The Born Identity
Rik and Janel Villegas
By Rik and Janel Villegas
Special to the Saipan Tribune
Last month was not a good month for President Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate would not vote on his controversial healthcare bill before the August recess, federal deficit spending has reached a record $1.8 trillion, one major poll showed his approval rating had dropped below 50 percent, and a growing group of people question his citizenship and therefore his right to be President.
“Birthers” is the label used by those who want to relegate the latter group as a fringe element of society. Many complained last year when they noticed that Senator Obama would not place his hand over his heart while the national anthem was being played, and their concerns were heightened during the election when they noticed that he didn't wear a U.S. flag pin on his lapel, until he finally put one on. When they wanted proof of his birth in Hawaii, he displayed his certificate of live birth on the Internet for all to view.
End of argument, right? Wrong. Last month the “Birther movement” (also tongue-in-cheek known as the Born Identity) gathered more momentum when it burst through the conservative blogosphere and back into mainstream controversy again because a federal judge in Tampa, Florida, denied Stefan Frederick Cook's request to be rehired by Simtech Corporation, an Odessa-based military contractor. Cook claimed the Department of Defense pressured Simtech to fire him.
You see, Mr. Cook is also U.S. Army Major Cook, a reserve soldier who hired an attorney and was granted a request to not deploy to Afghanistan because he believes President Obama's presidency is not legitimate because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. Cook believes he would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the U.S. under Obama's command, which would subject him to possible prosecution as a war criminal.
Cook was represented by attorney Orly Taitz, who states that he is not refusing to go to Afghanistan because he is afraid to fight. In fact, Taitz says that Cook is ready to go today if it can be proved that President Obama is a legitimate commander in chief. She has dozens of other members of the military waiting for her to represent them in similar cases.
Because of the recent surge in the number of inquiries about the birthplace of Obama, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino recently reissued a statement that he was born in Hawaii, and his certificate of live birth can be seen on the Internet. However, that's not good enough for the Birthers who want to see the long form of the birth certificate that states the hospital and other details, because no hospital in Honolulu has any record of his birth.
I had not put much thought or time into the Birthers' argument, but decided to do some research after it became a public issue again. Instead of finding more answers, my research only raised more questions. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Kansas in 1942, which makes her a U.S. citizen. She married Barrack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan native who was a British subject, whose citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, which would have allowed Obama Jr. to have dual citizenship.
After Obama's parents divorced, his mother later married an Indonesian businessman, Lolo Soetoro, and she moved with her son to Indonesia in 1966 or 1967. She became an Indonesian citizen and Obama was allegedly adopted by Soetoro, took on the name of his stepfather, and was registered in school documents as Barry Soetoro. His mother divorced for the second time and Obama moved back to Hawaii with his mother and half-sister at the age of 10. By the way, his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, but some claim she also possesses a certificate of live birth from Hawaii.
The smoking gun in this whole scenario is not whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, but it may boil down to a trip Obama took to Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981 with a Pakistani friend, Wahid Hamid, who attended Occidental College with him. Obama fails to mention the trip in either of his books, but he did discuss the trip to Pakistan during a speech in San Francisco on April 6, 2008. Obama's campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, confirmed the visit to Pakistan in 1981 on his return from Indonesia, so it is well established that he made the trip.
What makes this so interesting is that the U.S. State Department had Pakistan on a “no travel” list in 1981. Pakistan was under martial law at the time and Americans were prohibited from entering the country. A U.S. passport would not have allowed him to enter Pakistan, but the country accepted an Indonesian or British passport at that time. So the question is: If he could not use a U.S. passport, what passport was Obama offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration on his trip as a young college student?
There are only two possibilities: 1) If he used a British passport it would provide proof that he was either born in Kenya, as the Birther's claim, or he accepted the citizenship of his Kenyan father; or 2) if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to prove that he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather in 1967, and he relinquished whatever citizenship he held, American or British.
This bizarre supposition and its implications would be excellent fodder for a future Tom Clancy or Dan Brown novel. The President could summarily dismiss all of these accusations by simply showing his long form birth certificate, passports, visas, and college records (some believe he received aid as a foreign student). However, President Obama has refused to share the documents and he has purportedly spent over a million dollars with three law firms in an effort to thwart court attempts to reveal the documents. If he has nothing to hide, I hope for his benefit and the sake of the country that he shows the documents so the whole ordeal can be put to rest. Until he does, the Born Identity movement will not only grow larger, but it could threaten to derail his credibility with many of the American people.
First of all - I am one of the "angry mob" if that's the way the DNC is playing this [distortion of facts] game. I am a homemaker, a wife, a mom, and someone that holds this country very dear to my heart. I am educated and know when my government is out-of-control. That time is now and I'm not going to take it anymore. I will protest alongside the "manufactured" likes of ACORN and the SEIU - it's my right as an American. Obama is on video as stating his desire for a single payer system that will end up taking away my right to choose my doctor and my care. WAKE UP PEOPLE! We can make some very simple changes in healthcare that will enable a capitalistic system to prevail in driving down costs - OPEN UP INTERSTATE INSURANCE OPTIONS!! Open up the playing field - revamp the "copay" system where doctors can set the price they want - AND THE PRICE CHART WAS CREATED BY GOV'T.
I am for NEITHER PARTY. I am for a strong America. I am also for a Republic that allows freedom in business, speech, and yes, even in protesting.
I've had a chronic condition for most of my life. I have always worked hard & have been blessed to work for larger companies and have never been denied great healthcare. I'm happy with my healthcare and we pay for it - it's not free. My husband works hard, too, and we don't want a handout nor do I feel ENTITLED to cheap healthcare. You work - you earn - if you cannot work - God willing, the gov't. has some money left over to help you...oh, wait - that's right...the gov't. has no more money!
Hard working Americans shouldn't have to pay for healthcare of those illegally in this country either. You come to America the right way and receive the provisions we offer - fair and equal. If you are secretly here breaking the law, go home. This country has enough people that ARE legal citizens, seniors, and children that do legitimately need help our gov't. should be able to provide.
23
Liberty_4_All on August 5, 2009 at 07:09 PM
Friends,
When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won’t just be us gun owners or Flat Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You’ll be right there next to us.
You see, you all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the Second Amendment, etc. And you thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You’ll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television – it’s all good. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost – go team! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as “politics as usual” – “the same old stuff”.
In the end, it’ll all be OK won’t it?
Not this time. There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government’s grab of personal freedom, it’s blatant abuse of the constitution, and it’s attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won’t start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.
As for you, why… you’ll be shocked because you didn’t see it coming. And eventually you’ll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You’ll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you’ll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.
You know, McCain wasn’t much of a candidate. I’ll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don’t blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn’t know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can’t negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.
Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America . They’re not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe….. they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Peaceful Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in the next two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it…get ready. It will happen.
When that event happens, whatever “it” is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.
Live Free or Die Fighting
PRINCE FREDERICK (Aug. 6, 2009) --- Rep. Steny Hoyer will be back in his district to
talk about health care, but the roundtable discussion at Calvert Hospital is...closed to the public...following his being lambasted in New York on Tuesday when he showed up in Utica, N.Y. to preach about the advantages of high speed rail as a way to improve and develop the economy.
The Joker Racist? Are You Joking? - Thursday, August 06, 2009 at 00:29
The Joker Racist? Are You Joking?
David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 6, 2009
Liberals spent eight years caricaturing President Bush as a chimpanzee, a vampire, a criminal, with a gun to his head, being hanged, being beheaded, and − yes − as the Joker. But these very same people now cry “racism!” when President Obama is caricatured as − you guessed it − the Joker.
This is one of many examples of liberals’ one-way sensitivity − they are acutely sensitive to insults to them, but utterly insensitive to insults by them.
California used tax funds for billboards that showed “big tobacco” as a leering alligator tallying smoking-related deaths. “Big tobacco” is many thousands of farmers, factory workers and distributors. Smoking is unhealthful, but history shows that seeing a group of human beings as repulsive animals can be even more unhealthful.
Consider law professor Alan Dershowitz, who called proponents of impeaching Bill Clinton “mad dogs.” The Nazis depicted Jews as diseased rats. Rabid dogs and disease-carrying rats are killed and incinerated. It is easy to see where this can lead.
Consider the liberal who said that conservatives want to “drag us behind a pickup,” referring to the horrible murder of a black man.
Consider the Democratic activist who called Republicans “night-riders,” referring to the KKK.
Consider the actor Alec Baldwin, who proposed that we “stone to death” conservative Rep. Hyde, then murder his family.
Consider the liberals who call conservatives “fascists” and “Nazis.”
Consider the ACLU official who compared Justice Clarence Thomas to a “serial murderer” and the “Antichrist.” Might this be just a wee bit exaggerated?
Consider MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who called opponents of nationalized health care “liars,” “screamers” and “prostitutes” who are “in the pay of insurance companies.” Not satisfied, he called protestors “fake,” while White House Press Secretary Gibbs called their anger “manufactured.” Really? Is ObamaCare so perfect that no one can honestly find fault with it?
Consider MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who called opponents of ObamaCare “jihadists.” Really? They bomb trains, buses and pizzerias? They behead those who disagree?
Consider Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that opponents of ObamaCare are “carrying swastikas.” Really? They put their opponents into gas chambers?
Name-calling is so much easier than actually debating the issues. Any fool can do it.
If we want a nonviolent resolution of political differences, we must avoid words that imply that those who disagree with us are evil. And we surely must avoid comparing them to loathsome reptiles or rabid dogs.
Language should be used precisely, to convey meaning, rather than carelessly, to rouse emotions. Reckless, emotion-evoking words may bring temporary political advantage, but they rarely lead to effective action.
On the contrary, such language produces muddled thinking and hampers us from finding solutions to serious problems. Worse, it induces us to think of those who disagree with us as vermin that ought to be exterminated.
Thoughtful choice of words is not just a linguistic exercise − it is essential for a free nation.
If Clarence Thomas is a “serial murderer,” what do we call Ted Bundy?
If Republicans are “fascists,” what do we call fascists?
If conservatives are “mad dogs,” what do we call terrorist bombers?
If political opponents want to “drag us behind a pickup,” what do we call Klansmen?
If those who disagree with us are “Nazis,” what do we call practitioners of genocide?
And if those who deny global warming are “traitors,” what do we call John Walker Lindh, Adam Gadahn and other homegrown jihadists?
If we use up our worst insults on political differences, we will have nothing left to describe real evil. And if we can’t describe it, how can we recognize it − much less fight it?
Have you ever heard a conservative call a soldier who was killed in action an “idiot,” the way liberal cartoonist Ted Rall insulted the memory of Pat Tillman?
Have you ever heard a conservative say of someone she disagreed with, “I hope he’s not long for this world,” the way NPR’s Nina Totenberg referred to Gen. Jerry Boykin?
Have you ever heard a conservative hope for the death of a Supreme Court justice, the way ABC’s Julianne Malveaux said of Clarence Thomas, “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease”?
Have you ever heard a conservative call for the murder of the head of a liberal organization, the way director Spike Lee called for the shooting with a “.44 Magnum” of Charlton Heston, then president of the National Rifle Association?
Have you ever heard a conservative pray for the death of a liberal commentator, the way pornographer Larry Flynt “prayed for the death” of conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly? (Prayed to whom?)
Have you ever heard a conservative ridicule a liberal’s health problems, they way liberals mocked Dick Cheney’s pacemaker, or made fun of John McCain’s difficulty in using a keyboard because of war wounds?
Have you ever heard a conservative hurl nasty insults at a beauty contestant because of her views on marriage, the way liberals call Carrie Prejean a “dumb bitch” with “half a brain,” and even belittle her humanity in revolting ways?
If conservatives made such vicious remarks, the media would rake them over the coals. But liberals get a pass. What does that say about the media?
Conservatives are called “racist,” “uncaring,” “homophobic,” “sexist,” “anti-child,” “unconcerned with the elderly,” “anti-immigrant,” and even “Nazi.” A psychology journal compared Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler.
Reagan was president for eight years. Where were the death camps and the world war? Rush has been on the air for 20 years. When did he advocate genocide?
Conservatives have a right to ask, “You so-called liberals are very free with your accusations, but are you sure you aren’t blaming us for your own hostile feelings? Are you sure you aren’t projecting your own racism, sexism and homophobia onto us? Are you sure it isn’t you who want to kill those who disagree with you?”
If we confront our own hostile feelings, we will be less likely to project them onto others – and less likely to choke off legitimate debate and poison the democratic process.
Such accusations give us a window into the mind of the accuser. It isn’t a pretty sight. Rather than hoping that conservatives develop kidney failure, liberals should worry about their own heart failure. Being heartless is an odd quality for those who claim to be “caring” and “tolerant.”
Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Liberals control the White House, both houses of Congress and many courts. They control most newspapers, as well as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and National Public Radio. They control Hollywood. They control most schools and universities. It does not speak well of liberals that they control all this, yet they are still filled with rage at those who dare to disagree with them.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Nazis and U.S. Politics
Thomas Colton Ruthford, Letter to the Editor, 6/7/95, Arlington, Washington Times
During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits.
First of all, “Nazi” was gutter slang for the verb “to nationalize”. The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was “The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany”. Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.
Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer’s election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves “The Children of the New Age of World Order” and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as “The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred”. Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a “Conservative Reactionary”. Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a “New World Order”.
The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the “New World Order” and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn’t fall into the hands of “terrorists and madmen”. Right wing fanatics of the “Old Order” who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for “fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people”.
Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an “Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act” through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the “jack-boots” (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people.
When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.
The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.
Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as “right wing fanatics”.
Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the “peacekeepers”.
Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren’t Republicans, or “right wing”, or “patriots” or “militias”. They were Socialist monsters.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Angry rich liberals
Victor Davis Hanson
Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists.
Take well-meaning environmentalists who warn us that our plush lifestyles heat up and pollute the planet. To listen to former Vice President Al Gore or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, we must immediately curtail our carbon emissions -- or face planetary destruction.
Yet these influential prophets of doom do not have lives remotely similar to the lesser folk they lecture. From time to time, Mr. Gore hops on a private jet - and purchases "carbon offsets" penances for the privilege. His mansion not long ago consumed more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year. Mr. Friedman lives on a sprawling estate reminiscent of those of the grandees of the 18th-century English countryside.
The rest of us would find these environmental scolds more convincing if they chose to live modestly in average tract homes. That way, they could limit their energy consumption and provide living proof to us of how smaller is better for an endangered planet Earth.
Critics in the business of racial grievance offer the same contradictions.
Recently, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. got into a spat with a white policeman who arrested him in his own home for disorderly conduct. Mr. Gates immediately cried racism. He argued that his plight was emblematic of the burdens the black underclass endures daily from a racist white America.
However, Mr. Gates is one of the highest-paid humanities professors in the United States. And Mr. Gates - not the middle-class Cambridge, Mass., white cop -- engaged in shouting and brought up race. Within hours, the black mayor of Cambridge, the black governor of Massachusetts and the black president of the United States all rallied to their chum's side.
Yet this well-connected, well-paid man apparently wants us to believe in melodramatic fashion that he is living in something like the United States of decades ago.
Indeed, citing racial grievance at times proves a valuable asset for wealthy celebrities. Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson posed as victims of various racial oppressions when they found themselves in their own self-created legal problems. Race-baiter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply retreats to his three-story mansion on a golf course after his day job of denouncing whites as exploiters.
We have more of the rich on the barricades railing about the economic inequality of America. Former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina preached about "two Americas," one poor and abandoned, one wealthy and connected. Mr. Edwards should know because he built himself a gargantuan multimillion-dollar mansion in which he might better contemplate the underprivileged outside his compound.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, sermonizes about corporate greed and credit card companies' near-extortion. Nonetheless, Mr. Dodd managed to squeeze out of the corporate world a low-interest loan, a sweetheart deal for a vacation home in Ireland, and thousands in campaign donations.
Former senator and Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle of South Dakota was a big proponent of raising taxes to nationalize our health care system. The problem was that the populist Mr. Daschle both hated paying taxes and loved limousines -- and so avoided the former but welcomed the latter.
In the old days, critics of what we called the "system" were at least for the most part blue-collar workers, underpaid teachers or grass-roots politicians whose rather modest lives matched their angry populist rhetoric. Now the most vehement critics of America's purported sins are among the upper classes. These critics' parlor game has confused Americans about why they are being called polluters, racists and exploiters by those who have fared best in America.
Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Mr. Gore, a millionaire, is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.
Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because its members lack their own taste, rare insight and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Mr. Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was "messing" with.
Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Mr. Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Mr. Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less bad he feels about his own chauffeur and tax avoidance.
Here's a little advice for all of America's wealthy critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives -- and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Larrry said:If one drinks wine while stalking, that is "social stalking" which is perfectly fine in liberal circles
Transplanted from a home under a bridge to the cyber world, a Troll
"is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum... with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response, or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Bloch Pushed Underlings To Counter Negative Press With Comment Posts
By Andrew Tilghman - June 13, 2008, 6:33PM
We just learned that the head of the U.S. Office of Special Council, whose office and home were raided by federal agents last month, had a habit of instructing employees to go online and post comments rebutting news stories that he perceived as negative, according to a report from CongressDaily
"That did go on," said a former employee who has been involved in the activity. "Bloch would suggest posting things in the comments section. ... There'd be a negative article about Scott's involvement on something ... and [the] comment would be something like 'This Bloch guy is doing a good job." Two former OSC employees have gone so far as to describe Bloch as thin-skinned and "obsessed" with his press coverage.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/post_5.php
Whereas I am a vocal person interested in politics and in understand how people think.
reader (the Second) said:hopalong said:or maybe the two women that can't help but attack the messenger!
Hasn't been that long ago that you chastised me for singling you and alice out in a post and now you are doing it, just who is the real hypocrite?
As far as posting several times back to back we have seen you do it all the time. HYPOCRITE..
You singled me, alice, and OT out with personal insults in your tagline. That's a different matter than suggesting that hypo has a hidden identity (which is a fact) and a not so hidden agenda.
hypocritexposer said:How's your day going in Reader? Busy day in DC today, or are you working from home today?
Whereas I am a vocal person interested in politics and in understand how people think.
Most of the time you are vocal all right. personal insults, false accusations, but no debate. Those that bring facts are diverted.
What brought you to Ranchers in the first place Reader? Google search on BSE, vCJD?
How is the Food safety lobbying contract going, or are you working on a new contract now?
Would you like to talk ranching or farming yet? Maybe to just understand how we think?
As far as what I think of you I will tell you....First off I think your a kind person overall...Second I think you maybe lonely,as the amount you are on this site alone,not including the hours of reading the internet you must do each day/nite...Thirdly,you puzzle me,for I ask why would a guy from Canada be soooooo into American issuse?...I can understand medicare as its a hot topic in our country too,or even trade issues or dealings outside America,world issues ......So I am puzzeled as to what your motivation is....Fourthly I give you credit for at least trying to answer your critics and supporters.....I do wonder why you seem to go after R2 as much as you do,but your rarely rude,mean or nasty .....Which are 3 things I can be at times.....So hypo as for me,I try to pick my spots on American issues,You can take that for what is worth...I am however surprised you have not heard from Aplus yet,he does not like canadians .....best of luck to you.....