Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bees You can thank(or not) A.C. for the diversity currently allowed at F.A. Although we disagree on most everything political I respect the way he presents the Conservative voice.

Nan #73 I’ve spent time in the galleries of the House of Commons/Lords and it is a great experience.They speak ENGLISH unlike many here(native born included)in the colonies.

Won’t waste time listening to Olberman and I feel the same about Hannity.
I find Beck comedic.Think O’Reilly program is the best on Fox.

Thumbs up to all the Vets.Good week to personally thank all those currently serving.Buy a serviceman a beer this week.

@Trooper. I am hardly thin skinned. Were I thin skinned, I wouldn’t have offered myself up so many times as a human pin cushion on F/A, since Sept 2008. The only things I won’t stand for are being called a liar or being accused of standing by and doing nothing and allowing a good friend to die. Other than that, everyone has been perfectly free to call me whatever names they wish, and many have taken this opportunity. My response is not to call them names as a rejoinder but simply to point out, as in this case, that name calling and personal attacks — some blatantly untrue — when did Barack Obama ever say that he “loathed” (direct quote) the military?! – do nothing to advance the cause of making this a greater and better nation. Self inflicted wounds!? So much for the band of brothers. The Major has no direct knowledge of John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.

I greatly respect the Major’s service, but Timothy McVeigh won a bronze star. Simply being a veteran doesn’t give one immunity from criticism.


How was I defamed? The major’s letter was directed not to the political figures in question, but to those voters who elected them. The major made it very clear that it is well known that the politicians in question “loathed” the military, were racists, were socialists, were “pro-killing little kids,” and on and on. And yet voters like me knowingly voted for such people, thereby implying that we approved of military-loathing, racism, socialism, and child killing.

I have respect for the Major’s service, but I have no respect at all for taking advantage of his status as a military veteran to defame the one half of the electorate who voted for the politicians whom he so obviously despises. He has politicized his military uniform. That is to be condemned.

If he wants to rave and rant, and do so as a private citizen, then that’s up to him. But when he tries to hijack Veterans Day and use his military uniform to give him political credibility which he has done nothing to earn, then I’m not willing to allow him to use that uniform as a shield against counter-criticism.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA IT’s so easy for you or any of the 52% to answer to a letter,
containing thoughts of those in hell, struggling to WIN a war when the ground is
POLUTED with killing BOMBS, and hear of what they are fighting and dying for,
is taken for granted, by the 52%, who are very satisfied with their little life alone,
ARE you aware that some of them are desperate enough to commit SUICIDE.
SO we prefer to listen to them, and notice when they are bravely, sent a letter,
to the AMERICANS; THEY are WORTHY of giving ADVICES,and some have signed
with their blood.

@bees (#104): Then I take it that you also condemn the Major’s libel against John Kerry that Kerry gave himself self-inflicted war wounds to fraudulently earn Purple Hearts? This is one military man, draping himself in the uniform of his military service, to defame not simply voters who disagree with him, but also, specifically, another who also served and who may well have faced greater dangers than he did. Or does your respect for the military begin and end with military veterans who share your political views?

– LW/HB If I can put it this way: I share their views, and am willing to understand the way they see what is going on in their beloved AMERICA, from their far out position,
It’s very telling, and worth the second thought. bye

Timothy McVeigh was a poor Soldier, a Coward, a Domestic Terrorist and not anyone’s hero. I rank him at the same level as Bill Ayres, the Weather Underground Domestic Terrorist.

Get this notion, There are No Governmental Officials that are above criticism, They work for US. If telling the truth is defamation, then the Officials just may not be worthy of Fame or Respect.

No one has hijacked Veterans Day. Paying Lip Service to Veterans one day out of the year while The 800,000+ VA Claims are in backlog speaks loudly for the Regime and poorly for their leadership (lower case L).

Got more news for You. No uniform I ever wore stopped any bullets. I have been wounded three times over the years in dangerous places where Politicians feared to tread. Been to the past 3 undeclared wars, many deployments to aid Allies, am not Party affiliated but Four Presidents sent me and I served. I reserve the Right to Criticize because I earned it. I respect the Majors Right to do the same. I have no political ambitions and am not an “Activist”.

On this, hopefully, We can agree to disagree, but We both Love Our Country and Service is Noble. Criminal acts or Domestic Terrorism is Despicable. The Major is no terrorist, his Patriotism is not subject to my question. He is now Retired and can voice his opines without question to his Loyalty. The same as the Citizens that He defended.

@trooper: We are straying a bit far afield.

My opinion is that military service is cheapened by using the fact of such service to engage in invective not against politicians but against countrymen, and not simply against countrymen who may disagree with military policy but who also hold different views on progressive taxation, immigration policy, abortion policy, etc. etc.

If the Major wants to make the point that anti-war rhetoric is bad for the morale of those on active duty or whatever, then his prior service is relevant. If, on the other hand, he writes a blatantly political ad hominem attack on half of the electorate, covering all manner of opinions and positions which have nothing whatsoever to do with his military experience and wraps himself in his uniform in doing so, then he cheapens the uniform in which he served.

His service was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It was not to defend the views of the Tea Party or anyone else. He wrote a screed which basically said that it wasn’t worth it to him to defend the Constitution (which is why he “quit”), if his own political party was no longer in power. Read his essay again; it’s exactly what he was saying.

Of course, he’s got the right to say whatever he wants. But he misused his uniform to further political goals which had nothing whatsoever to do with military service. For goodness sake, what about his fellow servicemen who voted for Obama? Has he no respect for them or for their service, as he so evidently lacks respect for the rest of the electorate who do not share his own political views?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I can imagine the FRUSTRATION of some who could not vote,because the BALLOTS
did not reach them on time done too late or not at all, IS’nt it disgraceful, to do it, and I am beleive to think, it was purpously done, by DEMOCRATS who had an interest to deliberatly do it:
ARE some so ingnorant as to think they all have access to a computer,around the line of fire?:
OKAY TALIBANS stop the planting of the EIDS , because we received the okay to vote
NOW or never,we’ll be back with your asses as soon as we can.

Major To suggest that the 69,456,897 citizens who voted for Obama were less patriotic than the 59,934,814 who cast for Mac is ridiculous. I agree with Larry that what you appear to be saying is it’s not worth defending the Constitution if your party isn’t in power.If you do believe that it’s best that you quit.

rich wheeler, you don’t have to tell him, HE already quit, and that his opinion and right to decide.
NOW let those 52% examine why they voted,
MANY will surprise themself when they find their motive, and try to condown
a patriot who served his country with honor

@ rich wheeler, Major was two promotions ago for me. The Major that was quoted is 100% entitled to his opinion as you are to yours.

Don’t put words in my mouth regarding the Constitution, Bud. I defended it for 30 years thus far
and continue to do that. Three Wars, Three Wounds and loyal to the Constitution and Defending it still. If you feel insulted or defamed that is your issue to resolve.

I am currently in Belgium, NATO HQ, in meetings with some confused Allies. Re: Withdrawal Plans. Our Leadership has sent mixed messages.
That’s what I’m doing for the Nation lately. My quitting is not up to you, Jocko. I was recalled by DOD for the Second time since Retirement. I will quit when DOD tells me that my mission is completed.

Bees That’s 52.9% and a plurality of over 9.5 million American citizens My conscience is clear.We’ll do it again in 2012.
I’m not condemning the Major,rather agreeing with his decision to quit.

Semper Fi

OT2 My response was to Major Banzet.I’m glad you’re still out there fighting for us COLONEL. Maintain your independence.

rich wheeler, OUT of that number,do you know how many ILLEGALS voted,
I surely there must be also a number known of those on the total.

Bees. Not many. Do you understand the magnitude of a loss by 9.5 million votes? Landslide?Bad loser?

rich wheeler, considering many facts, like open border, and ignorance of some,
not aware of the importance of their AMERICA, or language problem or others.this party
9.5 million for THE UNITED STATES, is a very small difference,to compare with
the other side of knowledgeble voters. to my view, this is not a landslide, but a diminish party of yours

The first Internet discussion board on which I ever participated was the CompuServe Cancer Forum, in 1992. This was in the days before web browsers, where only the very sophisticated (which did NOT include me) were on the web; the rest of us were constrained to proprietary, dial-up connection discussion groups, such as those on CompuServe and the newly-emerging AOL.

Anyway, another participant was a U of Pennsylvania radiation physicist named Loren Buhle, who originated what may well be the first general information medical site, called “Oncolink.”

Anyway, Dr. Buhle gave some very good advice to the group on the Cancer Forum, in response to a suggestion that it would be appropriate for everyone to give their “qualifications,” before offering an opinion.

Buhle said to view opinions presented on the Internet as akin to a conversation overheard on a subway: perhaps something obviously wrong or uninformed and, therefore, to be ignored. Or perhaps something interesting and potentially credible, to be considered and researched further, but not to be accepted uncritically, whether written by someone with seemingly impeccable “qualifications” or by a lay person, with no “qualifications” whatsoever.

I’ve always considered this to be very wise and valuable advice, which I’ve extended to my reading of all opinion pieces, in all media, new and old.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

openid very good advice to remember, and also the intent of the one giving the comment or info,although, there is a big difference between comment which has much of soul searching answers which is the inner truth of the giver revealing his core belief;
where the info is a learned or observed answer direct from the memory,and logic
just saying, bye SR

@ Larry

I will probably take some flack for this from some of my conservative friends…..but, I think Obama has been pretty smart when it comes to the military. He has made some mistakes, which I will show shortly. I especially think the First Lady has been gracious to veterans and their families, and has appeared to work on their behalf.

Now, the major’s concerns have some relevance.

Candidate Obama said:

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

There was also this:

The Obama campaign canceled the visit with wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, Obama says, when he learned that the Pentagon would not allow him to bring along a retired Air Force major general who is serving as a foreign policy adviser to the campaign. Obama says that “triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political.”

Notice I put the Obama camps statement out, even though others have stated that Obama refused to visit because cameras were not allowed.

President Obama tried to push this through:

March, 2009, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Fortunately, he backed off.

John Kerry:

JOHN KERRY, There is no reason that young American children need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women.

John Murtha:

In May, 2006 Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, appeared on “Good Morning America” accusing United States Marines of killing “. . . innocent civilians in cold blood” and higher military officers of covering up murder.

And of course everyone knows Harry Reid’s stance:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is “lost.”

As someone that spent 10 years in the Air Force, I can tell you that the things that happen in Washington have a major affect on troop moral. I had every intention of retiring from the Air Force. I loved every minute I spent serving my country. Even though it was next to impossible to get promoted. The Air Force rank system is different than the other branches. Someone has to move on before you can get promoted. With all the RIFs brought on by the Pentagon while I was in, the number of slots to be promoted continued to dwindle. After being an E-5 for four years, to get promoted to E-6 I would have had to ace both tests and find a way to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (50pts for the CMH). But that isn’t why I got out. George HW Bush was spineless. There was a plan in place during early 1989 or late 1988 to make all service member’s dependents have their own dental care and institute a co-pay for all medical care. I was planning on getting married and that was just too much. I had a lot of friends on the outside making money hand over fist in the defense industry. So I decided to leave. Not trying to ring my own bell here, but I was the only person in the U.S. Air Force fully qualified on all avionics systems for the KC-10 aircraft. My job was flying on special assignments when the crew needed to be kept to a minimum. I aslo flew on aircraft that had chronic problems that could not be duplicated on the ground. You most likely would not have wanted to be on a aircraft I was flying on.
Everyday, some idiot in Washington, both republican and democrat, is responsible for the military losing someone it really needs. People that want to serve, but have just been kicked one too many times.

: Thoughtful response, thanks.

I’m a bit more charitable than most, when it comes to gotcha quotes. In every long war, in which alpha dog politicians make thousands of comments, and there is always someone to write it down, video it, record it, you are going to have people blurt out things which don’t come out as well as they would like. “Cakewalk” and “Liberators” being two of relevance to the Iraq War. If you have the ability to laugh at your own compatriots, there’s lots like the following on the Internet:

Just a comment on one thing I do know something about: the proposal to have private insurance (when available) pay for service-connected injuries is something which has gotten brought up at various times in the past, going back to Reagan’s old “Grace Commission on Reinventing Government” (I’ve worked in 3 different VA Hospitals, in Michigan, Washington DC, and California, including an 8 year stretch in the latter). It’s really not a terrible idea, if you are interested in reducing government spending. The idea is NOT to deny care to any service-connected veteran (far from it). It’s just to bill private insurance (when it’s available) for care provided, in the same way that a private hospital would bill insurance, for care provided. There was never an plan to balance bill veterans for unreimbursed services.

I don’t know why the idea was dropped, but I presume that it’s because the Health Insurance Industry is such a formidable lobby group.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@ Larry

The democrat party doesn’t have a lock on stupid. Sometimes I watch the Sunday shows and wonder if the republican party has anyone that can answer a question. Now, I watched Chris Christie this Sunday and let me just say, that man knows how to answer a question. As for the things said by republicans before and during the Iraq war, I would rather hear that talk if I were in the military than hear that I’m a baby killer or a cold blooded murderer. Just saying.

As for private medical for vets, the only people that have private medical insurance would be the guard and reserve. I didn’t have private medical insurance when I was in the Air Force. There’s no way I could have afforded it. If I were in congress, I would cut the benefits for congress first.
I keep hearing people say this is just a drop in the bucket or that is just a drop in the bucked. I’m pretty sure that every bucket ever filled was filled one drop at a time. Some drops are just bigger than others.

: P.S. As I recall, Reagan’s “reinventing government” commission actually proposed selling all the VA hospitals and having veterans receive their care entirely in the private sector. This did not prove to be a popular suggestion. I do think that the VAs do a very excellent, if not always perfect job, particularly in the area of service-connected injuries and disabilities. – LW/HB

(#122): There are lots of discharged/retired military who have private insurance. People get out of the service, have partial disabilities, get jobs, get insurance, need care, go to VA hospitals and get it. The VAs (at least when I worked there) were quite generous with regard to giving care for all manner of not-strictly-service connected problems in the case of veterans who had any degree of service-connected injuries or illnesses. If you get cancer and you are in the service, it’s service-connected. If you are in an auto crash or injure your medial meniscus while training while in the service, it’s service connected. Or you could be shot or exposed to Agent Orange or whatever. And then something else happens to you, not really related to what happened to you during the service, but you already have this pre-existing service-connected issue. And you also have a job which provides health insurance. Should the government pay or should your health insurance pay the government? That sort of thing. – Larry W/HB

Larry (#124): My brother is a retired Navy Senior Chief. He can go to the VA any time he wishes because he is retired. He chooses not to for many reasons.

There are some vets that are unable to get insurance. You and I have our own thoughts about health care, I doubt we’re going to change each other’s minds. Retirees, which includes those that are retired medically have TriCare, TriCorp, TriSomething. If a vet has an issue that is not related to their “service related” issue, their insurance should pay for it. Most vets I know avoid the VA, out of respect and because of the amount of time it takes to get seen.

@rich wheeler #113: You said:

That’s 52.9% and a plurality of over 9.5 million American citizens My conscience is clear.We’ll do it again in 2012.

and #116

Do you understand the magnitude of a loss by 9.5 million votes? Landslide?Bad loser?

Again in 2012? Yeaaaahhh, right. Obama can’t even fill a 13,000 seat venue these days. And with his attitude being that the electorate is too stupid to understand his agenda, then I see smaller and smaller venues in his future. I am not discounting the unions and the power they bring to the Dems in elections, just look at Reid in Nevada. The unions got him that win, but with Obama he is either very short-sighted or just a stark raving narcissist.

As for landslide? Not really. He did get more votes than Clinton, but then that is thanks to Perot. Clinton won by a plurality, not a majority.

Here is a landslide –

1984 Reagan/Bush and Mondale/Ferraro.

Electoral vote 525 13
States carried 49 1 + DC
Popular vote 54,455,472 37,577,352
Percentage 58.8% 40.6%

Just for the record, Reagan won by 16,878,120 votes. Now THAT’S a landslide.

Oklahoma’s Ban on Shariah Law Blocked by Clinton appointed judge.

Get this, she ruled in favor of a CAIR stooge who doesn’t even live in OK. Standing? Who needs standing when you are trying to create “social justice.”

Hard Right: hi, WOW, IF they put one foot in a STATE, this will be the beginning of their relentless
HARD PUSH to get the whole country on it,
HOW stupid is one to not be able to see it, unless she is on their side already sold.

AQUA It’s true Reagan’s 1984 landslide win was biggest since 1962’s LBJ over Goldwater by 15,951,287 63.1%-38.5%.Obama’s 9.5 million spread was biggest since 84.Lets not call it a landslide but rather in Smorg’s terminology an arse wupping.2012 is a long way off and Obama received a very strong message in the midterms.We’ll see if he can recover.

Correction LBJ over Goldwater was 1964.I was 20 and couldn’t vote.Cast my first Pres vote for Nixon 11/67 while in V.N.

Bees, it’s part of their socialist, Chritianity=Bad, Sharia=good way of thinking.

Rich Wheeler #129,

On another post you I believe you predicted Thune would be the Republican nominee in 2012. Here’s one for you – if Hillary or your buddy Jim Webb challenge Obama in the primaries, he’s toast. Since Johnson was brought up, his re-election bid was proof that just because someone wins by a huge landslide as was the case in 1964, it’s no guarantee for re-election or even re-nomination as was the case in 1968. Of course fourteen months is a long time in politics. We shall see.

another vet wrote —

if Hillary or your buddy Jim Webb challenge Obama in the primaries, he’s toast.

They won’t because they know (a) they would not beat Obama, (b) it would only weaken him for the general, (c) which he would then surely lose and (d) they would get blamed for the loss.

Pat Buchanan weakened George H.W. Bush in ’92, Kennedy weakened Carter in ’80, Reagan weakened Ford in ’76 and McCarthy weakened Johnson in ’68. How well did those parties due after primary challenges against the sitting president? They ALL lost. Dems know this so no one will challenge Obama.

rich wheeler, my name is anticsrocks, not Aqua.

(#125): My 8 years at the Long Beach VA was on the cancer service. At the time, the policy was that the priority order went: (1) service connected issues, (2) non-service connected issues in a veteran with a (different) service related problem or service-related disability, (3) non-service related issues in a veteran without a service-related problem or disability. With respect to the latter category, the VA would provide care, commensurate with its capacity to do so, at the time in question. Cancer has a way of quickly exhausting personal resources, including in the medically insured and including in professionals, such as lawyers and dentists. So we had a very eclectic group of patients (1200 new cancer diagnoses per year, including 200 new diagnoses of lung cancer per year; smoking being a rather prevalent gift of military service that keeps on giving).

You are right about the queues. I’ll relate an anecdote about the only time in my life I was ever on the receiving end of a malpractice claim. I was the attending physician on South 8, the cancer ward. One afternoon, I was busy writing my chart notes and a veteran craned his neck over the counter at the nursing station and asked if I could do him a favor. He’d been given a prescription for a drug called CCNU (lomustine) by an oncologist who was an attending at the Sepulveda VA up on West Los Angeles and an Associate Professor at UCLA. He was a well known guy, who later ended up in an important position at the National Cancer Institute and later become a famous professor at a number of medical schools and cancer centers. Anyway, there was a long line at the Sepulveda VA pharmacy and the veteran/patient lived down in Long Beach; so he decided to get his prescription filled there. But the pharmacy had a policy where they’d only fill prescriptions from Long Beach staff physicians; so the patient asked me to co-sign the prescription. I then said that I’d have to call the oncologist who wrote the prescription, which I did. He affirmed that he’d written the prescription and thanked me for co-signing it for his patient. And so I did.

Problem: Here’s how the prescription was written:

CCNU 40 mg
sig: iv tabs H.S.

So I just co-signed it.

Here’s the problem:

What the prescription said (translated into English) was the following:

CCNU 40 mg. Dispense 40 tablets. Take 4 tablets at bedtime.

Now, the intention of the Sepulveda/UCLA oncologist was that the patient should take 4 tablets the night he went home, and save the rest for future courses of chemotherapy. CCNU is supposed to be taken on a schedule of take 4 tablets on the first day, then “rest” for 4 to 6 weeks (to allow the bone marrow to recover). The Sepulveda/UCLA oncologist was a aware that there were long lines at his pharmacy and basically wanted the patient to have 10 months’ worth of the drug; so that he didn’t have to wait in line every month, after his clinic visit in Sepulveda. He maintained that he was careful to tell this to the patient and that the patient understood.

Well, the patient proceeded to take 4 tablets EVERY NIGHT, until they were all gone. So he got 10 months worth of treatment in only 10 days. Of course, he had major toxicity (bone marrow suppression/low white blood cell counts), got an infection, and was hospitalized for a couple of weeks, until he recovered. He got a lawyer and sued everyone involved in the case: the Sepulveda oncologist, the Sepulveda VA, the Long Beach VA, and yours truly. The case ended up being settled for a relatively small amount of money: I think on the order of $15,000 or so.

Here’s the kicker, though. The patient had colon cancer, metastatic to the liver. This is a very chemoresistant form of cancer. Probably as a result of his very high dose chemotherapy, he had a complete remission of all cancer, which persisted at least until the settlement of his case, several years later. I don’t know for how long thereafter he remained in remission or how long he lived.

And that’s the one and only blot on my record as a board certified oncologist for 31 years.

– LW

With regard to the Oklahoma/Sharia law case, if you read the various commentaries, there is no one who thinks that this would have a possibility of holding up as Constitutional. Conservatives claim to want judges who will not decide cases based on their personal feelings or personal politics, but will uphold the Constitution. “Calling balls and strikes” is how Justice Roberts put it. So this is what the Oklahoma judge did. If he is sustained on the appeals, as he is very likely to be, based on what I’ve read, then he’ll have done just what conservatives claim they want judges to do.

Or do you think that the vote of the people, at any given moment in time, should trump the law? This is all well and good, when the people happen to vote with you, but how about when they vote against you?

Do you really want judges who will rule according to the law or do you want judges who will rule according to how they personally think that things ought to be?


Something to consider:

>>Or do you think that the vote of the people, at any given moment in time, should trump the law?>>

So then you think that permitting citizens to propose and vote on various measures should not be allowed?

So…what about the old “of the people, by the people and for the people”?

B-Rob #133,

I think it’ll come down to his appoval rating. If it doesn’t budge or goes down from where it’s at now, someone will smell blood and challenge him. These are politicians we’re talking about. If his approval gets back up to the 50% range, then he probably won’t face a challenge.

@suek #137

You ask:

So then you think that permitting citizens to propose and vote on various measures should not be allowed?

So…what about the old “of the people, by the people and for the people”?

Of course, it should be allowed. No different than Congress (the elected representatives of the people) should be allowed to vote on various measures and Presidents should be allowed to sign measures which Congress has passed.

But, then, it’s up to the courts to decide whether or not measures passed — either by “the people” or by Congress/President are constitutional or not.

Elected officials, military servicemen, judges, most public employees, etc. all swear to protect, defend, uphold the Constitution. That’s our system of government — it’s not government where plebiscite has the last word; it’s government where the Constitution has the last word and the Constitution specifies that it’s Justices and judges who interpret the Constitution.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

>>it’s government where the Constitution has the last word and the Constitution specifies that it’s Justices and judges who interpret the Constitution.>>

Except when they don’t. Then what recourse do the people have?

How about that part about being governed “by the consent of the people”?

Larry W: >>it’s government where the Constitution has the last word and the Constitution specifies that it’s Justices and judges who interpret the Constitution.>>

suek: Except when they don’t. Then what recourse do the people have?

How about that part about being governed “by the consent of the people”?

There are many decisions by lower courts that could have continued up the judicial food chain, suek. I disagree with many SCOTUS opinions, but two things I will admit to. 1: That, for the majority, they really do get it right, and 2: Our Constitution dictates the buck stops with the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is manned “by the people” by proxy of an elected POTUS who nominates, and an elected Senate who affirms. Surely you are not suggesting some national referendum type system to overturn judicial opinions? Based on what? Emotions instead of interpretation of statutes?

So Larry, you have no problem with a NON-resident flying in from another state to challenge the law? Last I saw the C.A.I.R. loon had NO standing to challenge, yet the judge ignored that.

I also notice the media is being it’s usual dishonest self on reporting the story.

Their headlines scream about a law “banning sharia” being overturned. The problem is it didn’t ban sharia.
It DID prohibit it from being used in decisions in regard to American laws.
It was brought about in response to a judge who denied a wife a restraining order against her husband because the judge said the husband was just abiding by his muslim faith. The OK law wanted to prevent such a thing from happening there.
How it’s unconstitutional is very unclear to me.

AYE CHIHUAHUA: CONGRATULATION on your 100ds comment; you came in like a lion,
unchallenged, unnoticed either; I find that’s your usual way of getting things done,
YOU should be in the GOVERNMENT somewhere where the decisions are made.
or where the money is. bye

The CAIR guy who I heard interviewed on radio was making a big point of Sharia’s inheritance laws….which gives the oldest son control over mom’s stuff if dad dies and leaves the sons twice what it leaves any daughters.
BUT our laws allow a will to be drown up that would do the exact same things without Sharia entering into the issue at all.
A man can leave an eldest son most plus control over his mom’s allowance from the estate and it allows some to get more than others as per the wishes of the decedent.

CAIR hasn’t got a leg to stand on if that is their supposed problem.

Beating a female, is OK under Sharia and so that’s different.
Keeping a slave girl for sex, also different.

We have seen a couple cases where Muslims kept servant girls, beat them and had sex with them as per Sharia but ended up imprisoned because they did it here – in Colorado and New York.

If CAIR wants to ”go there” they will find the female judge while a Clinton appointee, will probably NOT go along with them.

From the G-20…

China says G20 should monitor US Fed

Dvorkovich discusses Russia’s plans for G20

China ratings agency downgrades U.S. after Fed move

(Reuters) – A Chinese credit ratings agency downgraded the United States’ sovereign credit rating on Tuesday, citing the Federal Reserve’s controversial move last week to pump more dollars into the U.S. economy.

As Beijing and Washington locked horns on economic policy ahead of a Group of 20 leaders summit this week, the Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. Ltd cut the U.S. local and foreign currency long-term sovereign credit rating to A-plus from AA.

The ratings agency, which warned it might cut the U.S. ratings further, said its move reflected the United States’ “deteriorating debt repayment capability and drastic decline of the government’s intention of debt repayment.”

Tensions over economic policies between the United States and China have been revived by the U.S. central bank’s decision last week to pump an extra $600 billion into the country’s struggling economy which has further weakened the U.S. dollar.

“The serious defects in the United States economic development and management model will lead to the long-term recession of its national economy, fundamentally lowering the national solvency,” Dagong said on its website.

The Fed’s move represented a deepening of the U.S. credit crisis, it said.

“Such a move entirely encroaches on the interests of the creditors, indicating the decline of the U.S. government’s intention of debt repayment,” Dagong said in an English-language statement.

The downgrade had no discernible impact on the price of U.S. government debt.

The United States is rated Aaa by Moodys and AAA by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, their highest ratings grade.

Joseph Trevisani, chief market analyst at FX Solutions in Saddle River, New Jersey, said the announcement by Dagong appeared to be politically motivated ahead of the G20 summit.

“The Chinese government has interest on opinions on topics like this which are expressed by ostensibly private institutions,” he said. “So it’s hard to believe such an opinion does not reflect at least partial approval by the Chinese government.”

Dagong’s analysis was not complete “but some of the points they raise are true,” said Herbert Kaufman, professor emeritus of the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. “It is not clear the policy tools used will be sufficient” to stimulate the U.S. economy.

Kaufman emphasized, however, that Dagong’s analysis failed to take into account the United States’ historical ability and responsibility to repay debt.

“Either they don’t appreciate it or they don’t want to appreciate it,” he said.

According to its website, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co Ltd is a specialized credit rating and risk analysis research institution founded in 1994 upon the joint approval of People’s Bank of China and the former State Economic & Trade Commission, People’s Republic of China.

Tell the Treasury to just turn off the presses Thank the Fed for their “Service”, then Fire Bernanke and his merry band of idiots. A weaker Dollar was something that We do not need but China and Russia are doing High Fives. If You think that We will not feel the impact of this…Guess Again.

Looks like the 52% which voted for Obama may have had some surprising company:


U.S. Deficit Commission Recommends Changes to Social Security

A draft proposal by the deficit commission suggests curbing Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Obama to cut the U.S. deficit recommend raising the retirement age to 68. It is currently 67 years for retirees to receive full benefits. The panel leaders also propose reducing the annual cost-of-living increases in Social Security.

The increase to age 68 would be implemented by 2050 and then would increase again to 69 by 2075. A “hardship exception” would be provided for certain occupations where older retirement would be unrealistic.

According to a source who spoke to Fox News, the 18-member panel led by former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, also may propose reducing the base rate on corporate taxes, phasing in spending cuts over time, reducing foreign aid by $4.6 billion, freezing federal salaries for three years and banning congressional earmarks. It is unclear how the commissioners would define a congressional earmark.

The proposal would also set a tough target for curbing the growth of Medicare. And it recommends looking at eliminating popular tax breaks, such as mortgage interest deduction. The plan also calls for cuts in farm subsidies and the Pentagon’s budget.

The goal is to reduce $1 trillion-plus budget deficits. The panel, which was meeting Wednesday, was expected to provide a full set of recommendations on Dec. 1.

But any recommendations require a supermajority of 14 members of the panel for approval and that seems unlikely.

Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are anathema to liberals on the panel. Conservatives have difficulty with options on raising taxes.

“This is not a proposal I could support,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. “On Medicare and Social Security in particular, there are proposals that I could not support.”

“It’s a very provocative proposal,” said GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. “Some of it I like. Some of it disturbs me. And some of it I’ve got to study.”

Speaking to reporters after the draft leaked, Bowles said it would be great if Congress could come to some agreement about the plan before the next term, but said there is no need to vote on anything right now. The approved proposals would have to go to the Senate for a vote before heading to the House.

Bowles said he is certain that this is a real plan that Congress can work from, and the draft will help “educate the American people” as to the “massive” task before them.

Bowles also joked that he and Simpson are now headed into “the witness protection program.”

“This is the first time in my memory in Washington … where it’s all there. We have harpooned every whale,” Simpson added.

I hope this does not come to pass. The American People do not need this “Education”.

Looks like the 52% which voted for Obama may have had some surprising company

Apparently not.

Bush camp attacks ‘ridiculous’ story

Former President George W. Bush is denying a report that he once said he would have endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 if the Democrat had asked.

“This is ridiculous and untrue,” Bush spokesman David Sherzer told POLITICO. “President Bush proudly supported John McCain in the election and voted for him.”

@ Aye, I voted for Palin and that Old Fart. I hope the Old Guy retires, he smells like RINO to me.

With regard to the bipartisan commission’s draft deficit reduction plan. It’s 4 trillion in spending cuts and one trillion in tax increases.

This is a very serious effort; I like everything which has been summarized in reports to date. It’s precisely the approach which needs to be taken — everyone needs to give up something. We need more revenue and we need to get a handle on spending. In the UK, they just combined serious spending cuts with a tax increase. I think that Americans would surprise the politicians, with their willingness to take some personal hits for the good of the country. What was it that Kennedy said about asking what you can do for your country? Well, now is the time for precisely that sort of spirit. No more paying for tax cuts with borrowed money. No more paying for elective wars with borrowed money. No more paying for government programs of any type with borrowed money. No more borrowing. If it’s worth having, it’s worth paying for ourselves.

It’s being criticized by both Left and Right.

That just shows how good a proposal it is.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA