Previous month:
July 2009
Next month:
September 2009

President’s national security adviser is attempting to spin Obama’s terrorism fighter credentials in the media – maybe revealing more than his boss would like …

He who pays the piper calls the tune …

It must be heartwarming for a liberal to hear the President’s National Security Adviser tell ABC News that Obama is more successful than the previous administration at fighting terrorists. To me it not only sounds like bullshit, but the interview is extremely important based on what the National Security Adviser said and they way he said it.

As reported in an ABC News exclusive … 

“ABC News Exclusive: National Security Adviser Says President Obama Is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did”

“Responding to criticism from former Vice President Cheney that President Obama is making the nation more vulnerable to terrorism, the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama’s greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission.”

I did not see any indication that President Barack Obama was received in any special manner not befitting any other head of state. There are no major joint terrorist initiatives that stand out in my mind. 

Obama: a ruler?

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international."

“to discuss things with other rulers” … surely a poor choice of words. Obama is the elected representative of the people of the United States and cannot be considered, in any stretch of the imagination, a ruler that is equivalent to those he may have met in the Middle East or elsewhere.

“to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies” … indicating once again that Obama’s misguided belief that international terrorism is a criminal activity – possibly to be punished in a criminal court after ceding Constitutional rights to a foreign enemy combatant  -- instead of being dealt with by the military using the format of a military tribunal.

The very thought that our safety and security may rest on an FBI investigation, prosecution in American courts with court-appointed and paid ACLU-lawyers attempting to wheedle state secrets out of government prosecutors in an attempt to free their client is ludicrous.

“Jones said that ‘we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.’”

I see the deaths being caused by military and intelligence service operations … not by some sovereign government’s participation or mute assistance. Captures? I am not aware of any population increase at Gitmo? But then again, maybe the FBI whisks them away to New York to stand trial – that is, after reading them their Miranda rights.

Words, just words …

How many times have we seen high officials in the Obama Administration engaged in outright lies, deceptions, misdirection and half-truths?

“The former Marine General didn't provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said ‘there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.’ He added that he was not ‘making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did -- that is not the issue.’”

A tally sheet is precisely how you measure success – not by counting the favorable stories in the mainstream media. And what is this “us” versus “them” bullshit. The National Security Adviser should be speaking on behalf of the United States, not a politician or a political party. This is war – and the “them” are our enemies.

“But the numbers are going up, he said.  ‘The numbers of high value targets that we are successfully reaching out to or identifying through good intelligence’ from both the CIA and intelligence agencies from US allies has made the difference, he said. ‘We have better human intelligence; we know where the terrorists are moving. Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies...the trend line against terrorism is positive, and that’s what we want. If we have a positive trend line we have a safer country.’”

All of a sudden, our human intelligence assets are now in place and more effective – after having been severely cut and/or compromised by the Carter and Clinton administrations? Tone of the dialogue doesn’t mean diddly squat – it’s the number of killed and captured – and that’s that!

“If we have a positive trend line, we have a safer country?” What happy horseshit is this. You have a bunch of people who will happily slit your throat giving you their enemies and allowing you to kill them for you – and that somehow translates to a safer America?

I can almost envision Obama pushing this puppet out on the stage to engage the mainstream media …

“Jones made his comments the day after Mr. Cheney said he has ‘serious doubts’ about the extent to which President Obama ‘understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.’ Cheney assailed the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to begin a preliminary investigation into whether any CIA officers went beyond what they were told was legally permissible in interrogating detainees.”

Former Vice President Cheney is 100% correct …

“’It's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look-back at the prior administration,” Cheney said.”’

I would expect that the Obama Administration would concentrate all of its resources on combating the clear and present danger of terrorism and avoid providing aid, comfort and recruiting support to our enemies, both foreign and domestic. But then again, what might you expect from a Chicago politician who hangs with racists, ideologues, criminals and domestic terrorists.

Since when does a National Security Adviser speak for the Attorney General of the United States?

“Jones dismissed questions that the investigation was the result of political pressure and said ‘people that were acting within the law don’t have anything to worry about.’”

<Read the rest at ABC news …>

In the final analysis …

Just another stooge protecting his boss from the criticisms of the past Administration … as if that will absolve them of their corruption, complacency or failure to protect America from her enemies, both foreign and domestic?



Research Links:

ABC News Exclusive: National Security Adviser Says President Obama Is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did - Political Punch

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

Credit reports and scores: pre-marriage reality check?

Perhaps it is the latest thing in financial planning or simply another way to generate fee income for a financial institution …

Rumor has it that some financial institutions and financial counselors are urging lovers contemplating marriage to check each other’s credit report and credit score before making the “final” decision. Considering that money, not sex or in-laws, is the most dominant factor in marital items, perhaps it is not such a bad idea.

The concept of acceptance based on full disclosure may also serve to weed out those who are flakes, have multiple identities or who are hopelessly in such debt as to deplete the assets of a newly-married spouse.

Free credit reports: but beware …

Considering the ease at which one can obtain a free credit report, perhaps this is the way to go. Remember to use the government-sanctioned “free” credit report site at and not those purported free sites which provide you with a free credit report if you sign-up for a credit monitoring service. Beware, one of the largest credit bureaus is behind those cute commercials referring to “free credit reports.”

For those with significant resources …

Here the oft-married Donald Trump’s advice is golden. “Never get married without a prenuptial agreement.” I know it sounds cold and is extremely unromantic – but considering the number of people who get divorced each year, it is solid advice from someone who really should know. Both parties should be represented by independent attorneys and all legalities regarding assets acquired during the marriage should be observed. To my way of thinking, those who balk  at signing such an agreement is a major red flag.

Sounds like a good idea …

Considering the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, this appears to be an extremely low-cost, no-brainer reality check for those contemplating marriage, living together or civil unions.

Be well, be safe and protect yourself and your family first.

-- steve

P.S. For those who might be curious about today’s choice of topics, I have a friend who is about to marry his somewhat mysterious lady. She apparently has a decent job but sports designer bags – apparently costing thousands of dollars – and drives a clunker. A visual contradiction which is sending a mixed message. My advice to him was that “forewarned is forearmed,” but he is still afraid that mentioning the subject of money will send his main squeeze packing.


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Betsy McCaughey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, notes that Dr. Ezekiel “E-Z KILL” Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother and chief healthcare adviser to Obama, is finally unmasked …

Is YOUR life worth saving?

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving.”

Serving two masters, one a false God?

“Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.”

 Do no harm to society, feel free to screw over your patient …

“The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.”

The “truth” comes out: Obama is lying …

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): ‘Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.’"

Here we have it: Obama is lying through his teeth and attempting to implement his socialist agenda at the expense of the American people. So why is AARP, ostensibly pledged to support the interests of their senior citizen membership; spending millions of dollars promoting Obamacare? Could it be “quid pro quo” promises to insure that AARP’s “for-profit” business is cut in for a piece of the action under the plan’s prescriptions? Why is this not being reported on a wider basis in the mainstream media so that American citizens can see for themselves how toxic Obama’s associates are to the American way of life?

Separating YOU from YOUR doctor …

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the ‘overuse’ of medical care: ‘Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,’ he writes. ‘This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.’"

Socialism: putting the state over the individual …

“In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: ‘Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.’ (JAMA, May 16, 2007).”

“Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained ‘to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.’”

When one serves two masters, there can be no loyalty to either one except by coincidence, and certainly their can be no trust. Motives will always be suspect and one party is more likely to be shortchanged for the benefit of the other. With the destruction of trust comes the destruction of society. Especially when the state and its “elite” political leadership is hell-bent at excepting unions and government workers from the consequences of their decisions and programs.

Death panels?

Everyone in the media derided and mocked Sarah Palin when she exposed Obamacare’s potential plans for what she termed “death panels.”

One sign of progress he sees: ‘the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.’ (JAMA, June 18, 2008).”

While Obama claims their will be no rationing of healthcare rationing, his chief advisers call him out as a liar …

"’In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

Proof positive …

"’You can't avoid these questions,’ Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. ‘We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions.’"

“Communitarian” or communist?

“Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: ‘Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic.”

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Arguably the most famous words in the Declaration of Independence, seem to be rendered moot under Obama’s healthcare policies.

Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)”

The “formula” … 

“In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a ‘complete lives system’ for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. ‘One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.”

Taken to its logical conclusion, the “death panel” would be empowered to throw the “lesser” patient out of their hospital bed in favor of the “greater good” patient who represents a better contributor to a society defined by a morally corrupt and bankrupt “Godless” society.

"’However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.’ In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: ‘When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated.

Attenuated: is this the new politically correct term for a life cut short by artificial decisions made by politicians?

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: ‘Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.’"

“Best practices:” for whom, the politically correct state? 

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the ‘major contributor’ to rapid increases in health spending is ‘the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . .’ He writes that one drug ‘used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy.’ (JAMA, June 13, 2007).”

Perhaps the “Dr. Death” crown has been passed from Dr. Kevorkian, the pro-suicide doctor to Dr. Emanuel.

Demonic democrats and thuggery” legalized corruption of the system …

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. ‘The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind,’ he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. ‘Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda,’ he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. ‘If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort.’"

This is precisely what Obama and his Administration is doing now – doling out the taxpayer’s money to purchase votes and influence to support the democrat’s twisted vision of a socialist America. How else can you explain the head of the New York AFL-CIO being named to head the New York Federal Reserve Bank – without financial credentials or education; and with only a background as a political organizer/activist? Yes, we acknowledge that government has always been relatively corrupt – but now it is different: these people have the power to destroy the American dream and turn the United States over to their Marxist masters.

AARP sells out its membership …

Here is a clear and present example of AARP selling out its senior citizen membership.

 Capture8-28-2009-10.45.04 AM

Health Care Reform: What's in it for YOU?

What if you already have health insurance through your employer? What happens if you lose your coverage? The debate over health care reform isn't about "other" people.  It's about you and your family.  It's about your future.

Watch this short video clip from AARP's John Rother to learn how health care reform could impact you and your loved ones.

Just click the arrow on the top video post to begin playing:

While you're there, you can also sign up to become a fan of AARP California on Facebook if you'd like to read breaking news and updates about AARP policy, advocacy, community events, and more.  

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people 50 and over

The commercial – and it is a commercial for Obamacare – is an attempt to scare senior citizens into supporting Obamacare by suggesting healthcare reform would mean that you would always have insurance protection at an affordable price.

Healthcare reform would protect you and your family. Healthcare reform you would always have choices; of quality and affordable coverage. No matter what happens. That’s whether you lose your job, get sick or switch jobs for any reason.” 

The commercial closes by asking “Don’t you want protection you can count on?”

This is an effin “con job” – speaking about the availability and portability of your insurance coverage – but saying absolutely nothing about the possibility of being denied care because you are old or infirm, less likely to benefit from a “best practices” approach to medicine.

I believe that AARP’s leadership is thoroughly corrupt and in the tank for Obama – much like the politicians who will be able to receive billions of taxpayer dollars for their districts – to be spread around to purchase the political support that is so crucial for their survival.

Bottom line …

Are you willing to trust Obama, who appears to be a committed Marxist community organizer, with YOUR LIFE and the lives of YOUR FAMILY? Can you trust anyone who comes from the corrupt Chicago school of politics. Especially when observing that Obama has made deals with the unions and special interests to support his plan – even though it is toxic to most senior citizens and is likely to gut Medicare.

It’s crunch time and you have to fight a malignant government and corrupt politicians and their special interest cohorts for your survival. Do the right thing – contact your elected officials and consider not returning a single member of Congress to office in the 2010 election cycle.

Be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Capture6-16-2009-12.54.14 AM

Capture6-16-2009-12.52.27 AM

Capture7-22-2009-11.10.07 PM

Reference Links:

Betsy McCaughey: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel Wants Health-Care Rationing -

Is AARP playing racial and social politics at their member's expense?


Can YOU TRUST Obama and AARP when they speak about an unfinished healthcare bill no one has read?

Is AARP trying to aid Obama in killing off senior citizens by endorsing the healthcare bill? Is AARP complicit in the destruction of Medicare for their own profit?




Obamacare: Proof positive that democrats do not want a conversation -- planning to use socialist community organizer tactics against you and your fellow citizens ...


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

Liberal Legal Madness: self-perpetuating craziness of lawyers ...

Once again, we see a liberal academic, a well-credentialed law professor, suggest that we further cede our private property rights to the state and provide vandals with a free pass for their graffiti – under certain conditions, of course.

As reported in Newswise …

If someone spray paints a stunningly beautiful landscape on the side of a railroad car, is he an artist or a vandal? What about hundreds of people freezing at once in a busy train station? Is that whimsical art or interference with the public?

Legal system grappling with issues?

The law is pretty clear, defacing the property of another is a crime as is accessing restricted property to commit the offense. So why should anyone waste time and effort on even considering the breaching of these legal constructs? Unless the person considering the issue is an asshat, a law professor seeking to obtain media face time in order to promote a destructive political ideology or a recently published book?

Those are questions that the legal system is grappling with as artists take their work further into the public domain and redefine the nature of art itself. In response, University of Iowa law professor Randall Bezanson thinks artists should be given greater legal leeway in the use of public and private space. Calling it ‘trespassory art,’ he is urging courts to interpret the law in such a way that protects artists from trespassing, nuisance and other laws and ordinances.”

Not only is Randall Bezanson a clear and present danger to a society that respects property rights, he makes a mockery out of the legal profession.

Who is to define “public art?”

Consider the established school of modern art – where opinions of artistic merit range from worthless trash to priceless collectables. Who is to say that the graffiti on a wall is art or an eyesore? The courts? The jury? Or that a public performance is somehow worthy of the disruption of the lives of the people who are forced to witness the act? Do we not have more pressing legal issues facing our nation in this time of economic and social crisis?

"’Property laws make it difficult for public art to truly flourish, relegating it instead largely to museums, galleries, performance halls and buildings,’ said Bezanson. ‘These limitations affect the culture in which we live and the opportunities for creative expression in the public mind.’”

Bezanson cites proper venues with controlled access and legal protections – making it clear that he knows right from wrong – yet goes ahead with his cockamamie suggestion.

“Bezanson said trespassory art seeks to borrow visual legitimacy from a message -- whether the message comes from a billboard or a can of vegetables -- and incorporate the message into a new message of the artist's making.”

Is this another liberal's psychobabble of political correctness where everyone’s expression of art  – no matter how crazy – seem to have some measure of worth? Or is there a legitimate issue to explore?

“He said trespassory art requires the use of a certain public or private space because the art can be created only on that specific space, so that it takes the form of anything from modifying a billboard to milling about a store to climbing a building.”

Billboards are private property subject to contract law. To allow anyone to deface a billboard with legal impunity is madness. Likewise, climbing a building may expose the building’s owners, the occupants and the public to extreme risks. And who will pay for the unintended consequences of artistic expression gone awry? The law professor? The courts? The public?

"’We should open a space for art when it produces no actual harm, a place where artistic value to the public can be shown, and where justification for the trespass must be tied to the true nature of art,’ he said. ‘A place where what is done is clearly an act of art and cannot be confused with the ideas or tastes of the owner of the property.’"

This crazy professor acknowledges that an artist must trespass on private or public property and allowed to deface the property of another in order to create and complete their artistic vision; sheer lunacy! Am I to believe that I, as a citizen of the United States and a respecter of the law, must submit to the willful rape of my rights?

’Unfortunately, he said trespassory artists frequently run afoul of laws and ordinances that leave no exception to invade property for the creation of art. Perhaps the most noteworthy example is Spencer Tunick, who specializes in photos of thousands of nude people at once in a single place. Although his work is neither graphic nor explicit, he has been arrested several times for violating public indecency ordinances in places like Cleveland and Buffalo, NY.”

Perhaps the law was written to protect the rights of individuals who should have the right to remain unmolested by those who want to use the unwilling individual’s assets, be they time and/or space, for their own artistic visions.

The problem with society is lawyers …

Since when does the law demand a private citizen cede their rights for the benefit of another private citizen? In fact that’s what the argument about the Kelo Supreme Court decision is about: the confiscation of private property by the state, belonging to an individual and being conveyed to another private individual ostensibly for a public purpose rather than a public need.

“Other skirt-the-law artistic movements modify billboards to make political or social statements (‘McDonald's-better living through chemistry’), or put stickers of traditional artwork on containers in stores, say, a Picasso on a can of peas.”

The examples provided by the professor clearly demonstrate the damage to a commercial enterprise – a cost which cannot be calculated and recovered from the individual who perpetrated the act.


"’The point of the artist is to subvert commercial space for artistic use in an attempt to disrupt the mundane commercial process with a purely artistic moment,’ Bezanson argues in his paper, ‘Trespassory Art’" which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. The article was co-written with Andrew Finkelman, a UI law graduate and current assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.”

What if such works contain an inherent message: a commercial one (publicity for the artist) or a social one (become a vegan) that is intertwined with the artistic value of the work? Should this person not pay to exhibit or perform their work as do the great multitude of conventional artists?

I wonder if this work is just another scholarly misadventure into speculative legal matters or another example of a liberal, activist agenda with deep societal consequences and the further erosion of our rights, liberties and freedoms?

Bezanson is one of the first legal scholars to explore the legal intersections of art and the constitution, and his book ‘Art and Freedom of Speech,’ which will be published in September, explores the protections afforded to artists. Bezanson said artistic expression is tricky from a legal perspective because, unlike speech and press, it's not specifically protected by the First Amendment.”

The truth emerges …

Bezanson not only acknowledges that art is not specifically protected by the Constitution, but we find that he is promoting his book. Perhaps hoping to profit from the controversy it may generate?

"’The guarantee of free speech has historically been interpreted to protect only reasoned and cognitive forms of expression,’ said Bezanson, whose book was published this month and is available from the University of Illinois Press ‘But art is frequently neither of those. It is often emotional and sensual, and does not simply make an appeal to our reason. As Plato put it, art is dangerous because it looses emotion and imagination in unpredictable ways.’"

Where is the line between art and the law on disruptive public performances which result in the inconvenience to innocent bystanders or in actual, provable damages?

Don’t ask me to agree to your craziness or accept the inconvenience it produces …

“Another artistic movement generating public buzz is ImprovEverywhere, which films its ‘exhibits’ and puts them on YouTube. The group takes a whimsical approach to public art by, for instance, having hundreds of its ‘agents’ freeze at once in Grand Central Station and hold their position for five minutes, or sending dozens of agents into a Best Buy store wearing the same blue shirts and khaki pants as the company's customer service employees.”

"’The Grand Central stunt created an enchanting agglomeration of movement and stillness, a high-tech version of the beauty and energy of a Kandinsky painting at the expense of the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority,’ Bezanson and Finkelman write. ‘It may have been beautiful, intriguing or just plain odd, depending on who you ask.’"

Should a modern day self-proclaimed Michelangelo be allowed to paint the unadorned ceiling of a church without permission and without consequences?

“Bezanson said that because such art has inherent value, the courts should change the legal framework of trespassing and nuisance laws when dealing with trespassory art. He argues that courts should make room for this valuable, evolving form of artistic expression by denying the right of property holders to collect damages from trespassory artists unless the property owner can demonstrate the art caused them actual harm.”

One, who is to say any art has an inherent value which supersedes the rights of those who unwillingly supplied the medium or the exhibition space to the detriment of their rights, liberties and freedoms? And two, any property owner may demonstrate actual harm and provable damages – all arising from the clean-up efforts required to restore the property of its legal and rightful owner to its condition prior to defacement.

How do you prove a negative? How does one prove the artistic merit of a piece; take a poll of liberals and/or art snobs?

Bezanson said his idea won't give license to vandals or trespassers to cause whatever damage they want to another person's property and be free of legal liability by calling it art. He said an artist would have to demonstrate that his or her art had to be exhibited in a specific place in order to have any artistic impact for it to be declared trespassory art.”

"’Much of trespassory art is site specific, so that the meanings of their utterances, actions and events are affected by their local position, by the situation of which they are a part, and defined in relation to its place and position,’ Bezanson and Finkelman write. ‘Site specificity explains why alternative avenues for communication, such as parks or sidewalks, may in fact be no alternative."

Anyone with common sense would ask, why this venue? And the answer is likely to be related to the number of people who will see the work, rather than the nature of the work itself. Thus the decision would be made only on the availability of an audience or the possibility of further media attention – nothing intrinsic to the artwork itself – as art does not demand to be seen or performed. Thus we can surmise that the motives of the artist are more important than the message conveyed in the artwork.

If I have an overwhelming desire to deface a wall in the Congress with the self-explanatory word “bullshit” followed by an seemingly endless row of exclamation points trailing off into a perspective point – should my work be left in place? Even if it is offensive to some? Even though it subverts the intent of the original architect and owners of the building? The message is clear and probably widely acknowledged as true.

“For instance, he said sending several dozen ImprovEveryhere members wearing Best Buy uniforms into a Wal Mart would lack the whimsical impact of those people walking around a Best Buy. In fact, it would probably have no impact at all.”

“Bezanson's proposal to create this limited privilege for artists does not leave property holders without complete redress. He said that artists who damage property with their unauthorized art can be required to pay for the damage, and artists who refuse to remove their art from private property can be required to do so by the property owner.”

So are we to believe that the artwork is of a transitory nature and that the property owner does have rights?

“But Bezanson believes that if no actual harm comes to the property owner, the value of the artistic statement should override the owner's property-holding rights. He admits that such an approach would be ‘messy and controversial,’ but said the impact on public art is worth the effort.”

Bottom line …

I can only conclude that the authors are self-promoting liberal activists who believe that an individual’s property rights, as defined, conveyed and protected by the law, are somewhat subservient to the needs of a society who must recognize an artist’s work or the needs of an artist to provide his work to the public. This makes absolutely no sense, upsets the rights, liberties and freedoms of private property owners, further contributes to a state of anarchy and is a clear and present danger to our present societal system.

While I have mocked Professor Bezanson for his particular opinion on “trespassory art,” I would like to acknowledge that he is a man of significant legal accomplishment and standing within the legal profession. Which in no way mitigates my opinion that his suggestion is crazy and should be discarded in the dustbin of failed legal theories.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Reference Links:

UI law professor suggests giving legal leeway to ‘trespassory artists’

Randall P. Bezanson; David H. Vernon Professor of Law

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

Why tort reform is not in the Obamacare legislation: the democrats are afraid of their “special interest friends,” the trial lawyers …

In perhaps one of the most honest exchanges between a politician and a constituent,  Howard Dean explains that tort reform is not in the healthcare bill because the bill’s authors did not want to take on the trial lawyers.

See it for yourself …

So how can you trust President Obama when he touts a comprehensive healthcare reform when it does not consider a major, multi-billion dollar, reason for continually rising healthcare costs?

Capture7-22-2009-11.10.07 PM

Just another example of the corrupt and complacent manipulation of the system by those who do not care anything about healthcare – but want to control the American public in order to advance their radical socialist agenda.

Be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

Legalized gambling: where is the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)?

How do you set a valuation on a quasi-public company that is being operated by the Federal Government in a conservatorship – and which has admitted past material accounting errors and executive malfeasance?

How can you trust any organization which is being politically manipulated by the Administration and members of Congress in order to pursue “affordable housing” policies which call for the relaxation of underwriting standards?

How can you value derivative products which others in the financial community refuse to touch? 

And why is a reputable stock exchange still listing what amounts to “penny stocks” being manipulated by day traders and others when the firm is technically “unsound” without further infusions of taxpayer’s cash? Especially when they call for the delisting of low-priced stocks?

Reuters is reporting …

“Fannie, Freddie soar as day-traders seek profit”

“Shares of U.S. government-controlled mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac soared for a second straight day on Tuesday after attracting the attention of day-traders looking to turn a quick profit with these low-priced household names.

“Fannie Mae shares rose as much as 24 percent to $2.12 while Freddie Mac gained as much as 14 percent to a high of $2.34 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.”

“Though both hard-hit companies were essentially nationalized by Uncle Sam to prevent them from going under last fall, Fannie Mae shares have more than doubled since starting the year at 76 cents. Freddie Mac shares have almost tripled in value from 73 cents.”

"You can get these massive spikes in these low-dollar companies that are structurally in a lot of trouble," said Ryan Detrick, senior technical strategist at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

The Pot calling the Kettle Black?

Isn’t this the exact same type of regulatory complacency that President Obama’s Administration is trying to hang around the neck of former President Bush?

Where are the regulators when it comes to protecting people who are simply gambling money on the rise or fall of extremely speculative stocks?

Can the SEC or the GAO actually obtain reliable accounting data from Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s regulator, the FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency)?

If these were private companies, they would be long gone. If they had been FDIC-regulated banks, they would have been sold to other institutions.

But these organizations are too big to fail – so they became the responsibility of the government that created them.

But why is the government allowing people to speculate on something which may have little or no value and whose finances are far from transparent?

Could it be to generate revenue for the securities industry? Or something more sinister: like keeping the stock alive so that it does not have to be reported as a dead net loss by the banks who hold large amounts of shares on their books?

Whatever the answer, the Obama Administrations charges of regulatory laxity in the Bush era are now beginning to ring hollow.

Be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve

Reference Links:

Fannie, Freddie soar as day-traders seek profit | Reuters

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

The truth about Ted Kennedy: Soviet collaborator acting against fellow American politicians?

With the passing of Ted Kennedy, we are now taking a second look at the man whom I considered a coward for abandoning Mary Jo Kopechne as she frantically struggled to escape being trapped in a submerged car.

And I am now stunned to find that Ted Kennedy, whom I also considered a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings – was apparently an actual collaborator with the Soviets in order to conspire against fellow Americans such as former President Jimmy Carter and former President Ronald Regan.

A reader suggested that I review Paul Kengor’s book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

The book contains a letter from the Soviet Union’s unclassified archives which appears in the appendix of the book (pages 317-320).


Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterrand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and published a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

I am flabbergasted …

Here is an well-born American Senator proposing, or should I say conspiring, to mount a concerted joint political campaign with a sovereign enemy foreign power against a fellow American politician, Ronald Reagan, over the reduction of America’s nuclear deterrent. I am not skilled enough as a historian to know whether or not this is an act of opportunism – or something much, much worse.

Perhaps, now that Kennedy is dead, the American people will reexamine the motives and actions of the democrat party liberals who act more and more like Marxists with each passing day.

Like father, like son … pandering to America’s enemies for political power? Or striking private deals to ensure one’s political power base?

Hard to believe that Ted Kennedy may have just been reflecting the views of his father: about defeatism,  democracy, and using foreign powers to advance your own political agenda.

Consider his father’s attempts to communicate with Adolph Hitler…

“Kennedy [his father]  rejected the warnings of Winston Churchill that compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible; instead he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in order to stave off a second world war that would be a more horrible "Armageddon" than the first.”

“Throughout 1938, as the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, Kennedy attempted to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler. Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without State Department approval, ‘to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany.’"

Kennedy argued strongly against giving aid to Britain.”

"’Democracy is finished in England. It may be here," stated Ambassador Kennedy in the Boston Sunday Globe of November 10, 1940. In that one simple statement, Joe Kennedy ruined any future chances of becoming US president, effectively committing political suicide. While bombs fell daily on the UK, Nazi troops occupied Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, Ambassador Kennedy unambiguously and repeatedly stated his belief that the war was not about saving democracy from National Socialism (Nazism) or Fascism. In the now-infamous, long, rambling interview with two newspaper journalists, Louis M. Lyons of the Boston Globe and Ralph Coghlan of the St. ‘Louis Post-Dispatch, Kennedy opined:

"It's all a question of what we do with the next six months. The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time.’ ... ‘As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us... I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to see that the country gets it,’"

“In British government circles during the Blitz, Ambassador Kennedy was widely disparaged as a defeatist.”

“When the American public and Roosevelt Administration officials read his quotes on democracy being ‘finished,’ and his belief that the Battle of Britain wasn't about ‘fighting for democracy,’ all of it being just ‘bunk,’ they realized that Ambassador Kennedy could not be trusted to represent the United States. In the face of national public outcry, he was offered the chance to fall on his sword, and he submitted his resignation later that month.” <Source>

Bottom line …

We are now seeing the influence of decades of socialist and communist infiltration into our government institutions and major organizations. One need only look at President Barack Obama’s agenda to see the confluence of public policy with the writings of Marxist theorists who put forth rules for destroying America from within – primarily by infiltrating American institutions, using our own laws against us, diluting patriotic Americans with others who have little or no interest in politics. One need only look at the leadership of the environmental movement which actively crusades for population control, anti-nuclear power sources and weapons, anti-growth initiatives which seek to cripple our economy and military; not to mention the promotion of an energy policy and foreign policy which conveys significant power to sovereigns who often act against American ideals and values.

Perhaps it is now time to question the motives and actions of our leadership. Paying special attention to the democrats who continue to fight against policies which would mandate energy independence; fight against policies which would strengthen the dollar fight against policies which would restrict turning illegal aliens into voting democrats.

I am sorry that I do not respect Ted Kennedy and/or the modern democrat party. Ted Kennedy should not be confused with his brothers who had character and stood up for America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Being a member of the “lucky sperm club” and being born into a political family of wealth and privilege does not make one admirable. And what can value we ascribe to Kennedy’s long service in the Senate other than backroom politics and a public remembering his slain brothers. Of course Kennedy participated in worthwhile legislation – often crafted by lobbyists, special interests and which conveyed special privileges to the special interests.

I hope in the coming days, the media will actually discuss this issue and place it in its proper historical context.

As for me, I think America just might be a better place without Ted Kennedy and some of his far-left radical/activist liberal democrats.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Reference Links:

Ted Kennedy and the KGB|Paul Kengor Interview - FrontPage Magazine

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.”

Senator Ted Kennedy cooperated with the KGB, Soviet leaders to undermine Reagan

“Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex."

The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets| Nellie Bly

A detailed account of the Kennedys and their associations with organized crime, scandals and politics.

“… while Joe set about to make his fortune with a brilliant and imaginative combination of stock speculation, mortgage foreclosure and war profiteering.”

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

KennedyCare: The democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds ...

As an example of the stunning hypocrisy of the democrats who are attempting to push through Obama’s healthcare initiative on the dead, bloated carcass of Ted Kennedy, consider the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid …

Reid Statement on the Passing of Senator Kennedy

August 26, 2009

Washington, DCNevada Senator Harry Reid made the following statement today on the passing of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy:

“The Kennedy family and the Senate family have together lost our patriarch.  My thoughts, and those of the entire United States Senate, are with Vicki, Senator Kennedy’s children, his many nieces and nephews, and his entire family.

“It was the thrill of my lifetime to work with Ted Kennedy.  He was a friend, the model of public service and an American icon.

“As we mourn his loss, we rededicate ourselves to the causes for which he so dutifully dedicated his life.  Senator Kennedy’s legacy stands with the greatest, the most devoted, the most patriotic men and women to ever serve in these halls.

“Because of Ted Kennedy, more young children could afford to become healthy.  More young adults could afford to become students.  More of our oldest citizens and our poorest citizens could get the care they need to live longer, fuller lives. 

More minorities, women and immigrants could realize the rights our founding documents promised themAnd more Americans could be proud of their country.

“Ted Kennedy’s America was one in which all could pursue justice, enjoy equality and know freedom.  Ted Kennedy’s life was driven by his love of a family that loved him, and his belief in a country that believed in him.  Ted Kennedy’s dream was the one for which the founding fathers fought and his brothers sought to realize.

“The liberal lion’s mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die.” <Source: Harry Reid|Senate>


  • Equality? The man born of special privilege and wealth who exerted almost absolute power over those who surrounded him.
  • Driven by a love of a family – that he disgraced and dishonored at every possible moment with his personal behavior?
  • Minorities? You mean the man that would sing Mexican drinking songs and do everything in his power to legitimize illegal aliens for political purposes?
  • Patriotic? You mean the man who conspired with the Soviet Union against fellow Americans, former President Jimmy Carter and former President Ronald Reagan? I will blog more on this subject of Kennedy’s collaboration with the Soviets for pure political purposes.
  • Protection of senior citizens? You must be kidding? Here is a man that championed Obama’s healthcare plan which proposed to cut significant funding from Medicare and to incentivize authoritarian doctors to introduce “End of Life” options to the elderly and the infirm.

People are asking me if I have no empathy for a fellow human being who just died. Short answer: No! I am not a hypocrite and my feelings about Ted Kennedy just 24-hours prior to his death did not change into hypocritical political correctness on his passing.

I thought that Ted Kennedy was a drunk, a lecher and a coward who left a young girl to drown – clawing desperately at the rear window of a car submerged in approximately seven feet of water. The son of bitch disappeared for about ten hours before reporting the accident – and at the same time disappeared from my life.

We need to be very, very careful that we do not turn Kennedy into the icon he never was to push a healthcare plan that should never be.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Update(01): 09-26-09 If Obamacare is renamed KennedyCare to gain a sympathy vote, I hope that the citizens of the United States realize that Ted Kennedy will have screwed more people in death than he did in life. Hardly an optimum situation. Perhaps we should name it KopechneCare in honor of the one person who Kennedy did kill: up close and personal! -- steve

Today, it seems that everybody is mourning the death of Ted Kennedy as a “Lion of the Senate” and one of the greatest legislators of our time.

Are you mad …

The reality was quite different. Here was a man of entitlement, a product of a confluence between criminal and political elements, a man of extraordinary privilege, and a drunk, lecher and, yes, coward and killer. A man who let a young woman drown to preserve his chance at high office. A man not to be confused with his brothers, also born from the same cloth and their father’s overwhelming desire to produce a political dynasty to promote and protect the fortune he so nefariously gained through illegal activities.

To think that America continues to owe the somewhat dysfunctional Kennedy family a pass to high political office is to betray America. These are not the best and the brightest as we have seen the failings of the past and present Kennedys. Some struggling with drug and alcohol delusions and some barely able to put a sentence – um, uh, um – together. Some pushing environmental causes – but not in their backyard.

They have enough political power, privilege and profits to last them another century – why would anyone vote to implement a continuation of the dysfunction found in a Massachusetts which also gave us John Kerry and Barney Frank.

In these desperate economic times, we do not need any more backroom deals and special arrangements. Pandering to special interests and the looting of our national treasure. No more “do as I say, not as I do” liberals who are all about securing power by promising entitlements to the poor and profits to the powerful.

Viewed as a man, Kennedy was a lowlife, a man not worthy of the accolades being showered on him today.

Kennedy,  and even the concept of a Camelot, was and is a media myth. One that cannot and should not be repeated.

It is time for Americans, and especially those in Massachusetts, to start making decisions  about their leaders and the future of our nation. Ignore the mainstream media – they have lost all credibility and are now complicit in the socialization of America. Their product is apparently of little or no interest to Americans who have seen a massive media betrayal in the media’s support for President Barack Obama and his dangerous policies.

Do the right thing – while you may feel sorry for the passing of a fellow human being – do not imbue this coward with the character he was so sorely lacking. Especially to the extent of appointing a family member to take his place in an already corrupt and dysfunctional Senate.

To use Kennedy’s death as a rallying point to push the most toxic healthcare legislation ever conceived by Congress  in his name  is to continue the abomination that was his life.

As far as I am concerned, Ted Kennedy died on the same day he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown, clawing frantically at the rear window of the submerged car – waiting for the help that never came. Political influence saved Kennedy from a manslaughter charge, but in the Court of Public Opinion, he should be judged guilty and branded as a coward for life. There should be no celebration of his life and, at least in my opinion, no moral equivalency and no forgiveness for his cowardly act.

It is now about saving America from the liberals who flout their special privileges and rule as if they are royalty. Enough with the celebrities and enough with the backroom boys. It is time for clear-headed thinking about our leadership and the direction they are taking our beloved country.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Reference Links:

Chappaquiddick: No Profile in Kennedy Courage|ABC News

“In the summer of 1969, consiglieres of the former John F. Kennedy administration -- Robert McNamara, Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorensen, among others -- convened in Hyannisport to write the apology that would save the young Sen. Ted Kennedy from himself.”

Only days before, Kennedy had left the scene of a fatal car crash on the small island of Chappaquiddick on Martha's Vineyard, taking the life of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne.”

“The second-term senator waited nearly 10 hours to report the accident and offered virtually no explanation other than he ‘panicked.’"

"’In those conclaves a speech, not unlike the 'Checkers' speech, was crafted for him to give on TV, throwing himself on the compassion of the American people to write and call in to keep him on the ticket,’ said Edward Klein, author of the new book, ‘Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died.’"

"’All of the Kennedy acolytes were there,’ Klein told ‘His wife Joan was not allowed downstairs. They didn't want her to hear it.’"

The details of the July 19 accident were salacious: a Regatta Weekend reunion party at a friend's cottage with all married men (except one) and six women – the ‘boiler room girls’ -- who had worked together on Robert Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign.”

After a day of sailing and heavy drinking, Kennedy drove his black Oldsmobile sedan off a small wooden bridge into Poucho Pond, trapping Kopechne in seven feet of water.”

“Edward Moore Kennedy -- only 38 and up for re-election the following year-- had violated one of the cardinal rules in politics: ‘Never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy.’"

ABC will be covering the event in the style of the mainstream media – and at least their story lead is both honest and accurate.

A subsequent investigation revealed that there was help at the first house he would have encountered – an accomplished diver who could have saved Mary Jo if only prompt action were taken.

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


UPDATED: 10-01-09 Proof of the malignacy that may exist in the New York Federal Reserve?

The is reporting ...

"AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax"

"The nation’s largest labor union and some allied Democrats are pushing a new tax that would hit big investment firms such as Goldman Sachs reaping billions of dollars in profits while the rest of the economy sputters."

"The AFL-CIO, one of the Democratic Party’s most powerful allies, would like to assess a small tax — about a tenth of a percent — on every stock transaction."

“'It would have two benefits, raise a lot of revenue and discourage speculative financial activity,' said Thea Lee, policy director at the AFL-CIO."

"Lee said that taxing every stock transaction a tenth of a percent could raise between $50 billion and $100 billion per year, which could be used to pay for infrastructure projects and other spending priorities. She said the tax could be applied nationwide or internationally."
Pursuing their socialist and wealth re-distribution dreams at the expense of American capitalism sounds like a bad idea. And having one of these hyper-politicized activists heading the New York Federal Reserve sounds like a very, very bad idea to me!
Original blog entry ...

Will the appointment of a union political activist with little or no financial background impede the actions of the Federal Reserve and unduly support union activities over the Fed’s obligations to the citizens of the United States?

As I see it:

The Federal Reserve is a private institution that is owned by its member banks and has a congressional charter to act as our nation’s central banker.

On the private side, the Fed has a fiduciary interest to return a profit to its investors and to perform other such financial, repository, processing and reporting services which can not be performed by the institution’s members themselves.

On the public side, the Fed has a mandate to manipulate the monetary supply in such a manner as to encourage robust economic growth, maintain the soundness of our dollar, curtail the growth of inflation and to encourage full employment. This is does by using various “tools” to affect the economy.

And while I applaud the re-election of Ben Bernanke to another term as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, I have great reservations about the appointment of Denis Hughes, president of the New York state branch of the AFL-CIO, who has been serving as acting chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Board since May.

About Denis Hughes …

“Denis M. Hughes, President of the 2.5 million member New York State AFL-CIO, became a union member at the age of 16 when he joined the Retail Clerks Union. In 1968, Mr. Hughes became a member of Local Union No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.”

“In 1985 Mr. Hughes joined the New York State AFL-CIO staff as Political Director and Assistant to the President. In February, 1990 he was appointed to the position of Executive Assistant to the President. In this capacity, Mr. Hughes was responsible for the coordination of the COPE and Legislative programs as well as the overall policy and development of the staff departments within the State Federation.”

“On March 23, 1999 Denis Hughes was elected President of the New York State AFL-CIO. He was subsequently re-elected to four year terms in August, 2000 and August, 2004.”

“As President of the New York State AFL-CIO, Mr. Hughes has made creating a more mobile, active and aggressive statewide labor movement a top priority. He has set a tone for organizing new members into the movement and has led the way in developing proactive legislative and political statewide strategy.”

Following up on his commitment to grow the labor movement and organize new members, President Hughes led a successful legislative effort to secure unprecedented labor protections and organizing rights for workers who work at casino gaming facilities in this state.”

“In addition, historic ‘card check’ legislation was passed that recognizes union designation by showing a majority interest through card check. This groundbreaking legislation speeds up the recognition process for those employees whose bargaining rights fall within the jurisdiction of the State Employee Relations Board.”

“In 2001, President Hughes led the way for New York State to become the first state in the country to adopt and implement the New Alliance. This historic restructuring initiative consolidates the economic, political and legislative force of the labor movement. The New Alliance allows the labor movement to better utilize its resources in order to secure progressive legislation and help labor supported candidates gain victory on Election Day.

“Denis Hughes is a graduate of the Empire State College, Harry Van Arsdale School of Labor Studies with a Bachelor of Science Degree.”  <Source: AFL-CIO>

While I have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of unions based on their socialist background, rewarding seniority over merit, raising the costs of all goods and services with ever-increasing wage and benefit demands, their promotion of anti-competitive work rules and their involvement in less savory activities, these are not the reasons I believe that Denis Hughes should not be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The reason …

Denis Hughes is not have the requisite financial background to serve in this position … a position which affects every citizen and taxpayer in the nation as the New York Federal Reserve is often the chosen entity to implement the full economic actions of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

Denis Hughes appears to be a democrat operative and ally of President Barack Obama and appointed solely to insure that the unions continue to provide funding and voter support for democrat causes.

I believe Denis Hughes represents a major conflict of interest between the private and public sector of the Federal Reserve’s operations and I am unsure that his loyalty will fall to the citizens of the United States in the performance of his duties before those of his union members.

Considering President Obama’s promise of transparency and accountability, neither one of which is adequately enforced at the Federal Reserve, I am openly questioning whether or not Denis Hughes is the right person at the right time and will take the right action for the right reasons.

The Federal Reserve is still problematical …

Bloomberg is reporting …

“The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.”

“Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.”

“The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.”

The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said U.S. Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. ‘It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.’”

And so are the unions …

Nowhere has the confluence of organized labor and organized crime been so prominent as in New York. Union officials have often helped unqualified people and even organized crime members into the union.

“After two fatal tower crane accidents last year, New York City instituted a series of reforms to increase safety and oversight in the construction industry, including requiring a 30-hour class for crane operators and other workers on the safest way to raise and lower a tower crane.”

“But some sessions of the city-mandated class are being taught by a union official who has admitted that he helped unqualified people, including organized crime figures, get into his union, according to sworn testimony and investigative reports. He and other union officials helped some of those men secure licenses to operate smaller cranes at construction sites across the city, the testimony and the reports say.” <Source>

While most members of unions in the United States are hard-working individuals and family men, it is their leadership I suspect and there is no doubt in my mind that the confluence of politics, money and union activities might become more toxic as time progresses.

That is not to say Denis Hughes is not an honorable man who will do the right thing, it’s just that I do not trust President Obama and his band of community organizers to avoid influencing the upcoming elections to their advantage. After all, it’s the Chicago way – a blend of criminality, thuggishness and politics that loots the public treasury while professing to “do good” for the people.

Perhaps it is time for the membership of the unions to reassess their leadership and act first as individual citizens rather than members of an organization which may exert great influence in changing the course of America towards socialism.

And perhaps it is time to follow Representative Ron Paul’s lead in demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve. Personally, I see no reason why GSE’s (Government Sponsored Entities) should exist – often with built-in conflicts of interest. How long will it be before we discover that, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the Fed has actually become Feddie Mad! In my opinion, the Federal Reserve should be abolished, its duties reclaimed by the Department of Treasury and the United States be slowly eased out of its fractional banking system. We should re-issue government green-backs and slowly remove Federal Reserve Notes from the system. After all, both are backed with the full faith and credit of the United States – even though the system is being co-managed by a private concern.

Be well, be safe and take care of yourself and your family first.

-- steve


OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …

Reference Links:

Labor Leader Named Head of New York Fed -

Court Orders Fed to Disclose Emergency Bank Loans (Update2)

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell