Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Monday, November 17, 2008

Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Record, Another Question



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama, Selective Service Registration:
Questions, More Questions, Still More Questions




No Curiosity Excited in the Mainstream Media
About Obama's Selective Service Registration





Say what you will, Debbie Schlussel is interesting.

Last week, the motor behind debbieschlussel.com posted an interesting article about the Selective Service registration of Barack Obama. Multiple screenshots--complete with letters A-H highlighting areas that raised questions--make the provocative post must-reading for anyone who has wondered about the squeaky-clean, scrubbed Obama narrative.

In our opinion, Schlussel gets some things right, while other items are a bit less clear. One claim Schlussel makes that falls into the "dubious" category: Obama signed his name with a peace sign. Our view is that this is an overly-dramatic interpretation; interested readers can visit Schlussel's site, examine the BHO signature and make their own judgment.

DBKP attempted to contact Schlussel, but got no response.

From EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions:

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.


Breitbart TV's B-Cast did an informative show on the subject, interviewing Schussel, who walked viewers through the document and the questions about its authenticity.

Though the video is 30 minutes, it's well worth watching for those who are interested in our next Commander-in-Chief's past. Many pieces of the Obama puzzle are, and have been, hidden from public view--including birth, medical, college and university records.

During the campaign, the Mainstream Media exhibited a singular lack of curiosity about their Fab Fave candidate and his past, preferring instead to quote from Obama's two memoirs or the campaign's canned answers.

Inquires about actual records--which would've helped shed light on Obama's background--was a subject that, like the John Edwards' Scandal--remained off-limits in the polite MSM conversations that passed for election news.




ALSO at DBKP: The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?
* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records


Medical Records
Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
Birth Records
University of Chicago Records
Khalidi Video







QUESTIONS:
Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration

The Video



Schlussel's document source--a retired federal employee--does enough detective work to excite interest in normally-inquisitive reporters. Normally-inquisitive reporters are in short supply in the MSM, however, when the subject turns to favored presidential candidates.

In a later update to Schlussel's original post, she provides some information on her source. Schlussel's source is no pajamas-clad basement dweller:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.


About the image at Schlussel's site: it was noted that the date stamped on the form provided by Selective Service and the date on the signature line were different. The differing dates between when the SSR form was signed and the date stamped on the form?

It could be just an honest mistake.

Several other parts of the document are not so easily explained away, particularly the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form.

Obama supporters have claimed that the documents are fake--what else would they say?--but Schlussel has updated her post today with a copy of the letter that Coffman received from the Selective Service Administration, along with the document.






Another Honest Mistake?

Back in September 2007, Newsbusters' Tom Blumer made a quick fact check on another of Obama's Selective Service registration claims. From O-Busted: Selective Service Requirement Did Not Exist When Obama Says He Registered:

In his hilariously titled post ("Mighta Joined If He Coulda Capped Some Cong") on Barack Obama's interview in a barn this morning (not kidding) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, fellow NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported on Obama's answer to a viewer's question about whether he ever considered military service. You can read Mark's post for his overall thoughts, but I want to focus on something the Illinois senator said that several commenters at the post took exception to:

You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. .... But keep in mind: I graduated in 1979.

There are only two "little" problems:

  1. Selective Service Registration was not possible in 1979.
  2. Bob Owens at Pajamas Media noted that Obama registered with the Selective Service with an effective date of September 4, 1980.


Could be another example of another honest mistake.




At least Selective Service has provided some documentation. Previously--at least in February 2008--there was no Selective Service number for Barack Obama at the Selective Service website.

President Bush released his Selective Service Registration Number, why won't Senator Obama?

His campaign just sidesteps the issues as to whether he did register.

The Selective Service, while not releasing his number, claim that the reason you get "No Record Found" when you check for his registation on their website (www.sss.gov ) is because of a dataprocessing error. It seems out of the millions and millions of records, Senator Obama's is the only one that does not show up!


Perhaps, it was just another honest mistake.




One More Honest Mistake?

Bob Owens at Pajamas Media addressed Internet chatter about the Obama Selective Service issue in August 2008, "Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?". It should be noted that Owens wrote his piece without benefit of the document provided by Schlussel's source.

It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.

After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist



While we agree with most of what Owens usually writes, he seems to belong to a subset of bloggers who ascribe all questions concerning the murkiness surrounding Obama's documentation as "rumor-mongers" or "conspiracy theorists".



Prior to September 2008, we included ourselves in this subset. However, the increasing questions about most things in the past of Barack Obama have moved us into another group: the "Missouri-minded".

As in, "Show me".

It seems to us that one, two, possibly three questions concerning Obama records and documents might be given a pass.

But, everything?

When dealing with Obama's background, an incredible pattern of coincidences--which we don't believe--occurs. Whatever the document, whatever the question: the Obama campaign ignored it--until the issue became troublesome.

Then, they would release only enough of an answer to satisfy the very few in the MSM who'd had the brass to ask. Supporters and apologists would then rush in to condemn anyone who wanted a follow-up answer.

Obama's campaign started a website to combat rumors: fightthesmears.com. The only problem, it didn't. Picking and choosing mostly straw-men, the website was a brilliant concept: label inconvenient information that didn't fit the campaign/media narrative about the candidate as "smears".

The Obama campaign used its Internet site to discredit other Internet sites with which it disagreed. Any story that threatened to gain traction was branded a "smear" and relegated to fightthesmears.com, where Obama's thin resume/record was repackaged as Internet fact, wrapped with a bow of indignation.

Harkening back to the 1990s, it's remembered that "conspiracy theorist" was applied to those publications (notably American Spectator) which uncovered uncomfortable questions concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's past.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency, a now pro-Obama MSM--which derided those with questions over Hillary's cattle futures and other bits and pieces from Arkansas when they mattered--suddenly ran many of those stories 10-15 years after the fact.

Barack Obama and his apologists apparently remember that particular lesson very well: like the 1990s Clintons, persistent questions about the sanitized version of Obama only come from "conspiracy theorists".


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file; wikimedia




Monday, November 10, 2008

Barack Obama's Election: Presidential Winners, 1900-2008



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama's Election:
Most Popular President-elects?




Not Really:
Obama Ranks in Bottom Half of Last 28 Election Winners
In Both Popular Vote Percentage, Electoral College




The CNN story "Belief that country heading in right direction is at all-time low", prompted a response by Amanda Terkel, who said that the "Least popular president meets one of the most popular president-elect."

Terkel refers to a Gallup poll taken after the November 4 election showing that Barack Obama has a 70% favorability rating.

Of course, the most reliable poll is the one voters participated in two days before the Gallup Poll--which was one of the most unreliable prior to Election Day--when they cast votes for their choice. By that most reliable of polls, Obama's favorability is nothing special, history-wise.

In the 28 U.S. elections held since 1900, Obama finishes in the bottom half in both popular vote percentage and electoral vote totals.

Obama's 65+ million votes is the most in terms of absolute votes cast. But, by that standard of popularity, George Washington is the least popular president ever. It's likely that the number of votes the winning candidate receives will continue to go up with each election, as the U.S. population increases.

Several presidential winners who ranked below Obama were involved in three-way races, which lowered their totals. Among the winners of these multi-candidate races were: Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996; Ronald Reagan in 1980; and Richard Nixon in 1968.





Popular Vote Percentage
U.S. Presidential Elections, 1900-2008



  1. 61.1% - Lyndon Johnson 1964
  2. 60.8% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1936
  3. 60.7% - Richard M. Nixon 1972
  4. 58.8% - Ronald Reagan 1984
  5. 60.3% - Warren G. Harding 1920
  6. 58.2% - Herbert Hoover 1928
  7. 57.4% - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956
  8. 57.4% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932
  9. 56.4% - Theodore Roosevelt 1904
  10. 55.2% - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952
  11. 54.7% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940
  12. 54.0% - Calvin Coolidge 1924
  13. 53.4% - George H. Bush 1988
  14. 53.4% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1944
  15. 52.6% - Barack Obama 2008
  16. 51.6% - William H. Taft 1908
  17. 51.6% - William B. McKinley 1900
  18. 50.7% - Ronald Reagan 1980
  19. 50.7% - George H.W. Bush 2004
  20. 50.1% - Jimmy Carter 1976
  21. 49.7% - John F. Kennedy 1960
  22. 49.6% - Harry Truman 1948
  23. 49.24%- Bill Clinton 1996
  24. 49.2% - Woodrow Wilson 1916
  25. 47.9% - George H.W. Bush 2000
  26. 43.4% - Richard M. Nixon 1968
  27. 43.0% - Bill Clinton 1992
  28. 41.8% - Woodrow Wilson 1912





Electoral Vote Total,
U.S. Presidential Elections 1900-2008



  1. 525 - Ronald Reagan 1984
  2. 523 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1936
  3. 520 - Richard Nixon 1972
  4. 489 - Ronald Reagan 1980
  5. 486 - Lyndon Johnson 1964
  6. 472 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932
  7. 457 - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956
  8. 449 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940
  9. 444 - Herbert Hoover 1928
  10. 442 - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952
  11. 435 - Woodrow Wilson 1912
  12. 432 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1944
  13. 426 - George H. Bush 1988
  14. 404 - Warren G. Harding 1920
  15. 382 - Calvin Coolidge 1924
  16. 379 - Bill Clinton 1992
  17. 370 - Bill Clinton 1992
  18. 364 - Barack Obama 2008
  19. 336 - Theodore Roosevelt 1904
  20. 321 - William H. Taft 1908
  21. 303 - Harry Truman 1948
  22. 303 - John F. Kennedy 1960
  23. 301 - Richard Nixon 1968
  24. 297 - Jimmy Carter 1976
  25. 292 - William McKinley 1900
  26. 286 - George H.W. Bush 2004
  27. 277 - Woodrow Wilson 1916
  28. 271 - George H.W. Bush 2000







There was one yardstick by which Barack Obama could be called "the most popular president-elect"--number of times he's appeared on the cover of TIME before he was elected. [Obama’s Constant Time Cover Status: TIME Hearts Obama] Obama appeared on 10 TIME covers in the 42 weeks before the 2008 election.

Obama still has quite a way to go to pass the man with the most TIME covers, Richard Nixon. Nixon appeared on TIME's cover 55 times over 4 decades.

Obama has passed the women featured on TIME's cover: Princess Diana and The Virgin Mary, each with eight.

We'll leave the Messiah jokes for the comments.

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file
Sources:
* Presidential Elections, 1789–2008
* Wikipedia
* Guiness World Records




Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain-Obama Debate: MSM Declares Obama Winner



Your Ad Here

Debate Winners Decided By Mainstream Media
But Only 19% Trust the MSM
A short history of the past several debates "winners"




Big Media Declare Victory for Its Candidate


Who won the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Depends on who you ask.

Debate winners are in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is a member of the Mainstream Media, you already knew the answer to the question before the debate was held.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

* Washington Post - The Debate: An Edge for Obama
* CNN - Round 1 in Debate Goes to Obama, Poll Says
* Time - Grading the First Presidential Debate (Time's Mark Halperin--surprise!--gave the win to Obama.)
* CBS - CBS Poll: Obama Boosted Most by Debate


Rewind four years: back to the first Kerry-Bush debate. What judgment did our impartial media render then?

* ABC - Poll: Kerry Wins Debate, But No Change
* CNN - Polls: Kerry Won Debate
* CBS - Poll: Bush And Kerry Tied; Democratic Challenger Bounces Back After First Debate


Eight years ago, who won the first debate between Al Gore and George Bush?

The Daily Howler: "Gore won every instant poll that night, polls taken right after viewers watched his disgraceful conduct."


So, who won the first debate?

Readers can see that one of the favorite vehicles for MSM stories about debate "winners" is the poll. Another favorite: ask another MSM member who won.

CBS News issued their press release in the guise of another poll: predictably it claimed a win for--surprise!--Barack Obama.

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.


Who won last night's debate?

Depends on who you ask.

FAST FACTS:

Today is Barack Obama's 1342nd day in the U.S. Senate. He's spent 45%, or 602 of those days, campaigning for president. Obama has authored no major legislation. He's been in one presidential debate, that on the 601st day of his perpetual campaign.

Obama's voted "present" 129 times during his three years, eight months and 3 days in the Senate. Not "yes"; not "no": "present".

2007 Poll:
19.6% - trust the American Mainstream Media news organizations to deliver "news".
23.9% - believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM;
55.3% - believe some of what Big Media spews.


by Mondo Frazier
image: no blood for hubris



Wednesday, September 10, 2008

NRA: Obama Would Be "Most Anti-Gun President in American History"

Readers Can Be the Judge:
"I'm Not Going to Take Away Your Guns"
vs.
"Bitter, Clinging to Religion and Guns"


[Click image to enlarge.]


The National Rifle Association has just stepped into the fray, sending out a mailing about Barack Obama and his history of support for anti-gun legislation, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin.

The NRA is sending out a mailer attacking Barack Obama on gun issues to four million members, according to spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

The gun-rights group is also sending the piece out to gun stores, gun shows and wherever shooters and sportsmen gather.

According to Politico, the NRA is printing six million copies.

Obama says, "I'm not going to take away your guns."

But, as in so much Obamabilia: the record and actions say something else altogether.


by Mondoreb

image: NRA

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

John Edwards Affair: Exclusive Pix; Fox Helping Edwards' Timeline



Your Ad Here

NEW EXCLUSIVE DBKP Pix!
Fox News Asking Questions That DBKP Readers Knew the Answers to Weeks Ago
Revisionist Edwards History
An Appeal to DBKP Readers:
Put on your Investigative Thinking Caps



[ABOVE: Rielle Hunter still in the picture, shooting video of John Edwards, Edwards' parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards, at Chapel Hill NC on December 30, 2006. Hunter also took pictures of John and Elizabeth Edwards that day, as well as pictures of John and Elizabeth and their three children--DBKP Exclusive photo.]

Roger Friedman at Fox News.com, in his headline asks the question, "How much did Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife, know about his affair with Rielle Hunter and when did she know it?"

Friedman begins with a nifty bit of revisionist history:

Edwards has said that he told his wife about the affair “at the end of 2006” and that everything ended after that. Indeed, within days of the end of 2006, Web videos produced by Hunter about Edwards disappeared from his campaign Web site and from YouTube.


We realize that Friedman and Company have only lately come onto the John Edwards story--though sooner than the rest of the Mainstream Media--and might be excused for putting "end of 2006" in quotes.

[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, scandal and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]

In all fairness to Fox News: it was Fox who was the only broadcast outlet to report on the Edwards affair by confirming that John Edwards had been caught by reporters of the National Enquirer in the Beverly Hilton, after visiting mistress Rielle Hunter.

But to anyone who's followed the Edwards' story closely, Edwards has never said that the "end of 2006" was when his affair ended.



To make sure, we re-examined both Edwards August 8 statement and the transcripts of his ABC Nightline interview.

In his statement to the press, Edwards said, "With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then."

Nothing there about the "end of 2006". How about in his Nightline interview?

In 2006 2 years ago, I made a very serious mistake. A mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006 I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time. All of my family knows about this and just to be absolutely clear, none of them are responsible for it. I am responsible for it. I alone am responsible for it. And it led to this most recent incident at the Beverly Hilton. I was at the Beverly Hilton. I was there for a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public.


Nothing there, either.

That was all that Edwards said in his Nightline interview on the subject, displaying some fancy footwork in response to a later Bob Woodruff question, "How long did it last and when exactly did it end?"

Well, here's the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They've been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything. I think beyond the basics, the fact that I made this mistake and I'm responsible for it and no one else. I think that's where it stops in terms of the public because I think everything else is within my family and those privacy boundaries ought to be respected.


As that is the last time that Edwards has spoken on the record about the matter, we're wondering where Friedman got the "end of 2006" info from? Any readers care to help out here?

Did John Edwards ever say that his affair ended at the end of 2006? Or is Roger Friedman a DBKP reader who saw the photo below and is covering up for Edwards?




The DBKP pic is of Edwards, wife Elizabeth and Rielle Hunter at Chapel Hill NC on December 30, 2006. It is the only one that shows the three together that late in the year.

Friedman's piece was in the "Entertainment" section of Fox News--odd in itself--along with references to Mickey Rourke and the Golden Globes' Espresso Machine.

The story does relate that an unnamed source clues Friedman to the fact that Elizabeth Edwards had the videos of Hunter pulled down from the Internet and that they were replaced by "new videos made by a videographer who’d worked for Elizabeth Edwards’ brother, Jay Anania. Peter Cairns had worked for Anania on a project called Commedia and a video called “The Lost Hours.”"

Jay Anania, readers may recall, is the guy who helped Elizabeth Edwards pick out John Edwards' 'favorite' movie, Dr. Strangelove for a Turner Classic Movies' appearance in 2004--a movie John Edwards had never watched.

Friedman's source does reveal an interesting point: Elizabeth Edwards' 2007 addendum to the peperback edition of her memoir:


In a chapter added to the paperback edition of Edwards’ memoir, "Saving Graces," the former senator’s wife observes that in 2007: “My brother Jay had a wonderful young man, Peter Cairns, who worked for him, and Peter had begun videotaping the campaign, the events and behind the scenes. We had tried it before but the process of getting the film from the camera to the internet — where I and the public could watch John took much too long.”

(An e-mail and a phone call to Cairns on Monday were each unreturned.) Of course, that wasn’t the case. When Hunter shot her videos, sources tell me, a dedicated Internet technician was part of the deal, and managed to get all her videos up on Edwards’ campaign site immediately.


This is a valuable observation in a story where not only the principals have either lied and then clammed up--John Edwards, Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young--but have clammed up since.

It's to be noted that after our picture was published, the timeline on Edwards' affair with Hunter and Elizabeth's knowledge of it have shifted like the sand through an hourglass.

The Fox article also notes some interesting passages in the material Elizabeth Edwards added to the 2007 paperback edition of her memoirs.

Finally, Friedman notes that Elizabeth Edwards' paperback edition of "Saving Greaces" isn't dedicated to her husband, but to her four children.

“For Wade, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack. This is a small offering, for no mother has ever been more blessed.” John Edwards -- aside from his mentions in the narrative of the book — gets nothing but an aside in the acknowledgments at the end — “my beloved John,” sandwiched in between Elizabeth’s parents and her daughter “precious Cate.”


DBKP has more pictures unpublished. We have been waiting for the Edwards to make further statements on the affair, scandal and cover-up.

But, just as John Edwards was asked no questions from November 29, 2007 until late July 2008 about his affair with Rielle Hunter, the Mainstream press has ditched all investigative interest in the story--outside of ABC News pursuing the Fred Baron Money Trail.

Don't expect them to spend much time on the story: the 11 days the MSM spent on the story from August 8-19 apparently wore out their investigative muscles--although the NY Times is supposedly hot on the trail of a Duke University student with whom Edwards allegedly had another affair.

Disposition of Edwards' campaign money, Fred Baron, hush money payments and further curiosities just don't interest the watchdogs in our adversarial press. But don't think for a moment that the MSM isn't an adversarial press.

Their coverage of John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, over the last 10 days puts the lie to that myth.

[NOTE: Did we make a mistake? Or did Roger Friedman? Is there any references to John Edwards stating that he ended his affair at the "end of 2006" that you can find? Leave a comment or send an email. A footnote to history may await you. Thanks!]


by Mondoreb
images: dbkp

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

August 6, 1945: The Beginning of the Atomic Age

Click image to enlarge



August 6, 1945.

Sixty-three years ago, the bombing of Hiroshima helped bring about the end of the most destructive world in the history of the world.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.
--Wikipedia: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki


Japan announced its surrender six days later on August 15, 1945.

To all those who sit in comfort in 2006 and render judgment on those who lived and made decisions sixty-three years ago, a few reminders.

1- Those in 2006 do not have husbands, brothers and sons who would have faced certain death in an invasion of Japan in 1945.

2- Did not have to live through the preceding four years of nearly total war.


Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan.

Those who argue against the decision to drop the bombs characterize them as inherently immoral, war crimes or, crimes against humanity and/or state terrorism. They may also argue that they were militarily unnecessary.


Regardless, today is the 63rd anniversary of the beginning of the Atomic Age.

From that point forward, the stakes for disagreements between nations were raised immeasurably.

by Mondoreb
image: RidesAPaleHorse

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Fourth of July: Not Just Another Date in American History




The fourth of July is NOT just a date in our history.

As we prepare for our Independence Day celebration, I started thinking about the idea of independence. Let's take a look at the word:

According to Merriam Webster:


Main Entry:

in·de·pen·dence
<>Pronunciation: \ˌin-də-ˈpen-dən(t)s\<>
Function: noun
Date:1640
1: the quality or state of being independent (see below)
2archaic : COMPETENCE 1

Main Entry:
1
in·de·pen·dent
<>Pronunciation: \ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
Date:1611
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit; an independent bookstore b (1): not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent independent conclusion> (2): not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3): not bound by or committed to a political party c (1): not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> (2): being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living independent means>d: showing a desire for freedom independent manner> e (1): not determined by or capable of being deduced or derived from or expressed in terms of members (as axioms or equations) of the set under consideration; especially : having linear independence; (an) independent set of vectors> (2): having the property that the joint probability (as of events or samples) or the joint probability density function (as of random variables) equals the product of the probabilities or probability density functions of separate occurrence 2capitalized : of or relating to the Independents3 a: main 5 independent clause> b: neither deducible from nor incompatible with another statement <independent postulates>


We are told that our economy is dependent on illegal immigrants. Why is this so? Could it be that it's because they will work for less, flooding the job markets and depriving our own citizens including our young people looking for their first entry level job, of the opportunity to have those jobs to support their own families or to begin to learn the value of a work ethic? Never mind the additional burden of overused public services and criminal activity that inevitably come with unabated illegal immigration. Who, exactly, is it that is dependent on illegal immigrants? That "they will do the jobs that Americans won't do" is merely a distraction from the real problem which is that we've been told that we depend on them to do just that.

We are becoming more and more dependent on foreign countries for the production of things we could and should be making here, in our own country. Why? Could it be that government regulation and tax structures make it difficult, if not impossible, to turn a profit on the products which is the basis for being in business in the first place? Could it be that those two things--in addition to others--are the reason so many jobs have been "outsourced" to other countries?

We depend more and more on China and other (mostly) Asian countries to produce consumer goods that, in most cases, are inferior to those produced here--and in some cases even more dangerous to our health and well being. The more we dependon foreign entities to produce even our military equipment and ammunition for example, the more danger we put ourselves in should the need arise to produce those things ourselves.

We once were able to defeat the forces of evil because of our ability to extract our own natural resources and had the manufacturing capabilities to out-produce any nation on earth. What will happen if those who now produce our weapons and supplies turn against us? What would it take to get American industry back on it's feet enough to be able to supply us once again? And would we, considering the technology and time it takes to launch an attack in todays world, have enough time to be able to respond to that kind of threat?

That we are dependent on others for this kind of production is a sad commentary on our abilities as Americans to be independent.



There was a time in this country that people had to fend for themselves. Yes, there was poverty and sickness and a lot of other negatives that go along with being a free country and some depended on others good will and generosity for their existence.

Churches and other religious and secular organizations banded together to help those in need--as they still do today. However, more and more we are told that government is the solution to those problems. Many have become dependent on government for their every need. Generations of people have been on welfare and other assistance programs. They depend on the transfer of resources from the taxpayer to them without even so much as a thank you or an effort to make themselves independent.

Welfare and other transfer payments are nothing more than modern-day slavery. Making more people dependent on others for their lives doesn't seem to be the definition of independence, And with the looming prospect of government run healthcare putting even more people in the position of being dependent on government can you say that we are moving more toward independence?

Independence, that which we are celebrating today, was a move away from an oppressive and increasingly hostile government to it's own people. The more people allow government to control every aspect of their lives, the less independent we become. And the more government allows us or forces us to become dependent on others for oil, consumer products, weapons, ammunition, steel and all the other commodities that are essential for our freedom, the weaker and even more dependent we become as a nation. Make no mistake about this. Our enemies are watching and they are amused by our "independence".

Think about it. Are we really as independent as we would like to believe? Are we moving ever farther away from the ideas and ideals the founding fathers worked so hard to commit this country to? The values and freedoms that so many have fought and died for?

Is this the independent United States of America that it once was? Not in my estimation. But we could be again.

What is needed is another revolution or many. A revolution to throw off the shackles of dependency on other foreign entities in favor of using our own God given resources.

A revolution of attitudes that government is the answer to all our problems.

A revolution of individuals taking control of their own lives and the acceptance of personal responsibility, becoming truly independent.

A revolution that allows us to help each other instead of being dependent on one another.

We have been lulled into complacency by our elected "leaders" telling us that we can't do it on our own, that we need all the help we can get. Don't forget the most terrifying words in one sentence as outlined by Ronald Reagan:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Happy Independence day! Be responsible. Be independent.





by RidesAPaleHorse
images: cafepress; public domain clipart

Friday, June 20, 2008

Pat Buchanan:Hitler Wins and No Holocaust

"No war, no Holocaust."



Pity Patrick J. Buchanan: pessimism in his old age has left him a shadow of his former self.

Once a fiery, mainstream conservative speaker and writer, Buchanan has spent the last 15 years marginalizing himself among many of the same people who once cheered him.

His latest column "Was the Holocaust Inevitable?" published, both by Town Hall and WND, is indicative of where Buchanan is coming from these days. His history of World War II, Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World contains some usual views on that war.

Those who had applauded the old culture warrior of the 1970s and 80s, could only shake their heads. The head-shaking had begun in the 1990s when PJB had turned into a leading advocate of government control.

Government control? Pat Buchanan?

Sadly, yes. Buchanan became an outspoken economic nationalist during his first run for the presidency, insisting free trade was damaging the country. Buchanan had discovered something that liberals instinctively knew: that government intrusion is good--as long as it's intruding on behalf of his chosen cause.

Buchanan's equally-outspoken opposition to war in Iraq caused his magazine, The American Conservative, to lose at least one reader. His continued opposition to protecting any American interest no doubt lost him a few more.

In October 1999, Buchanan was on firmer ground when he attacked the Republican Party--as well as the Democrats--as a "beltway party". Many conservatives have echoed those thoughts, and in 2006, Republicans lost control of Congress after years of feeding heavily at the public earmark trough.

Buchanan started the 1990s out by simultaneous sallies against Israel and its American supporters.

* Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory."
(St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)

* Buchanan issued, perhaps, his most famous quote on the subject during the First Gulf War: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)

* Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the
historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel
exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide
to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in
the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter
and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist
concoction.

This led some to look back at Buchanan's role in the Ronald's Reagan's visit to Bitburg, Germany.

Buchanan supported President Reagan's plan to visit a German military cemetery at Bitburg in 1985, where among buried wermacht soldiers, were forty eight buried Waffen SS members. Over the vocal objections of Jewish groups, the trip went through. In an interview, author Elie Wiesel described attending a White House meeting of Jewish leaders about the trip,

"The only one really defending the trip," he said, "was Pat Buchanan, saying, 'We cannot give the perception of the president being subjected to Jewish pressure."

Buchanan said in response in an ABC interview in 1992,

"I didn't say it and Elie Wiesel wasn't even in the meeting. [...] that meeting was held three weeks before the Bitburg summit was held. If I had said that, it would have been out of there within hours and on the news."




Largely forgotten today is Buchanan's role as a senior adviser to presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, and his stint as the original host on CNN's Crossfire.

Which brings us to PJB's latest column, taken from his latest book about World War II. Britain declined after the war, choosing to cut loose its many colonies over the never 20 years. Buchanan sees Britain's slide through the prism of his particular causes: free trade and Britain's participation in two World Wars.
No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.

This is, of course, one man's reading of history.

Buchanan's most outrageous claim may have been this next one.

"If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet?"


Germany's resources were not unlimited, and Hitler did secretly build up the German fleet throughout the 1930s, until it was probably the 3rd or 4th most-powerful in the world. In fact, Hitler kept the German shipyards busy around-the-clock right up to--and after the start--of WWII.

By the end of the First World War the German Navy was one of the largest in the world. However, under the terms of the Versailles Treaty in 1919, the German government was restricted to vessels under 10,000 tons, forbidden to own submarines and allowed only 1,500 officers.

When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 he implemented Plan Z, a ten year programme to develop a fleet capable of challenging the Royal Navy. The main emphasis was placed on the building of submarines and fast surface squadrons in order to be able to control Britain's vital trade supply lines.

German shipyards had difficulty producing the ships ordered by Hitler and on the outbreak of the Second World War the German Navy only had two battleships, two battlecruisers, three armoured cruisers, three heavy cruisers, six light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines. Soon afterwards the Bismarck was completed. At 41,700 tons, it was considered the most powerful warship in the world.


That view expanded into still-more controversial territory when Buchanan's views of Hitler and the Holocaust hit the newsstands. The latest Buchanan historical theory is that the Holocaust would never have happened if Hitler had won the war.

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

Nonsense.

Apparently, Buchanan's now acquired the powers of a psychic: he knows that Hitler "sensed doom was inevitable" in 1942.

Buchanan would also have us believe that Hitler's life-long, maniacal animus toward the Jews began only when he felt the war was lost. He does not explain Hitler's insistence to the very end that Germany would win--and the unpleasant consequences for anyone in Hitler's circle who was unwise enough to express otherwise.

He also does not explain Hitler's dehumanization of Jews as "insects" and "animals". Pat would have us believe Hitler was only joking about Kristallnacht--which happened four years before Buchanan claims that Hitler got serious about erasing European Jewry at Wannsee.

There's more, but space is limited today. This is only the beginning of a sad task: the highlighting of Patrick J. Buchanan's long slide into irrelevancy among the very people who used to urge him on.

We never much had any use for the label "Far Right". Most often it was used by the Mainstream and Liberal media for any view which was contrary to their own. But, Buchanan may be the Jimmy Carter of the Far Right: trading in on prestige garnered earlier in his career; never missing a chance to attack US interests wherever they intersect with Israel.

Like we said, pity Patrick J. Buchanan: pessimism in his old age has left him a shrinking audience for his increasingly-eccentric views.

by Mondoreb
images:
* patrickjbuchanan
Sources:
* Pat Buchanan: Hitler Didn't Plan to Kill the Jews
* Was the Holocaust inevitable?
* Was the Holocaust Inevitable?
* Pat Buchanan
* Pat Buchanan, Antisemitism and the Holocaust
* German Navy 1939

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Riding, Calling Shotgun: History, Rules and More

Everything You'd Ever Want to Know:
Riding Shotgun


Jed always rode shotgun


"Shotgun!"

How many car trips have begun with that memorable word? The correct answer is undoubtedly "countless" or "how many stars are in the sky?"

This article concerns all things riding shotgun: definition, history, origin, rights, privileges, duties and rules.

DEFINITION

Just so there's no disputes about the definition of 'shotgun', here's a good one:
The term "Shotgun" refers to the front passenger seat of an automobile. "Calling Shotgun" is the act of claiming the position of Shotgun for one's self. As this position is the most coveted of all positions when riding in a car, the following list of rules has been created to ensure that Shotgun can be acquired in a fair and equitable manner by any passenger of an automobile.

For readers wanting a second opinion, here's the Wikipedia version
To ride shotgun is to sit in the front passenger seat when riding a car or other vehicle, a phrase commonly heard in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Due to the influence of American popular culture it is also heard in several European countries such as Iceland, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom, as well as other countries with large English-speaking populations such as South Africa and Israel.

ORIGIN

Where did the term "riding shotgun" originate?



The first known reference to "riding shotgun" in print occurred in Western pulp fiction in the March 27, 1921 issue of the Washington Post's "Magazine of Fiction," in a story entitled "The Fighting Fool" by Dane Coolidge. It was used to refer to riding as an armed guard in the front of a stagecoach, next to the driver (this would usually have been on the left, as stage drivers traditionally sat on the right, near the brake).

Historians have been unable to find a use of the term "riding shotgun" in the actual time of the Old West, when the terminology actually used was riding as "shotgun messenger." The use of the phrase in print to refer to automobiles occurred in 1954 simultaneously with the TV series Gunsmoke, which became extremely popular, and used the terminology of riding shotgun nearly weekly.


RULES

There are many local variations of the rules below. But the basic rules, like truth, beauty and hope, always remain the same. It's good to get the ground and local rules in place before any important--or incidental--trip.


OFFICIAL RULES
of Calling Shotgun


1) The first person to yell "SHOTGUN" gets to ride in the front seat.
2) The remaining back seats may be divvied up in the same manner by being the first to call "back right seat", etc..
3) The word "shotgun" must be loud enough to be heard by at least one witness. If no witness is to be found, or in case of a tie, the driver has the final word. After all, it is most likely his car. (note: if it isn't his car, and the owner is present, the owner's decision is final. Owner must be sober, however, or he will defer his judgment to the driver.)
4) Early calls are strictly prohibited. All occupants of the vehicle (including the driver) must be outside of the building and directly on the way to the vehicle before shotgun may be called. Under no circumstances may a person call shotgun inside a building. For sake of simplicity, a garage is considered to be outside. Parking structures and detached garages are always considered as being outdoors, even if they are underground.
5) A person may only call shotgun for one way of a trip. Shotgun can never be called while inside a vehicle or still technically on the way to the first location. For example, one can not get out of a vehicle and call Shotgun for the return journey.
6) Being as how everyone is created equal, men have the same right as women to the front seat of the car. i.e. women don't own the front seat.
7) One is allowed to ride shotgun as many times as he can call it, but for himself only. No one can call shotgun for their slower friend, unless the friend has a speech or mental handicap that prevents them from calling it for themselves.
8) The driver has final say in all ties and disputes. The driver has the right to suspend or remove all shotgun privileges from one or more persons.


Read the rest of "Riding Shotgun: Rules, History, Duties of Riding Shotgun" at DBKP.com

by Mondoreb
Sources:
* Riding Shotgun: Rules, History, Duties of Riding Shotgun

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Jimmy Carter



Jimmy Carter's presidency was many things to many people.

To Democrats, he was a winner. Out of the White House for eight years, the Democrats took advantage of the anti-Washington mood stirred up by Watergate and nominated the obscure Georgia governor.

He squeaked out a win over Gerald Ford, winning 23 states.
Election day was November 2, and it took most of that night and the following morning to determine the winner. Carter defeated Ford by two percentage points in the popular vote. The electoral vote was the closest since 1916; Carter took 23 states with 297 electoral votes, while Ford won 27 states and 240 electoral votes (one elector from Washington state, pledged to Ford, voted for Reagan). Carter's victory came primarily from his near-sweep of the South (he lost only Virginia), and his close victories in large Northern states such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Ford did well in the West, carrying every state except Hawaii.




Jimmy Carter campaigned in 1976 as a "Washington Outsider", someone different from the Washington power brokers. He also was not shy about broadcasting that he was a "born again Christian".

Close observers would notice the beginning of the Mainstream Media's disdain for Christianity during the Carter campaign and ensuing presidency.



Jimmy Carter has become the quintessential simple-minded, John Lennon Democrat: all he is saying is "give peace a chance". Carter has never let love of his country stand in the way of an almost desperate avoidance of the tag of "worst U.S. president. Whether it's his country, his countrymen or his country's interests, Carter is ready to throw any and all of them under his merry prankster peace parade.

Except Carter's never brought peace--with the lone exception of the bringing together of Begin and Sadat in a marriage of reality and convenience at Camp David.

Jimmy is remembered by many for the string of American sell-outs and giveaways he was responsible for during his term. Others remember the 21% interest and raging inflation rising so fast that soup cans sometimes had 5 different price stickers on them, the prices went up so fast.

During Carter's term, the "Misery Index" became well-known: that's the percentage of inflation plus the unemployment rate. When Carter left office in 1980, the Misery Index was at an all-time high of 21.98%.

When people grumbled about the Misery Index, Carter told them that the American people suffered from "malaise". This is a "sense of depression or discomfort". It wasn't long before a lot of people attributed their "malaise" or depression to Jimmy.



Jimmy coulda been a contender. Carter's first inclination in any test of wills is to grin and holler "Uncle!". The Iran Hostage Crisis was no different, just the most famous example of Carter's diplomacy at it's finest.




No hot spot in the world is immune to the "Jimmy Carter Touch".

No interest is so vital to the U.S. that it can't be high-jacked by Down-home Jimmy.

No enemy of America is off-limits to the Peanut Prostitute and his "paid by the Saudis" checkbook approach to solving the world's problems--if the problems of the world or the United States were defined as "whatever is in the interests of the people paying Jimmy's bills".



Foreign policy during the Jimmy Carter years usually consisted of three reliable Carter methods for dealing with International problems. If the first two didn't work--which happened the majority of the time during Jimmy's forgettable one term--then the former Georgia governor could always be counted on to turn to the one thing he knew would break any impasse.



This Carter "world withdrawal" strategy is the one gift he left the Democrat Party. It may very well be the legacy he has struggled so mightily to bequeath to history.

Carter was swamped in the 1980 election. He had a record to run on and Americans voters judged Carter with their votes.

By any measure, the election was a crushing rebuke of Carter and his policies.





The election was held on November 4, 1980. Ronald Reagan with running mate George Bush beat Carter by almost ten percentage points in the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years on Reagan's coattails. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 votes for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).





Carter has spent the 28 years since his electoral rejection by the American people in a variety of ways. Writing books, building houses, refereeing elections and trying to craft a legacy other than the one he left with the end of his presidency.

He has insisted on butting into American foreign policy, whether he was invited or not. Mostly he has a string of photo credits with various dictators to show for his trouble.

As well as a failed agreement with North Korea's dictator Kim, over nuclear materials and production.



His books mostly reflect Carter's viewpoint, as told by the largest benefactors of his Carter Center: mostly Sunni Arabs from the Middle East.

Jimmy Carter has taken a decided anti-Israel tone since the Carter Center funding as relied heavily on Middle Eastern sources.



His pronouncement of President George W. Bush as "the worst president" was amusing. Some thought that Jimmy was the victim of his wishful thinking's growing steroid habit.



Jimmy's anti-Israel stance increased this past week with his meeting with terrorist group, Hamas.

But regardless of his many fruitless efforts, Jimmy Carter is likely to be remembered in only one way.



At least by the people who had to live through the four long years of the Carter presidency.

by Mondoreb
images:
* Cox and Forkum
* Worth 1000
* Mrs. Satan
* UofTexas
* Time
* matthewwyglesia
* Angry Conservative
* flapsblog
* flickr
Sources:
* United States Presidential Election 1976
* United States Presidential Election 1980

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

There's a Sucker Born Every Minute: Not PT Barnum's Saying

There's a sucker still being born every minute apparently


In our recent article, "Illinois Shaped Cornflake Fetches $1350 on e-Bay", we mentioned the phrase, 'there's a sucker born every minute'.

It was attributed to famed American showman, P.T. Barnum, one of the founders of the Barnum & Bailey Circus.

Then it was pointed out by DBKP's own RidesAPaleHorse that this was an error: Barnum never said the phrase. He was completely right. In fact, it's been pointed out that Barnum's philosophy was more along the lines of "there's a customer born every minute".

RAPH sent along a link to an interesting history site, History Buff.com which had an article dedicated to the "sucker born every minute" phrase.

The article was so engaging, we decided to reference part of it--in the spirit of historical accuracy--below.
P. T. Barnum is most often associated with the circus sideshow and the display of freaks. While this is true, he is also the founding force behind one of America's most famous circuses: Barnum & Bailey Circus. Barnum is also affiliated with the famous quote "There's a sucker born every minute." History, unfortunately, has misdirected this quotation. Barnum never did say it. Actually, it was said by his competitor. Here's the incredible story.


Read the rest of There's a Sucker Born Every Minute: PT Barnum Didn't Say it at DBKP.com.


by Mondoreb
images:
* upload this
* DBKP poster files
Sources:
* There's a Sucker Born Every Minute: PT Barnum Didn't Say it
* P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

Digg!

DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.