The silence is deafening

This is a long time between posts...even for her. I truly hope all is well.

So, just out of curiosity, I did a little Google blog search for the name "freeamerica", just to see if she was lurking out there. One interesting tidbit I stumbled across was a blog called "Save American Liberty" penned by someone who goes by the name "FreeAmerica" which, coincidentally, has the same layout as her "Where's the Change" blog. Now, I'm not saying it's the same person, because that same search I did came up with several instances that didn't refer to her. However, in the unfortunate event that she's felt the need to go more covert in her blogging [without actually changing her pseudonym], I thought I'd poke the fire to see what came out.

On a few occasions, this blog seemed to simply cut and paste articles from other sites, but they did [however losely] cite those sources. But, it didn't seem to happen every time. So, I did another simple Google search and turns out, there's a lot of cutting and pasting going on. Among others, this post is simply a cut and paste of an opinion piece written for the Wall St. Journal. Then there's this post, which is a cut and paste of a Washington Post article. There's more, but you get the point. So, I thought it begged at least one question:

Does the Washington Post, among other on-line publications, know you're cutting and pasting their material into your blog without citing it?

If it is her, I'd find it amusing for many reasons. If not, I may need to change my tag line.

I'm cut off...again

I've lost count of how many times she's done this. It'll be interesting to see if she can stick to her guns this time. Then again, who really cares. She's unapologetic in her ignorance.

Let's review:
-I explain to you that there are several well established constitutional principles which are not mentioned in the constitution. Rather than discuss the validity history of those principles, you claim that the Supreme Court just made them up. So there is no separation of powers?
-I ask you to clarify where, exactly, the Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments. I make an admittedly off the cuff and sarcastic comment about how much I hear it discussed in church. I guess I can't expect you to pick up the sarcasm, but rather than take the high road, you disparage my faith and my religion...without, as you've admitted now, knowing what my religion is.
-I give you an example of why you might want to use those "letters and discussions" a little more carefully and sparingly, you give me some conspiracy theory cooked up by you and your friends
-You make repeated false, misleading, or mistaken statements about The United States Constitution, proving that you either haven't ever read it, haven't read it recently, haven't actually studied it or its history, or you purposely attempt to mislead your readers. And, I didn't even get into your attempt to claim that "ignorance is bliss" when it comes to your country "torturing people to death" [ala the 8th Amendment]
-After all those "mistakes" you claim that, because of your perception of my ignorance of the 10 commandments, I can't understand your assertions.
-After you've dodged the substantive discussion, I point out the reasons, examining myself and the statements you've made, why you might not be a constitutional scholar and you call me an "elitist".
-You revel in the idea that you've "hit a nerve" with me, after addressing several posts in your blog directly at me. Heck, this post alone came as a result of my comment that separation of church and state was for another discussion.
-And lastly, after calling me an elitist, arrogant, a smart aleck, questioning my intelligence, describing my thoughts and criticisms as "social retardation", and questioning my education...all while misspelling "collage". FYI, it's spelled C-O-L-L-E-G-E. That's not fair to an elitist like me. How am I supposed to let that go? Once is a typo. Twice leads me to believe it's ignorance. Then again, maybe spelling was part of my indoctrination by that liberal freak Dr. Bigel.

If you don't feel the need to post my comments on your blog, that's your choice. It's merely further proof of why you don't post at the WIZM forum any longer. Even though you claim your all for discussion, whenever someone tells you your wrong, you claim they're being insulting...and then go on to insult their intelligence. I'll continue to comment and post them on my blog...heck, I've been getting traffic from the WIZM forums lately anyway [again, you're welcome for the plug].

Boy...I guess the gloves are off.

The gloves are off

People often say you shouldn't discuss religion or politics. I subscribe to 50% of that theory. I make not bones about my Christianity, but I also don't make it the sole source for my political theory. I understand that not everyone is like me and even though I'm a firm supporter of "separation", I understand that even politicians can be guided by their faith.

Oh, due to the fact that I don't claim to be an expert on Christianity, staying out of theological discussions is pretty easy for me. Then again, I try to be respectful of the faith of others. Yes, even the ever persecuted Christians. I may need to reconsider that value:

Let's start with the easy part. I wasn't "likening" them. Substantively, they have nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they are all constitutional principles which do not appear in the constitution.

As far as the writings of our forefathers go, might I recommend Thomas Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814. I don't expect it to change your point of view, nor should it. I learned a long time ago that that picking and choosing the writings of men like Thomas Jefferson drives a discussion nowhere. I also know that the faith of those men was not as easily defined as some might wish it to be.

Next; I have read the Bill of Rights many many many times. I've studied constitutional law at UWL under, among others, Alan Bigel [by no means a liberal]. If you want to learn something, seek him out. He's an unbelievably smart man and he'll agree with a lot of what you say. His arguments will be based on well formed and educated theories, but he'll agree nonetheless. I say this not in an attempt to impress you [because I know that's a lost cause]. I know the spirit in which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written. I also learned enough to know that it's probably not a good idea for me to receive a Constitutional lecture from someone who mistakenly claimed that the right to life is in the Bill of Rights, who mistakenly claimed, on two occasions, that members of the legislative branch are part of the President's administration, and who implied [or outright claimed] that a beauty contestant's response to a question in competition was protected speech. I could go on with that list, but I won't.

Lastly, and probably the most difficult; It's troubling to me that, rather than clarify your reasons for believing the Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments, you chose to question and/or disparage my faith and my church...all based on our discussions here. Generally, I'm fairly certain that I've been respectful of your faith and the genuineness of it. Throughout these discussions, we've questioned each other's intelligence. We've questioned each other's ability to read. I, however, have left your faith alone. Apparently, I can not expect the same respect from you. I'll keep that in mind.

She's putting it on a tee...

Look, I'm not so naive to assume that there aren't multiple ways to look at the separation of church and state. I, for one, am a firm believer in the principle. However, I also understand that governments dabble in religion out of necessity. A good example is allowing religious services in public parks. I have no problem with this. However, when that door is open, it needs to be opened wide, allowing for all faiths. I'm not sure your average militant Christian, who spends his day decrying the war on Christmas, is willing to have the door open that wide.

You'll notice in my previous comments that I gave her the opening for a separation discussion. Well, she took the bait.

There is no such phrase as "Separation between Church and State" in our Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The founders of our country wanted the government to stay out of religion not that religion was to stay out of government. Look at the Bill of Rights based on the Ten Commandments...

Now, the first argument is fairly common. Faulty, but common. The second argument is just plain funny. So, I gave her this...

Where should I start? You made two very interesting arguments. One of them was fairly predictable. I'll start there. You're right, those words aren't in there. Have you heard of "separation of powers" or "interstate commerce"? Like the separation of church and state, these are well established constitutional principles.

Next: The Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments? I'm going to need you to clarify that. I'll be honest, it's been a while since I've read the 10 Commandments. Strangely enough, they don't mention it in church a lot. You'd think they would But, I compared the two, and I can't find any similarities...other than the number of them. Nothing about coveting, graven image, the sabbath, adultery...nothing.

I think it's funny that you called me out for a phrase that isn't in the constitution...only to make a comparison that is completely non existent.

All panic, no relief...

Well, FreeAmerica has joined the WarOnChristmas [Copyright Foxnews] defense. On this one, I actually agree with her. Thankfully, the rightwing blogosphere has struck a blow against those evil secular humanists. Thought I'd let her know:

I'm sure you would have brought it up sooner or later, but you've won this battle against the vast liberal conspiracy against Christmas. It should come as no surprise to you that I'm a huge fan of the separation of church and state [for another discussion]. I've often made the case that we Christians spend entirely too much time trying to figure out how we can insert our faith into the public sector...and then get way too defensive when governments push back.

In this case, I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't have pulled the 1st Amendment alarm quite as quickly, but I do believe San Diego Co. over reacted and handled the fallout fairly poorly. This is what happens when governments get involved with religion, regulation or otherwise. They tend to be fairly clumsy about it.

Don't get me wrong, local municipalities have a right and responsibility to zone churches appropriately. In fact, when I was growing up, one of our neighbors started a church in his garage. He probably averaged 20-50 people every Sunday...not to mention the other gatherings. It did cause a parking/traffic issues and hard feelings with the neighbors. Although, I still think they were making too big of a deal out of it, there were problems nonetheless. This is one of the reasons these zoning/usage regulations exist and churches are not immune. There's a fine line between a church [in this case, a "religious assembly"] and a bible study. I don't doubt that this is the latter but where is the line? Is it 25 people? 30? 50? 100? I'm not one that freaks out over people parking on his road [as long as I have off street parking :)]. However, there are those who do. I have a feeling that's where this issue started: a whiney neighbor and a poorly trained or over zealous code enforcement officer.

By the way...I get the idea behind this blog, but what does this topic have to do with Obama, change, or "show[ing] what a liar Obama is".

Oops...

Yes. I do make mistakes. Darn adult ADD!! Regardless, I think she might be playing possum with me.

First, let me apologize for a mistake. One of my links was directed to the wrong place. It should have taken you here My second link was correct. Thank you for your patience.

You don't know where my data came from? Let me help. First, as you may have noticed, the second [correctly linked] CQ report explained, "The table below shows how frequently House lawmakers have supported President Bush during roll-call votes this year. The 2006 support scores reflect the percentage of the time that a lawmaker's vote on the floor matched a clear presidential position." So, their methods should be fairly clear.

Next, I took that data [from both reports] and calculated the average percentage that Republicans supported president Bush. Granted, the 2007 data is pointless because he was a lame duck, Republicans were desperately trying to separate themselves from an unbelievably unpopular President, and they could do so without any repercussions because they were a politically irrelevant minority. At that point, they could have voted for his impeachment and seen a 5% bump in their polling among Rush Limbaugh listeners. Not to mention that they didn't want or need President Bush's support in 08.

However, if your observation was true, his support should have been much lower in 05 and 06. In fact, one could argue that it should have been lower in 07.

Hopefully this clears up my point and methodology.

An interesting note

Fmr. La Crosse County Chair Chris Muller has a recent post on one of FreeAmerica's blogs. I've always found Chris and his blogs fairly "interesting". As far as Chris is concerned, I always thought it was funny that he had no problem posting comments on the WIZM Forum during his tenure as the party chair. He's obviously entitled to voice his opinion. But, call me crazy; That's not the place I would choose to communicate my message as party chair.

The other thing I've noticed is that he has several blogs. Even though Chris is probably better educated, more well-spoken and politically savoy than FreeAmerica, I must say, I have way more respect for her and her blogs than I do for anything Chris has published. At a minimum, FreeAmerica has given her own spin to the conservative noise machine. At her worst, she's giving her own opinions based on a lack of any research, political blinders, or completely mindless conspiracy theories. But, they are just that: her opinions...her spin. Opinions which she writes and composes herself. The same can't be said for much of what Chris posts. His blogs, including his recent post on FreeAmerica's, amount to little more than a linkdump. In several recent posts, she's inched toward Chris' style. For her sake and my amusement, I hope she sticks with her own shenanigans. They are much more entertaining.

Research? Why bother...

She's pretty confident that those darn RINO's didn't support the good President Bush in his righteous endeavors.

I, as a Conservative, did not see one issue that the Republican Congress, Senate or House, ever stood with the President. The Republican Congress caved in to the Dems everytime on every issue. Pull my hair out? You bet, it was the most pitiful Congress ever. As for Rove and Chaney show me proof of anything they did that was illegal.

I seem to remember a fairly humorous "Rubber Stamp Congress" campaign [or something like that]. So, I figured the numbers had to be a little better than she remembered it. So I did some quick research.

That's interesting, because the data I've read indicated fairly firm support for the President and his policies by Republican legislators throughout Bush's tenure. For instance, Congressional Quarterly does a "Presidential Support" rating. By my calculations, House Republicans supported President Bush 75% of the time in 2007 and 88% of the time in 2006. In this it shows them supporting him 83% of the time in 2005. And these are the years when President Bush's approval ratings were plummeting.

In the time I have, that's as far back as I was able look. I'd be interested to see your research on these or any other years which shows that the Republican Congress never "stood with the President".

Oh, and I didn't say Rove or Cheney did anything illegal...twisted a few arms of Capital Hill, yes. Whether or not they did "anything illegal" is for another discussion.

Once again, we agree...on two things;

First, she was wrong and possibly misleading.

Of course, again you are correct, they are not picked by President Obama...

Second, it's a good thing to have checks and balances.

...however, Geitner and the rest of Obama picks for staff are corrupt as well. So I included all of the government as Obama staff because they seem to follow his every command. No checks and balances in this new and improved government. See new post

She goes on in a new post [where once again she drops my name]. Awesome.

As my friend "P" pointed out I did lump the Congress, House and Senate, as part of the Obama administration which they should not be but as I see it they are one and the same. Whatever Obama wants he gets or he punishes them.

I thought she needed an "atta-girl".

Once again, we agree on something! Checks and balances is a good thing. It's not always positive to have a legislative branch who walks in lock-step behind their President for partisan reasons.

Given your perception of this situation, you must have been pulling your hair out during the first 6 years of the Bush administration. I think Cheney/Rove made a few Republican legislators cry on more than one occasion in an effort to keep them in line.

But, wait...

...I don't think they're in the administration.

She'd done this before, so I thought I'd clarify a little something for her.

You've mentioned corruption in the administration once before. I don't expect to convince you of otherwise, so I thought I might clear one thing up for you. Rep. John Murtha is not a member of the Obama administration. He is a member of the House of Representatives, an entirely different branch of the United States Government.

Oh, and regarding the aforementioned post: neither are "Dodd, Rangle, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Diane Feinstein".

Just an FYI from your friend, P.

Just one more of those little details that she misses

...or does she?

A moment of civility...on my part...

It will be interesting to see how it's received. She points out a recent Gallup poll which indicates a shift in public opinion regarding abortion. I thought a little more needed to be said:

Time did an interesting article on this study. For the most part, they agree that there is a noticeable shift in public opinion. They point out to important things.

First, the "pro-life/choice" tags don't really say a whole lot about where public opinion really sits. Why? Because within those two labels there is a wide range of varying opinions on what it means to be one or the other. Combine that with the influences which push us to self-define as one or the other and you've got yourself a fairly mixed bag of data.

The other interesting fact is, while a slim majority of Americans identify themselves as "pro-life", an overwhelming majority feel that abortion should be legal in [at least] some capacity.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the pollster and it doesn't negate an obvious shift in how people identify themselves. However, it does point out that there are glaring differences within the groups who we like to paint with a fairly broad stroke...usually for our own purposes.

A history lesson?

Taking a history lesson from FreeAmerica is like taking a driving lesson from Stevie Wonder. She might understand the larger concepts, but she's missing most of the key details. Then again, you won't catch Stevie behind the wheel of a car any time soon. She seems to have forgotten that the Nazi's were slightly more subtle in their approach toward the dehumanizing Jews. So I thought she could use a little brush up on all that studying she's been doing.

I'll pass on the history lesson. Without a doubt, you're right...dehumanization was the end result we all learned about in grade school. In all your heady research, did you ever come across "Nürnberger Gesetze"? Every time you start to feel that those who disagree with you aren't "real" or "true" Americans, take a quick look at the aforementioned piece of history.

Oh, and by the way. I'm just as offended by abortion as I am by the 10 year old who has his limbs ripped off by a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet.

I still don't get it.

The article says, "Samuel Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man hailed as "Joe the Plumber" by Republican John McCain's presidential campaign last year, said he believes gays are "queer" and said he won't allow them near his children." Does he deny calling them "queer"? No. He gives us a vocab lesson.

She remains adamant, so, I thought I needed more clarification.

Huh? According to the text of the article you site, the one which you claim needs to be read in its entirety, he did call them "queer". He calls them queer, exactly as the title indicates. Of course, he tried to explain it away as meaning "odd"...but he did call them queer.

I guess you could claim that the paper used his words to make it a bigger story than it really is. In fact, you and I probably agree that this is a non story. My opinion, however, is heavily influenced by the fact that I think Joe is a non-story. But, unless I'm mistaken, this is exactly what Mr. The Plumber wanted. He could have used 100 other more common terms. He didn't. He chose a term which has been twisted into a disparaging connotation.

So, one of three things is going on.
A. He's time traveled from sometime prior to 1940.
B. He's an idiot.
C. He's a media strumpet.

Hey, how 'bout that. I used my own ancient term. Regardless, while both B and C may be true, it's probable that "C" brought us to this particular story.

Did I have a stroke?

Am I missing something. The title of the post is "Joe the Plumber calls gays "queers".

She goes on to explain that the AP title is misleading. The title of the AP article is "Joe the Plumber calls gays 'queer'". He goes on to educate us on the dictionary definition of "queer"; "

"Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do - what man and woman are for."

Fair enough. I understand that to some, homosexuality is strange and unusual. But, he also tells us what he really thinks:

"I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

So, there's a couple things wrong here. The AP article never says he called homosexuals "queers"...not in the title and not in the text. Second, she claims "he is not gay bashing just saying it like it is." So, I had to comment:

Just a couple comments. The article doesn't say he called them "queers"...not in the title nor in the text. Your title is the only place it appears. There's a huge grammatical difference between calling someone "a queer" vs saying something or someone "is queer"...not to mention that the latter [Joe's explanation] is seldom used in today's vernacular. Oh, since Joe's reading the dictionary, he might also want to make note of the slang reference in most dictionary definitions...and possibly choose a different word. Unless, of course, he's simply looking for publicity. But, that doesn't sound like Joe.

As to whether he's "gay bashing"; I guess it depends on your definition of bashing. Indicating that you won't allow your children around an individual isn't exactly a term of endearment. If I said, "I don't believe people should be closed minded, fraudulent, media sponges. I wouldn't let my children around Joe", am I bashing Joe, or just "telling it like it is"

Good news!!!

I'm not dumb:

You are not dumb so you know the answer to your question. You are really quite obvious in the reasons for your questions. Not chasing that rabbit.

So, I submit my question...again:

I appreciate your confidence in my intelligence, but it's an honest question. What you wrote is very interesting and I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong. I've seen discussions about prioritizing protecting the rights of unborn children vs protecting the rights of convicted criminals. Others have pointed out that often conservatives are pro-life, except as it relates to criminals [ie many of them are pro-death penalty]. Both of those are valid arguments.

I just want to understand your argument. Are you saying that the constitution gives us permission to "torture people to death" if they have committed a crime?

Sometimes I can't help myself...

Whether it's spelling or hackery, once might be considered an unfortunate mistake, twice is a possible sign of ignorance.

Just a few things. First of all, environmentalist starts with an "E", not an "I".

Next; I didn't claim that all "all pro-life people are like him". When you re-read the comment, I'd like you to notice the word "might". This is just one more case where you take an otherwise very specific statement and claim that it's a very broad brush. Hence, the pattern I mentioned. If I were to say, quite a few houses in La Crosse are red. You'd claim, "P. thinks that every house in La Crosse is blue".

Lastly, regarding your assertion of what a "true American" is, please allow me to take a page from your playbook; Didn't Hitler try to convince the German people that the Jews weren't true Germans?

I'm nothing if not helpful...

I noted a little problem with her post about the President's birth certificate...other than the ridiculousness of it. The link doesn't work:

IS HE OR ISN'T HE THAT IS THE QUESTION

I ask again if Obama has nothing to HIDE then why doesn't he simply provide his official birth certificate. Why does he spend so much money to hide who he truly is if there is not problem. Talk about a a real illegitimate president. This is such a simple solution to the question is Obama a real "natural" born citizen or not. This is a law that needs to be added to the registration for candidate for any government position.

I thought she might appreciate my help.

Other than the worn out argument, I thought you might want to know that the link doesn't work.

Ewwwww....

I must say, I really do enjoy the back and forth with FreeAmerica. I think she's very genuine in her beliefs. Quite often she's horribly misinformed...in a humorous way. But every once in a while she's just plain disturbing. Here's one of those times:

The Constitution could not cover every single issue that could or had come up. It gave us the guidelines to be a free and independent people and freedom to live life and prosper as free human beings is very evident. Just like the Bible you can pick and choose ideas out of context to make it say anything you want it to. But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok.

We'd probably both agree that The Constitution is quite clear about torture. So why did she feel the need to qualify here statement. I thought that deserved further explanation:

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify something. Let me quote you, please: "But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok."

Why did you feel the need for that caveat [in bold]?

I admit that it's quite possible, given her writing "style" that I'm misunderstanding her. If she had left "unless they had committed a crime" out of that statement, it might have made sense. But...is she saying that she can find someplace in the constitution where it is ok to torture a a person to death if they "committed a crime"?

Am I the puppet master?

Once again, rather than just sticking to the thread of comments, she's decided it's a good idea to address my comments as a whole new post. I must really be getting to her. Granted, I have a whole blog dedicated to calling out her hackery...but I've never claimed it was anything else. Obviously, there are issues that she and I are not going to see eye to eye on. I know it's nearly fruitless to try to "discuss" issues with her. For someone who demands the comments on her blog be "aimed at issues and not the author or those who post the comments". She certainly does go out of her way to take very personal jabs at those who comment on her blog. Among other things, she's questioned my intelligence, questioned my humanity, and questioned my status as a "true American". So I felt it was neccesary to call her out:

I don't know where to start. Are there "environmental terrorists"? Without a doubt. Here's the thing that's interesting. The report discusses the possibility that disgruntled veterans may be targeted [key word] by fringe groups. It doesn't say they are terrorists. You know who does? You. I see a pattern of this behavior with you. Once again, I encourage you to stop propping up these straw men. It completely waters down any legitimate gripe you may have in the future.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you'd infer that I'm "inhuman" all while seemingly justifying the bombing of clinics. I doubt that you think it's a good idea to bomb clinics. As I stated in my blog, I respect your anti-abortion stance. Apparently, I shouldn't expect either of those same courtesies from you.

So, we come to her reply regarding "true Americans" and their views on abortion. Surprisingly, she admitted that she was mistaken in confusing the Declaration and the Constitution. This is fairly common. Given this, anyone who uses blogger understands that it's fairly simple to edit a post. Yet, she chooses to leave her mistake in tact. I also thought it might be a good idea to comment on U.S. History. Oh, and I still want to know what else denotes a "True American".

So you made a mistake and you don't edit your post to correct it? Trust me, I understand we can disagree on our facts, but it's crazy that even when we agree that you were wrong, you can't even bring yourself to correct the post.

I could be wrong, but I believe if you study the history of abortion laws in this country, it was widely practiced and generally legal until the mid 1800s in most states. Given that it was fairly common in colonial times, I find it interesting that the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution were so quiet about the issue...other than, of course, your assertion of the reference to "life" in the Declaration. Then again, they didn't give you the right to vote either. They didn't prohibit slavery.

Maybe guiding our action and making assumptions based on what a group of lawmakers didn't do centuries isn't such a good idea.

Lastly, I'd like to request a subject for a post. I'd like you to list the other opinions you believe I should have to be a "True American". Obviously, I should oppose abortion. What else?

"True Americans" and the Bill of Rights.

It should surprise no one that FreeAmerica is a staunch right to lifer. I can definitely respect that. But she said something I thought was interesting:

Well I am sorry but the Right to Life is in the Constitution Bill of Rights and true Americans believe in the Constitution and they believe in the right to life.

Now...I hate to be picky, but quite often liberals are accused of "interpreting" the constitution. Conservatives often use the "separation of church and state isn't in the constitution" argument. I've spent a little time studying the constitution and I don't remember seeing those words or anything that could be interpreted as such.

Lastly, this "true Americans" stuff is hard to stomach. It's funny that she has a blog called "Freedom to Speak" where she claims that only true Americans agree with her. So I thought a couple questions needed to be asked:

Just a couple questions:
-Exactly where in the Bill of Rights is the right to life?
-Since you seem to know what defines a "true American" could you list some of the other ways I should think in order to be a true American? The idea of a "true American" fascinates me.

Imagine if you will...

...my meaningless comments seem to be shaping her posts. But first, a little follow up. In her reply to my most recent comment, she maintains her "Hitler" theme. But, that was to be expected. She also ties my comments to her liberal media [including cspan...which really made me laugh]. But, that wasn't even the most interesting part. So, I give you my comments:

Sorry about the link. Here's the appropriate link to the January report. I realized after I posted my comment that it didn't work and fixed it on my blog. Happy to help. I'm sure after you read it that you'll agree that the Bush Administration thought that the ASPCA is a bunch of terrorists.

I'm not sure what "pro abortion groups with bumper stickers" or "those who support the gay movement" have to do with anything. But I can definitely see why it's a real stretch to imagine pro-life groups or homophobes might conduct any kind of terrorism.

Lastly, could you point me to anything in the DHS report or anything the President has said which "condemn's all military vets as terrorist’s [sic] wanabees"
P.

So, I dropped a little jab about the Walter Reed scandal. It was really part of a MUCH larger point, which apparently she missed because she cut and pasted a worldnetdaily.com that she thinks proves...well, I'm not sure what. So, without laughing at the irrelevancy of the report and the nature of the source, I found one other thing funny. Apparently she had the text from the report stashed away somewhere, but couldn't manage to find the link:

Sorry I don't have the URL so I will have to post it so you can be informed on who was involved in the "Rats in Walter Reed" episode.

So, I thought I'd offer a little help.

Let me help you. Here's the link to the story.

I found out about this thing called google.com. It's a web site where you can search for words and phrases on the internets. You type in a word or phrase into the little box on their web page and it travels through the tubes to a computer. That computer shoots back web pages where those words can be found. All I had to do was copy the first sentence of the story into that box and there the site was. Crazy.

It took my 5 seconds. But, I understand you're a busy woman.

She just can't help herself...

It's like she has Tourette's....only instead of swearing, she makes Hitler references.

He has had 100 days and with every other president if they hadn't succeeded in something their approval rating was way down but not the Hitler like Obama.

Read the history of the rise and fall of Hitler and see how Obama is following his mesmeric control over a nation. It is truly remarkable how close Obama follows Hitler's plan to become a world dictator and I think he is even improving Hitler's plan which began by making people hate a certain group of people, the Jews, which now is Christians and the elimination of the family into robot slaves following everything he says mindlessly.

The rest of the post is fairly typical of the right wing noise machine. However, I thought she had failed to notice a few key points about the issue of right wing organizations targeting veterans [see the report]. Besides the fact that the report doesn't say that veterans are terrorists, I think she's aiming her ire in the wrong direction:

You know what's interesting about this post? It's very reflective of what is coming out of the conservative noise machine. So, even though I had hoped for better from you than the Hitler comparisons, you aren't doing much worse. You can relish the fact that you're in the same league as Rush, Hannity, and Fox News. This is as good as they can do.

Regardless, I'll simply address one point. Regarding the "War Vets are terrorists" meme...Firstly, of course you understand that the the report you reference was commissioned during the Bush administration.

But, that wasn't the only one. The report, "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11" dated July 7, 2008 stated; "Military experience—ranging from failure at basic training to success in special operations forces—is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement. FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color. FBI cases also document instances of active duty military personnel having volunteered their professional resources to white supremacist causes."

So...why did the Bush Administration feel that veterans were terrorists? Maybe those are the ones they had sleeping with rats at Walter Reed.

Oh, and there was also that report in January which warned against left wing groups. I'm sure that one is just as alarming to you.

Is this twice now?

I could be wrong, but this is the 2nd time I've agreed with her...or almost, at least.

First, a little background: Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a no-win question by a jack-hole of a pageant judge, "Perez Hilton"...




...and to make matters worse, he posted this video after the pageant.



Now, FreeAmerica and I probably agree on some version of the following premise: Miss California shouldn't have been punished for honestly answering a question she was asked. She has every right to her opinion and to express it when asked for it. But, that's where our agreement ends. Like many other things, FreeAmerica has chosen to turn this into a freedom of religion/speech straw man [See: "War on Christmas"]. She just couldn't resist. I understand.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but comment:

I suppose, that if Miss California could prove that she lost the pageant based solely on her answer to that question, she might be able to make a case for religious discrimination. However, I see a few problems with that idea. First, she never mentioned her faith. She mentioned "in my country and in my family", so it would be hard to claim that they were using her religion against her...because she never mentioned it. A person could be opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons other than religion. Second, she was asked a question and allowed to give her answer. Some in the audience appreciated it, some didn't. Hilton obviously didn't. But, here's the catch; he too has the right to his opinion and to express it as he likes. No one is stopping either of them from expressing their opinion. In fact, I've seen some pretty harsh criticism of Hilton from liberals and conservatives. Simply disagreeing with someone, no matter how crass and/or cruel that disagreement may be, doesn't constitute an infringement of speech or religion. The more any group, Christians or otherwise, makes week claims like this, the more a "boy who cried wolf" scenario becomes likely. When your freedoms are really being threatened, no one will listen.

Tea-bagging leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Protest all you want. Inflate your numbers. Get Fox News on board to pump up the base. This is all part of the American quilt. However, I'd have a lot more respect for your tantrum had you not been silent about spending for the better part of the Bush years. Let's move on.

So FreeAmerica decided to either not read my latest comment, ignored it and commented anyway, or didn't understand it. I'm not sure and I won't speculate, but her response was a little weird. So, I had to explain something to her:

No. The headline they presented was a hook. It's a tool used by the media every day to reel in people who don't know any better or create a buzz. Unfortunately, you either fell for it or decided it worked for your agenda and ran with.

...or both. I'm not sure which is worse.

It's a little like when a guy like Glen Beck puts a picture of the President on the screen with something like, "Is he Satan?" below. Everyone knows the President isn't Satan. Glen Beck even know it...we hope. But, it's an effective hook nonetheless.
P.

In her newest post, she uses a stunt staged by out otherwise unemployable political hack John Ziegler to prove that the right is being silenced. She also links to the HSA report which discusses increased activity in right wing extremest groups. Here's the thing; I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But she has to understand one very important distinction.

We agree on one thing; USC probably should have handled Ziegler differently. But, understand one thing; This is not a free speech issue. John Ziegler was standing on the grounds of a private university. He was there for the sole purpose of, at best confronting those who were attending, at worst, heckling them. USC had no obligation to allow him to do so, let alone allow him on campus. It would be no different than me standing in your driveway calling you out for the stuff you put in your blog. Sure, I'd have some things to say, but would I have a constitutional right to be there.

No.

P.

Paper Tiger 2.0

We Christians are so beaten down, demoralized, and spat upon, that I can't believe I make it to church on Sunday. So, our friend FreeAmerica feels that this article claims that we are no longer a Christian nation. I felt it was neccesary to point out a very important part of the article which she missed:

While yes, the article does discuss a poll that claims "the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent", if you read past the title, it also states:
Let's be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants, led the ARIS authors to note that "these trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." With rising numbers of Hispanic immigrants bolstering the Roman Catholic Church in America, and given the popularity of Pentecostalism, a rapidly growing Christian milieu in the United States and globally, there is no doubt that the nation remains vibrantly religious—far more so, for instance, than Europe.

P.

But there's a whole other piece to this. To me, there's a difference between being a nation of [overwhelmingly] Christians and being a "Christian Nation". While the numbers don't lie, I don't believe we are the latter. But this stems from my larger support for the principle of separation. , I'm guessing this would be in the top 10 glaring differences between me and FreeAmerica.

Also, if you ask the question, "Are we a Christian Nation?", it has very different meanings depending on the person. The aforementioned connotation is just one. A wingnut evangelical might claim we aren't after the election of President Obama...simply due to the utter depression they that has overcome them since the election [See: Right America: Feeling Wronged].

But, when you're trying to prop up the straw man that Christians are being persecuted [ala the war on Christmas], none of these nuances are important to you. You simply need to make yourself a victim. Otherwise, you won't be able to scare your constituency into voting against something or someone, regardless of how ridiculous the alternative may be.

I'm an Obamaniac

...and I didn't even know it. This is the problem with people who like to regurgitate talking points, spread innuendo, or half-cocked ideas; If you point out inaccuracies you are wholeheartedly for "the other side".

It is your "tone" I don't like. If you want to say that you believe Obama's policies are great and discuss why you believe so that is fine when you take what I say and throw bits and pieces back at me that is not dialog.

Again, I give credit where credit is due; FreeAmerica is publishing my comments, even though she said she wasn't even going to read them...

Why would I say I believe Obama's policies are great? That would be silly. I don't feel that way. In fact, I typically don't feel I'm smart enough to really know. I am, however, smart enough to do a little research and detect blatant, or possibly ignorant, misinformation. Putting information out there that is so far from the overwhelming evidence, is sad if it wasn't so darn funny sometimes. So, in that respect, you're right, I don't throw a lot of my own opinion into my comments.

On the flip side, if you feel strongly enough about your opinions and you feel they are backed by fact, you should be strong enough to be told you are wrong. You should welcome it as debate.

P.

I feel very important...

Two very important developments; First, she's decided she's no longer going to post my comments. In fact, she might not even read my posts. I think the funniest thing about this is that she's alienating the one of the few, if not the only reader she has. Not sure what that proves, but hey, it's her blog.

...and this is mine.

The second thing is that she finally admitted she was wrong. In her original blog, she tells us that the President has sold out to foreign governments.

This is an "I told you so" moment. We were a sovereign nation who took our own council on how to conduct our business but now we are ordered by vice president of the Philippines as to how we may proceed, and if our U.S. Citizen dies in the process so what, Americans deserve to die.

The next day she takes a different tone...but in her other blog.

I am very happy that President Obama said to heck with the U.N. and allowed the Navy Seals to do their jobs. I feel for the moment anyway much better. President Obama has acted like a President of a Sovereign Nation which I have to admit I never felt would happen.

Ok, may be she did admit being just a little bit wrong...

Nonetheless, I thought logic was important in at this moment. Herein lies the comment:

That's your proverbial straw? Really. I quote you and that's what pushes you over the edge? Let me see if I follow you. You have an unbelievably small number of readers [one that I've noticed], and you choose to alienate that reader. You would rather turn a reader away, simply because, at best you disagree with his/her opinion, at worst you don't like his/her tone.

It's your blog. Do whatever you feel is right.

P.

Here's a little known fact...

I first came across our friend, FreeAmerica last year when she started posting at the WIZM Forum page under the pseudonym, freedom44. The thing about well run forum and is that it can be a very good place to exchange ideas, disagree, and even get a little petulant from time to time [present company included]. WIZM is one of those forums. But, it isn't a place for someone who can't deal with being told they are wrong.

If you look at her posts on that forum, you'll note something that also rings true with her blogs: Unbelievably wacky content rarely supported by facts. She hasn't been around there much lately. I'm fairly convinced it's why she started her blog life. She can only exist in a world where she gets to control when and how she's told she's wrong. She can repeatedly insult a person's intelligence, but refuse any retort to the contrary.

She's developing a habit...or should we call it a "tick". Her latest post, written to me personally, is an example of all of the above. If she doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps she's willing to listen to her own. My comments:

You obviously have a problem with my words. Since you also have problem with our democratically elected President and legislature, perhaps you'd prefer your own words:

"It is a sad day today to see that we are no longer a free country to make the laws that we people feel are right. If you don't like the laws that we the people of the United States Of American decide on then go somewhere else, I suggest France or England, there is a place in this world for everyone the whole world doesn't have to be the same"

I wonder if you're considering your own advice.

This is crazy...even for her.

But, I'm confident it isn't the limit of her nuttiness. Take a look...

I wonder if Obama could have orchestrated this confrontation to show he could handle a crisis and agreed in advance to pay off the terrorists or arranged ahead of time to have a conversation with the terrorists who would realise what a wonderful man he is then miraculously let the hostage go. Which would show the country that he could handle a crisis. All of this contrived ahead of time with the terrorists who he could have paid off in advance.

Since the utter ridiculousness of this post speaks for itself, here's my comment:

This is no different than the crazies who thought Fmr. President Bush orchestrated 9/11.

Once again, you're welcome for the plug.

Who didn't see this coming?

...but I have a feeling that title is going to sound like a broken record after a while. Predictably, she's hopped on the "Obama Bowed" bandwagon...and used the word "obeisance". With the latter, I must say I'm impressed. With the former, I'm amused.

I have absolutely no idea what he's doing. In fact, I can see why some might see it as a bow. It may actually be. But, on the list of things that my President can do that would make me lose confidence in him, this is number 1,236,865. Right after lying about getting a hummer from an intern. Surprisingly, I agree with Power Line, that the only real issue here is that the White House feels the need to give a ridiculous explanation of a "two handed handshake" or the President's height.

Regardless, I defer to Tommy Christopher on this issue [minus the dirty words]:

You wanna know what is a national embarrassment? The way the republicans have played politics with our national economic crisis, refusing to support the stimulus even after the Democrats made enormous cuts and concessions, refusing to support the President’s budget (along with the Gang of 15 a#%holes), presenting a joke budget of their own, wasting time in the House knocking freshmen’s books out of their hands, and drawing little yellow circles on Youtube screencaps to try and embarrass our President in the eyes of the world.

I say, enough! Off to the re-education camps with all of them!

There’s a big difference between principled opposition and just being a dick.

Heck. The Saudis have had us bent over for quite some time now...pimped out by BushCo. I suppose facing them during it is a step up. At least in that position we can do a little damage.

GREAT NEWS!!!

As if my life wasn't full enough, she's started another blog; Global Warming-The Other Side of the Story. Apparently, the lovely and talented FreeAmerica feels that the level of hackery was falling dangerously low in the field of Global Warming/Climate Change. Now she's going to enlighten us with her [sarcasm] well reasoned, thoroughly researched opinions on the topic. I can't wait!! [/sarcasm] I did drop her a comment on her first post:

Your welcome, for the plug

Yes, I do realize the irony of that comment, given that I managed to plug my own blog.

On a slightly different note, last night Jon Stewart pretty much summed up my thoughts on the right's new found outrage over "tyranny". "It's supposed to taste like a sh$% taco" just about made me fall out of my chair.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Karma is vicious...

Remember when she claimed that I couldn't read. Well, let's take a look at her latest:

North Korea test is successful

Again as I said Security Council will do nothing because there is nothing they can do. We need to keep Obama and the Congress from making us vulnerable.

2000 mile missile range could hit Alaska.

Again, I should be impressed that she's providing "sources". Ok, it's Newsmax, but she's linking to something. I'm proud of her. Unfortunately, she missed one minor detail. If you actually read the story...

Even more ominously, David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Times that the missile developed by North Korea — which has already tested a nuclear device — could eventually deliver a 2,000-pound warhead a distance of some 3,700 miles, far enough to reach parts of Alaska. And in Iranian hands it would place all of Europe under the threat of a missile attack from the Islamic Republic, which is widely believed to be seeking to develop nuclear weapons. [Emphasis added]

Again, I understand it's nit picky...but those who throw rocks, bla bla bla. So...here's my comment:

Wait...how far is North Korea from Alaska?

P.

Update 4/7/08: Ask a direct question, get a rambling answer:

I am sure they knew we were watching do you think they would let us know all they can do? And with China helping out along with Iran what is the possibility that this was a little short of it's target to keep us sleeping as to the danger? This is why America is so vulnerable we think we can not be touched.

So I asked the same question again.

Update 4/8/09: Ask that question again...and wait. To her credit, she continues to post my comments on this post. But, for some reason, she doesn't answer it. I guess we'll never know the truth.

She's beginning to show improvement...

I've seen it in some posts, but she's obviously figured out how to to post links and occasionally site sources...even if they usually are Foxnews.com or worse. She also fails to post a later story which highlights the fact that, when utilizing diplomacy, patience is important.

Diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia and China -- plus Japan were meeting Monday afternoon to discuss future steps. A U.S. official traveling with President Obama said the permanent member nations and Japan met privately late Sunday after the Security Council adjourned and are reconvening after diplomats from these nations run their discussion by their governments.

"We are making decent progress," the official said. "But this is going to take days. Nothing is going to be resolved today or tomorrow."

If there's one thing the lead-up to the Iraq war taught us, it's that neo-cons and their ilk have neither the patience nor the subtlety which diplomacy requires. In fact, as you can plainly see from her post, they view it as a weakness.

My comment merely contained the above quote.

Straight out of the hackery playbook

When you disagree with a theory, when you disagree with a strategy, or when you disagree with a plan, rather than debating it's merits, claim that it isn't there.

Ambassador Rice today on ABC news said absolutely nothing to every question. Where is the transparency that Obama was supposed to have in his administration. Asked about 10 times what was the U.S going to do about North Korea,s launch of a nuclear missile. She keep saying that "we are conferring with our allies, Russia, China and Japan. We need a plan and this administration is stupid and trembling and we know that nothing will be done.

One thing that has amused me in the "War on Terror" [© Bushco], and now, our financial catastrophe, is watching politicians point fingers at each other. But, that's rule #1 in the hackery playbook; "Find blame and divert it". Democrats are all too willing to point the finger at Fmr. President Bush for 9/11. However, any idiot knows that something like that operation doesn't happen over night. Probably longer than 9 months. Now, we have Republicans anxious to forget 6 years of Republican rule leading up to our financial collaps. Fortunately for us, the lovely FreeAmerica is no different. She would love to point the finger at Obama for N. Korea launching its most recent missile. However, a 17 year old physics student knows that it takes a lot longer than 60 days to arrange a missile test. That same high school student could also read the transcript and understand what the administrations plan is.

As a side bar, it just has to be tearing her apart inside to see the President and First Lady getting so much love in Europe. Jealousy and dogmatic pride is an ugly ugly mixture.

And the comment is...

Simply disagreeing with a plan does not make the plan magically disappear. You may disagree with dealing with the problem through the UN. You may disagree with utilizing diplomacy, multilateral or otherwise. You may believe that another UN resolution would be useless. It is, however, a plan. It is, however, a change from the previous administration. Diplomacy is, as you've noted, exactly what the President campaigned on. It is, among other things, what the American people voted for.

P.

That's twice now..

...that she's had posts directed at me. The weird part is that, since she publishes so few of my comments, the average person who stumbles across her blog will never know who the heck she's referring to. Then again,readability has never been a priority for Free America, as is once again displayed by her insistence upon questioning Obama's birth certificate . Only the nuttiest of the wing nuts are perpetuating this myth...but that doesn't stop our friend. She trudges on:

All I require is for Obama to show a legal birth certificate. A certificate of live birth is not enough, I know he was born alive because I watch him destroy America one freedom at a time.

Again, I refer to factcheck.org which has twice refuted this hackery. In fact, while discussing the discovery of a birth announcement in the Honalulu Advertiser, they close with this little gem.

Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear:
Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.

So, I give you my comments...

Of course your question is permitted. That doesn't mean it hasn't been addressed. FactCheck.org cleared up this issue and even tied in more evidence than you're asking
for. They even discussed the process by which a birth certificate is obtained in Hawaii. I'm fairly certain this won't be enough for you, but it's only fair to mention.

Why do I feel like I'm being baited?

In her latest post, Ms. FreeAmerica continues her all to predictable "Obama is a Muslim" line. This time, she's thrown us a little curve ball by appearing to have a little knowledge about Islam. Heck, she even threw in a link to an outside "source".

Does Obama have a Muslim past and why does it matter? Muslims are suggesting that Sharia "Koran Law" be added to our Constitutional law and practiced side by side. Sharia law uses public beatings, decapitation, limb removal and other very unacceptable punishments, is this what Americans want in our country?

I can't be positive, but I think I know where she's getting this from. Rather than me trying to explain where she got this latest reason to don her tin foil hat, I'll let Fox News "do the talkin' for me".

ALISYN CAMEROTA (Fox anchor): The White House is defending its nominee to be State Department Legal Adviser. Now, some of the criticism of this nominee, Harold Koh, is based on remarks that he reportedly made saying that Islamic Sharia law should apply in U.S. courts, even though those laws are used in some countries to justify stripping women of basic rights and even worse, frankly.
...
He reportedly back in 2007 told the Yale Club in Greenwich, Connecticut, that, quote, “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why Sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” What might that appropriate case be?

There's a great piece in Slate that takes this little piece of hackery apart at the seams:

The New York Post today published a letter from Robin Reeves Zorthian, who actually organized the Yale Club dinner to which Stein refers. In that letter, Zorthian writes that "the account given by Steve Stein of Dean Koh's comments is totally fictitious and inaccurate" and that she, her husband, "and several fellow alumni ... are all adamant that Koh never said or suggested that sharia law could be used to govern cases in US courts." Why should we believe her and her colleagues over Stein? Well, for one thing, Koh in all his academic articles and many public statements has never said anything to suggest some dogged fealty to sharia. But the right-wing blogs have yet to take note of Zorthian's version of events; the sharia fable is chuffing along on its own steam now; and Fox can continue to pass along Stein's account of the story in a breathless game of sky-is-falling telephone. [Emphasis Added]

Since I've already tried to get her off the "Obama is a Muslim" bandwagon by reminding her that it really just makes her look crazy [which, to her credit, she published], I thought I'd keep my comments simple this time:

I can't be positive where you're going with this, but I'm begging you to do a little research before you go any further. Just in case you don't want to, I've given you a little start here.

Let's face it, anytime you can be compared to the "He's an Arab" lady and you don't even flinch, you need help. I'm just trying to pull her back from the edge.

Dang! It's like I'm Karnak. Where's my envelopes?

Well, I'm claiming 1 1/2 correct in my predictions. And, I have confidence that FreeAmerica will fulfill the other predictions soon.

G20, Obama turns over the United States to Europe

I don't have the time right now to give info to those who didn't watch or listen to the G20 meetings and the results that have taken away the sovereignty of America but Obama has allowed foreign nations the right to oversee our economic doings in the United States. The liberals are rejoicing over the European takeover of America without one shot fired Obama gave it to them making the G20 a grand success for the world but bad for every American citizen. You were warned about the one world government, Christians and all who voted for Obama, it has now happened. I know that China, Russia and Iran are very concerned with the citizens of America's well being so we will be well taken care of! George Washington and our founding fathers sure wasted their time trying to make us a free nation because we gave our freedom away at the last election. Especially as Obama stole the election through fraud and corruption. Obama is not a natural born American therefore does not have the right to be president and the only reason he is sitting in the presidents chair is because of the corruption of Acorn his right hand "man". He can't talk he stumbles like an idiot, he is Muslim and has Muslim interests being his first priority, and he hates America and the Capitalist system. He also resents the Constitution and ignores it like it isn't there. Just keep watching folks as the country is changed and we are helpless to stop it but I guess that is what you want, you voted for him, Pelosi, Reid and Barny Frank. Enjoy your loss of Freedom. [Emphasis added]

I'm giving myself 50% credit for the Global Currency prediction. I'll also admit that the Muslim hackery was like shooting fish in a barrel...but it's my blog. Here's the comment I submitted:

All the other straw men aside, I can't help but look back to the confused looking woman who told John McCain, "He's an Arab". Personally, I felt sorry for her. Thankfully, McCain wouldn't even let her proceed. Why? Well, one could assume that it was because he new it was bad for his campain. But, I'm fairly certain that he's smart enough to know that there isn't an ounce of truth to that. But, in the end, it's a good thing for her that he took the mic away from her. If he had let her continue, it would have only made her look more crazy.

I'm getting bored...

...but that happens fairly easily when it comes to political hackery, or in this case, the lack thereof. So, I thought I'd start a list of predictions as to what straw man our friend, FreeAmerica will prop up next. Feel free to add your own odds:

• Global Currency
• H.R. 1388 (GIVE Act) will force people to volunteer and prohibit volunteers from attending church
• Green Economy legislation is going to cost families $3100 a year.
• The all encompassing "Obama is a Socialist, baby hating, muslim, terrorist who is going send the U.S. into the dark ages". I feel like I'm missing something.
  

Ok, this one's just plain funny...

Where do I start...?

Obama Reaches Across the Isle

Obama is ready to overturn 200 of President Bush’s executive orders. Reaching across the isle? What a lie. Obama the Puppet King for the United Nations and the European Nations has no intention of reaching across the isle and instead is slapping the Republicans stupid enough to believe a word the liar had to say. He agrees with murdering the most innocent of children; the preborn, any moral law to keep babies from being murdered will be overturned. Any Christian cases that come up will be adjudicated against Christian rights while any Muslims ones will become law. Obama is not a Muslim? Watch and see.

I'm no genius. I've never won a spelling or grammar bee. But, the first time I read this post, had a little chuckle. Not only does she believe Obama is a super double secret Muslim, she thinks he claimed to have super long arms which can reach across a small island. Since Ms. FreeAmerica thought we needed definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary to get on board the "Obama is a Socialist" bandwagon, I thought a few other definitions might be helpful:

• Aisle= NOUN: 1. A part of a church divided laterally from the nave by a row of pillars or columns. 2. A passageway between rows of seats, as in an auditorium or an airplane. 3. A passageway for inside traffic, as in a department store, warehouse, or supermarket

• Isle= NOUN: abbr. I. An island, especially a small one.

Yes. I realize it's petty. But, when you accuse me of being unable to read, you kind of open the door. And, let's face it. Given the quality of writing we're talking about here, I think I'm being fairly restrained.

To be fair...

...there are things that Ms. FreeAmerica and I do agree on. I too believe that a fairness doctrine is a bad idea. I, however, don't spend time worrying about it or firing off pointless emails to legislators hoping to squash this threat. Why? Well, first of all, I'm fairly certain that, although some lawmakers may give it lip service, it doesn't stand a chance of getting through both houses. Second, no matter how much she wants us to believe it, President Obama isn't interested in reinstating it.

President Barack Obama, however, isn't lining up with Durbin, Pelosi, et al on this matter. Last June, the press secretary for his Senate office told a reporter for Broadcasting & Cable in an e-mail that Obama "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters." The aide, Michael Ortiz, also wrote:

Ortiz: [Obama] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

All of the other issues mentioned by Ortiz are controversial in their own right, but none of them are functional equivalents of the fairness doctrine from days of yore.

And last month, an Obama spokesman told FoxNews.com that the president wasn't interested in reviving the fairness doctrine. "As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,"

You see, it's like this; I'm also opposed to mindlessly investigating legislators or any other US citizens for being "Anti-American". I, however, am not going to start a crusade against the formation of a House Un-American Activities Committee.

Get ready to get your Kevin Bacon on...

Our friend over at Freedom to Speak likes to draw parallels and tie issues, events and people together. In very short order, she's made ACORN responsible for death threats toward AIG execs. She's also made Obama a Nazi.

According to FreeAmerica

• ACORN funds the Working Families Party
• Working Families Party organized the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous" bus tour.
• The tour included the homes of wealthy people
• These wealthy people are receiving death threats
• Therefore, ACORN is delivering killers to the homes of executives.

As if that wasn't funny enough, she decides to use the last resort of political hackery: The Nazi Card.

• Obama gave "billions" to ACORN
• ACORN hates rich people [see above]
  
• Hitler hated rich people...well, the Jewish ones, at least.
• Therefore, Obama is a Nazi [or at least very much like one]

I've got one for you...

• New York Post is publishing pics and names of execs who received bonuses
• New York Post is owned by News Corp.
• News Corp's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch
• News Corp also runs Fox News
• Therefore Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and the New York Post are all encouraging violence toward execs.

Ok, I admit it. I could have made just the one connection in one step, but why not bring all of them into the mix...just for fun.

An excellent example:

Although I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that my comments on this post never got published. From her post "Obama the Monster":

He also signed into law the right of the government to decide whether or not senior citizens will be allowed to have certain health procedures done based on how much longer they may live. A panel will be set up and if you are elderly and say you have cancer and you need chemotherapy or radiation therapy this panel can tell the Dr. that the procedure is too expensive for the amount of life you have left.

First, you'll notice that she offers no source for this information. This is a fairly common occurrence, so let's to a little for her. Actually, this was a fairly easy one. A quick peek at Factcheck.org tells us :

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia says the measure creates "a national health care rationing board." Not true. What it creates is a council to coordinate research into which treatments work best, and are most effective for the money. And in fact, the new law states quite specifically that the council has no power to "mandate coverage" and that its recommendations are not to be construed as "clinical guidelines for ... treatment."

You'll note from my last post that our friend questions my sources. Hey, if factcheck.org is good enough for Cheney, it's good enough for me.

A logical start to the hillarity...

Just to solidify the premise: from "Where's the Change":

Personal to P

Please read my conditions for comments. You don't seem to be able to read as I clearly stated my conditions for publications of comments. Personal attacks are not allowed so I will not publish your comments unless you are able to stick to issues. I am not interested in the places you go to get your information I have found them to be terribly inaccurate and that is the reason for my blog so I can get people to look at what they see around them not the half truths and lies in so many blogs and articles. Stop the personal remarks and if I find your comments interesting whether I agree or not I will post them.

First of all, am I the only one who finds it funny that she isn't posting my comments because, among other reasons, they are personal attacks...right after she questions my ability to read? Since, "FreeAmerica" believes in censoring the comments in her blog, here's the comment I submitted.

Personal attacks? You call questioning your research [or lack thereof] a personal attack? That's just sad. I feel bad that you actually think my comments have been personal "attacks". I can understand taking them personally if you're afraid of being questioned; which, given the fact that you've actually devoted two posts to my comments rather than actually disputing them, it seems that may be true.

Lastly, I find it funny that you would question the nature of my sources when, in 11 posts of this blog you've cited 3 whole sources and two of them our conservative web sites...neither fair, nor balanced...and proud of it. Unfortunately, I get the distinct sense that it's not so much that I'm "attacking" you, it's that you just don't like that there are news sources out there that completely dispute many of the things you've posted.

I don't expect you to publish this, but rest assured, I'm sure you're a fine person. Just because I question your politics, your research, or even your writing skills, doesn't mean I'm personally attacking you. I'd just like to see you use a little more research and occasionally cite it. I don't think that's too much to ask, nor is it a personal attack.

From here on out, I'll try to limit my posts to commenting on the content of these two fine blogs...but I can't make any promises.