smc may be right. my computer doesn't have an automatic "snoopes" button.
Shun the gulability of being on someones forward list.

I blame George Bush. ( there! that should cover it)

Seriously? You're suggesting she stick with a TLB moderator approved list of talking points rather than her own?

Ok, well let me rephrase that then. If fran is going to criticize Obama, smc (a TLB moderator) advises her to stick with topics that are "legitimate" criticisms of Obama. Who determines what issues are legitimate? The moderator does, not the members. But she's good with that, so I'm sorry to interrupt.

True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.

I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress.

I loved how these Civil Rights advocacy groups raised such a fuss about Bush's warrantless wiretapping when firstly that paticular program was never stopped. That means that it is still ongoing to this very day. Secondly, ever since the late 60's (if I rember the report correctly) all new telephone line that were installed to people's houses were automatically tapped.

There must always be civilian oversight of a country's military. That oversight must be the government. As for decision making military decisions should be broken into two areas, strategic and tactical. Strategic decisions are for politicians to make whereas tactical decisions must remain in the hands of a military. Politicians are the ones that have to strategically guide a country and its policies and that is why they must make the strategic decisions. Most politicians have no idea of military planning and execution and that is why the military must be allowed to make tactical decisions without interference from politicians. In other words policiticians make plans (strategy) and the military carries out those plans (tactics). Neither is in a position to do properly do the other's job.

I don't have the official source to back this up, because as I recall, I heard a snippet on some news program (may have been radio or television). At any rate, it said that in terms of polling, President Obama is actually leading Romney among the military demographic.

A number of comments need to be made regarding this, though. In terms of troops on the ground, Obama's policies are of course going to be popular. We've effectively withdrawn from Iraq (as opposed to indefinite occupation that some have suggested). We are also on a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whether these are wise decisions from a strategic standpoint, I will leave to others to debate. But in terms of being a troop on the ground who is putting your life on the line everyday-- how could these NOT be popular policy stances? Especially when the overall national sentiment towards these foreign misadventures is that we've spent too much time and money in these backward shitholes and that it's time to come home. Add to that the fact that Obama made the order to assasinate Bin Laden, and it just adds credibility to his role as Commander and Chief.

Now among military brass, I can certainly see Obama as being less popular. They are the ones tasked with trying to find cost savings in today's era of austerity. They are the ones who will see pet projects, platoons, etc. cut. My own opinion is that austerity should be shared at ALL levels-- including national defense. But in terms of talking points, military brass are probably going to lean towards the party that says they will spare the military any cuts (in favor of wrenching cost savings out of middle class "entitlements").

Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona
 

I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.

Might as well. Obama has made it clear Arizona can not count on federal law enforcement. Why pay for it?

The notion that every state in the US should conduct its own foreign policy is ridiculous and can in no way be derived from the events in Arizona which seeks only to enforce federal immigration laws.

And the analogy of stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany is again ridiculous. It wasn't illegal jewish immigrants that Nazi Germany had a problem with, it was it's own jewish population they had problems with.

Apparently the opposition to the Arizona immigration policy is based on problems unrelated to Arizona immigration policy?

The real question is, why is the Obama administration actively trying to turn Arizona into a sanctuary state. I don't know, maybe it's happened before, but I can't recall... Has any other US president taken revenge on a state at anywhere near the level that Obama has against Arizona?

The Mexican government says it?s disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld part of an Arizona law requiring police check the immigration status of anyone they stop. They have openly opposed Arizona?s immigration law since it was passed in 2010. Mexico says that enforcing parts of the law that were upheld by the Supreme Court would lead to violations of the civil rights of Mexicans living in or visiting Arizona.

Ok Mexico, perhaps we should just go ahead and implement your immigration laws:
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

And you will name it Romney Gates and it will have glorious hair.

Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.

I searched "Lawrence O'Donnell Insurance industry Profit Protection Act" and found this video: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-...89648#47989648

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.

The finalized bill that was passed in the Senate was actually a House resolution that was stripped of all its original language. The original House resolution was an unrelated bill dealing with VA benefits. The Senate stripped all the original language out of the House resolution, inserted the Affordable Care language, and passed a bill that first originated in the House. This is a tactic that is known as using a "shell bill." And it's completely Constitutional and has happened more frequently than many would care to admit.

America's two tiered justice system:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ney-laundering

Hundreds Die in Bangladesh Factory Collapse As Retailers Reject Better Safety Standards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP1cXvQKluA