Moorewatch Forums

Moore’s interview with Hannity about Capitalism movie

2010-03-12T18:33:33-05:00

Anyone else here love how Mikey starts laughing nervously when he can’t answer one of Sean’s questions?
His laughing BTW gets increasingly louder if Sean repeats the question, which is usualy followed by Mike asking Sean another question, usually a diversional one.
Hannity also keeps trying to get Mike to admit that lack of personal responsibility was a major factor in the huge foreclosure mess that happened over the last few years.
Mike just refuses to hold the homeowners responsible on a large scale, he wants to only blame the evil banks who **ALL** scammed the innocent homeowners who bought homes they most likely knew they couldn’t afford.
Sean got Mike to admit this...Are you ready people? I mean, are you ready? Here it comes!
Mike admitted that “Of course there’s always gonna be people who live beyond their means Sean, but it’s a small amount in the cases of these foreclosures.”
And Mikey did it without laughing nervously while thinking of a question to throw back at Sean to chhange the subject!
How about that.

San Fran Nan et al Run Out Of Toilet Paper - Constitution Will Do The Job

2010-03-11T16:13:15-05:00

Looks like Pelosi is simply going to decree ObamaCare “Passed” without taking a vote, and sending it on to Obama’s desk with all kinds of additions and amendments added in the last few days that we know nothing about.

Imperial Politburo of an Imperial President.

Why keep up the charade of voting any longer? Just make laws by decree.

Hold on tight, bumpy road ahead.....

House Democrats looking at ‘Slaughter Solution’ to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill

By: Mark Tapscott

Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?

Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal’s Congress Daily:

“House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

“Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

“Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner’s blog described the approach as a “twisted scheme.”
How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc.

UPDATE: Turner on Nancy’s new rules

Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute offers another insight into the Democrats’ desperate search for some way to pass a proposal that is clearly opposed by a majority of their constituents.

So now Democratic leaders say they’ll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a “reconciliation” bill—thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden’s) to pass.

Hmm. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress can deem a bill to have passed. Pelosi & Co. aren’t just making up policy as they go, but also procedure—possibly unconstitutional procedure, at that. All to enact a bill remaking a sixth of the US economy over the 3-1 opposition of the American people.

The New Developing Climate In Climate Change

2009-06-26T11:32:59-05:00

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

But we need to get Cap and Trade passed NOW!!! Before our congress members even read it.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The rest of the world is putting cap and trade plans on hold but we have to rush head first into it for no other reason than a few people in DC want to do it.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.—13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

But we can’t wait a second longer.

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia’s own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published “Heaven and Earth,” a damning critique of the “evidence” underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist—and ardent global warming believer—in April humbly pronounced it “an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.” Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute’s annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama’s special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn’t.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That’s made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won’t be alone.

When Cut And Dried Isn’t So Cut And Dried

Oops, I just forgot. Silly me…

2010-03-13T10:26:16-05:00

(Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday.

Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an “enemy combatant.”

Padilla was held in a military brig for three years before his case was moved to a criminal court in Miami, where he was convicted on charges of offering his services to militants.

The Justice Department sent the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets presidential nominees, a list of briefs that were omitted on Friday. “We regret the omission,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to the panel.

Previously, Holder has disclosed to the Senate five briefs he submitted to the Supreme Court during his law practice. From July 2001 until being confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, Holder worked at Covington & Burling in Washington.

Earlier this week, the Justice Department said Holder failed to tell the Senate about one brief he signed related to the Padilla case, prompting outcries from Republicans who said it offered more details about Holder’s views on key policies.

Being Above The Law Must Be Nice

Mikey To Obama: “Replace Rahm with Me or you will be Impeached as Citizen of Kenya”

2010-03-13T17:49:38-05:00

Hmmm....Probably a tongue-in-cheek kind of spewage, but it’s actually not all that obvious when you read how he put it.

Hire Me! Hire Me Mr. President!

Let me be clear about one thing: The Democrats on Election Day 2010 are going to get an ass-whoopin’ of biblical proportions if things don’t change right now. And after the new Republican majority takes over, they, along with a few conservative Democrats in Congress, will get to bipartisanly impeach you for being a socialist and a citizen of Kenya. How nice to see both sides of the aisle working together again!

I don’t know....It’s really not obvious to me if he’s being facetious or not. They will “get to” impeach you for being socialist and a citizen of Kenya? In other words, whether or not it’s true, they don’t “get to” initiate those proceedings as long as the Democratic majority is as strong as it presently is. It certainly isn’t a strong rebuke of the notion that he may be a Kenyan citizen. This is the kind of off-the-cuff remark that should get Glenn Beck on this idiot’s back doing day-after-day of shows highlighting him as another crazy Birther. Either that or if Moore-on is let off the hook, so should Medina be. Just sayin’.

Either way, facetious or not, I found it a rather funny thing for Moore-on to say.

Blues

Islamofacists Cause Need For Full Body Scanners - TSA Response? Exempt Muslims!

2010-03-13T20:15:12-05:00

Unreal. This country is dead, or at least we’re down to the last empty chamber in our little game of Russian Roulette.

At this link:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35806

In the parallel universe where reside the left and their radical Islamic friends, it makes perfect sense that the only machine that can detect a certain, and most destructive kind of explosive, that has been used exclusively by Islamic terrorists since 2001, is now able to be used with any traveler using American international airports, except, of course, Muslim persons. These Muslim individuals are, as every sane person acknowledges, the ACTUAL REASON we have to put every air traveler through the excruciating security measures that are now in place.

To prevent the further terrorist actions of Muslim terrorists is, in fact, the whole point of the exercise.

The TSA, when confronted by CAIR in this regard, immediately capitulated, thus giving in in the face of yet another Islamic threat. Simultaneously, the TSA agreed to instruct its security staff, in enforcing the same tortuous security measures for everyone but Muslims, to ‘pat down’ Muslim men and women, with the proviso, of course, that only same gender ‘pat downs’ would be permitted for our Muslim brethren.

So, to be sure you understand, this is the deal.
Every American has to go through a humiliating and time consuming hell every time any one of us has to fly anywhere in the country, or the world. This nightmare is due strictly to the actions of Islamic terrorists. Now, due to the Obama-determined decision of certain of our non-elected bureaucrats, we are now excepting Islamists, and only Islamists – THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SWORN TO ANNIHILATE AMERICA – from being forced to submit the examination of this machine that is the only thing that can detect certain terrorist explosives. In other words, the organization created to protect the American traveling public is now, under the Obama Administration, being prevented from doing so due to reasons of politically correct religious (again, addressed only to the world of Islam) sensitivity.

What kind of fantasy world is the Obama Administration living in? Does anyone in his Administration remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Has anyone in this ridiculous excuse for a Presidential

Administration heard the repeated assurances from the Muslim world that we will either be converted to Islam by their jihad or die?
‘Explosive-wired Islamofascists’ is not a sensitivity issue – it is an act of war. It is an act of war against the United States of America and its innocent citizenry, no matter what religion.

Tender feelings toward our Muslim brethren should not be taken into account when figuring out how best to protect us. The application of their faith when in our country should be very low on the list of what is significant to our nation, and if they don’t like that, they can immediately return to the nations where it is of significance. In America, they should understand, each religion is equal to the other; no particular religion is above another.

A current popular phrase might be applied in this instance: Islam, this is America. The land of the free. Deal with it.

It would be interesting to know whether the Obama Administration has instructed members of his Administration to make any accommodations for members of the Christian religion alert to members of the Obama Administration: the religion that FOUNDED OUR NATION in air travel?

Perhaps, for Judaism, second alert to members of the Obama Administration: another very important religion found in the United States of America?

The answer would seem to be no.
It is wondered, therefore, if the Obama Administration and its member leftists ever intend to acknowledge the truth about the world of Islam, the founder of terrorism throughout the world.

Barack Hussein Obama can go on and on about how wonderful is the world of Islam. How magnificent and tolerant is their religion; how beautiful is their handwriting, (a subject not thought to be significant in 21st Century America by Obama Administration educators); how extraordinary is their Algebra, yet another subject of American education considered unimportant by current Obama educators, (African-American Studies; Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Studies; etc., being of much greater significance in the Obamaworld of educating our children) and how peaceful, and desirous of peace, are their people.
And from where, almost verbatim from various Obama speeches, do these lovely words come?
Fantasyland.

Like it or not, the Muslim world of the 21st century has nothing to do with the Magical Mystery Tour that Barack Hussein Obama and his followers have chosen to present as the current Muslim world. Obama and his acolytes can create beautiful and false words around the ‘religion of peace,’ and assume people will believe these lies.

Hollywood and whoever can create physical fantasies about how gorgeous and sensitive Muslims were and are; or how brilliant, intellectually, scientifically and politically, Muslims were and are, or what victims they are and have been through the centuries, because, of course, of the actions of the Great Satan, (us) with Obama always on the ready to apologize for whatever of our transgressions of which the aggrieved (Muslims) complain. It is, as you know, always our fault. .

The truth about the world of Islam is the opposite.

The fact is that the Muslim extremist world of the 21st century is a nasty, grubby, illiterate but tech-savvy, hate-filled world of duplicitous and violent men whose minds live in a 12th century mélange of hatred of the Infidel (which is just about all of the rest of the world); misogyny - alert to the American left: this is not just chauvinistic men wanting to keep women home and perennially barefoot and pregnant; this is a world where a teenage girl had her nose and ears lopped off because her mother wouldn’t let her marry their cousin, (which actually happened recently in Pakistan, and when the little girl’s mother saw her baby’s face after this mutilation, she fell dead from a heart attack) (religion of peace); this, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, is the Islam you champion.

One will also find homophobia to a degree that these and other ardent feminists, like Barney Frank, could not imagine – no hate crime legislation here – beheading is the answer to that particular problem in Muslim countries.

Then there are young men who have had every advantage that the West gives its youth, who would prefer to have their future contain wiring Downs’ Syndrome children with explosives so they can kill that many more innocent Westerners, in whatever country, it doesn’t really matter to them as long as it results in the most casualties.

And why do they do this? Not for anything we have done, despite constant such lamentations by the left, but for what we are. As an Islamic terrorist was quoted in responding to a leftist plea for us to just get along: “We don’t want to reason with you; we want to kill you.” A logical conclusion is to listen to them when they describe what they want to do to us for existing, don’t you think?

This is the Muslim world Barack Hussein Obama embraces.

Isn’t it time that the President of the United States of America stops protecting and defending the murderous medieval world of Islamic terrorism and starts protecting and defending the American people? Sadly, for us, this is not the case for our current Supreme Leader.

Massa

2010-03-08T20:54:45-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588504,00.html

this is a huge mess for the Dems and Obama.

The Question Isn’t Is He A Citizen, It’s Is He ELIGIBLE?

2010-02-15T22:37:39-05:00

From my first exposure to the questions of The Obammunist’s citizenship, my only concern has been the hit to the Constitution it would be if the allegations were true. Whether everyone here is aware or not, there have been several lawsuits brought by soldiers who legally questioned The Obammunist’s legitimacy as their Commander in Chief. That has been the only tack that I am aware of that has succeeded in getting the courts involved beyond the submissions of briefs. However, all cases have been thrown out after one or two hearings, and the attorneys who brought the cases have been sanctioned in various ways by judges hearing the case(s). In a recent dismissal, a judge used the rationale that it wasn’t a constitutional, legal question before him, but rather, a political one. He said that since there was no legal definition of the Founders’ intent with regard to the phrase, “natural-born citizen” as it applies to eligibility requirements for presidential candidates, that’s what made it a “political” question and not a legal one.

With that background, here is an update to that case from the attorney who brought it on behalf of Kerchner et al.

Friday, February 12, 2010
Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal

On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.

You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site . We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 12, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

If you can, help the cause.
CDR Kerchner, Lead Plaintiff
http://www.protectourliberty.org

While the citizenship issue remains a part of the Kerchner case, as I read the above, it isn’t necessary. The Obammunist isn’t eligible to be President by virtue of his father not being a citizen. Not because he’s black. Not because I or Mr. Apuzzo or Kerchner or anyone else doesn’t agree with his politics. Not because he’s a blithering idiot whenever he has to speak without a teleprompter. Not because his past includes relationships with domestic terrorists. Not because every single one of his shadow-government cadre of Czars is controversial because of their connections to communist ideology or radical environmental activism or willingness to spike the water supply with “sterilants” for government-imposed population control or radical usurpations of 2nd Amendment protections or trashing 1st Amendment protections. While all of that is true (and provable, so don’t get all crazy on me by shooting the messenger) and reason(s) enough to want the man out of office forthwith, they are not the legal rationale for challenging The Obammunist’s eligibility to be President of the United States. Listen carefully........HE’S NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE HIS LINEAGE DOESN’T COMPORT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, PERIOD!!!!

This is not “conspiracy theory” stuff. This is solid, legal scrutiny of Barack Hussein Obama’s Article II eligibility for which no argument can be made now that he qualifies for because his father was not a citizen. No other questions need to be asked or answered. If his “Announcement of Live Birth” is indeed a fraud, fine, prosecute the fraud perpetrated on us after he’s removed from office. But he needs to go right this second. Every second that he spends pretending to be our President is a violation of our Constitution.

Who’s going to stand for the premise that violating the Constitution doesn’t matter in this case?

Capitalism with a conscience?

2009-09-22T15:29:18-05:00

IIMHO, it seems to me that the fight should not be whether capitalism is evil, but the discussion should be about whether today’s form of capitalism has a conscience. or not. It is not wrong to want to make some money, but when you screw people using immoral tactics, bribe politicians, use lobbyists to heavily favor you, deceive the public, hide behind tax shelters, and all sorts of unethical behaviour...isn’t that wrong?

Whatever happened to that little voice in our head that said, “Yes, I could do that, but it is not morally right. I can make a pretty fair pile of money doing it the more ethical way. Yes, I only make 15 million dollars instead of 43 million doallrs, but isn’t 15 million enough to live on?”

Why don’t we instead of asking ourselves COULD we do that, we ask ourselves SHOULD we do it?

Maybe we ought’a take a look at the potential of the Tea Party Movement

2010-02-28T15:22:35-05:00

he Tea Party Movement has been referenced in several threads here, but it hasn’t really been analyzed as a subject for discussion. Take a look at the following article:

Debra Medina, new star of America’s right, is firing up the race for Texas governor

Debra Medina of the Tea Party movement is making a Sarah Palin-like impact with policies stressing property rights and gun ownership

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/28/tea-party-debra-medina-texas

It’s a well written and relatively unbiased look at the run by Debra Medina for the Texas GOP nomination for governor. It’s in a British newspaper, but maybe that’s what is necessary to get an article on the subject that doesn’t have an obvious and heavy bias.

While the Tea Party Movement does have some nutty extremists, there’s no proof that their percentage is any larger than the percentage the dingbat leftist extremists are in the left wing of the Democrat Party. Basically, the Tea Baggers simply believe in a government that is limited to what there is a very credible argument was the intent of the framers of the U.S.Constitution. That is not a radical position to take.

So. Is it possible that we could have a rational discussion on the subject, with positions based on reason and logic, and without a lot of vitriol and insults? I’ve even started this thread with an olive branch extended. If y’all didn’t notice, take a look at the one letter modification to the name of the Democrat Party that I usually do make, but have not done in this case. Let’s do our damnedest to try and keep this one discussion civil. Ok?