Sorry state of today's media

And yet you too, another person in the media HAD to write about the dog??

Oh well, just keeping up with the Jonses...Where is your usual banter and "bite"?

Bitch, bitch, bitch....oh wait, I guess it's a male dog.....

Instead of the dog, how about, Homeland Security Warns of 'Right Wing Radicals'? Obama's administration has their homeland security focus on rightwing issues, rather than on terrorism from Al Qaida. Talk radio is "fueling the fire of radicalism". I will print part of the memo, but please read all of it. (PDF)

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 2 of 9
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the
1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an
economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to
U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.


http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

Terrorism is terrorism, whether it's from Al Qeada or American extremists. Have you listened to Rush or Beck lately? They're so upset that the republicans lost the election that they want a revolution.

Have you listened to Rush or Beck, Mark? I mean, the entire shows over a time? Or do you just go by excerpts fed to us by the media? And, where did they say they wanted a revolution? Please post the quotes. And, you are correct, terrorists can be American extremists, but where is the violence from the right? A couple killed abortionists over what, 35 years, and it wasn't a group who did it, but a single idiot.

There are all kinds of revolutions, but the Tea Party isn't about guns, but a protest against how our tax money is spent. What they are doing is not terrorism, but people demanding their rights. The terrorism, in this case is coming from the government, since, if we don't comply with their demands, we can end up homeless or in prison.

Tell me the greenies haven't been violent. What about PETA? Or ACORN? The left has demonstrations every week or so, so maybe those commies ought to be checked out.

NC students get violent; cops use mace and tazers against them. They are protesting Tom Tancredo's speech. (only the right doesn't have freedom of speech) Here's a current example of lefties in action:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6761633

I used to listen to Rush quite a bit, but I can't stand him anymore. I have a good friend of mine that listens to Beck all of the time. he tells me all the time what Beck says. He's convinced the sky is falling and is stocking up on guns, ammo, armor, anything he can get his hands on. I don't think it's a bad idea to own a gun, but I just think some people are going a little overboard with all of this stuff. I'm not saying things are okay, but people flying off of the handle and getting all paranoid can make a dangerous situation. People like Beck and Rush feed people's paranoia, and that's not good. It's hard for people to think straight and resolve things when they're all worked up.

Like they say, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I don't see Beck or Rush solving anything, or even attempting to solve anything. They know people are upset and they're saying things that people want to hear just to get ratings and stay employed.

That's my opinion anyway.

BTW, what demands is the government placing on you? They haven't threatened to take my house or throw me in prison.

ALso, I don't know that much about Acorn (other than what was going around during the election)and PETA is a bunch of loons.

And here's a glilmpse into the mind of Rssh:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041409/content/01125110.guest.html

The headline says it all: "Obama ordered the killing of three black muslilm kids"

Nice spin to the pirate story, eh?

Denise,

And here I thought this column was about the US news media. What can you say when readers don't even understand the most simplest of stories?

When Bush was in office the stories were all about IEDs and death tolls. Now you'd think we'd pulled out of Iraq already, since it gets no coverage. The news media no longer report the news, they try to influence the country. Glad to see they're going bankrupt.

Sorry about all of the typos, clumsy fingers today

Read the article. He is mocking this administration. And, what lies have Beck or Rush told? We don't learn much from either of them; they just verify what we already know. The speak for us, but don't tell us what to think. That is our job.

And, what about Obama's fear mongering? Every day, he talked about the crisis, and on and on, until finally, he was told to shut up and say nice things. So, what's the truth?

Mocking the administration? How? Please explain.

And did I say that Rush and Beck lie? No, I did not. But they don't exactly tell the truth, either. If they did, Rush wouldn't call the pirates "merchant marine organizers".

as far as fearmongering goes, Obama doesn't hold a candle to Rush and Beck. That's why most of the people that are scared are the people that listen to Rush, Beck and those other angry blowhards.

I don't listen to Rush as much as I would like to. And I see Beck about once a week. I do watch Bill Oriley whenever I can. Thank God those people still have Freedom of speech to protect them. Some folks would have them silenced so they don't "stir things up"...OMG!
The Obamas like Bill O too...thus the name (BO) for the stupid looking water dog. I would have though they could have choosen a nice American WORKING BREED....but that would offend to many of their "peeps". Tom has it right, the dog is just for show. The all American family, with Barakk NOT being a "Natural" born citizen, thats hard to believe.
Looking more and more like we just have another Minority family in PUBLIC HOUSING...the white house is publicly owned isn't it?

C'mon, Dan. That was a cheap shot. And Hawaiians ARE natural born citizens, atleast those born after 1959. Do you honestly think that if there was anything to that, the Clinton's couldn't find it?

And you should use your wiki, you might find some interesting stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_pets

Not all presidents had American dogs. Besides, that's a pretty lame thing to complain about. I think we have more important issues at hand.

And Rush, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, all of those guys, that's all they do is stir things up. They've made careers out of it. It's almost like tabloid politics. I just get sick of it after awhile. To me, they're as bad as those "reality" shows.

When Bush was president, he was trashed mercilessly by the media. There were demonstrations somewhere nearly every day. Today, Tancredo was giving a speech on immigration, and disrupters had to be removed with tasers and tear gas. That's what liberals do; throw beer cans and destroy things. Not one Tea Partier has shown any violence. Can liberals say that? Hell no, they can't.

Here's how CNN reports, oops, debates and insults, Tea Party participants. I think I would have slapped that woman, or let her think I was going to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3fvNhdoc0&feature=player_embedded

Mark,
Yer right, it was a cheap shot. And I guess you were not here when we had the citizenship debate. In short, what is required is BOTH parents must be American citizens, and you must be born on USA soil/military bases. He has never shown a Birth certificate, never been vetted, members of his own family have claimed he was born overseas, Obama himself has made refferance to his father being from Kenya, which at the time was under British rule, Obama traveled to Pakistan when US citizens were not alowwed to go there and he went on an Indonesian passport, who at the time did not allow duel citizenship. He and his lawyers have refused to answer law suits that accused him of all this, (basicaly thats an admission of the charges, just like if you failed to answer a law suite, the court would find against you). There are still cases in court asking for his proof, which has not been forthcomming. And the Clintons? They never have been able to grasp the 'Obvious' about anything.
About the dog, OK, i'll give you that. That was a tounge in cheek 'shot over the bow' so to speak.
As far as Bill O, Hannity, etc stiring things up...good for them. more power to them. It's good we have real conservitives to do it, because the cowards in congress won't speak the truth. My only problem with any of them is that in very RARE cases when they are wrong, they fail to admit it. But thats the same on both sides. So what would you do? Ban them from free speech? Take away their right to do what they do?
HAppy G, can you believe that crap? You are SOOOO right when you say :
Today, Tancredo was giving a speech on immigration, and disrupters had to be removed with tasers and tear gas. That's what liberals do; throw beer cans and destroy things. Not one Tea Partier has shown any violence. Can liberals say that? Hell no, they can't.
when we conservitives demonstrate peacfully, we are stiring things up....when liberals riot and act like fools, they are fighting for a cause. You should know that by now

Dan, no I wasn't here when the citizenship debate was going on. But the 14th amendment says anyone born within the U.S. is a citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Mark, the debate was not whether he was just a US "citizen". There are millions of people who come here from other countries and go through the process to become US Citizens, even though they are not born here. The problem is, however, that to be POTUS, you must be a "NATURAL born citizen" (Section 1, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution) , which is NOT the same thing as just being a US Citizen. The most popular belief is that to be a "Natural Born US Citizen", one must have been born on US soil (or military base) to BOTH parents who must be US citizens themselves (which Obama's father was NOT a US citizen). However, some believe that in order to be a natural born citizen, one must simply be a citizen by means OTHER than naturalization (in other words, one must have been born on US soil, period, he cannot have come here from another country and gained citizenship). The courts never have made a definitive ruling on this issue, which is, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons why the case against Obama has not gone any further than it has (aside from the fact that during election season, few people wanted to risk making such an accusation against a person such as Obama). But, regardless of that difference of opinion, even if he was only required to be a US Citizen who was born on US soil, there is significant evidence that he was not born in the U.S., as Danimal pointed out. And, Obama himself has made himself look even more questionable by refusing to come forth with evidence to prove that he meets the requirements. To many of us, it seems obvious that if you're innocent and you have the means to prove it, you would eagerly and happily present that proof, wouldn't you? I know I would. But he blatantly ignores the lawsuits and the demands from the courts to present the needed documentation. Then people wonder why we question his truthfulness.

Mark,
Yes it does say if you are born in the US you are a citizen. HOWEVER, it also says that to president or Vice Pres. you MUST be a "NATURAL BORN" citizen. They are two differant things Mark. And the constitution clearly makes the differance known.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:

“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, (or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

The 14th amendment makes no case to over rule this clause.

Ok, he was "NATURALLY BORN" in the U.S. I don't see how you can argue that. He has shown his birth certificate, I don't know what else you want the man to do.

If his mother had died during childbirth, and his father could not be found, would he not be a natural born citizen? If he wouldn't be, then how can we say that the children born to unwed mothers, who do not know who the father is, are natural born citizens? We don't know who the father is, it could be a Kenyan, Russian, anybody. Are we just supposed to take their word for it that the father was American?

It's all just nit-picking. He's a natural born American citizen. He didn't have to apply for citizenship, he wasn't naturalized, he was born a citizen. All of this citizenship stuff was just a weak, desperate attempt by the republicans to steal another election.

I guess I should have learned from the 2000 election how things were going with the repubs. It took me awhile, but I learned!

Mark,
I see no sence in a debate here because you can't/won't see the diffeance no matter what. And thats fine too. But, Obama DID NOT show a birth cert. His lawyers tried to release a certificate of live birth...that was shown to be a forgery...other than that, nothing has been shown by obama or his lawyers. Congress held a hearing to decide John McCains citizenship...when he did in fact have evrything in place and complied with all requests, so he was vetted...Obama has not been..and will not be. i will concede that nothing will ever coe of this until one of two things happen. 1. He falls on his face even harder than he has to this point. or 2. at the end of his term, it will be found out.
Either way your argument about unwed mothers is moot because it does not apply here. We KNOW who both parents were and one was NOT a US citizen, ever. And by your own standard..the constitution, that is enough. If you call trying to uphold the law nit-picking, then you are very much like most liberals...damn the constitution, because it don't say what you want. And that your right also....it just wont get you very farin the credibility department in a debate.

And Danimal, don't forget about his own aunt who claims she was there at his birth in Kenya.

No, I think it's the other way around.

This is the first I've ever heard of a forged birth certificate, certificate of live birth, whatever you want to call it.

And like I said, if there was anything to find out, the Clinton's or McCain would have found it before the election. They had plenty of time and resources.

And oh yeah, you'll believe the aunt that comes out of nowhere that you know nothing about. But then again, she says what you want to hear.

The aunt, the sister, the Grandmother that just died....others from Kenya...the hospital there that has a record of birth.....his mother that was in Kenya and denied an AIR plane ticket because she was "TOO PREGNANT to FLY"...and a non B. cert in hawaii,(filed 3 days after she was in Kenya) just a registration of live birth, that does not say where he was born. No one wants to follow up on this because if it's true, it would be considered racist to have him removed as a fraud. That cannot be allowed .

Oh yeah, and he went to places in years that did not allow people with a US passport entry into their countries during the years he said he went, and you must be a citizen of the country you get your passport in for travle visas...all very interesting stuff.

Ok, Mark, let's assume Obama was born in Hawaii. Now that we established that, we know that his mother divorced Barack Obama Sr., and married Lolo Soetoro. Soetoro adopted him in Indonesia, and he became an Indonesian citizen under British rule. He went to a Muslim school, who only allowed Indonesian citizens to attend. He never gave up his Indonesian citizenship, and used that passport to go to Pakistan. He also used his foreign citizenship to attend college as a foreigner. So, however you look at it, the man is not entitled to be president. In other words, it was a coup, that panned out for him.

Nobody is "entitled" to be president. But he is qualified under the Constitution. He's a natural born citizen and he's over 35 years of age.

It's really terrible that we have a president that has so much experience with other cultures, seeing as how this country is full of so many different cultures.......

And Dan, if any of that was true, you know the Clinton's and McCain would have jumped all over it. C'mon, man.

McCain, wouldn't use Jeremiah Wright to
beat up on Obama. That how assinine the
republican party was for nominating him
in the first place.

"It's really terrible that we have a president that has so much experience with other cultures, seeing as how this country is full of so many different cultures......."

You really are a liberal global guy aren't you..

@Happy G,
Forget it happy. Mark's only argument is that, because Clinton and McCain didn't jump on it, none of it is true. Never mind the airline records, visa and passport records, citizenship records in Indonesia, the adoption....etc..never mind any of that...Mark said none of it happened, so everyone else, including other governments and industry records are all wrong. The collage records that are public are all lies when they say Obama used foreign citizenship to get cheap/free collage...and all of that is public record, yet Mark says it never happened...
And Mark, he is NOT "natural born' no matter how you slice it. BOTH parents Mark need to be citizens...what part of BOTH do you not understand? Citizen maybe...natural born...no, never.

Where does it say in the Constitution that BOTH parents have to be citizens in order for a person to be considered natural born?

Even if he isn't a citizen, the majority of the people voted him in. That shows you how bad off the republican party is. They need to make some changes and the direction they are going is the wrong one. They are getting worse. The republican party has been all about big business, the same big business that got us into this financial mess. We Americans have taken a lot of stuff for granted and now it's come back to bite us. As far as I'm concerned, anybody that has any debt can't really complain about the government being in debt. It's the American way, anymore. We ALL need to change.

Mark, reread my response to you. It explains what you're asking about "natural born citizenship".

And your line of thinking that 'so what if he doesn't meet our Constitutional requirements, as long as the majority voted him in, it's ok, screw the Constitution of the United States'... that's just scary. REALLY scary.

And, you said, "As far as I'm concerned, anybody that has any debt can't really complain about the government being in debt." WHAT?! Are you kidding? There's a HUGE difference between an individual's debt and the government's debt. The easiest and most obvious difference (two differences actually) is that when a person goes into debt, it is because THEY chose to take on that debt, it was THEIR freedom to do so, no one FORCED them to do it and THEY are solely responsible for paying that debt. When the government does it, it is debt that is FORCED upon ALL of us no matter how we feel about whatever that money is taken for. AND, even worse, when the government does it, THEY aren't the ones being forced to pay it back, OUR children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc are the ones who will be forced to give up THEIR hard-earned money to pay off that debt that THEY had NO say in.

You did get one thing right, "we ALL need to change", and that, in my opinion, should begin with everyone reading and understanding our Constitution of the United States and teaching our children that the Constitution is NOT a living document that should be warped, twisted and perverted to match whatever selfish agenda our politicians want it to support. Had our politicians (in the past and the present) followed our Constitution, we would NOT be in the debt we are in right now. It would be impossible to have the debt our country has at this point.

No, Susan, "natural born citizenship" has not been defined in The Constitution.

And please re-read my post concerning the majority voting Obama in. I didn't say it was ok, I was just stating how people feel about the republican party.

And we've all benefited from the government's debt, from infrastructure to military, science, the list can go and go if you really stop and think about it. We wouldn't even have the internet if it wasn't for the government.

Come to think about it, maybe that's another thing we can blame the government for...

Susan, Bravo!!!!
You said a mouthful there! Too many liberals think just like Mark does about the constitution. They say 'screw the law, it aint what I want'.
And again youare 100% correct. The constitution is not a living document.

and this statement...from Mark...'Even if he isn't a citizen, the majority of the people voted him in. That shows you how bad off the republican party is.' OMG...SO WHAT? SO FRIGGIN WHAT? It shows NOTHING about how bad the republican party is, (although it does need to get back to it's traditional stance..ie: real conservitism) but what it DOES show is the sorry state of the DEMO(c)RATS that are always willing to toss the law aside to get their instant gratification.
Happy G laid it out very clearly and has shown what anyone can find out with a little investigation.. Obama was adopted in Indonesia and was a citizen of that country, a country that did NOT allow duel citizenship. He was born in a foreign land most likely....
yet the Dems don't care.
Its not the rich or corprate America that caused this mess...it's the tax and spend dems and the party faithful that say...What can you give ME uncle Sam...
remember these words demorats...Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Probably the only wise words from a demorat in 40+years.

mark wrote: As far as I'm concerned, anybody that has any debt can't really complain about the government being in debt. It's the American way, anymore. We ALL need to change.
Again, the constitution requires that as a country we should never HAVE any debt. I persoanly owe nothing to any credit card, or bank for that matter. Not for my home or my truck, or anything in it. The only debt I have, is what Uncle Sam has burdened me with over the years, I am sure I will die and never see the day when they pay-off what they owe. Some good example they are to our children eh?

John A. Bingham, the Framer of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizen as follows: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Obama's father owed allegiance to Kenya. His stepfather owed allegiance to Indonesia. Obama taught Constitutional law and knows all this. The democratice party, at the behest of the Chicago mafia, conspired to get Obama elected. It was a coup de etat.

If the Constitution means so little to so many, then, our country as we have known it, will no longer exist. The Constitution, to Americans, should be what the Bible is to Christians. Our Founding Fathers got it right. Today's selfish and ignorant Americans are completely wrong. Good intentions don't cut it...

Thanks Happy G. ,
You have such a good way of explaining things, very direct and researched. It's a damn shame that your wisdom will go right over the head of people who need it the most. Like Mark. He will either ignore what you have said, or say that it doesn't matter, because he was voted into office in an election. The framers, the rule of law, those things mean nothing to folks like Mark. You can see it in his responses all over this thread. It is damn scarey to know that people think like that. Those poeple will be the ruination of the great counrty of The Uninted States of American.

That's great, happy. I'm just asking where it says that in the Constitution. If that's the definition, it should be in the Constitution.

BTW, the Bible says women are subordinate to men. Is that what you believe?

Mark, if you are refering to the letters from Paul to the Corinthians about women, then you have made the same mistake many make. Pauls letters in the new testament were sometimes written to spacific groups for problems that group was having at the time. Likewise many other parts of the bible were written this way. I suggest a good study bile would help you.

Peter said it, too.

Mark, Col:3-18+19
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the lord. (that does not say to bow to them, and not have an opinion, nor to be a slave..that would not be fitting to the lord.)
Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. (that says, dont be evil, loud, forceful...you get the picture i think)

Here is a site that explains what Peter was saying:
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper94/09-04-94.htm

Ok, great. But again, where does it define natural born citizen in the Constitution?

It doesn't, so it's open to interpretation. If you guys feel so strongly about this, maybe you should push to get an amendment defining natural born citizen into the Constitution.