gags

Sophia, perhaps the only consolation is that in this election the wave is going to be so large it overwhelms (I hope) the vote rigging that appears to be happening.

I'm referring to the Democrat base, not the politicians themselves. Much of the Left Wing base is disappointed in Obama's moderation.

It's amazing. A good portion of the left wing of the Democrat Party is mad at Obama because he supposedly compromised too much with the Republicans. He apparently wasn't socialist enough for them. They wanted "single payer" and they wanted "cap and trade" and they wanted to see a bunch of Wall Street and BP execs breaking rocks on Alcatraz. The hard left turn we took simply wasn't hard enough. Go figure.

Now that will be interesting. The far left controls the Democratic Party and one can only hope that if the Party contniues on that path, it will be relegated to electoral exile.

Yes, we know it, but does the Obama Administration know it? After all, they've given the Iranians a seat at the table in the talks with the Taliban and the Afghan government. That's both a strategic error and a clear sign of weakness that will surely get more American soldiers killed.

According to WikiLeaks, the Iranians were squarely behind the insurgency in Iraq, targeting American troops. The largest unauthorized disclosure of classified government documents in U.S. history confirms a long-standing assertion of President George W. Bush at the start of the 2007 troop surge: Iran was orchestrating one side of the Iraqi insurgency. Field reports made public by the website WikiLeaks on Friday show that U.S. military intelligence agencies had many strands of evidence revealing that Iran provided paramilitary training to Shiite Muslim insurgents at the height of the civil war in Iraq. In one case, the military circulated a Dec. 22, 2006, warning that a group known as Jaish al-Mahdi planned to kidnap U.S. soldiers. The man planning the operation, Sheik Azhar al-Dulaimi, was trained by Hezbollah terrorists near the Iranian city of Qom, the document stated. Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based militia that was founded, trained and funded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. "This confirms the degree of operational involvement the Iranian Revolutionary Guard used in anti-U.S. operations in Iraq," said Kenneth Katzman, a Gulf affairs specialist at the Congressional Research Service. "It confirms the degree to which Iran was involved in operations that directly targeted U.S. forces." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/24/wikileaks-back-bush-claims-iran-role-iraq-war/

Dr. Sowell has been a favorite of mine for years. Thanks for posting an article well worth reading.

Well, that's a relief. I thought the chicken scratch said "Death to the Infidels".

What demand?

That's a new one. Starve the bastards.

The closest I have seen anyone come to providing such evidence is the information posted regarding the Imam's views on Sharia Law. Obviously, the imposition of Sharia law would be horrible and an incredibly destructive force when it comes to individual rights. However, in a free society during peacetime, people should be allowed to discuss Sharia and even advocate for it the same way Nazis and Klansmen should be allowed to discuss and advocate for their twisted ideologies. Again in peacetime, it is the responsibility of free men to argue against such ideas and demonstrate that they are evil. During war, this issue becomes less clear. Would it have made sense for the US government to allow representatives of the Nazi Party to hold rallies in the US in 1942? I keep going back and forth on this issue because I agree that there must be evidence of a connection between this Mosque and our enemies. However, in wartime I'm willing to set the bar pretty low when it comes to requiring evidence of collusion with Muslim fundamentalists.

The Venezuelans are now planning to seize 11 oil rigs from an American company. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-23/pdvsa-to-seek-seizure-of-11-helmerich-oil-rigs-in-pay-dispute.html If the US had a rights respecting government, this would be a tremendous opportunity to protect the private property of our citizens. However, given the recent seizure of banks, auto companies and the entire US healthcare industry, Obama will probably look at this as further validation of his domestic policies. After all, overseas public opinion is very important to our global president.

In this specific situation, I'm not aware of this mosque being used to support the enemy in any way....yet. If evidence becomes available that Islamic Fundamentalists are using the mosque to support action against the US either here or abroad, then I would shut it down in a New York minute (no pun intended). Until that evidence is available, I don't see how a rights respecting government can take action against individuals who are not yet known to be hostile. Remember, this should be a war against Fundamentalist Islam and its active supporters, not against Islam itself.

My middle name is Nostradamus.

I don't think they have violated anyone's rights.... yet. It's important to be aware of the fact that the Imam founding the mosque appears to be a liar (surprise!) and an advocate of Sharia Law. As such, he stands squarely in opposition to individual rights: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/is...e-95107454.html In my view, assuming that the mosque is being built on private land and with no taxpayer funding, it should not be stopped by the government. However, if the leaders and/or the other Muslims who attend this mosque are found to be supporting enemies of this country or engaging in other illegal acts, then they should be prosecuted immediately and to the fullest extent possible. Fundamentalist Islam is a violent, poisonous ideology and it has to be watched closely.

If one prefers death to life, why are values, morality and ethics (or anything at all for that matter) even relevant? If your highest value is death, then one can simply do nothing and you'll die in fairly short order. Why bother with ethics when death is what you seek? By the way, where do you live in Spain?

The question of how one accounts for pollution needs to be examined in the context of property rights. Here's a relevant quote from an article that's on point: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/t...he-environment/ "The Environment" doesn't have rights, people have rights. Thus when someone violates those rights, it is the proper role of government to act in that context.

I haven't read the book, but I can tell you that Paul Ehrlich has a long history of predicting mankind's impending doom and he has been consistently wrong with his assessments. I would look at anything he has written with a great deal of skepticism.

Some interesting information about the Imam behind the NYC mosque: http://www.shoebat.com/blog/archives/273 Here's a link to a video of Walid Shoebat discussing the Imam's comments and true intentions: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=111&load=3660

Yep, I’d have expected nothing less from Mother Jones and Salon. It’s true that there’s a scarcity of Objectivist talk show hosts, but certainly there are plenty of shows run by people with a better view of the world than Alex Jones. Paul should stay away if for no other reason than to avoid lending credibility to his brand of conspiracy freak nonsense. If he’s going to go on that show, then make a major point of disagreeing with the conspiracy crap. Absolutely, that is a good point. Where I think Paul screwed up is going on a show like Maddow’s when he wasn’t really prepared to deal with an issue that someone on his team should have known was going to come up, particularly since he had already fumbled it on NPR. In those interviews he reminds me of the bumpkin from Topeka who walks in on a Vegas poker game and asks whether there’s room for another player. When he leaves the game wearing his underwear, he’s the only one who’s surprised.

The media have started to pick up on Rand Paul's connection with Alex Jones, the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Apparently he has gone on Jones' radio show several times. Paul should be a little more selective in choosing where and with whom he does interviews. http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/ra...theorist-friend http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo..._paul_interview

It's nice to see that the "Cocolate" covered Oatmeal cookies are to be made with Oatmeal that "shall have natural rolled oat flavor and odor and shall be clean and free from burned particles, rancid, musty, sour, or other undesirable flavors and odors." Only the best for our boys in the field!

Another oops. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even as national Republican officials seek ways to limit damage from Rand Paul's unorthodox remarks, the Kentucky Senate nominee raised more eyebrows Friday by defending the oil company blamed for the Gulf oil spill. "They know they messed up" by allowing liberal show host Rachel Maddow to draw out Paul's thoughts on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the official said. Paul told Maddow he abhors racial discrimination, but he also suggested the federal government shouldn't have the power to force restaurants to admit minorities against their will. There were signs late Friday that Paul was getting the message. His campaign canceled his scheduled appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," accusing reporters of being obsessed with the civil rights flap. "There's lots of chatter, 'we've got to get this guy some help,'" the official said, adding that he's not convinced Paul realizes the danger of saying yes to so many interview requests. Washington-based Republican strategists hope to strike a balance. They'd like to persuade Paul to be more selective and disciplined in his remarks but not lose the freshness and candor that appeal to voters seeking a change in Washington. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/m...tame-rand-paul/ People claim that they want a new kind of politician in Washington, so I guess we'll see whether this electorate can actually handle a candidate who says what he believes.

This incident shows Rand Paul's political inexperience. He should know that this is not the kind of issue you can debate in sound bites and it's also completely irrelevant at this time. There is nothing to be gained politically by even entertaining this discussion. He should have simply said that he supports the 1964 Civil Rights act and left it at that. Instead, he let the discussion go forward and it has now damaged his chances to get elected and may prevent him from dealing with the important issues that are facing this country. In politics, you have to know where and when to pick your fights. This was a bad choice on the part of Rand Paul.

That's pretty bizarre. I wonder if in the US this could qualify as prostitution and lead to the prosecution of a "tester" who succeeds in getting the spouse to cheat and then is paid for his/her services?