stein explains the need for large, secretive donor networks. "We do not have the infrastructure that the right has built, yet," he said. "But there has never in the history of progressivedom (sic) been a clearer, more strategic, more focused, more disciplined, better financed group of institutions operating at the state and national level."
In the same podcast, Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, the newly installed executive director of CoDA, explains her organization's mission. "Our job is to build a long-term progressive infrastructure in Colorado while we're conceding nothing in the short term in terms of progressive goals at the ballot box."

Ron wrote on Oct 2, 2008 8:53 AM:I'm gonna give you the straight poop on this...
"Republican Healthcare Socialist"
@8:00 AM. So, Pay Attention, I'm educating you now!

Obviously when you do not understand the capitalist system, as it's supposed to occur, not as it has been hijacked, then you will understand will I disagree with all the Wall Street Republicans trying to get a bailout.

I tried to tell you this the otherday,
Bush and his ilk are not conservatives on fiscal matters. Never have been.
He used certain elements of conservatism along the way, but these are not his anchor points.
The guy basically is a Big Government Republican. As shown by a new Drug enetitlement, the largest increase in entitlements since LBJ.
At the same time, he's giving tax cuts.
Now, you and I do not operate our checkbooks like this, but government does this all the time, both left & right. While I never... NEVER agreed with the increase in entitlement, he could have, at least, paid for the thing. But, this is what government does. Only in a government would you purposely steal your own retirement money from your account, then decry how you don't have any money for retirements. After raising the tax rates on retirements some 19 different times, you'd think Americans would start to get smart on this issue.
I mean, as the old saying goes: One burned, twice shy.
Or fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What about after 19 times? Idiot.

To be clear, the ONLY thing that can save Capitalism, is more Capitalism.
Government involvements has only given us a type of merchantile system, and worse... if Democrat's like Maxine Waters' has her way: "We will socialize you."
Given what Bush & Paulsen have done, if NObama is elected, with a Democrat Congress bent on socialist ideals.
We will have socialism, full bore.
No doubt in my mind.

NO BAILOUT!

What Obama has done wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:01 AM:To remind us all: we've gotten to know the candidates by now. So it doesn't matter that this one held this post for this many days, that that one graduated xth in his class a few decades ago. They have all been in front of us, three for a long time, one for a short time, and we see how they handle themselves. They've had to make hundreds of appearances (all but one of them) in front of small crowds, large crowds, journalists, tv talk shows, radio. They've been put on the spot by journalists and primary opponents, they've debated, they've been asked to think on their feet. Biden has been out there every day since his appointment talking to America. Obama has withstood every kind of bogus attack on everything from his religion to his acquaintances to how he high-fives his wife. When pushed to get out and see the world, Obama did it with ablomb and was greeted as a star wherever he went. Palin, asked to do the same, lied about where she'd been, then shook hands with a few world leaders in NY, with no questions allowed. McCain has also gone through the hellish primary campaign and deserves enormous credit for this. But we've also seen his dangerously impulsive and desperate changes of behavior and mind on so many matters they are beyond counting. He's resorted to stunts. He has, frankly, been more than willing to make a real fool of himself. As you can tell, I feel like I have quite a clear idea about who it's right to vote for in this election. I'm utterly shocked that it's even close. I want the guy who has shown he has intelligence, guts, integrity, judgment, and who has already won back some of the respect from the world that Bush has squandered. Why is this close? Is it because the right resorts to smearing, to calling Obama a Stalinist? Is it because he's black? Seriously, I cannot understand why the polls say this is a close election. What do the McCain/Palin supporters think they are supporting? I am completely baffled.

Pluto wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:03 AM:To Wanda @7:09am thinks GWB has been a success??? He's an underachiever whose daddy was an Admiral. Like McSame, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Since when are brains, good grades and achievement bad things? Being Editor of any Law Review is a big deal, especially Harvard. But if you want a President you can drink beer and shoot animals with, vote McCain-Palin. It won't matter anyway because California is going for Obama.

Lets debate this wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:04 AM:It's interesting to see Ron and Chuck in such direct opposition to one another. Chuck insists on a bailout, and slams the Democrats for their role in it not happening. Ron insists that the market should be left to correct itself, aligning himself with the conservative Republicans who rejected the bailout bill. I hope you two duke it out for us here. This is a rare opportunity to see two guys who are willing to lie and name-call and bend the facts go toe-to-toe. I wonder if they have the courage to take each other on. C'mon Chuck! C'mon Ron!

Apollo wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:04 AM:Re: Hating Palin (8:36 a.m.)
This blog is correct. It is not about hating Palin, it is about her utter lack of any qualifications beyond the bare minimum specified in the Constitution.

For all those who are saying that Sarah Palin was victimized by "gotcha" questions from Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson (puh-leeeze! -- this is not Mike Wallace or Bill O'Reilly), the segment on Couric's show last night dispels that myth.
Katie asked exactly the same questions to Palin and Biden.
Biden's smooth, flowing, easy answers showed that these are really simple, routine questions, not "gotcha's" - IF the candidate has the slightest bit of reasonable qualifications.

In answer to the question of what Supreme Court cases (other than Roe v. Wade, following a discussion of that case in which Biden showed mastery of full details of the case), Biden responded immediately and without hesitation regarding a law he had drafted and passed to protect women against domestic violence, which the conservative court overruled.
Palin said, in her flippant, schoolgirl manner, that, sure, there are LOTS of 'em, but couldn't actually come up with one, even though there was a case decided against Alaska while she was governor.
In the case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, which was decided JUST THIS YEAR, WHILE PALIN WAS GOVERNOR, on 6-25-08, the court vacated punitive damages, costing Alaska a loss of $2.5 billion. Yet this major decision against her state, barely 3 months ago, while she was governor, didn't leap to mind. In fact, NOTHING leapt to her empty mind.

But she can speak flawlessly when reading a script written by handlers.

Republican Healthcare Socialist wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:07 AM:Ron addresses a "reply" to me at 8:53 a.m.
He continues to change the subject and evade the issue.
He continues to talk about the bailout, and not the healthcare issue I asked about.

So I'll repeat my core question that has Ron so tongue-tied:
I want one of the Republican Socialists - Ron, Raoul or Chuck - to answer it:
If nationalizing the nation's largest property and casualty insurance company (AIG) - actually owning and operating it - is "rescuing" capitalism, why is it "socialism" to have single payer public funding of health care through private providers?

To Wanda wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:09 AM:The point is simple. GWB was NOT a good student, nor was he especially talented in any way. Yet, he made it to President of the USA, which to most people indicates he is successful. He had family money and influence to help him along. He also, I am told, had the necessary "old boy" connections at school, in business and in politics. Others without great grades have a "my way or the highway" personality that shoves others aside to get what they want, or perhaps they're actually lovable (which I doubt).

P.S. I'm not a McCain supporter!! Hardly. Just don't think his status as a student is relevant to the subject.

Yokozuna to Alf wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:20 AM:We can discuss these matters in total and resolve all problems but will need to analyze and finalize solutions. Look for my unpublished paper on the important matters Friday as discussed a couple of days ago.

Health Care Socialist wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:22 AM:P.S. to Ron at 8:53 a.m.
A further comment to the one I submitted a few minutes ago -
Your statement "Pay Attention, I'm educating you now!" smacks of the condescending arrogance that you and SDRaoul consistently demonstrate.
You two openly claim to be better, smarter and more erudite than anyone else, even though both of you are repeatedly corrected with your factual misstatements, made-up "facts" and total distortions of reality.

This is the kind of real elitism of those who think their "unearned" lifestyle, created by the labor of those "peons" somehow imbues them with a "higher station" in this world.

It doesn't.

Query wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:24 AM:Wanda: How successful were you in getting into Annapolos?

Americans are catching on wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:25 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE With the first presidential debate completed and both candidates grappling with the turmoil on Wall Street and in Washington, Senator Barack Obama is showing signs of gaining significant support among voters with less than five weeks left until Election Day, while Senator John McCain’s image has been damaged by his response to the financial crisis.

A CBS News poll released Wednesday found that Mr. Obama’s favorability rating, at 48 percent, is the highest it has ever been in polls conducted by CBS and The New York Times. At the same time, the number of voters who hold an unfavorable view of Mr. McCain — 42 percent — is as high as it has been since CBS News and The Times began asking the question about Mr. McCain in 1999, the first time he ran for president. ENDQUOTE McCain's only hope, it seems, is to focus on smearing Obama. When McCain himself, let alone Palin, get out there and talk, they lose voters every time. For all of us who are genuinely nauseated by Rovian smear tactics and dirty campaigning, as well as for all the true Americans who are appalled by the idea that on election day there will be tricks to disenfranchise voters, this is going to be a terrible month. Let's hope the voters continue to realize what is being done, and vote accordingly.

Focal Point wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:43 AM:Beth Winchel: Support Focal Point, a man, who loves his country and family.

sdraoul wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:44 AM:Poor DD...

Barack Obama is not authorized to practice law in the state of Illinois. I looked it up at the Illinois state Bar web site that referred me to an Illinois Supreme Court web site.

DD, instead of writing dumb notes demanding documentation, look it up yourself.

Citing an article written by s staff member that was published during a presidential campaign is not being published while in law school, nor is that “peer review.” DD, please present us with any articles published by law student or lawyer Obama. No one else has produced one, can you?

As for peer revue, McCain has a Silver Star and numerous other military medals that are awarded by more senior officers. That’s peer review, DD. If you had ever served in the American military you wouldn't try to compare Obama and McCain at a peer review level.

Rodeo wrote on Oct 2, 2008 10:55 AM:Ok, here is something else that is really starting to irk me. Why is it, that we have to be so considerate of the Muslims feelings and their religious beliefs, or any other religion for that matter, but when they are disrespectful to Christianity, it is no big deal. And apparently, the Christians have no right to be upset by it. Oh the hypocrisy!

hardtack wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:08 AM:I had the same reaction as Ernest Sparks did to that “useful idiot’s” remarks about privatizing Social Security. What is it about the word “optional” that makes people see the word “mandatory?” What is it about freedom of CHOICE that some people resent when it’s about what others with their own money?

Or is it just the word “freedom” that scares the pooh out of some people?

To The Fuzzy Wuzzy Pooh Bear wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:22 AM:Pooh Bear
[-] wrote on Oct 2, 2008 6:57 AM: Number One dumb, stupid, non-informative answer of all time, Congratulations Pooh. Nuff said.

grj wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:26 AM:i just paid $90 to get a shoulder injury looked out if I was illegal i could have got help for free. If health care for everyone is socialist bring it on. and you consertive rich people quit your crying. America is supposed to work for the good of the people then we deserve free health care.

Heather wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:30 AM:Sarah Palin and the Supreme Court
", it’s probably easier to come up with a case that you agree with, but that’s what skilled and smart politicians do: they re-frame the question the way they want to answer it. I’m just afraid that if the question were phrased the other way around, she still would have been stumped. This is what people mean when they say she is unqualified to be (Vice-) President. Just contrast her answer with Biden’s and that becomes crystal clear.

Chuck wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:32 AM:>>>McCain graduated fifth from rock bottom in his class at Annapolis.>>>>At least he graduated and made something of himself. Now contrast that to your kids who are dumber than dirt in the public schools, who will make great baristas some day

Chuck wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:42 AM:>>>Chuck insists on a bailout, and slams the Democrats for their role in it not happening>>> I'm not happy about it, but I'm not stupid either. There is no liquidity in the markets right now, and Paulsen and his racketeers have us by the throat with a gun to our head. I say do the bailout and then brutalize these criminals.

Bobby wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:52 AM:Did you ever notice that when anything in this country gets "deregulated", the taxpayers end up bailing that industry out at taxpayer expense?

We deregulated the savings and loans in the 1980's...guess what? The taxpayers paid the bills.

We deregulated the airlines and the taxpayers bailed them out, too. Please don't say that 9/11 caused this. The airlines were in the toilet long before that date.

The current administration has managed to unofficially deregulate the banks and mortgage lenders with lax lending and capitalization requirement rules and the banks lenders went crazy with greed.

Are brokerage houses like Fidelity Investments, Charles Schwab, Edward Jones, etc..the next undiscovered surprise for the American taxpayers?

Many of the mortgage backed securities that they bought may still be performing, and as the economy continues to deteriorate, you will see more foreclosures. That is why the push is on to "stabilze" this smoke and mirror show.

The SEC is a joke; they would rather prosecute Martha Stewart than the whole damned lot of the Wall Street gurus who perpetrated this scam.

And guess who is now going to bail out all of these buffoons? I see a defined pattern here.

I am going to invest my money in distillers, drug companies, prison builders, and scratch offs...I actually think that I may have a better rate of return. I at least know the risk inherent with these folks.