Ruling by a radical

Dee Ranged

Spot on again Melanie!

Disappointed with the Spec

Messrs Hoskin, Forsyth et al, get Melanie to write about something she knows a little bit about.

American politics is clearly not one of those things.

Pot Head

I'm so glad he won!

Roland

Melanie is right - Obama has made a great start in rolling back the policies of the Bush years which so poisoned America at home and abroad - bye-bye Gitmo, rendition, water-boarding, torture, the ban on funding which damaged HIV-AIDS work in the developing world, the raft of measures passed by Bush in the twilight days enabling widespread destruction of the environment. Watching reactionaries spitting in impotent rage from the sidelines over the next four years is going to be an unmitigated joy!

Daibhidh MacAdhaimh

The socially corrosive post-modernist ideology that has steadily infested most US campuses for the past few decades (decadents?) has, with the simple stroke of the new President's pen, now been unilaterally unleashed upon society to do its worst. Obama is simply another albeit the chiefest of the ideology's appointed shepherds; the decrees are mere tasters for what's to come. The still mesmerised and primed sheep might not taste the bitterness initially, but in due course will bleet with indegestion once the more salient and fiscally fired decrees hits the gut of their very livelihoods.
Meanwhile, we in the UK are having to stomach the Brown, Harman, Milliband, BBC et al brand.

Juliana

And this is a man who claims to be a Christian. I hope every single churchgoer in the USA -and there are millions - will protest loudly about his betrayal. But sadly, many of them voted for him, thinking here was a man who stood for the Constitution and for morality, let alone for Christian beliefs and family values. America is going to regret this bitterly - but it`s too late.

juliana

I wonder what Pastor Rick Warren will have to say about at least some of this. If he is the man of principle he would seem to be he will not let the fact that he was asked to pray at the inauguration silence him - we shall see. Having him there was, of course, a very clever move on Obama`s part to try to get a high profile evangelical Christian pastor onside - and silenced. Pray it does not work.

Getmor Gitmo

Wait and see, "disappointed", "pot head", and "roland" .. careful what you wish for, you may get it!

John Birch

Melanie: Do you follow American politics at all? The abortion order Obama lifted was put into place by the outgoing president. Bush, in turn, had overturned an order by Clinton who had lifted a restriction put in place originally by Ronald Reagan. In other words, this is the back and forth of American politics. The Democratic Party is officially pro-choice while the Republican Party is anti-abortion. Obama's act is hardly revolutionary and not at all inconsistent with the position he took on the campaign trail.

"A propos, a number of commentators have noticed the striking omission, in Obama’s inaugural speech, of any reference to the right to life in America’s foundational principles"--who would these commentators be as you reference no one? You long ago formed an opinion about Obama and no matter what he does will change that. That doesn't sound terribly rational.

israel

"The White House website sets out his agenda on ‘civil rights’, which includes expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation, ending racial profiling, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples, giving adoption rights to gay couples"

My god, the horror!!! Think about it, trying to make sure all the people in your country are treated equally!! The horrors that this will unleash with people having equal rights and everything!! It must make some rightwingers shudder.

You also miss the fact that the "Mexico City Rule" as it's also known as meant that a lot of funding was denied to third world countries because they have different abortion laws and laws on contraception than the US. Read up about whats happened in Nepal for the last few years.

Actually they're too busy bricking it over Obama's Executive Order which has just rescinded the rule that would have let Bush’s heirs continue to claim executive privilege over his papers. Can you imagine the phone calls and emails that were buzzing now people know that the stuff they have been keeping under wraps for years can now be investigated? Gonna be fun times ahead on that score!!!

John Birch

Juliana: How does Obama's move represent a betrayal? He has made no secret of being pro-choice and his move, while maybe a surprise to Melanie, didn't surprise anyone with a basic interest in American politics. If a Republican gets in in 2012 then the move will be reversed. It's called politics.

Dave M

Well, Melanie has researched Obama far more than I have and I was disappointed to see here he wants to end "racial profiling". In cases of Islamic terrorism such a policy would be a disaster. You simply have to swallow the bullet and accept the culture of suicide bombings in our cities is rooted in Middle Eastern societies. It's a waste of time and resources searching for middle class businessmen (just to be correct) where real killers are at large. If Obama and his team don't realise this common sense fact his country will be left wide open to another 9/11. In fact, my argument all along has always been there never would never have been a 9/11 if the U.S. had racially profiled and only allowed people with western values into their country. Forget Iraq. It's no use filling your country with immigrants who despise western values as this is what happened in the U.K. and France. Yet, of course, who are we to just stand out in the crowd and state the King is naked? Only our wise elected politicians can see he's wearing an invisible suit.

Dave M

"My god, the horror!!! Think about it, trying to make sure all the people in your country are treated equally!!"

There lies the uncomfortable truth in multiculturalism. How can you treat opposed interests and agendas equally? How can abortionists, anti abortionists, anarchists and communists, Jews, Christians and Muslims all "just get along"? The ancient Greeks understand this very well. If you ever flick through Plato you'll discover he considered multicultural societies "a series of states within a State". In effect, it's decked out tribalism and such States seldom last a long time before fragmenting. The Greeks, on the other hand, were exclusive. They didn't allow anyone to watch their Olympic Games as theirs was an elite society whose democracy was deep rooted. They valued their citizenship. There was opposition to the idea of leaders and kings because this is merely reliance on personality cults. If you look at ancient Greece you see philosophy, democracy, art, literature way ahead of other countries and they rejected multiculturalism outright. It's amazing how far this nonsense of "we're all equal" has spread since the sixties. It's similar to the Middle Ages when the masses of people believed the world was flat.

An American

Its interesting that on the basis of population, the majority of US abortions are performed on minority women. Some black leaders are just waking up to that fact. Liberal white women make up the rest. It seems liberal women are killing off their progeny in great numbers for convenience and their right to do so.

If women want to abort their babies, they should pay for it themselves...not with my tax dollars...I don't want an innocent baby's blood on my hands.

These are the same women who feel great distress for the happenings at Gitmo and for our death penalty prisoners. They can't tell the differnce between right and wrong and innocence and evil...

Planned Partenthood is the main provider of abortions in the US. It is a very profitable business that receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars. I'm sure this socialist congress will give them even more money in coming months.

Of course Obama has lifted the ban on needle exchange. He was a taker and seller of hard drugs in his twenties.

I wonder...does this mean that my tax dollars will also go to purchasing needles for drug takers along with providing abortions?

Ahh...Obama is right on track... Saul Alinsky is looking up from his throne in hell smiling upon him.

fellow traveller

"includes expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation"

I understand (while usually disagreeing) why you don't like a lot of his policies, but what's wrong with this one?

beloved

Juliana,

The vote was 62 million for and 57 million against Obama--not exactly a mandate.

In a bi-partisan spirit of unity and civility in the New Era [flash Pelosi grin], we're testing John Wayne's theory that 'life is tough, but it's even tougher if you're stupid.'

Hang in there fellow outlaw. Truth sets us free and nobody--nooobody--can out-god God.

Dixon

Its a bit rich of Roland spouting about "reactionaries" when he supports Hamas.

However, I have to say, what Obammie has now done I totally endorse. As a nihilist and someone with bottomless contempt for "God given" absolutes such as "respect for life" ( and, no, I am NOT being ironic or sarcastic ) I think the fewer babies born anywhere, the better. The ideal would be an absolute infertility descending on the Human race, like in that Science Fiction film recently. Not a disaster, a blessing.

As far as I am concerned, anyone anywhere who wants an abortinon ( whether it is the mother or the father of the child ) should have one. For many people they ought be compulsory.

We CERTAINLY should not be funding infertility treatment on the NHS.

Dixon

Getmor Gitmo...brilliant name...now the closing of that place is one thing Obammies doing that I DONT approve. We should have a string of our own Camp Deltas, sufficient to house a few million of our domestic threats. They could be distributed accross the outer Hebridies. we could call it the Gitmo Archaepelago!

And, BTW, I am NOT being "ironic" or sarcastic.

Jenny

Yes, Roland, an end to waterboarding! Only there were only ever three cases of waterboarding at Guantanamo and in all three cases the suspect broke and gave information that saved innocent lives.

You somehow forgot to mention that.

Dixon

Of course, the sinister Obammie Coffee Mornings for Change ( OCMC ) ARE worrying, but look on the bright side. After three years of him, the "discontents" being stirred up at these meetings may be principally to do with HIM! By then there will be a huge number of passionately dissapointed ex-Obammie supporters with any number of grievances about the ONE s failure to deliver milk-n-cookies for all.

Maybe Obammie is creating the Golem of his own eventual unseating!

An American

Dave M,
Everything that Obama and his liberal congressional cronies have done in the past week screams weakness. They are waving a white flag in front of Islamic terrorists.

Yesterday I heard a close associate of Obama say that if we were attacked, Obama would take a harder line. My question is how many Americans will need to die before Obama decides to take a harder line...10,000, 100,000 or perhap millions of dead Americans?

I'm not sure of what to wish for...a large attack that would kill many Americans but would result in throwing Obama out of office and perhaps save our society from Alinsky's communist takeover... or stopping an attack and saving many lives but allowing Obama to continue on with his social engineering to destroy America as we know and love it.

It's a lose, lose situation.

How did we come to this?

Pot Head

America comes on line and out crawl the wingnuts!

Roland

Dixon knows full well that I don't 'support Hamas',condemn their criminality and have stated so on various threads repeatedly. Why tell an untruth, Dixon?

Jenny - torture is torture; playing a numbers game with it offers no excuse.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Obama, pure and simple, is a product of the liberal-left. He is of a type that considers their views to be the only ones that any civilised person can hold. Hence , his saying that he wants to be centrist and end the culture wars. In his world view, his agenda IS centrist. It is not.

An American

Dixon,
Apparently you've had no children or don't particularily like the ones you've had...suffice it to say, I don't believe we should stop women from aborting their babies...I just don't want to have my tax money help kill an innocent child....Let these careless, sloppy women pay for their own abortions.

It seems we will always be stuck taking care of liberals. Since they are killing off their progeny and there will not one to take care of them in their old age...conservative's tax money will continue to support liberals into their dotage.

Mary from Illinois, USA

Oh Melanie you know of that which you speak. Obama has stated several times his admiration for Red China (did most of the world forget this is a communist nation?) He is enacting what the clear visioned in the USA saw during the 'campaign'. Let's not be fooled-- he was the anointed one early on--we just went through the motions of an election to make us feel a false sense of empowerment. I just read an article the day before yesterday implying doctors may eventually be 'coerced' into performing abortions. I also have noticed his adoring media eagerly report any shooting/act of violence that comes their way--hence the need to rid us of the ONLY thing that keeps us from becoming Chamerica--our Right To Bear Arms! Make no mistake this is one of the first things Chairman Obama is goig to try to accomplish. You know, 'for the people, to keep them safe'. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny to listen to all the experts about the current global economy. People WAKE UP ---this was all planned to happen this way. People need to educate themselvrs about haarp and how it relates to the digital switch over 2/09---very very frightening! Again HELLO PEOPLE! Not only has 'it started' as you state Melanie, it has started with a vengeance. I implore those previously mentioned clear visioned to get active--do your research---contact your reps and senators and demand an accounting of every dollar from the initial 350b before the second inappropriately named stimulus package gets passed! I have to go know as I sense they are ready to turn off my chip. One more time--WAKE UP!

Carl

Dixon, the fact that you are crying out for more "camps" to hold people not accused or convicted of any crime speaks volumes. I wonder if you can recall when this last happened?

Helen

Who decides what constitutes a 'hate crime' - that's the flaw in such sweet-sounding ideas. The prosecution of Geert Wilders shows how the state can use such 'crimes' to turn logic on its head and suppress the truth.

Talking of which, American Thinker has a great piece on this prosecution here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/geert_wilders_european_islam_a.html

Roland

I'm going to re-send my un-posted post: Dixon knows full well,that, far from being a 'supporter of Hamas', I have stated on numerous threads here that I abhor its criminality. Why Dixon would choose to post something known by him to be untrue - well, let others here judge.

Towncar

"By then there will be a huge number of passionately dissapointed ex-Obammie supporters with any number of grievances about the ONE s failure to deliver milk-n-cookies for all."

Precisely.

pm317

I am glad 0bama lifted the gag rule on abortions. I would willingly give my tax dollars to support that while I stand behind Roe v Wade 100%. I don't want some poor Alabama teenager unduly punished for her indiscretion (while the equally culpable male gets off scot free) while her richer counterpart in society can get a safe abortion somewhere else. Social inequities like this will continue to harm generations to come and should be avoided in the greater interest of a society. Viability of a foetus in the first trimester as used by SC is a good compromise. I don't subscribe to the notion that life begins at conception.

Roland

On a lighter note, it's kind of fun to do the maths on this one.

Let's assume that Obama serves one term only (a big if), and let's also assume that in the course of the next four years our Mel posts an average of, say three posts a weeks bewailing his presidency (a massively conservative estimate I know). Working on 50 weeks a year to exclude holidays, that makes a low guess of 3 x 50 x 4 = 160 posts like this one. Wow! Awesome eh? It makes Mel seem like some kind of latter-day Sisyphus, doomed to push a stone up a hill fruitlessly over and over again for ever more.

We could have even more fun figuring out a word-count, though here I think a computer might be called for,in order to calculate how many times words such as 'dhimmitude', 'Marxist',
'Gramscian', 'Ayer','conspiracy' etc. etc. are likely to appear. Not to mention those delightful little populist catch-phrases which so grace Mel's style, like'Doncha know', 'Go figure' and 'Doh'.

Chatterbox

An American asks, How did we come to this (state of affairs)? Partial answer: a lying, conniving, leftist-oriented "mainstream media" (forgive my vulgarity) which has effectively prevented facts about Obama from reaching public attention.

Fellow Traveller asks what is wrong with "hate legislation": same thing that's wrong with the terms 'islamophobia' and 'homophobia'; they are false concepts, designed to shut down all debate, discussion and ultimately, freedoms of speech and conscience. Rather as a side issue, 'hate crimes', by designating some crimes to be more loathsome, and therefore worthy of greater punishment than others, fits very neatly in with Sharia Law which rests on the premise that the lives of some (Moslem, male, free man) are more worthy than those of others (Moslem female, all non-Moslems, slaves). The Left doesn't love Islam for nothing.

pm317

Dixon, LOL..I like what you say!

Linda Thomas

Dixon, I agree with you, you see poverty in some of the countries in Africa and other parts of the world, because they have so many children they can afford

Saundra P

If a woman is mentally retarded and been raped, if she get pregnant, is abortion okay? I think many people will say yes

beloved

"My god, the horror!!! Think about it, trying to make sure all the people in your country are treated equally!!"

My response:

Our founders took care of that already.

It is not the role of government to choose winners and losers.

You cannot legislate for equality without creating an injustice.

Our US Constitution rejects the rule of special interests, regions, and mobs. Rather, the US Constitution protects individual rights, including the rights of taxpayers now forced to participate in abortions.

Making non-believers in abortion purchase abortions is spiritual torture. They really believe it is murder.

Maybe I can illustrate. Think of 80-year-old Great-grandmas, Catholic lay families, Jewish rabbis, the Amish, Mormons, survivors of botched abortions, your first grade teacher...your mother...anyone most likely to give their legs in order to save the life of a pre-born. Could you look them in the eye and ask them to pay for an abortion?

Some taxpayers, including ethnic minorities, consider abortion as genocide of minorities.

Making them pay for abortions sears their conscious. Do you really want to do that?

As you know, our Constitution recognizes the power to govern resides in the people. Their values (or lack of) may be acceptable and lawful for one district in America, but are not acceptable in all of them.

The values of Paris, California would undermine the strength of families and community in Paris, Georgia. Californians would form a posse and lynch every pastor if the Feds imposed Georgia’s values on them. As it now stands, Georgians cannot vote in California. However, they will be able to if we adopt Obama’s initiatives.

Once you give the federal government legislative power in a private or local matter the feds then have power to impose what you do not want. They will be moved by polls in a pure democracy.

Give the federal government the power to define marriage, and you may end up with medieval ideas about marriage enshrined in national law. For example, the freedom of women to divorce abusive husbands could be in jeopardy. Public opinion will eventually swing against you in a pure democracy, which is why our founders rejected democracy as another form of tyranny.

You are better off retaining your natural-born power over these matters at the local level and preserving our Constitutional Republic.

Close your eyes and listen: You may hear fearsome rednecks in Georgia saying, "Don't throw me in that brier patch."

Frederick

Obama is a passive aggressive bully bent on socialism. That will become very clear, very soon...if not already.

Herbert Thornton

Most of the criticism of Obama seems to be based not so much on what he's done, but on assertions of what he's going to do.

So far, the only things that bother me are his (not entirely clear) decision to abandon waterboarding, and the (equally unclear) future of the bloodthirsty fanatics hitherto restrained in Guantanamo.

I haven't (so far) seen any evidence of his instituting either a dictatorship of the Proletariat, or a North American Caliphate.

And lest anyone accuse me of being a Liberal, I heartily concur with Dixon's two posts at 3.30 and 3.36 pm.

Thieving Drug Addict.

Social Conservatism is dead Melanie. Go Obama!

Rightwing American

This article is "spot on" as you Brits would say.

An American - I'm with you. It is a lose lose situation. But I think the Administration, with Pelosi, is hell bent to reverse anything they can that Bush put into place. Their hatred of Bush outweighs National Security. All we can do is try to limit the damage over the next two years and get some conservatives in Congress to reign in the liberals before America becomes a socialist nation and Obama as dictator.

beloved

fellow traveler
January 25th, 2009 3:24pm
"includes expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation"
I understand (while usually disagreeing) why you don't like a lot of his policies, but what's wrong with this one?

Hi fellow traveler,

I disagree with hate laws. Here's a few reasons why:

--we already have laws against assault, property crimes, and murder...

--The government defines hate.

--How do you prove hate beyond a reasonable doubt?

--Can white boys who like girls *ever* be the victims of hate?

--Are minorities incapable of hate?

--Is it a hate crime if a minority attacks a minority?

--Robberies, assaults, murders etc...that were motivated by hate receive tougher sentencing than crimes motivated by love.

--the US competes with Russia for the number of civilians they imprison.

--expanding hate crime laws will likely expand the definition of hate to include dissent of government policies and other noncriminal behavior. It would be used to intimidate the population into submission.

Examples: School children could end up in juvenile just for bringing a pen-knife to school or calling someone a name. Parents could lose custody of their children for naming them after President Bush. Palin supporters, or people who refuse to join a union, could lose their jobs. Melanie Phillips fans would be fined.

Burning a Koran may already be a hate-crime, but burning a King James Bible isn't.

Hanging Sarah Palin's effigy from a rooftop during Election 2008 and then selling it over e-bay is NOT a hate crime...but, try that with any socialist's effigy.

you can think of more...

mike -alexandria VA

John Birch: We know your slant on this issue-
"The Democratic Party is officially pro-choice while the Republican Party is anti-abortion."
Why not-
"The Democratic Party is officially pro-abortion while the Republican Party is anti-abortion."
Wait till this Moron signs the FOCA (for all you Brits FOCA is a bill to Invalidate All Limits on Abortion) The bishops have already indicated they will have to shut down the Catholic hospitals (36% of the total) if this bill passes.
So its not just more of the same as you would have us believe.

Brian Moshe

fellow traveller quotes Melanie and writes:
January 25th, 2009 3:24pm
"includes expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation"
'I understand (while usually disagreeing) why you don't like a lot of his policies, but what's wrong with this one?'

The USA already has legislation against hate crimes, but it also enjoys something the UK doesn't, and that is that free speech is also protected by the US Constitution.

A classic example would be the placard-carrying Muslim at the recent pro-Hamas demonstration on Fifth Avenue in NYC. The grinning idiot, applauded by grinning fellow idiots, was holding a placard that carried the slogan: 'Kill All Juice!'

My understanding is that had this slogan read 'Kill All Jews' the man displaying the sign could have been arrested and charged with incitement, but because he used the spelling 'juice' he could not be stopped, even though the message is blatantly a hate one.

It is absurd that no racial profiling will be allowed in the USA (if this is what Obama's intention amounts to). The USA has in recent years frequently attempted to get the UK to provide ethnic profiling in order to stop British citizens with links to Pakistan and certain other countries from entering the USA under the 'visa waiver' programme. Absolute common sense one would have thought, but with breath-taking hypocrisy the British government insists it would never provide ethnic information on its citizens as that would be prejudicial to people of Pakistani origin or descent.

This is the same British government that in the early 2000s insisted on the Czech government writing a 'Z' to identify Gypsies, or suspected Gypsies, on aircraft passenger lists on Czech flights into the UK, so that immigration officers could refuse them entry on some or other specious grounds, but obviously its intent was on ethnic grounds.(Now no longer in force.)

It isn't too difficult to imagine what sort of 'hate crime' Obama might want to legislate for. It all depends on what the hate crime is defined as. If Muslims in Holland can get Gert Wildeers to currently face trial for making the 16 minute film 'Fitna', on the grounds it promotes hatred against Muslims, then other Western countries need to be very cautious about any limitations on free speech - especially if, as in Holland, it is immigrant Muslims who are determining what Dutch MPs can and can't say.

I watched 'Fitna' yesterday for the first time. As it is almost entirely composed of film of Muslim preachers genuinely inciting murderous hatred against Jews and infidels, gays and female adulterers (which can mean child rape victims), it is not the film-maker who was inciting anything.

The only short parts of this film which are not either Muslims (including children) spewing hate or shots showing quotations from the Qur'an, are scenes of mosques in Holland, close-ups of Dutch newspaper articles that proclaim Muslim demands and a table of statistics showing the unbelievable speed of growth of the Muslim population in Holland.

Gert Wildeers himself says not one word that could be called 'hate' - he really has little need to comment at all, the Muslims say nearly all of it themselves. He believes Islam is an ideology rather than just a religion, and Europe needs to wake up, and for this he faces prison and who knows what....

If the US adopts the same approach as Holland and if, as seems possible, the UN manages to outlaw any criticism of Islam, then even the American people will be prevented from intelligently understanding and discussing the growing threat to Western civilisation.

The BBC has already banned (yes, banned) the Arabic word 'dhimmi'. This word means, roughly, 'deeply inferior status' and is a recognised Islamic word and condition that Muslims impose on Jews, Christians and a couple of other religion's followers because Islam mandates this.

The BBC has decided that this Islamic word that conveys an Islamic requirement has to be removed from the BBC's discourse.

An incisive discussion on 'dhimmihood' - essential to any grasp of what happens to non-Muslims under sharia law - could therefore not take place on the BBC's programmes or forums.

In George Orwell's novel '1984' Big Brother knows that the 'proles' will very soon no longer be able to conceptualise abstract ideals like liberty, free speech and human rights. Gradually stripped of their vocabulary's facility for discussion, as Big Brother has had it whittled down to mundane basic meanings, the 'proles' can no longer discuss their system.

Unless we follow Melanie's example and find the courage to say what needs to be said a time will come when we too will lose the ability to understand and deal with the threat the West faces.

Juliana

@beloved. Thanks for that stat. I had no idea it was really as close as that. So a lot of people who did NOT vote for him will be unhappy plus some that DID... might even be a majority anti-Obamites out there before long. I just hope they shout loud enough.

Austin Barry

Surely the shortest honeymoon since John Ruskin's.

Dixon

An American, neither, just wait until the next election, by which time he will have utterly pissed off enough people that he'll be out of office.

Question is, who the hell have the Republicans got for next time?

The Doctor of Oz

The template for the O'Bambie administration is Tony Blair and New Labour. So the good folks of Britain should know what is coming. Tax and spend, soft on crime, money down the drain, nutty PC loons running and ruining local government, the end of Christmas, Muslims trying to take over ............and so forth and so on. The best thing you can do is vote Brown out, so that only the US and silly Australia have leftard governments. By the way Melanie, I agree with you about Alinksy, but remember Davis and Ayers are in the mix too.

Israel

Jenny:

"Yes, Roland, an end to waterboarding! Only there were only ever three cases of waterboarding at Guantanamo and in all three cases the suspect broke and gave information that saved innocent lives."

Well gee Jenny, you seem well informed!!! Only three cases you say? Is this info from the same people who brought you WMD's to chew your fingernails over, or the fake number of released people from Guantánamo Bay?

The late, great science fiction writer Douglas Adams created the fictional "Bistromatic Drive" where numbers moved randomly to aid flight. Even he would have struggled to come up with the conveluted numbers used by those who wish to ensure that the fear continues when wanting to keep people locked uo illegally.

Read this if you wish:

http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2008/guantanamo_data_reveals_61708.htm

You may sneer or be surprised, i'll leave that to you.

Jenny

Oh, Roland, you jealous little so and so. Just because Melanie has such a huge following.

If you've got so much more to say than Melanie Phillips, where's your blog?

What's to be afraid of? You clearly think you're such a genius people will flock from the globe over to read you like they do with Mel, so put your money where your mouth is you Obamanut.

Jeff

You must give Obama credit. He wasted no time in starting to do what he said he would do. The man is surely committed to his ideas, and he will do all he can to promote them.

The coming weeks will become more and more alarming as Obama gets what he wants, with precious little to oppose him. He will bring Saul Alinsky, and Chicago thug politics to the White House, and shove it down our throats.

Elections have consequences. Americans will soon begin to learn that as their money and freedoms are taken.

Jenny

Yes, "Israel", only three cases. Where is your evidence to dispute that? Oh, you haven't got any.

You've just got some crummy stuff about a judge basing an opinon on government data and then later on that data is updated. Like that's never happened before in any government.

Does this Guantanamo inmate defence lawyer have any evidence the judge was given all the updated data and deliberately lied? Of course not.

What this ghastly left-wing lawyer is doing is trying to draw a veil over the fact that ex-Guantanamo inmates have gone on to assist in terrorist atrocities in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Russia. So let's make a big noise about the judge who, surprisingly enough, based his opinon on the evidence he had before him and then oh, yeah, some of the figures were altered later. That should get rid of all that talk about those terrorist atrocities aided and abetted by ex-Gitmo inmates. Sneaky, these left wing lawyers, aren't they?

Augustus

Not only his sycophantic admirers think of Barack Obama as a Messiah, he himself does too, and one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others, They are simply self-serving and selfish. But Obama evinces clear symptoms of pathological narcissism which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. But it is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Barack Obama is not the redeemer of guilt-ridden whites, or subordinated blacks. On the contrary, future historians may well conclude that President Obama's arrival heralded the true beginning of America's demise.

Lizzy

Helen, thanks for the reference to the excellent American Thinker article. All the weaknesses of progressive liberal thinking are listed as the cause of this ridiculous situation: the flat earth belief that no culture can be better than another, the lack of discrimination and of judgement. The inability to face facts and reality comes out of their utopian world view which they see as triumphing over facts and reality. At least the Australian government speaks out against Islamic violence towards women:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5564839.ece

gary ashton

the next attack on american soil will have obama rethink his strategy. those who think it won't happen are kidding themselves.
however it may not make the media given current trends.

Mary from Illinois, USA

to pm317--so...because the rich are getting away with murder the lesser must do so as well? Talk about keeping up with the Joneses

shockwaver

Hate crimes are punishment for what you think. Why not just punish for what an individual does. This business about intimidation of a class of people as justfication for hate crime legislation is a false argument. Every real crime intimidates some group of people. Hate crimes are thought crimes!
By the way, Melanie, Disappointed is wrong. You know more about American politics than any commentator that I know. Keep up the good work for us yankees who have lost our own voice.

Photonic Platitudes

This will be a very good thing for the international mills...No longer will mere money be a barrier to ultrasound identification of the fetus as female followed by an abortion. Who knows maybe one day this will lead to greater womens rights when they are very scarce in India/China/Middle East and social unrest starts increasing due to lack of marriage prospects for young men

Dixon

Roland
January 25th, 2009 4:42pm
Dixon knows full well that I don't 'support Hamas',condemn their criminality and have stated so on various threads repeatedly. Why tell an untruth, Dixon?"

I judge people by what they do, not what they merely claim to do.

Dixon

Carl
January 25th, 2009 5:24pm
Dixon, the fact that you are crying out for more "camps" to hold people not accused or convicted of any crime speaks volumes. I wonder if you can recall when this last happened?"

Do you suppose every German captured on the front had to be found guilty of a "crime" before being interned? What a very silly way of looking at things. They werent criminals, they were the enemy, and visa versa our combatants in their camps.

In exactly the same way, I dont for a moment consider the inmates of Gitmo to be "criminals". They havent committed any crime. They ARE however, enemy combatants, and should be kept out of proceedings for as long as they continue.

As a matter of fact, a large proportion ( at least 10 % ) of those already released from Gitmo have subsequently been killed or captured ( again ) in Afghanistan. The leadership of the Taleban includes at least one ( one legged ) individual previously detained at and released from Gitmo under the pressure of whining from people like you Carl.

The head of Al Qaida in Yemen has now been declared to be another individual who was previously detained at and released from Gitmo.

People like you, Carl, would in WW2 have been internedd along with German residents and captured combatants.

Its not some kind of "genocide", such as twits like you rattle on about, its just basic sense.

Dixon

I have to balance a couple of my earlier comments.

Regarding Obammie, I have no doubt he'll be a big dissapointment to about half the people who voted for him. He's only Human. But whether it will be those shocked at how radical he is or those who are infuriated at how radical he aint, remains to be seen.

I have a sneaking hope he might do good after all. But I continue to anticipate with relish how the media are likely to turn against him.

Meanwhile, on a boring note, Roland, I honestly hadn't read any comments by you critical of Hamas. As you protest so heartily that you made them, I shall err on the side of accepting that you did.

Karsten Duncan

I apologise that this is off-message but I think it's important: Did anyone else notice that the Daily Telegraph onl;ine, at least, published a vile anti-Jewish rant by millionaire management consultant turned leftisdt Anglican Priest George Pitcher and then apparently pulled it? What is going on?

Here's how it begins:

George Pitcher George Pitcher is Religion Editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph. He was ordained priest in the Church of England in 2006 and is Curate at St Bride's, Fleet Street, in London – the "journalists' church".
The BBC is beginning to disgust me as much as Israel does. Okay, chickening out of showing an appeal for charitable aid for Gaza is hardly on a scale with using white phosphorous on its civilians and shooting its children in the back of the head, but the moral weakness that the BBC exhibits in hiding behind claims to impartiality induces the same sort of nausea.

The claims to impartiality don’t stand up for a moment. Would the BBC decline to show an appeal for the suffering refugees of Darfur, because it might compromise its impartiality between the Janjaweed militants and the Sudanese Liberation Army? Would it refuse an appeal for the people of Iraq, because it might look like it’s critical of those who caused their plight? Would the BBC prevaricate over an appeal for a monument

Michael B

Israel, January 25th, 2009 10:38pm, no sneers are needed. A book length treatment has been published: Inside Gitmo, by Gordon Cucullu, retired Army Colonel. It would appear the Obama administration is the one who sneered at the facts, in order to dismiss them, tout court, eh?

EC

Augustus @12:47am

Excellent yet again. Considered, careful, and above all, admirably concise. You must be a surgeon - of sorts.

Lizzy

Saundra P: only if that is what the woman is requesting. Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Men and women controlling their fertility by contraception is better by far. It is true that some women abuse the privilege of that medical procedure by using it as their means of contraception, which is something they need to ask their conscience.

Margaret Muller- Johansson

Obama, Hillary and all this left wing democrats they want to make America like the Netherlands and Britain, I think this is dangerous because you see How Britian is doing law morals, the white working class and some of the drunk midlle class are having abortions often because it is free, and the tax payers have to pay, why they don't use protection? they would not because they could always do what they like for free

Dave

Brian Moshe; The word "dhimmi" isn't banned by the BBC. An oversensitive moderator thought it shouldn't be used as a user name (You know the sort of thing; "Dhimmi Britain on it's Knees, Alicante") but that policy was reversed. And there is certainly no ban in discussing the concept online or on air.

Juliana

The next thing will be legalisation of Assisted Suicide. You just wait. Holland already has it, the UK will have it before long.. US won`t be far behind. Obama is moving very fast. (He`s signed bills already reversing Bush`s policies on the rubbish of Global warming aka climate change - never mind what it might cost the taxpayer and how it will hurt American industry at the worst possible time.)

Juliana

A QUESTION FOR THE AMERICANS ON HERE.
Are there no checks and balances on an American President ? Is he effectively a dictator ? It looks like it from over here but I do not know enough about the workings of American politics. Are the Senate and the House of Representatives mere talking chambers or can they stop Obama doing anything ? He seems to be signing bills right and left without any form of debate. Apologies if I seem ignorant. Please educate me.

Oliwagino Alefava Yihiri

I don't like this kind of people encouraging young people to get pregnant, this kind of things should be taboo, boy friend, girl friend and my partner story, when you ask some people in the west who is this? they will say this is my partner, I don't like this, I prefer you get married then you have children, that is the most respectful way, sorry Jose!

Conservative Cabbie

fellow traveller

"includes expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation"
I understand (while usually disagreeing) why you don't like a lot of his policies, but what's wrong with this one?

I have a problem with legislating how people think. Where are the limits? Surely, the fact that a crime has been committed is enough. Fine, consider a person's motive as part of the mitigating circumstances and judge the person on that basis, something which should happen anyway but where is the benefit in explicitly referring to a crime as a hate-crime?

israel

Juliana:

"A QUESTION FOR THE AMERICANS ON HERE.
Are there no checks and balances on an American President ? Is he effectively a dictator ? It looks like it from over here but I do not know enough about the workings of American politics. Are the Senate and the House of Representatives mere talking chambers or can they stop Obama doing anything ? He seems to be signing bills right and left without any form of debate. Apologies if I seem ignorant. Please educate me."

Okay, so now you have made me spit coffee over my keyboard this morning!! I know this blog has a more than right of center tilt but what you have written is pretty funny. For SIX YEARS bush run unchecked by a republican congress that passed almost every bill he wished for!! (They actually called the 106th Congress "The Rubber Stamp Congress" because they were so compliant!!) The only one that failed to pass was his attempt to put their pension fund in the hands of Wall Street (where they dodged a bullet, wouldn't you say?). He kept everything he wanted hidden behind executive priviledge, his republican congress kept investigations stonewalled by delaying every issue (http://thinkprogress.org/roberts-coverup/) and got away with it as his party had control. Its more than a little ironic that after years of basically an imperial presidency rightwingers here, and in the US are suddenly worried about the Legislative and Executive branches being held by a single party.

BTW a direct bush quote, "a dictatorship would be easier, expecially if i'm the dictator". Some say he was joking.

Conservative Cabbie

Juliana

I hope you don't mind me answering your question. I'm not an American but am very interested in American politics.

I'll come to the check on the President's power in a minute, but firstly, I just want to clarify something for you. Those aren't bills that Obama's been signing, they are Executive Orders which can be issued by a President to direct members of the Executive Branch or to action something that has already been passed as a law by Congress.

No, a President does not have dictatorial powers. There are three branches of government in America; The Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary (Supreme Court). The constitution gives each of them differing powers to ensure that no one particular branch becomes too powerful. There are a number of checks on the President:

1. The Constitution. There are a number of rights assigned to the American people that no President can breach. However, the final arbiters of what is constitutional are the Supreme Court and if a President get's a friendly (politically) court, their interpretations of law may benefit his policies.

2. The President can not pass legislation, only congress can. A President can propose legislation, but it needs to be passed by both the House and the Senate before it becomes law.

3. A President can not make a treaty with a foreign government without congress' approval.

4. A President can not appoint judges or government officers (like Hillary at Secretary of State) without congressional approval.

5. A President can veto an act passed by Congress, but Congress then has the power to override that veto.

6. If a President breaks the law, the ultimate sanction is impeachment where both houses of congress can vote to get rid of the President. This has never happened, although Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon all came reasonably close.

7. The 10th Amendment. A slightly dubious one this. This basically say's that any rights not ascribed by the constitution become a matter for the individual states and not the federal government. This can work both for and against the interests of both Republicans and Democrats. For example, in Oregon, assisted suicide is legal, something Republicans oppose whilst in California, Gay Marriage is (recently) banned much to the chagrin of most Democrats. Generally however, Republicans like the 10th amendment, they are more supportive of state's rights whilst Democrats like it less, they believe in the benefits of Federal Government.

The final check on the President is the obvious one. The Presidential term is a fixed four years and he can obviously be voted out. However, there is also the fact that he can only serve a maximum of two terms so there can be no Presidency for life.

Sorry it was a long post and there are probably many more checks than I covered although I think they're the main ones. Again, I'm sorry if you already knew any of that.

israel

Michael B:

Thank you for your link. What is amazing is your ability to travel through time!!! Obviously you failed to notice that bit on your link which says that the book you mention isn't actually released until Jan 27th (which is tomorrow). I also notice that there are no reviews of this book by anyone who agrees or disagrees with it, like others that are on Amazon. Why do you think that no pre-released copies are out there? I'm sure your going to pick one up to go with your "Club Gitmo" Limbaugh t-shirt so when it is finally out it would be nice if you gave us all a little summary of the contents? While your at it, why don't you see if Gordon Cucullu is one of these military men:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.htm

BTW i'm not the only one who has a poor view on Gitmo:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/amnesty_international/index.html?inline=nyt-org

fellow traveller

Cabbie: "Surely, the fact that a crime has been committed is enough"

It's a good argument, but - especially in these times - I disagree. If the purpose of punishing crimes flexibly is to give the greatest punishment to those who do the most harm to society, then hate crimes (for example, there's a strong argument that killing someone solely because he's a Jew does more harm to society than killing someone solely because he's a security guard) should be punished more heavily.

It's still up to the courts to decide, but it's the job of legislators to create a framework in which our actions are judged.

The idea that it's legislation against free thought is a red herring. You're still free to think anything you want.

Conservative Cabbie

Israel

Firstly, I think Juliana was genuinely asking for help and yet you turn a simple request into a partisan diatribe. Not very classy.

Secondly, if we accept what you say as true, doesn't the fact that there is now a strongly Democratic Congress prove that checks and balances works.

The leftist meme of Bush as some sort of fascist dictator is childish and pathetic. Crap Dictator if he willingly hands over power and co-operates fully with the incoming administration. It would have been nice if FDR and Clinton had operated with the same Democratic spirit or class.

israel

Conservative Cabbie:

"I have a problem with legislating how people think. Where are the limits? Surely, the fact that a crime has been committed is enough. Fine, consider a person's motive as part of the mitigating circumstances and judge the person on that basis, something which should happen anyway but where is the benefit in explicitly referring to a crime as a hate-crime?"

Cabbie, you're correct. The persons motives SHOULD be considered but there have been cases lost where the job hasn't been done. Maybe that is why this legislation is needed? It's always interesting that the people who usually protest things like hate crimes, affirmative action, and sex discrimation laws are cusually those who are not affected by it?

Conservative Cabbie

Fellow Traveller

"for example, there's a strong argument that killing someone solely because he's a Jew does more harm to society than killing someone solely because he's a security guard)"

I'm not sure Security Guards would agree.

Flippancy aside, surely the act of pre-meditated murder is damaging enough to society regardless of the motive.

An example:

A person is stoned to death.

A person is stoned to death because he is gay.

Are you suggesting that the second instance is worse than the first?

israel

Conservative Cabbie:

Cabbie!!! How ya been?

Why would l want to be classy on any subject apart from football? Eh, never mind!!

The reason that there is such a strong democratic congress is because the republicans put in charge of government people who either hated it or were making money out of it or were incompetent. I did like your list for Juliana, it was very concise. It's a pity that this has been ignored for a few years, or are you forgetting the man who said that the Constitution was "Just a damn piece of paper"?

Conservative Cabbie

Israel
"It's always interesting that the people who usually protest things like hate crimes, affirmative action, and sex discrimation laws are cusually those who are not affected by it?"

Whilst Liberals who do support the above are constantly facing such inequalities?

One could argue, that those not affected by issues of race, sex etc are able to view the problem more dispassionately and can see the actual inequity of outcome that affirmative action creates.

Renata

Israel: 'okay, so now you have made me spit coffee over my key board'...

Your view that the Bush years were essentially imperial rule is a fact. This view is shared by brilliant scholars, historians, economists and the majority of American voters who were powerless as George W. invoked his world view.

The devotees of this blog seem not to care about the facts; they spin and weave their revisionist views, convincing each other that those who do not share their dark, sinister perception of reality should be villified.

Augustus, endeavouring to sound psychological in his assessment of the President, renders him mentally ill: a pathological narcissist. Others, like 'American', consider him a communist, a liar, a terrorist, a marxist.

One only has to look at the right wing base; the public voice of these people. I cannot imagine a more dreary, depressing and delusional place to live than in the minds of those who think with such blind hatred.

pm317

mary from IL, I guess you took what you want from my comment leaving the rest. I don't consider it murder, you do. Being a pragmatic and rational person, the foetal viability argument appeals to me as it did to the SC and the solution we have now addresses the harm otherwise done to one class/gender of people unduly when others get a pass for the same folly.

David

"expanding federal ‘hate crime’ legislation,"

Disagree.

"ending racial profiling,"

Disagree to an extent, but it depends how it is used.

"repealing the Defense of Marriage Act"

Good.

"supporting full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples"

Good.

"giving adoption rights to gay couples,"

Good.

"lifting the federal ban on needle exchange"

Good.

Overall, not a bad start. One can't agree with all things, and shouldn't expect to.

Frank P

Melanie

Good to see you once again on the Obambi hunt and nosing his spores. I fear it's going to be a long campaign; he's already working on his re-election campaign, which may well be as inevitable as the election of Blair thrice and for the same reason: the fact that the type of people who elected him will never admit that they were gulled and made a mistake, no matter what he does to his country the USA.

It is fervently hoped that in the case of Brown in this country, as the electorate has not yet been given a chance to vote for his premiership, then they can oust him without being made to look foolish. As for the new Obamessiah, the saviour of the whole Hopeychangey Universe; the most he can hang on for is 8 years. Which is a pity, as he'll probably still be there when I go. However it does provide a spur to overcome all adversity and attempt to live long enough to see another POTUS.

With regard to the Grungiad cartoon; I read that as a begrudging acceptance that your devotion to and application of principle is being effective, gal. Keep on truckin’! :-)

israel

Conservative Cabbie:

"Whilst Liberals who do support the above are constantly facing such inequalities?
One could argue, that those not affected by issues of race, sex etc are able to view the problem more dispassionately and can see the actual inequity of outcome that affirmative action creates."

Actually l think it's because they have an open mind and like to look at things from the side of those discriminated against.

That's just my view of course, l know that isn't supported here, look at some of the comments made in the last few weeks between those who agree and disagree with what the goevnment of Israel has done in Gaza.

John Thomas

The conclusion of all these posts, and Melanie's article, is that Obamessiah is no better, and not much different, than all the previous US (or any) politicans ... but of course, people ("hope springs eternal in the human breast") will grasp at anything, however hopeless, and readily convince themselves of anything.

israel

Jenny:

"Yes, "Israel", only three cases. Where is your evidence to dispute that? Oh, you haven't got any.
You've just got some crummy stuff about a judge basing an opinon on government data and then later on that data is updated. Like that's never happened before in any government.
Does this Guantanamo inmate defence lawyer have any evidence the judge was given all the updated data and deliberately lied? Of course not."

Firstly Jenny, Israel HAPPENS TO BE MY NAME. I don't put your in quotation marks so don't do it to mine. Secondly Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't "just a judge" he happens to be one of the top seven lawyers in America so the things he says carry a lot of weight and can effect lives so watching and recording his dissenting decisions is very important. Lastly what l linked to was a report from was the Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research, not "Guantanamo inmate defence lawyer". If you can't be bothered to read the link from well repected legal experts, don't waste both our times reponding to it.

ISRAEL

"Not only his sycophantic admirers think of Barack Obama as a Messiah, he himself does too, and one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others, They are simply self-serving and selfish. But Obama evinces clear symptoms of pathological narcissism which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. But it is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Barack Obama is not the redeemer of guilt-ridden whites, or subordinated blacks. On the contrary, future historians may well conclude that President Obama's arrival heralded the true beginning of America's demise."

Augustus? STOP. WATCHING. FOX.

Conservative Cabbie

Hi Israel

Breaking news! Politicians are bad. Democrats hardly stand up to the rigours of ethical superiority. If Obama had his way, the secretary of Commerce would be someone on the take (Bill Richardson) and a Treasury Secretary who doesn't pay his taxes. And Joe Biden who is just Joe Biden. Hardly a flawless record of appointments.

You've had your eight years of sniping from the sidelines. It's our turn now ;-)

Conservative Cabbie

Renata

Your use of words like dark, sinister, villified,dreary, depressing and delusional says more about your mental state than those of us on the right.

You might want to check the definition of "fact" in a dictionary. I don't think you'll find the definition as "the opinion of Renata and some left-leaning intellectuals".

aramkr

Roland:
The real unmitigated joy will be watching the gradual, inexorable descent of this administration from the Olympus of the campaign's airy rhetoric to the Hell of confusion and disaster that await Obama's policies.

fellow traveller

Cabbie: "An example:A person is stoned to death.A person is stoned to death because he is gay.Are you suggesting that the second instance is worse than the first?"

You are right, in that it's true that all murders are at some level hate crimes, and that anyone doing any stoning of anyone is about as low as it gets. That's the weakness in hate crime legislation.

But your example is loaded, as a stoning is most likely to be a premeditated act based on what someone "represents" - their lifestyle, colour or religion - as well as who they are as a person.

It's nothing new, or even very radical to punish crimes more severely if they have an effect beyond the immediate action. For example - buying crack cocaine for personal use is punished more severely than buying marijuana - because we assume that crack use will, in some way, have a more detrimental effect on the user's community.

So, to get back to my original point, I don't see what the point is of objecting to hate crime legislation: it's not a radical departure in the way we prosecute crime, and I don't think that racist murderers for example need us to stand up for their right to a lesser sentence than they would otherwise get.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Conservative Cabbie, Get her!

Silly liberal is she, Renata Bata Mata should be her name

Pip

Disappointed with the Spec
January 25th, 2009 11:25am
Messrs Hoskin, Forsyth et al, get Melanie to write about something she knows a little bit about.
American politics is clearly not one of those things.

It seems you know not what the heck you are prattling on about. Your faux ignorance is overwhelmingly puke inducing.

Conservative Cabbie

"and I don't think that racist murderers for example need us to stand up for their right to a lesser sentence than they would otherwise get."

I have no intention of standing up for the rights of racist murderers, nor do I think their sentences should be "less".

My point in objecting to hate crime, is that it diminishes the horror of murder (or other crime). You are saying that one type of murder is worse than another.

Another thought experiment. Imagine you were raised in the southern U.S. It's the late 40's and you are raised from birth to believe African-American's are inferior. Whilst swept up as part of a mob, you take part in a lynching. This is undoubtedly a hate-crime and yet we are talking about a person who is a product of a society being influenced by others. Then imagine a person who murders another for no reason, just for the thrill. I think the second person is the bigger threat to society. I'm not trying to justify the actions of those in the south BTW, I went for an extreme example.

I agree that hate-crimes are hateful and I agree that someone who commits a crime against another purely because of who they are should have the book thrown at them, I just believe that it should be dealt with through the normal legal procedures that already exist.

You never answered my question about who decides and what constitutes a hate crime. Race - yes, sexuality - yes, religion - probably. what about which football team you support? What about gang members killing each other because they come from a different part of town? How about a bunch of Etonian toffs going on a chav killing spree? All are identity motivated crimes but I'm not sure they should be considered hate-crimes.

James Murphy

I miss Verity.

Frank P

In my post at 2.27pm at the end of para one I scored through 'his country' and added 'the USA', For some reason the 'moderator' either removed the throughscore or it doesn't transfer from 'Word' when copied and posted. I had meant to convey that it is by no means certain that it is 'his country' even though he his now the President of it. Unless he is prepared to produce evidence to the contrary many will continue to believe that he was born, in fact, in Kenya; they are somewhat less easily convinced than those who, like Susan Sarandon, are to prepared to believe in the Second Coming. Only a matter of time before his flock claim his mother was a virgin - rather than arriving on a Virgin flight, with an extra bundle. Who knows? Where's the paper, Pres?

Renata

Conservative Cabbie: A fact is something that has an objective reality that can be verified according to an accepted standard.

It is an indisputable fact that George W. ran the country for six years, unchecked by a republican congress. This is not an opinion of a 'left-leaning intellectual', it is a fact.

Ms. Muller-Johansson: Thank you for exemplifying my point. Were you able to stick out your tongue while engaging in that bit of name calling? I hope so.

An American

Dixon,
I haven't a clue who in the Republican party could run and win against Obama. By the time the next election comes along, Obama and his network will have it sewn up...that what his 'so called' national outreach is all about...keeping him and the Democrats in power and having a one-party country.

That is...if we still have a country...intact.

Although I'm not a Mormon, if I had been given the chance, I would have voted for Romney, instead I had to hold my nose and vote of McCain who I detest. Romneys a smart businessman and very conservative. One of the most conservative politicians running since Reagan. Romney has substance but his weak point is that he doesn't have that 'great' charisma that the Messiah has...unfortunately, our ignorant, People magazine- reading public like their politicians black, cute and clueless.

phil

James Murphy
January 26th, 2009 4:56pm

"I miss Verity"-SEND CLOUZO --Last seen dodging the taliban /mujahadeen /.obama/.bill ayers.clintons /me /fisk //the good samaritan and dozens of others of assorted allegiance-also applied for job on man city,s right wing -rejected so far right ,still in the stand .sorry James I need a smile

fellow traveller

Cabbie: "You never answered my question about who decides and what constitutes a hate crime."

Tricky isn't it. I'd include race, religion, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, and that seems to be the usual legal definition in other countries.

For me it's a bit like the English law defence of "diminished responsibility" - saying "you'd have to be crazy to commit this crime" isn't the same as arguing legal insanity, nor is "he was out of his mind on drugs and wouldn't have done it when sober" - even though both may be true. So hate crime can use a legal definition of "hate" to (hopefully) have the maximum positive impact on society while still being practical to prosecute.

Oliwagino Alefava Yihiri

Frank P, you get the president you deserve "Obama", and I hope after that you get one who is born in Nigeria, Good luck!
and I hope you will all get used to it, the party is finish for the white Anglo Saxon Americans

Michael B

israel, January 26th, 11:55am, What makes you think I didn't notice? Here's the Amazon UK link: Inside Gitmo. But if you're impatient and can't wait a single day for a more honest Gitmo book, Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials has several editorial and customer reviews.

An American

Juliana

There are checks on the US president. The main power that our Constitution gives to a president is the power to protect us from invasion. For all else, Congress and the President must agree.

The Congress..that's the House and Senate... can overide a presidential veto on a bill if they have a 2/3rd majority to do so...but that won't be happening with an Obama presidency since the Congress is predominently Democratic with a few rhinos (Republicans in name only)...that's Republicans who are really liberals...and don't forget McCain. He so wants to be part of 'the good ole boys Senate club', that he'll continue to twist Rep. arms to vote for whatever Obama decrees.

The House needs a simple majority to pass a bill. That's why its been so devastating to have a far-left nutcase like Nancy Pelosie as the house leader.

In the Senate, a 40% minority can filibuster to stop a bill.

Our Republican politicans have been extremely weak. They've forgotten why we sent them to Congress to represent us. They've morphed into Washington suits. A lot of Republican voters didn't vote this time..they were so completely disgusted with our representation. The last time there was a survey, the Congress received a 9% approval rating...it's probably even lower now...but the media doesn't want us to know...not with the Messiah now in power.

Hope this helped a little.

An American

Conservative Cabbie,
So glad to have you back. Leave it to a Brit to explain our goverment better than I could.

fellow traveller

James: be careful what you wish for.

Straydingo

Renata,

Conservative Cabbie has packed you away nicely into the box you sprung out off :) - your opinion of Bush no doubt has been formed from 30 sec sound bites captured on the evening news and from left-wing commentators.

Just ask yourself how many of these so called experts every actually meet with Bush?

An American

Augustus,

I agree with you that Obama is pathologically narcisstic.

When I watched him at a political event stand in front of thousands of adoring people chanting 'Obama..Obama' and with out-stretched arms, while looking omnipotent, proclaim that 'he would lower the levels of the oceans'....I thought...this nutcase actually believes what he is saying.

McCain's people then started making fun of Obama and this nonesense...showed him wiping out in an itty-bitty wave while surfing with his words ringing of his 'lowering the oceans' powers. Obama's people stopped him from doing more of his self-believing prophesies...

Too bad...if it had continued, the American public would have seen behind the curtain.

Dave

Conservative Cabbie: Always a pleasure to see you back. But can I politely suggest you're missing the point about hate crime.
Another example;
You walk down the street. (Assuming you are a white man) You make it safely to the end. But a black/gay/asian man walks down the street and doesn't.
The only reason for them to be attacked is because of what they are. It's inate. That's what is so appalling.
Of course it is strange and perhaps stupid to discuss degrees of murder.
But how about violent assault? Or shouted abuse?
Perhaps you feel this is thought control. I'd argue what the law aims to control is the violent impulse.

Jenny

Says Israel: ‘Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't "just a judge" he happens to be one of the top seven lawyers in America so the things he says carry a lot of weight and can effect [sic] lives so watching and recording his dissenting decisions is very important.’

Yes. So what? Judge Scalia made his statement based upon data available to him at the time. What was he supposed to do? Pull data out of thin air? The data was subsequently amended, as much government data is - and the plain fact remains that ex-Guantanamo Bay inmates have been involved in terrorist activity following their release.

Israel goes on: ‘Lastly what l linked to was a report from… the Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research, not [a] "Guantanamo inmate defence lawyer". If you can't be bothered to read the link from well repected legal experts, don't waste both our times responding [sic] to it.

Where to start? Israel, you say to me what you ‘linked to was a report from was the Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research, not a "Guantanamo inmate defence lawyer"’ and then accuse me of not reading the thing.

But hold on, the name in that press release you linked to and who wrote the report it is publicising is none other than Mark Denbeaux. Mr Denbeaux, when he is not being a law professor at Seton Hall University, happens to have been the lawyer for, you guessed it, folks, two Guantanamo Bay detainees. Yet, here you are Israel, telling me you’re an authority on Guantanamo Bay, and you didn’t know that.

If you are a lawyer for Guantanamo Bay inmates, you will not just be pleading their case before the authorities, but in the court of public opinion. That’s where the pressure has come from to close the facility. The US authorities know the inmates are scum, but there are unfortunately a lot of useful idiots who don’t want to know about that and so screamed that it should be shut down. Now what could be more damaging, having spent hours sanctimoniously pleading in the media for these people’s ‘rights’, than the revelation that ex-Guantanamo inmates have been allowed out only to get involved in terrorism?

Oh dear. Now, how could a lawyer get around that? Why, wouldn’t it be good if there was a study that mainstream media journalists and other pro-Guantanamo inmate folks could quote to detract from that.

So I wonder if Mark Denbeaux thought to himself something like: “I wonder if I should get something out in the media/blogosphere that detracts from the fact released inmates have been let out only to assist in further terrorist activity.

“Who could do that? Why, little old me. And for this, I’ll not wear my Guantanamo inmate lawyer hat. No. People would go, ‘But, hey, you’re a lawyer for the inmates there. You’re ignoring the fact that ex-inmates have gone on to help out with more terrorist activity and are instead blowing out of all proportion the fact that a judge quoted a number that was then revised - as all government data is subject to revision - when more accurate data became forthcoming.’

“Yes, that’s what I’ll do. But wait. I can’t go after the statistics themselves. Everyone knows government data is updated all the time. Instead, let’s take someone who used that out-of-date data and insinuate that there might be something murky behind it. That judge won’t be re-sitting in judgement on that case, that’s not the way it works, so people who don’t know about these things will think, ‘aha, looks fishy’. Although, of course, I haven’t got the guts to directly allege that this figure was used in bad faith by Judge Scalia, because I know no such evidence exists.

“I just need to get the Obamanuts and the anti-Guantanamo Bay mob screaming to drown out the fact that these inmates have been allowed to go and re-join the jihad. And as long as I release this report wearing my law professor at Seton Hall University hat, who’ll bother to make the connections of my other interests in what happens to Guantanamo Bay inmates?’”

Not Israel, that’s for sure.

Louise Cooke

PM317,
If human life does not begin at conception, then I wonder, when do you consider you came to life as a human?

beloved

David
January 26th, 2009 1:54pm

Is it good to transfer the people's power to Washington DC?

beloved

Chains we can believe in.

Alexandrovich

Dave: "You walk down the street. (Assuming you are a white man) You make it safely to the end. But a black/gay/asian man walks down the street and doesn't."

Sure, this hair-splitting must be an intellectual workout but, Hate Crime Legislation or not, I couldn't give a toss.

You know why? I'm an average white bloke and know full well that if it was me attacked by one of your 'black/gay/asian
stereotypes, absolutely sod all would get done about it, legislation or not.

It's all academic to me.

Mr Peaches

DAVE: “You walk down the street. (Assuming you are a white man) You make it safely to the end. But a black/gay/asian man walks down the street and doesn't.
The only reason for them to be attacked is because of what they are.”

No it’s not the only reason. You don’t necessarily attack someone on grounds of race or sexuality. If you attack someone screaming at them because of their colour or sexuality, then that’s a fair conclusion, but not otherwise.

“But how about violent assault?”

What about violent assault? It’s against the law.

“Or shouted abuse?” Abusive or threatening behaviour is also against the law.

All these scenarios that people think were never covered by the law were covered by the law years ago. ‘Hate crimes’ pose as being a cure for something that needed no cure. What they are actually about is pursuing people like Geert Wilders. These laws are ushered in under the specious pretexts outlined by Dave but what the politicians who draw them up are actually after, although they’d never admit to it, is people like Wilders.

Wilders is an embarrassment to them and their follies. Who needs that when there are elections to be won? It’s using the law as a social weapon.

They’re not just after a conviction, they want to stop people from thinking freely. They’re designed to instil social fear. “I don’t know if I can go there on that subject because didn’t that politician get arrested or something? How do I know if what I’m going to say is OK? I won’t say it, just in case.” That’s what these people want. The outlawing of free thought.

An American

I agree with many of the bloggers here.

Hate crimes are nothing more than mind/thought control...plain and simple.

So far, I've not been aware of so-called hate crimes when the victim was white...only when the victim was a minority or homosexual...as if we are to believe that minorities and homosexuals don't have it in them to hate...take blogger Oliwagio Alefava Yihiri's 6:09 pm ugly comments for instance.

Or maybe it's just that liberals would have us believe that all whites, even themselves, deserve to be hated.

I wonder if a minority and/or homosexual president were assassinated...would it be considered a hate crime?...even though he/she had sworn to uphold the constitution and to protect all Americans of all colors and creeds.

Conservative Cabbie,
Welcome back...you're in rare form today.

Thanks for your replys to Israel and Renata.

Maybe all the liberals should be concerned, should hate crimes really take off...it might apply to them.

Brian Moshe

Dave writes:
January 26th, 2009 9:07am
'Brian Moshe; The word "dhimmi" isn't banned by the BBC. An oversensitive moderator thought it shouldn't be used as a user name (You know the sort of thing; "Dhimmi Britain on it's Knees, Alicante") but that policy was reversed. And there is certainly no ban in discussing the concept online or on air.'
---------
OK Dave, could you please tell me how you know this? I refuse to accept what you claim in denying my words until what I have said is officially denied by the BBC.

You seem to imply that you have an insider's knowledge of the BBC. I don't make any such claim for myself. I want you to provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim about one 'over-sensitive moderator' (says a lot about the BBC doesn't it?) and provide some evidence that the BBC has 'reversed its ban'. A ban you admit was imposed and which I don't believe has been lifted.

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

"But how about violent assault? Or shouted abuse?"

Thanks for your welcome back.

Aren't there laws that already deal with "violent assault" and "shouted abuse" though? How does it benefit society to have different layers of crime, how do we achieve equality if we view people differently because of their superficial differences? It's bad enough that -ism's exist, let's not have governments writing those differences into law, no matter how benevolent their intentions are.

"Perhaps you feel this is thought control. I'd argue what the law aims to control is the violent impulse."

My big concern is that it also legitimises feelings of victimhood, both for the victim and the perpetrator thus driving a bigger wedge between them.

Conservative Cabbie

An American

Thanks for your welcome, it's nice to be back discussing American politics. I haven't really been away, I just don't have anything sustantive to offer on the Middle East.

American politics is my area of interest. I'm reading a biography of Harry Truman at the moment. It's interesting because we on this site had a lot of discussion during the campaign about foreign policy experience. Whether it was McCain v Obama, Palin v Biden or Palin v Obama, it was seen that foreign policy experience was valuable.

And yet Truman had no foreign policy experience whatsoever. The only time he had been abroad before he became President was during World War I when he fought in France. When you consider what he had to deal with: Marshall Plan, Berlin blockade, Dropping the atom bomb, ending the wars in Europe and the Pacific, Korea, containing the USSR's ambitions towards Europe, recognising Israel and setting up NATO, it would suggest that a good decision making ability combined with good advisors is more important than just foreign policy experience.

Conservative Cabbie

An American

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you about Romney (and after your kind words too, how ignoble of me).

Romney is no conservative, he only took that position because there were no conservatives in the race. He was just one of a poor bunch of GOP candidates.

The future of the GOP lies in the young conservative blood. Palin, Jindal, Cantor, Sanford will all carry the torch of "common man" conservatism in the future against the entrenched special interest liberalism of the Democratic Party that we see today.

Conservative Cabbie

I like this cutting criticism of Obama's stimulus package by Charles Krauthammer.

"This bill has a fifth of a billion for grass at the Jefferson Memorial. FDR left behind the Hoover dam and Eisenhower left behind the interstate highway system. We will leave behind, after spending $1 trillion, a dog run in East Potomac Park"

Dave

Jenny: It's worth pointing out that if an ex-Gitmo inmate writes a newspaper article critical of US policy they are considered to have "rejoined the fight" by the Government.

fellow traveller

An American: Cabbie might be in rare form, but I don't think you are: "Maybe all the liberals should be concerned, should hate crimes really take off...it might apply to them."

Classy. The point of hate crime legislation isn't to make something illegal that wasn't before - it's to separate crimes motivated by an attack on the individual from crimes motivated by an attack on someone because of their race, religion or beliefs.

The surest way to exercise thought control and to strangle free speech is to threaten people with violence based on what they think or say. Though it seems you think that's amusing, provided they don't think or say the same things as you.

Mr Peaches: "What they are actually about is pursuing people like Geert Wilders."

Any evidence for that? I agree that I think this prosecution is misguided. But I don't think that's an argument against all hate crime legislation in general, and I can't find any evidence that the countries that have this legislation have seen a general reduction in the ability to speak and live in freedom as a result.

Like I've said before, in our various legal systems we punish crimes not just because of the effect on an individual, but also because of the effect on society; and so to define hate crimes as more serious because of their effect on communities is in line with the practice of western law over several centuries.

Dave

Conservative Cabbie: Try this then. Arson attack on a synagogue. You could argue it was "just" an arson attack. But if the building was targeted because of what it is, what it represents, then I'd say thst is more serious. That's a hate crime.

Bruce

Dave, it’s also worth pointing out that The Pentagon has said that of these ex-inmates that: "Propaganda does not qualify as a terrorist activity."

I note you also conveniently forget stories like this:

“A suicide bomber in Iraq was identified yesterday as a former Taliban fighter who was held for more than three years at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before he was handed over to authorities in his native Kuwait in 2005 and subsequently released… Abdullah Salih Al Ajmi, 29, had driven a car bomb into an Iraqi police patrol”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/08/ex_detainee_linked_to_iraq_bombing/

Conservative Cabbie

Dave

I don't think an arson attack on a synagogue is worse than an arson attack on a Kindergarten for example, do you?

I take your point about what a hate crime represents for society. I had a similar discussion on Liberal Conspiracy. I strongly believe that the best way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate the outward things that divide us. On LC, it was about identity hyphenation (ie Asian-British), I think this is similar. When a group of people are treated differently, even if the motives are well-intended, it only serves to accentuate the difference. In your example of the synagogue, I think society can be equally well served by the perpetrators being sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for arson as it would be if they were sentenced for two years for racially-motivated arson.

However, I think that society is less well served when following any attack on a person from a minority, certain elements will cry "hate-crime" regardless of whether that was a genuine motive. It creates a besieged mentality amongst the minority in question, and a "cry wolf" attitude amongst the general populace.

BethD

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”- Neville Chamberlain

We in the U.S. are in deep trouble with Obama.

An American

Conservative Cabbie,

Americans call it 'plain old common sense'. Truman had it, as did Reagan. Neither of these men were considered genius but most of the difficult decisions they made were sound and for the good of the American people. Apparently Carter has a very high IQ, he graduated first in his Naval Academy class, was a nuclear physicist, etc...but will go down as one of our worst presidents...he has no common sense and is a far-left liberal..those two things seem to hand in hand. Carter continues to muck up things politically for the US with a history of being one of the most intrusive ex-presidents ever. Even Clinton can't stand him because of his medaling during Clinton's presidency. Carters a very petty fellow..for example, snubbing Clinton at Obama's inaugural and is today, a pariah among all the remaining living presidents.

It would be interesting to see what history has to say about the presidents we've watched in our lifetime. I can't help but think with the direction our societies are going, that the left will even change history...in fact, our school books have already being revised to the liberal cause. One of the latest is very negative about Reagan and glowing about Clinton.

Fellow Traveler, You're right, I should have added....too. Because we'll all be at the mercy of 'Big Brother'.

David Lindsay

Will any more people die as a result of Obama's lifting of the ban on federal funding of abortion-providers abroad than would have died as result of John McCain's Bush-like poverty inducement (poverty being far and away the largest cause of death before as well as after birth - hopelessly poor women have abortions) and never-ending war (with, among so much else, all the abortions that follow all the rapes and prostitution)?

Obama, McCain and Bush are all as anti-life as each other, just in different ways. Well, mostly different, anyway. McCain is in favour of scientifically worthless embryonic stem-cell "research".

Like all Republicans, Bush delivered absolutely no change whatever to the abortion law (consider that in "godless" Europe, the usual upper time limit is 12 weeks, several countries outlaw abortion entirely, and by far the most liberal laws are in Americanised Britain and those lands to the east still caught up in the cult of Ronald Reagan).

If such a change ever did come to pass, then the white Catholics (who have decided every Presidential Election since 1976) and the white Evangelicals would simply declare "Mission Accomplished" and go home to the Democratic Party. Last year, the white Catholics, at least, simply did so anyway. The white Evangelicals will be next.

Meanwhile, much blogosphere bitching about Douglas Kmiec - the conservative law school professor, strong traditional Catholic, associate of the Evangelical-related Pepperdine University, and Obama supporter - and his possible appointment as Ambassador to the Holy See. The price of his support?

Why ever ever not? Whom would you want instead as Ambassador to the Holy See, and why? The Democratic Party has no shortage of Catholics decidedly lacking in traditionalist credentials or Evangelical connections.

Eleanor

‘Ruling by a radical’? Indeed. Today it got more radical.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." Indeed, St Barack, it’s time America stood up and took responsibility for what it has brought on itself and the free world.

“Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (9:73) – America you brought this on yourself, because like St Barack says “we have not been perfect”. Indeed we have not. For we are unbelievers, and we know the treatment we deserve for that kind of imperfection, don't we?

“Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire. Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment; verily, Allah is sublime and wise.” (4.56)

Yes, indeed, as St Barack says: “we sometimes make mistakes”. Why have you Americans made the mistake of ‘disbelieving’ the signs? Remember, America, you brought it all on yourself. Thank God St Barack has been elected to remind you of that.

“On unbelievers is the curse of Allah.” (Sura 2:161) Why can’t you respect that, America?

An American

Fellow Traveler,

I should have ended it with... too...Big Brother will want mind-control over all of us in the future.

Conservative Cabbie, I wrote you a blog on Truman, Reagan and Carter...but it seems to have been lost in Melanie's never-never land...have to go... maybe another time. I enjoy your take on American history and politics.

Conservative Cabbie

An American

Please post it again when you get the chance - it's an interesting period and I'd be interested in your take on it.

This blog does seem to be a Bermuda Triangle of disappearing posts.

Dave

Conservative Cabbie: Actually I do think an arson attack on a synagogue is worse than a similar attack on a school.
And there's another strand here. A grinding sort of low level attack that goes on for some time.
Bruce: I don't doubt some former inmates have returned. And I apologise if I'm wrong about my original point. That said with the government's own estimates of the number of people released who returned to combat varying so wildly (from 5 to 45) perhaps we are both right.

Conservative Cabbie

David Lindsay

"John McCain's Bush-like poverty inducement"

What does this even mean?

"Like all Republicans, Bush delivered absolutely no change whatever to the abortion law"

Do you understand how the American constitution works? Have you heard of Roe v Wade? Bush can't make any significant change in the abortion law because the Supreme Court has ruled it to be a woman's constitutional right.

"consider that in "godless" Europe, the usual upper time limit is 12 weeks, several countries outlaw abortion entirely"

None of which have America's constitution.

You didn't really think this one through. Your pavlovian reaction to have a dig at Bush foundered on the rocky shoreline of actual facts, a common failing of our leftist friends.

An American

BethD

Thank you for the Chamberlain quote...history does repeat itself...unless you believe like many Americans that the 'Messiah' is omnipotent as he himself believes.

It very comforting to know that Obama's first public interview since his inauguration was with Al-Arabiya TV. It made all Americans proud that our president admitted what a throughly rotten country and people we are... always dictating to other countries. He also wanted all the Islamic terrorists to know that we are not their enemy...we're their clueless friends.

Ahhh...yes, I feel so much better having 'The One' there to protect me and my country.

Conservative Cabbie,
My Truman/Reagan comment did finally come through...
I find it interesting that the left is now being critical of Truman and his decisions...rewriting history, it seems.

I do believe that there are some intelligent, conservative younger Republicans out there that you mentioned...if only they can get by the old-man Republican machine that forced McCain down our throats.

The Republican Congress must stand up to Obama now...and vote 100% No on his stimulus bill. Obama doesn't need Republican votes for this to pass in the house and only 2 Rep. votes in the Senate. This two trillion dollar stimulus bill will not work...and Obama and his cronies knows it. This is payoff to groups like Obama's ACORN who will get four billion in payoffs and other entities that Obama needs for the next election. When it doesn't work, Obama and the Democrats want the Republicans to take the blame with them.

Why can't these Rep. politicans see that they are being conned by a sweet talking Commie?

Conservative Cabbie

An American

"if only they can get by the old-man Republican machine that forced McCain down our throats."

t's hard in the U.K. to see who the GOP voter is, all we get told about are the social conservatives because the left find them so much more interesting. Sarah Palin is definitely positioning herself for a run, she's just started her own PAC called SarahPAC and she's introducing policies on the environment in Alaska that put her to the left of Obama (50% of energy from renewables rather than Obama's proposed 25%).

You were spot on with your analysis of Truman and Reagan. I do not understand the liberal fascination with intellectualism. I would want a President who makes good common-sense decisions which were in the best interest of me and my fellow countrymen. That's not too say that being an intellectual is prohibitive.

What's interesting about the stimulus, is that only 25% of it will be spent prior to 2010 and the rest will occur between then and 2012. I'm sure that it's just coincidence that the Democrats want most of the spending to kick in during the election years. It would be far too churlish to suggest that the Democrats are using the deficit to fund their election campaigns.

If you're family is an average American family, then congratulations, you've just contributed about $17,000 to the DNC and the 2012 Obama for President campaigns along with your children and grandchildren. I'm sure you'll find that re-assuring.

pm317

Louise Cooke,

When my dear mother gave birth to me..
(if she had taken me out of her womb at any other time, I would not be me.)

shockwaver

the u.s., stimulus is just a tax hike in disguise. stand back and look at the outcome. in a few years, when the recession is over we will have significant inflation because of all the money we printed and/or borrowed to "save" the economy. my home will be less valuable and my stocks worth less. so my years of savings (home, stocks and some cash) will be down 20-30%. meanwhile, money will have been distributed to those who did not earn it (their mortgage values and interest rates will have been reduced with government funds and they will have received an annual check from the the one and his socialist compadres for doing nothing.
the stimulus is indistinguishable from a wealth tax and redistribution of wealth except in name.
capitalism is somewhat apethetic but it works. socialism is prioritizing social justice but it fails.

An American

Conservative Cabbie,

The Republican party has lost touch with its supporters and has sold it soul trying to appeal to all Americans instead of looking out for the health of the country.

So I'll tell you what I think most American conservatives believe and want for our society and country.

We want a smaller goverment.

We resent the constant interference of our growing, grasping, greedy goverment.

We believe in the capitalist system. Capitalism made the US strong and secure and has given its people one of the highest standards of living in the world.

But the very word, capitalism, is considered bad and rarely used in our now socialist leaning country.

We want fewer taxes. Most conservatives are hardworking, honest Americans that pay the larger portion of taxes that keeps this county going. Although we are taxed through the gaazoo and give 75% of all monies to charities...liberals continue to call us rich, although many of us aren't ... and selfish.

Most conservatives are conservative in their lifestyles. We attend church more often than liberals and have fewer abortions and divorces. Most conservatives shun anything that is too extreme...either right or left.

Most conservatives would like for people to be their own masters. We believe in teaching people 'how' to fish, not 'give' them fish...as the liberals do... being sure to keep people on the dole...more votes and power for the liberal politicans.

Many of us believe that global warming as presented by Al Gore is a farce. We believe that humans have had some negatve effect on the earth but not the catastropic scenario that far-lefties would have us believe. This global warming movement is more of a hysterical religion than science based. We believe Gore's carbon footprint scheme will turn out to be one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on the American public. Gore is as nutty as a fruitcake.

We believe that our constitution has given us a strong foundation and want to protect it as it is. Liberals like Obama believe they are smarter than our founding fathers and want to change/destroy our constitution.

We believe that US socialism started with FDR and increased under Kennedy and Johnson and may be the end of this country under Obama.

We believe that Bush protected us from terrorist for seven years but allowed us to be destroyed from within with his irresponsible fiscal policies. He set us up for Obama and the socialists. Bush let us down...big time.

We're in real trouble and unless everything crashes and` wakes up the American people or we have a revolution...we will be a socialist country soon.

Sorry for the downer... but there it is...

An American

Conservative Cabbie,
Sent my latest response to you several hours ago...and still don't see it. Hope it makes it.

Conservative Cabbie

An American

I completely agree with the positions you stated. big government is a constant encroachment on our personal freedoms and needs to be challenged. However, I'm starting to feel that a truly conservative government is no longer possible. The last three main Republican Presidents (Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jnr) all dramatically increased the size of government, even Reagan who I would argue was a successful conservative in other areas. Perhaps genuine conservatism is not intended to be a party of government anymore, perhaps it's role is to act as a brake on the excesses of liberalism.

rachel

This man Obama with his Marxist background is going to lead our nation down a very dangerous path to weakness and failure. God help us. And if we fail...so does the rest of the world who depends upon us.

I know some of those who voted for him already have buyer's remorse. Well...we tried to warn them, but these easily manipulated voters suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome contracted from the vicious and vitriolic media megalith (TV news, press, Hollywood all gunning for him 24/7).

An American

Conservatinve Cabbie,
You are probably right...which in my opinon means the end of our country and its promise...human nature will fight for only so long...then gives in.

By the way, I like Palin and would probably vote for her but she has a terrible track record when it comes to wildlife conservation. She goes along with hunting wolves down with Alaska Game and Fish planes and is wasteful with Alaska's wildlife....gets a D in wildlife management. Having lived in Alaska as a child, I know there is a mindset among native Alaskans that wildlife is expendable and is a dime a dozen...which of course, isn't true...Palin has this mindset. I believe this will hurt her in the next election among some reasonable people much less the far-left tree huggers...they were sending me emails galore during the election.

phil

An American-I was sitting round a table in my golf club today with what you would describe as a group of capitalists (including me btw ).and thinking about your thoughts ,I asked them what their view of O was .these guys were Catholic ,Protestant and Atheist .highly educated and from various countries -to a man they said refreshing, a great leader and admirable ,in fact what was needed in this world today .I also met 4 Americans two weeks ago and they said the same ,2 men 2 women and they were Jewish .One person told me that 76 per cent of the voters had given O their vote ,I was amazed but given your system I have no idea whether this was nonsense or not. I think you know that I have not made up my mind about O yet ,so after this preamble may I ask you first of all are those figures correct or utter nonsense ? and also why is it that only on these threads am I finding such opposition to O -I am truly mystified and would appreciate your thoughts as I always do ,best regards Phil

An American

Phil,
I'm a conservative with prosperous, successful conservative friends and family. We are all depressed as hell... because we're smart enough to know what's coming down the road...financial ruin for the acheivers and businesses, pathetic handouts for the non-achievers...my husband and I have already lost 30% of our worth...what intelligent person would be pleased with that and under Obama's socialist agenda...it will get worse.

I can't remember the exact number...but Obama won by approx. 54%...not 76%.!

Do you really think that conservative voters with any common sense would have voted for a loser like Obama? Many were very unhappy with McCain and refused to vote...

I think I'll tell you now...that I told you so...because Obama's policies are going to be a disaster. Everything that he is doing will not solve our problems but will just make them much worse. Maybe that's what he wants...to destoy the US...who knows.

By the way, yesterday...not a single Republican in the US House of Representatives or 11 Democrats voted for Obama's 1 trillion dollar payola/stimulus. Yet the media is reporting it like it was a landslide vote...the vote was 244 to 188..does that sound like a landslide to you?

To put it simple...Obama is pathologically narcisstic...a terribly flawed human. Why would anyone with no experience think he can run a country like the US. He is a Muslim and a Socialist. You've heard all the particulars...I won't go into all of them...suffice it to say the American people have been snookered.

L Cooke

PM317,
Interesting that you define your humanity by the shelter of your mother's womb. If you were not 'you' when inside of her womb, then who exactly were you?

phil

An American -I have always understood your pain in this matter and for that I am sorry -but my question was probably not properly put -I know what the percentage of college voting was -as you say ---it was the popular vote I was asking about (individuals).I was shocked by my friends claim of 76pc and that I cant find anyone against him other than on this site.----------
I know it will not be any consolation but we all are suffering badly here in Europe from the crisis and it is not his fault-it is the fault of greedy bankers,hedge funds etc and in fact governments who allowed the housing market to get so high -So many earned enormous bonuses by pushing prices of both stocks and houses above any sensible level -building investment for instance in Ireland were given tax breaks and people geared up to invest more and more making so many paper millionaires -they are in terrible trouble now and sadly I am seeing good friends in dire straights -look you do not need an economics lesson from me although I could say a lot more ,I am just saying it is not the fault of O .Brown is getting it in the neck here and Cameron is sitting on his hands hoping for the best ---
--------
My belief is we have to spend our way out of this ,raising debt now ,but keeping people in work and off social security(for which we all would have to pay from a dwindling tax income for the government)many disagree with me as many did with FDR and Keynes but ces,t la vie .I want O to succeed because we have him like it or not and if he fails we do too-it is not some awful social lemming like desire for me ,I am a natural conservative with a social conscience and I do not have a choice now anyhow -We have him and we had better make the best of it . If you can, please let me know the popular individual vote as my friend is often wrong and I would be happy to kick a---s :) for you regards Phil

An American

Phil,
Sorry, my last reply didn't make it in....

Obama won by 53%, McCain by 46%,, other 1%

beloved

An American,

Everybody in my circle would agree with everything you have said at this thread.

What do you think of Michael Steele as Chairman of the Rep Party? I heard he is "moderate," but never thought of him that way. We don't need spineless moderates caving in to socialism. What are your thoughts? Is the MSM just trying to deflate the spirit of private citizens again? They know Americans have been burned "reaching across the aisle" and abandoning conservative principles in favor of identity politics.

I am proud of the House Reps for solidly voting against Obama's Debt Plan and Porkulus Bill. Pelosi did not get ONE Rep vote! Let's hope the Senate gets on board with their constituents and votes NO, too. I'm committed to vote against my Republican senator next time IF he votes YES for this bill, and I have told him so. How is it going in your district?

beloved

I have a few thoughts on the future of the Rep Party, and more importantly, conservatism in the USA.

Conservative Cabbie said the role of Reps should be to check Dem power. I agree, but checking their power is the least we should do. We need to annihilate completely liberal policies, and now the Reps are in position to do it for two reasons.

Firstly, Americans root for the underdog and admire those who show pitbull mentality--ex: the symbolic ZERO votes for O's Porkulus bill and the die-hard stand of House Reps against Pelosi over oil last summer. You got to admire their tenacity, and more Americans self-identify as Republicans whenever they do things like that.

Secondly, the Republican Party has always seemed to score more victories when operating from an underdog position. They have more experience winning on principle when they seem outnumbered, defeated, and close to death just as G. Washington did. They don't care who wins the battle or who gets the credit as long as American principles win in the end. The best example is the way Republicans ended Democratic Jim Crow laws. To this day, the Dems take credit for ending Jim Crow laws in the Dem south, even though it was Reps who launched and fought an 80 year war against the Dems who created and maintained Jim Crow. More recently, former Pres. Bill Clinton takes credit for balancing the budget (in opposition to his own Dem Party, but with Republican support). Perhaps, socialism will be defeated in the same way. Allow the Dems to save face and take credit for ending socialism. I don't know a single Republican conservative who would object.

beloved

Phil, you wrote: "I want O to succeed because we have him like it or not and if he fails we do too-it is not some awful social lemming like desire for me ,I am a natural conservative with a social conscience and I do not have a choice now anyhow -..."

My response: The problem is placing faith in a president and not in the American people; or put another way, it is a colossal error to place faith in government instead of the free market. People solve their own problems when government leaves them alone. Government creates more problems for people to solve.

If gov't does nothing, the recession will end just as every recession does when the gov't stays out of the way. If gov't does anything, the recession deepens, is prolonged, and morphs into depression or stagflation, just as FDR proved in the 1930s and a 40-year Dem majority in Congress proved in the 1970s.

The current recession in the USA will end about the time the Porkulus Plan strikes a blow at prosperity and opportunity for all. The result will be inflation. Look forward to exponential inflation if the "Stimulus" bill passes the US Senate. Everybody I know is buying gold, hiding their wealth, firing employees in their small businesses etc... in anticipation of runaway Keynes spending and NOT because of the "bad" economy. They actually started protecting themselves last year when it became clear that O, a far left candidate, would win.

However, once the "stimulus" hits the pockets of those who produce economic wealth (out of nothing) and provide jobs (free of charge to taxpayers), those producers will produce even fewer taxes and jobs. The situation will then require MORE gov't spending, and we'll be in a downward spiral that only a return to free market will repair. How many times must we go around this carousel?

sigh...

Eventually, there will be a courageous generation, willing to bite the bullet and pay for the mistakes we make when we demand gov't security. They will build prosperity for future generations, but they will not experience any of it-- because of us. Some of them may curse us as they work with raw hands. They'll say we were weak, self-centered, and materialistic. They are smarter than we are. We should listen to them.

beloved

From what I remember there was about a four to five point difference between O and non-O voters. Melanie Phillips wrote about it. The race was so close she compared it to when Bush was elected. McCain didn't win because he angered Conservatives by supporting the bail out. Enough conservatives stayed home to put O in office. They did not vote for anybody. The rest of us hung in there for McCain because of Sarah Palin or the O factor.

56 million against Obama and 62 million for Obama.

phil

beloved there are so many opinions of how we can end this recession -I have mine but however knowledgeable I think I am :)I have no idea whether or not it would work -what is beyond me is why those that think market forces will always win ,cannot tell me how to make the social security payments to the millions who will lose their jobs, out of a government income that is dwindling because it does not get the tax income from either those workers or the firms that will go out of business .They also cannot tell me what will happen to all the entrepreneurs who will never rise again -you know the job providers ,deflation the real evil is round the corner if government sit on their hands .Many people have no idea about economics and yet are in positions of power ,I have seen it and been involved with them -it is truly scary .--------

As for O on these threads .it is a daily diet of abuse ,but in the other world I have not met one person who does not see him as a symbol of hope ,and as you guys say .you had better believe I have tried --my mind is open ,I can assure you I am not his cheerleader,but I do see here in the Uk that our political parties seem only to want to score points rather than work together to find a solution .Intransigence is a terrible enemy .
thanks for the figures on the election -it was something a friend had diverted me with saying O got 76 percent of the individual vote -clearly nonsense .

beloved

Hi Phil,

I'll try my best. When the government picks winners and losers, they institutionalize injustice. The free market rewards hard work, quality, and efficiency without favoritism.

A prosperous economy depends on non-involvement of government, and economic prosperity and government non-involvement exist inversely on a graph.

For every government "fix," there exists an unintended consequence for which only the Creator of the Universe could foresee. Sometimes, the fix is worse than the original problem.

The people are better off in the end when government does not try to do anything the private sector can do better.

Here's a situation to ponder. Why not let the government spend a trillion times the world's population if government spending is good for the economy. We could have perpetual prosperity.

Personally, I don't want the government to "worry" about my well-being. My Grandparents lived most of their lives without thinking of the government on a daily basis because the government left them alone. Govt's presence should be so small that we rarely think about them. I want the freedom to fail and to make huge mistakes that cost me the rest of my life. I don't want government safety nets under me. I want to fall on my face from a seventy-story building and get up again all by myself, even if I limp permanently or my life is cut short. Gov't "safety" is worse than death. It robs me of experiencing the highs and lows of life. I do not wish to impose "safety" on other people, either, and to steal their opportunity for joy.

Obama has never inspired hope in me because he advocates for government action, which is the opposite of hope. His focus is on expanding the power of the US government instead of empowering the American people. O just believes the answer to anything is the US Federal government, and he talks about us as though we are victim groups or just stupid. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan inspired hope in me because he pinned his hopes on us as individuals. He reminded us of our character and accomplishments and declared that nothing had changed about us. When we want to do something, we roll up our sleeves and do it. We don't measure the distance. *We* make the country prosperous, not the US Federal Government. I wish O believed in us the way Ronald Reagan did. But, O does not have a high regard for us. O represents anti-Americans around the world, for starters, and politicians advocate for government solutions when they doubt the character and talent of the people they serve.

From my perspective, it is bad news when the parties hold hands and agree. I'm happiest when they are either on vacation or fighting because they can't get legislation through Congress.

phil

beloved I wish all of us good luck whoever is right :)

Conservative Cabbie

Beloved

Some excellent posts from you, very interesting. My only concern about the role of republicans is that they should be more than culture warriors. Conservatism in America has become about what it is against, abortion, gay marriage and immigration. It's job now is to demonstrate what it is for. Your thoughts on "Govt safety" were spot on, that's the spirit that the GOP now need to appeal to. They've made a good start with their opposition to the 'stimulus'. I just hope they don't get sidetracked by social issues (some of which I agree with) that don't appeal to the plurality of American voters.

beloved

Thank you, both Phil and Conservative Cabbie. Everybody does the best they can. We'll get through the mess if everybody gives 100%.

Conservative, I read your thoughts and understand where they come from, but then I read something from Star Parker.

http://www.urbancure.org/

Click the title: "Culture of responsibility is culture of life"
Jan 26, 2009 | Analysis | Star Parker
"The black poverty rate, which has been frozen at twice the national average for decades, is almost exclusively a phenomenon of single parent homes..."

She writes on social issues just as Melanie does. Tell me what you think if you are inclined.

beloved

http://thebulletin.us/articles
/2009/02/04/top_stories/doc
498946ae42131796698681.txt

You'll have to cut and paste the link back together.

http://www.moralaccountability.com/

Conservative Cabbie,

The Feds force taxpayers to pay for abortions in other countries (for people who aren't even US citizens) even when the taxpayer believes abortion is murder. Conscientious objectors are not given an out. Bush gave them one, but Obama took it away in his first week in office. Life and moral issues will build momentum under Obama because he enacts the left social agenda. The links go to grassroots activists who are organizing resistance to Obama's social agenda. They do not care whether the Republican or Democratic Party agrees with them.