Your ideas? Remember, you are an "Obama Progressive". http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-446-3.html
You don't have ideas of your own.

Very nice. Do you cut your own trunk sections or is there a source for those?

Unfortunately for you, the lies about Benghazi are rapidly coming apart. Who knows what this will lead to. From your favorite news source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/

First you need a picture on your computer that you want to use. Then go into "My Profile" and scroll down to the "Avatar" section. Click on "browse" which will access the drive on your computer. Navigate to the picture you want. Select it and click OK, then "update avatar". The pictures need to be GIF, JPG, BMP or PNG files.

Including pictures in your posts is similar. Directions are below the comment area.

For the long term subversion of a society education is where it begins. American education started changing after WW II. Some teaching method changes were introduced in the '60s; new math, etc. The changes accelerated a little later, roughly coinciding with the creation of the Department of Education. Student academic achievement has declined ever since. Probably not a coincidence, although it also correlates with the disruption of the family, restrictions on schools ability to enforce discipline, emphasis on cultural diversity, the "dark side" of American history, drug culture, self-esteem first, and on and on.

For an interesting glimpse into the past read the 1895 8th grade graduation exam used in Salina, Kansas. Keep in mind that most of the teaching then was done in one-room schoolhouses. My great grandmother taught in Nebraska and only had a high school education. http://www.salina.com/1895test/

For books relating to Islamist activity I have found Andrew McCarthy to be quite informative. He is the federal prosecutor that tried the "Blind Sheik", orchestrator of the first World Trade Center bombing. Recent works: Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America . He is not to be confused with another Andrew McCarthy that writes travel books.

You may (or may not) be interested in a paper I have posted at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/ If you read it I'd be interested in an oldsters opinion. I'm only 70.

Welcome to the club. Your assumptions about the leanings of the other members seems correct, although we do have some vocal libs.

A hint: when replying to someone elses post use the quote option (as I did here) to make it clear what or who you are responding too. Enjoy!

One of the "extreme" items is a voter ID card. I was in Argentina a couple of months ago. On display in the Evita Peron museum is her ID card from 1946. If Argentina could do it in 1946, what is the big deal about doing it here?



The DNI is Argentina's Documento Nacional de Identidad, or National Identity Document. It is a small book of personal information that includes a unique number, used to obtain social services, to vote, in renting, opening bank accounts, etc.

New residents are legally required to obtain a DNI within 90 days of arrival

Documento Nacional de Identidad

The story does seem to be overblown propaganda. I did find confirmation of the arrests on a CBS TV site, but not much on any of the rest of the story. http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/04/30/17-arrested-for-legislature-protest-free-on-bond/

Gee, do you think we could write a new constitution as good as the Affordable Health Care Act? The French have tried several times and never really got a good one. The guys that wrote our Constitution were a very unique group. They understood the frailties of human nature, the corrupting influences of power and money. They also knew the histories of various governments going back to ancient Greek and Roman times. They had thirteen examples of representative government with many years of first hand experience. They also understood the existing European governments with their good and bad points. They knew how laws were written and adjudicated in various countries.

Sure there were problems with parts of it, slavery being the most obvious. Most of them knew it had to go away. It was already losing economic viability and they thought it would fade away. That was before cotton became the main crop of the south.

The main problem we have now is not with the Constitution, but structures that have been devised to work around it. We don't really have a government "by the people" any more. That is because of all the federal agencies that operate with little legislative oversight, writing "rules" that they enforce with little judicial oversight. Run by people with political agendas and frequently no work experience in their area. Increasingly the agencies are used not just to regulate but to control industries, finance, health care, etc.

As with our immigration laws a President can choose what to enforce or not. We have had a big push for more gun legislation. One might ask why. Only 2% of current firearms violations are prosecuted (25,000 out of 1.2 million violations. http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Few-gun-laws-enforced-1114708.php)

Somehow I don't think a constitutional convention will help.

Reply to original post:
As Hillary would say, "What difference does it make?"

The New York Times published this story confirming allegations made by Andrew Breitbart a couple of years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm.

After years of legal wrangling the Supreme Court dismissed all but a handful of the claims. On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.

...The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

The sources for the numbers seem reliable. Even at a fraction of that number it is intolerable. The victims here are in the rigid power structure of a military chain of command. That power structure is necessary for military purposes, but it does affect the individual's perception of appropriate responses to the behavior of "superiors". It also creates uncertainties about the limits of appropriate behavior. That affect is particularly strong on new recruits and adjusts over a period of time. It also limits the viable responses to perceived abuse.

This is an example of the corrupting influence of being in a position of power, even if that power is only relative to the victim.

Welcome to the discussion. Sounds like you will fit right in. There are several of us "golden agers" and maybe some young whipper snappers, some libs some conservatives, some confused, etc.

Tassine, the discussion between you and Chardo (page 4) is very informative. He couldn't understand your reference to stealing.


Chardo wouldn't go around his neighborhood demanding that his neighbors contribute to his health insurance, Social Security, etc. But he would vote for someone to go to Washington to do that for him. You see a moral equivalence there that completely escapes him. There is a difference in world view that makes mutual understanding almost impossible.

Chardo's world view is called "liberal" by some and "progressive" by others. I have a paper on the development of progressivism at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/, but its too long for most people. Here are some high points.

During a 2007 presidential debate Hillary was asked: "Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word ‘liberal’? And would you use this word to describe yourself?”

Hillary answered: "You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

"Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century."

President Obama has never been that forthcoming, but he did at one time say that he is a "pragmatic progressive". It seems like a strange thing for a president to say. In this context the word "pragmatic" does not apply to policy formation, it refers to a technique in philosophy for evaluating the truth of statements. But I digress.

Chardo has stated that he is an "Obama Progressive". He'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret this to mean that he would never question an Obama position. Of course, only racists question Obama.

Lets get back to the progressive era that Hillary referred to. This was the formative period of progressivism. All over the world the writings of Karl Marx and others were being widely read and debated. He had two books of note, Das Kapital and his Communist Manifesto. The first was an economic analysis, the second was his proposal for a government based on his economic principles. When we use the term Marxist we are referring to his economic philosophy only. What is not well understood by many is just how pervasive his ideas became. Universities in Europe and here were teaching his ideas, popular authors like Upton Sinclair wrote novels promoting socialism, socialist political parties were very strong in Europe and had considerable following in the US too.

As one would expect, many who were swayed by his opinions were not in full agreement, and numerous variations of interpretation led to the development of similar philosophies. Progressivism is one of these. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as an early progressive.

Woodrow Wilson's thoughts on the limitations of "democratic" government.

Democracy is bound by no principle of its own nature to say itself nay as to the exercise of any power. Here, then, lies the point. The difference between democracy and socialism is not an essential difference, but only a practical difference — is a difference of organization and policy, not a difference of primary motive.

... 'State socialism' is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2208

If you are thinking, "we are a republic, not a democracy", Wilson was referring to America as a democracy.

Several years later John Dewey, an influential progressive philosopher and prolific writer discussed the evolution of liberal thought. Dewey preferred the term "liberal" over "progressive", but the term "liberal" has meant different things at different times. The liberals of the 1700s were proponents of "individual liberty", whereas the "new" liberals (late 1800s to present) were for liberty from concern. Here he is referring to the old liberals like the founders of our Constitution.

The point is that their failure to grasp the historic position of the interpretation of liberty they put forth served later to solidify a social regime that was a chief obstacle to attainment of the ends they professed. ...they had no glimpse of the fact that private control of the new forces of production, forces which affect the life of every one, would operate in the same way as private unchecked control of political liberty. But they failed to perceive that social control of economic forces is equally necessary if anything approaching economic equality and liberty is to be realized.

Then came F.D.R.'s Second Bill of Rights:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Socialism and even Communism had no particular stigma until after WW II and the start of the Cold War. Prior to that the various liberal factions spoke freely about their political objectives. The Cold War and McCarthyism changed all that. Since the demise of the Soviet Union there is more oppenness and aggressiveness.

The liberal position is entirely emotional and based on a desire for a better society. The fact that it has never really worked is not a deterrent. Woodrow Wilson commented on that too:

The socialist does not disregard the obvious lessons of history concerning overwrought government: at least he thinks he does not. He denies that he is urging the resumption of tasks which have been repeatedly shown to be impossible. He points to the incontrovertible fact that the economic and social conditions of life in our century are not only superficially but radically different from those of any other time whatever.


Chardo: [i]Yes I will impose my beliefs on others if I think that it will make for a better world, but that is not religion!It's politics.[i]