Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

0 posted 2009-04-12 09:25 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=player_embedded

They can't be called 'brown shirts' for obvious reasons. So what should we call them?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94373

"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

He cited the Hitler Youth's launch in the 1920s. In 1933, the participants totaled 100,000, and in 1939 the membership was compulsory for those over 17. Two years later, the membership was compulsory for those over 10, and it included 90 percent of the nation's youth.
http://www.allamericanblogger.com/6886/hr-1388-or-the-obama-youth-brigade-bill-update/

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

1 posted 2009-04-12 09:44 AM

Denise,

I’m a little reluctant to jump in with an uniformed comment based on a couple of biased blogs.

Can you post a link to the bill itself highlighting the relevant sections regarding the creation of a “Hitler Youth” type organisation so that I can read and digest it before commenting?

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (04-12-2009 11:56 AM).]

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

2 posted 2009-04-12 09:46 AM

The relevent sections are highlighted in the American Blog post, word for word.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

3 posted 2009-04-12 09:52 AM

Maybe we can call them the 'blue shirts' or the 'camouflage pants'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE&feature=player_embedded

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

4 posted 2009-04-12 09:55 AM

I’d prefer to read them in context, out of context sound bites selected by biased sources aren’t reliable enough to form an opinion.

I presumed you'd have read the bill and had a link handy.

I’ll dig out the bill myself when I have 5 minutes.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (04-12-2009 11:57 AM).]

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

5 posted 2009-04-12 10:03 AM

Here you go:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

6 posted 2009-04-12 10:19 AM

Thanks Denise.

I already found and bookmarked it. It’s a BIG bill and at first glance includes a lot of amendments to existing legislation that I‘ll need to dig out. It’s going to take me a while to digest it all but I’ll work through it and come back when I’ve finished - that may be a while though.

What were your initial impressions after you read it?

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

7 posted 2009-04-12 11:03 AM

Fear.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

8 posted 2009-04-12 11:43 AM

I’m up to page 35 Denise.

So far I’ve found nothing to fear, it sounds like a cross between the girl guides, the scouts, the peace corps. and a community service scheme I took part in during the 70‘s. No mention so far of uniforms, guns and jackboots but I’ll keep you posted.

One interesting part is the payments towards further education the participants receive $500 - $750 per term - that sounds like a good idea. Another is that any placements under the scheme cannot be made where such a placement would negate the need of a full time employee - a fancy way of saying that placements aren’t to be used as cheap labour. That was one of my worries when I first heard of the idea, we’ve had a couple of similar initiatives over here in the UK that failed in that regard.

I'll have to continue this tomorrow, I'm halfway through mowing the lawn and preparing a vegetable patch for planting.

Interesting stuff though.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

9 posted 2009-04-13 09:20 PM

     I am, as a matter of principle, afraid, very afraid, Denise.  But I'm a touch unclear what I'm supposed to be upset about here.  The peace Corps or Volunteers in Service to America or the Civilian Conservation Corps, weren't they all attempts to put people to work?  There have been lots of programs that have made me nervous, though I confess many of them have been parochial in nature.  Even the Young Republicans give me the Willies.  I'm not a joiner.

     Who's excluded from this organization, Whites, Jews, African Americans, Asians, Muslims, Janes, Hindus, who's supposed to be the folks that this organization is targeted against?  What values are they supposed to be for and which are they trying to suppress?

     And wasn't I being told just a few months ago that I had to beware of attempts to frighten me or to make me think that things were terrible by the government?  (I already thought things were terrible in the economy and with much of our government policy.  Nobody had to tell me!)  But now I'm supposed to listen to the opposite message by the people who told me that there was nothing to be frightened about almost literally last month?

     I can see that situations change and that new responses may be necessary, but I'd like to know which is the stuff of which we are still supposed to be Unafraid! Very Unafraid!  I'd also like to know why there seems to be no attempt on the part of the right wing to offer some sort of an overall perspective of things —  this seems generally okay, which this seems awful, while this other sector seems to need some improvement.  I've gotten a bit weary running from one place to another at each renewed cry from the right that something else is wrong, while the effects of last week's crisis seem to have been forgotten.

     I for one don't think the financial crisis is over, yet the cry of despair from the Right seems to have subsided as the first news of some sort of economic upsurge seems to have found its way into the press.  We must still find a way of dealing with debt — no matter where it came from, at this point — and managing the problems that servicing that debt has occasioned.  Responsible economic policy may not be simple and may cost a lot of time and money as well as energy.  It certainly should, it did a bad enough number on the economy to begin with.

     Come on, Right wing guys, how about an over-all focus instead of running from crisis to crisis until it really begins to sound like repeated cries of WOLF.  It may very well not be cries of wolf, but unless the Right Wing shows some focus, how are the rest of us going to be able to tell the difference?

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

10 posted 2009-04-13 11:06 PM

These issues are concerning to me Bob:

quote:
The latest version includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "has successfully completed training" and "complete not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."

It also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.

For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."

{that may be one way to separate folks from clinging to their religion...just ban it!}

But probably the biggest red flag for many is how the proposal fits into the overall picture painted by President Obama when he described to a Colorado Springs audience a "National Civilian Security Force" that he wants as big and well-funded as the U.S. military – a staggering suggestion that would involve hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.

Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal.

Judi McLeod wrote for Canada Free Press that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.

"Everybody means the roughly seven million people called to public duty in the $6 billion National Service effort," she said. "But members pressed into the service of the one million-strong Youth Brigade, sanctioned by 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE),' will have none of the freedoms of the community organizer who started it all.

"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."

She also describes one section with a program to introduce "service learning" as "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

The plan suggests raising the participation in such programs from 75,000 now to 250,000.

Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94373

And this, which was originally part of HB1388, was removed and put in HB 1444, as referenced in the above article:

quote:

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1444:

It is quite possible that it could be merged in with the original either as an amendment or during some committee or sub-committee meeting and everything that is voluntary would be mandatory. And that would violate the 13th Amendment to the Constitution:

quote:

Section 1:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Notice, Congress has the power to enforce it, not circumvent or ignore it.

Perhaps what you are seeing as a lack of focus, Bob, are watchdog groups and opponents trying to keep pace with Congress as it works fast and furious, throwing evrything out there almost simultaneously, hardly giving anyone a chance to catch their breath. And I'm sure that's intentional.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

11 posted 2009-04-14 01:45 AM

Dear Denise,

          Thank you for your response.

     You may have noted that by far the largest section of that response came as a quote or a series of quotes from Worldnetdaily.com.  You might also note that this piece did not even pretend to be fair or impartial, introducing sections of text with tags like, the worst possible outcome might be — and then following up with their somewhat interesting scenario without alternative or probabilities offered.  Their thesis is that President Obama is bad, his intentions are evil, and here is the latest evidence that we think proves it, without any attempt to suggest that we are slanting the data or to look at any other possible sources than those that support the thesis.

     This is not journalism; indeed, it borders on fiction except that most fiction would offer the pretense of at least some shadow of another point of view.  This does not.

     The link to direct information on the legislation will take me time to study, since it offers objective data that must be considered with as much objectivity as I can muster.

     Thank you for your efforts here.  I do appreciate the time you put in.

     Source material need not be right wing or left wing, it can make a very good effort to be objective within fair limits, even if a magazine does have some political bias, such as The Economist, a personal favorite, which has a fairly well established right wing bias.  Nevertheless, it makes a very good effort to get its facts straight.  The Christian Science Monitor, which has a Religious bias, still makes an excellent effort to research and verify its facts; and while I may disagree with their interpretations at time, I have seldom if ever had cause to doubt their information.

     All my best, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

12 posted 2009-04-15 02:16 PM

Well it took a while but I finally got around to reading the whole bill and a fair amount of the associated legislation that’ll be amended.

I didn’t find anything to be afraid about Denise, there’s certainly no mention of creating a military force along the lines of the Hitler Youth. In fact most of the things you seem to believe we should be afraid of aren’t actually in the bill at all, or are simply gross a misreading or just plain misrepresentations of what is in it.

Take this for example:

quote:
For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."

This doesn’t stop the participants (kids) from doing any of the things mentioned - it stops unscrupulous “approved national service providers” (the organisers and co-ordinators) from foisting their belief’s on the kids under the banner of the scheme.

It’s there to stop someone with ideas about resurrecting the Hitler Youth from hijacking the scheme to do it.

.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

13 posted 2009-04-18 08:33 PM

Grinch, it is everything taken together that causes concern: Obama's stated desire to implement a Civilian National Security Force, as shown in the video that I provided a link to, along with this legislation, and the attempts to make civilian service mandatory by commissioning a study on the feasibility of, and ways to implement mandatory service, which originally was in this bill, but was then removed and placed in another bill, HR 1444:

quote:
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1444:

Now the administration is floating the baloon of government bailouts for the failing news industry and government licensing. What’s that called, government controlled media? I guess they need to ensure that their lapdogs stay well-fed! And once the door to government licensing of bailed-out media is opened, it would seem to me to be a small step from there to require all media to be licensed by the government, just like Tim Geitner wants Congress to grant him broad authority to take over businesses who haven't even taken bailout money. I wonder if Fox, WND, WSJ, and other conservative media would even be able to get a license?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/obama-appointee-suggests-radical-plan-newspaper-bailout/

I’m glad to see some Bipartisan Congressional outrage over the blatant political profiling in the latest Department of Homeland Security memo that went to all State and Local law enforcement agencies.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95317

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html

I won’t apologize for using conservative news sources for my information. I get my news from where it can be found.

And what a privilege it was today to stand with others at The Philadelphia Tea Party II, (the first was held on Wednesday, Tax Day, at Love Park across from City Hall) concerned about this out-of-control, power-hungry Administration and Congress across the square from, and within eyesite of, Independence Hall, where our founders took a stand against tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We got lazy and took our freedoms for granted. But it's not too late to take a stand to defend them.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

14 posted 2009-04-18 09:02 PM

Here is a video that I thought was well done and to the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s&feature=player_embedded

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

15 posted 2009-04-18 09:40 PM

quote:
Grinch, it is everything taken together that causes concern

I’m not sure what you mean by “everything taken together” Denise, your original post was about a bill that was allegedly designed to create something akin to the Hitler Youth.

I read the whole bill Denise and couldn’t find a single thing that suggested that anyone was trying to build a teenage fourth Reich in fact I found evidence that the exact opposite was true. What you seem to be suggesting is that I should ignore what I found and base my judgement on other, totally unconnected, claims. I think that they should be looked at separately, not lumped together as if the supposed validity of one claim somehow proved the validity of another.

If a man shoots his wife you don’t hang him because he kicked his dog and slapped a baby – you try to prove that he killed his wife. If you find that he didn’t you try to prove that he slapped a baby and if you find that he didn’t you set out to prove he kicked the dog. Each is a separate claim; the validity of one should add no weight to the validity of the others.

quote:
I get my news from where it can be found.

Me too, I just try to verify that it’s true before I believe it. In this case that was pretty easy to do, the bill that the news article relates to is in the public domain. I simply read it and compared the claim put forward in the article with what was written in the bill and judged that the article was incorrect.

I did the same with the data security article, which I also found to be incorrect. I didn’t lump both claims together, I judged each separately because that’s the only way that makes sense to me given that they are two independent and distinct claims.

.

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

16 posted 2009-04-18 10:00 PM

Denise,

I don’t want you to “shut up”, just the opposite.

There are so many inaccuracies in that video it’ll probably take a few weeks to discuss them, but I’m more than happy to do so. Each claim would have to be looked at independently of course.

Here’s a good place to start:

For the past 50 years European countries have followed the policies of soft socialism and because of that they’ve lost their former power and greatness and are now fit for nothing but to be overthrown by the violent, intolerant Islamist invader within.

Do you think that’s true Denise and if so why, what evidence is there that supports the claim?

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

17 posted 2009-04-19 06:19 AM

Dear Denise,

          At no point did I criticize your use of conservative sources to find sources.   I criticized the nature of the particular conservative news sources you used, which made a point of actually saying they were showing the worst possible scenario and no other.  They did not portray the facts with even an attempt at objectivity, and yet you were trying to pass their information off as the truth.  I did not criticize conservative new sources, I criticized this particular conservative news source as playing it fast and loose with the truth.

     I then suggested a highly reputable conservative news source which makes a point of getting it's research ducks lined up in a row.  I may sputter and bluster at their facts, and I may try to find facts to rebutt them, but I do not believe them to be distorting the truth.  I have never seen them do so.

     My quarrel is not with the politics of facts.  My interest is in the reliability of the facts, and their verifiability.  The ones you referenced could not be confirmed.

Denise:

quote:

Now the administration is floating the baloon of government bailouts for the failing news industry and government licensing.

     The final column of a newspaper columnist who works Freelance for the LA Times and who has not yet taken a job for the Defense Department may be The Administration in your book.  I would need to have the reasoning for the explained to me, however.  She has not taken any Government money that I know of.  She is expressing a private opinion.  The job is in the Defense Department, not the White House, and she is not the President's Press Secretary in waiting.

     How is she floating a balloon?

     If you had read the column, you would have noted that the licensing that seems to be in question here seems to be the public service  licensing that every station is supposed to be evaluated on every few years as a condition for the renewal of its license to broadcast on PUBLIC AIRWAVES.  This may have fallen somewhat to the side during the last administration, and shame on them for it, but is is a condition of the original broadcasting laws.  They are supposed to be not simply lining their own pockets, but performing a public service as well with public interest programming.

quote:

What’s that called, government controlled media? I guess they need to ensure that their lapdogs stay well-fed!

     Yes, the government is supposed to control the media in a limited fashion.  Not the print media, because they do not operate over a public utility, air waves or band-width that is there for anybody to use.  The Government regulates it  to make sure that it is used in the public interest and for the public good.  I'd rather have it work in that fashion than have private controlled media which have private interests which may run contrary to what may be in the interest of the public as a whole, and I'd rather have the public lapdogs fight it out in public that the private lapdogs fight it out in private where I'm even more in the dark as to what's going on.  Sorry Denise.  I don't believe, as Al Capp said, "What's Good For General BullMoose is Good For The USA."

     More likely, "What's Good for The USA is Good for The USA; and the More out in the open that happens to be, the better off I am."

     It might be better if any media using public Resources is licensed by the government.  As long as they do enough public service programming, they should maintain their license.  If they're in it for private purposes, like to promote one party or another, I'm not sure how I'd like things to work out, myself.  Frankly, I don't like it, either way.  I think that editorial content ought to be clearly marked as editorial content, and not be passed off as news.  I think people's licenses should be yanked for that, but I understand our thinking is different there.

     I also think that there ought to be an American equivalent of BBC for the United States, especially in terms of news coverage, so there's at least someplace folks can go for honest well documented facts.  If you want to be bamboozled by bovine product someplace else, you ought to be able to get plenty of that, should you wish, but it should be clearly labeled Flat Brown Bovine Patty News, Liberal Variety or Conservative variety, depending on the taste of the consumer.  But the straight facts ought to be clearly available as well, and places where people can try to make sense of them together, should they wish.

quote:

just like Tim Geitner wants Congress to grant him broad authority to take over businesses who haven't even taken bailout money.

Is there some sort of reference you have that would give details, such as dates and quotes, Please?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Juju
Member Elite

since 2003-12-29

Posts 3429
In your dreams

18 posted 2009-04-19 03:00 PM

Yeah I heard about that as well. This is a very communist socialist view that the country is more important than the person and especially the family. This is commonly done in communist societies where the government holds lots of power. IE: Russia, North Korea, China.

The problem is when you break up the family you create the heartless monsters, Which never learned the bonds with family. This happens to children which were abducted too.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

19 posted 2009-04-19 05:55 PM

I'm sorry, Juju, but you heard about what as well? If you'd be a bit more clear about what you're speaking about I'd know if you were talking to me or to somebody else, and what it was that either I or somebody else should respond to. I'm simply unclear. You may have a very good point, but I can't actually tell.

Bob Kaven

Juju
Member Elite

since 2003-12-29

Posts 3429
In your dreams

20 posted 2009-04-19 06:01 PM

Taking children away from the families and having them raised in government facilities.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

21 posted 2009-04-19 06:18 PM

quote:
Juju:

The problem is when you break up the family you create the heartless monsters, Which never learned the bonds with family. This happens to children which were abducted too.

     About the breaking up of the family business, you are in line with the basic viewpoint of the ACLU, which believes that children should be kept with families whenever at all possible, as opposed to the general viewpoint of social service agencies who tend to believe in what's generally called "The best interest of The Child."  The ACLU feels they are following the Constitution on this.

     I generally side with the ACLU, myself, but in this case I feel that I'd rather go with the best interests of the child.  You can create Heartless Monsters in all sorts of ways, including by keeping a child in an abusive situation.  There aren't many winners when families don't work, and kids seldom come out on top.    I've had to deal with more than my fair share of monsters, and they can come from all sorts of backgrounds.

     You will be pleased to know that Newt Gingrich came out in favor of putting kids in orphanages in the mid 90's.  He thought they were a swell idea.  Perhaps you think Old Newt is a Communist Socialist as well?

     My point?  Things may be a touch more complex than you're giving them credit for being.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

22 posted 2009-04-19 06:27 PM

The US government is going to abduct children and raise them in facilities away from their families?

That’s absolutely despicable.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

23 posted 2009-04-19 06:29 PM

Dear Juju,

          Just to be clear about things, I don't think anybody is talking about taking kids away from their families and putting them in government facilities.  If they were talking about doing something like that, I'd be right out front screaming at the top of my lungs.  I don't thing that's even remotely right.

     Taking a kid out of a dangerous home to protect the kid from violence is one thing, taking kids away wholesale for political reasons is plain wrong.  I don't know anybody who'd be in favor of that.

     The programs they're talking about are like Americorps, the way I understand it.  If somebody know different facts, please post them with a decent reference so we'll all know better.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

24 posted 2009-04-19 08:52 PM

Grinch, in my originating post I posted the link to the article in conjunction with the link to Obama stating his desire for a Civilian National Security Force, and then a link to the actual bill and then a link to the section that was originally in the bill but transferred to another bill at the last minute, that calls for a feasibility study of mandatory service and ways to implement mandatory service. It is all those things taken together that are a cause for concern.

I don't have the link but I remember a clip of Rahm Emmanuel stating that mandatory service was something that he supported and thought the government should try to implement and that it would involve a boot camp type of training, which would be away from home and family, I would think, unless they let the kids go home every night. But maybe they are the kinds of details that would have to be discussed in their feasibility and implementation study...boot camp, no boot camp, middle school, secondary and college age kids, or all the way down to elementary or even kindergarten, who knows.

The Shut Up video is aimed primarily at the liberals running the U.S. right now. I never thought that you wanted to shut me up!

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to debate you point by point on everything on that video. And what would be the point? We could both be looking at the same facts, and we would both draw entirely different conclusions.

Bob, I like the nature of the conservative news sources that I use. If I didn't I wouldn't read them. I do verify what I read there with other sources, but usually I can only find references to the stories at other conservative sites, but once in awhile I'll find a reference at AOL by AP a day or so later.

I don't have a link available for Tim Geitner. I saw him before Congress on a TV news clip asking for that authority.

Rosa Brooks is currently working at the Pentagon. She was Obama's latest appointment. I did read the article and her comments referred to news media and journalism, not specifically broadcasting.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.