Liberal Morals

From the Ethicist over at the New York Times:

My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.

The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable…(emphasis added)

A bit of Droit du seigneur, I guess – while there is little evidence that such a thing really happened in medieval times (t would be something directly in contravention of Christian teaching and thus it would have been condemned by Church authority if it ever reared its head) it does neatly encapsulate both the utter moral collapse of liberals as well as their servility to their lords.   The man feels that some government project trumps the vow his wife made to him.  Politics is everything to liberals and if Dear Leader needs to schtupp your wife a bit to make the working day bearable, then it is worth it…and you’ll get a pat on the head from the “ethicist” at the New York Times (who, however, figures that if the adulterer is some one of socially conservative morals then, please, expose away).  This does, also, greatly call in to question just why adultery was considered sufficient reason for the CIA director to resign – I mean he, too, was engaged in a pretty important government project, right?

It also leaves open the question:  what if it wasn’t adultery?  What if the leader engaged in a vital political project was also taking bribes?  Would exposing that at the risk of ruining the important government project be a no-no in liberal land?  Makes you wonder just how much corruption is out there among liberal leaders and not being reported about because it is “beyond honorable” to cover up for the sake of “political good”.

Advertisements

111 thoughts on “Liberal Morals

  1. 02casper November 10, 2012 / 11:32 pm

    I thought it would be worth while posting the rest of the column:

    “The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.

    Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either. “

    • Amazona November 10, 2012 / 11:48 pm

      If “…that’s not ethical, either…” then what are the ethics of printing the letter anyway?

  2. Amazona November 10, 2012 / 11:47 pm

    Sorry—what were you saying, Mark?

    I was so distracted by the oxymoron an ethicist at the New York Times, I kind of lost track of the thread.

    Can you repeat the questions?

    • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 1:23 am

      Amazona,

      LOL – there is something absurd in that. But this is our liberal morality…black is called white.

  3. 02casper November 10, 2012 / 11:49 pm

    Mark,
    I’m not sure why you think this is an example of “liberal morals”. I can think of a number of conservatives who have had affairs. A couple of them have run for president afterwards. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Petraeus running for office as a Republican in 2016.

    • mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 12:42 am

      Yeah. Like Gingrich. Not to mention that the General was a self identified Republican. But no matter. This is an affair of the heart. Not politics. Just more of the same moralizing by B4V and Mark Noonan. The supreme absolutist Christian.

      • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 10:41 am

        Just more of the same moralizing by B4V and Mark Noonan. The supreme absolutist Christian.

        No, actually that would be Dennis.

        This does, also, greatly call in to question just why adultery was considered sufficient reason for the CIA director to resign – I mean he, too, was engaged in a pretty important government project, right?

        It’s pretty clear that the administration has known about Petraus’ affair for some time. I won’t be the least surprised if it turns out that someone in Obama’s inner circle threatened Petraus with exposure of the affair if he testified truthfully about Benghazi; and he said “screw you”, and revealed the affair himself.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 10:54 am

        Spook,
        “It’s pretty clear that the administration has known about Petraus’ affair for some time.”

        Actually, it’s not that clear. In fact, it looks like a republican might have known about it first.

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83681.html?hp=l1

      • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 12:26 pm

        Actually, it’s not that clear. In fact, it looks like a republican might have known about it first.

        Casper, the FBI is the enforcement arm of the U.S. Justice Department, and the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch. I don’t know — sometimes you are so f’ing stupid I don’t know how you survived to adulthood.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        Someone was worried about PETRAEUS “…potentially jeopardizing the security of classified information…. ” ?????????

        Oh, get real. His personal life aside, this man has served his country honorably and courageously, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that he would ever jeopardize any classified information. This would be called hogwash, if it were not such a vile and toxic spin on reality.

        Oh, murmurs the pious whistleblower, I would never mention this, BUT………. The sanctimonious excuse for revealing this is just disgusting, as well as a backhanded swipe at Petraeus and his integrity.

        It does nothing but support Spook’s suggestion, that the administration is really worried about what Petraeus might say, and is mounting a preemptive attack on his credibility, in this case by planting the lie that anyone was ever concerned that his personal affair might “…potentially (jeopardize) the security of classified information…” This is nothing but unmitigated crap, and an inexcusable personal attack on the General.

        Not a word about the administration ACTUALLY jeopardizing the security of classified information by leaking it for political purposes, or revealing it to be included in a “movie” that was really a campaign video to portray Obama as a courageous Commander in Chief.

        I can see, though, why casper would be attracted to this cleverly planted effort to create suspicion about the General’s trustworthiness—it is exactly the kind of weaselly sneak attack he would love to be able to mount, and tries to execute, but just lacks the intelligence to do well.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 12:31 pm

        Well said, Spook. Your comment on casper’s intelligence and grasp of the structure of government reminds me of a recent claim of his that we always have all these federal elections where we can make our voices heard.

        (As a recent resident of Wyoming, I can assure you that not even in his home state does casper have more than one federal election. And this man claims to teach the Constitution and American government!)

      • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        I can see, though, why casper would be attracted to this cleverly planted effort to create suspicion about the General’s trustworthiness—it is exactly the kind of weaselly sneak attack he would love to be able to mount, and tries to execute, but just lacks the intelligence to do well.

        When I first got into blogging back during the 2004 primaries, I used to do the same thing Casper does: search for articles and studies that supported my POV and/or refuted the liberal POV. At some point, a long time ago, I outgrew that as I found that the Internet is a wealth of information on all points of view, some supported by facts, some not. I’ve learned more from Internet research in the last dozen years than in all my 16 years of formal education, and the way I view world events and the people who affect them has evolved as my knowledge has grown. One of my favorite parts of any conversation with someone who disagrees with me is when one of us says, “that’s interesting; I never looked at it that way.” The fact that, as someone who has devoted much of his life to education, Casper hasn’t evolved beyond weaselly, partisan, gotcha comments, would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 12:59 pm

        Spook,
        I am well aware that the FBI is the enforcement arm of the U.S. Justice Department, and the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch. I am also aware of the fact that the FBI does thousands of investigations a year and that it’s doubtful that the FBI director much less the President is aware of every single one of them. I also understand that sometimes information is passed outside of the regular communication channels within a large organization. The article that I linked to suggests that this is what happened in this case. If you have other information please provide a link or two.

        On a personal note, I like Petraeus. I consider him a fine man and an outstanding general. Regardless of his reasons for resigning, I feel we are losing someone who brings a lot to whatever job he is given.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 2:23 pm

        casper, quit your revisionist tap dancing. You claim that a “Republican knew it first” and then you link to an article which clearly states that the Republican in question was told this information by someone from the Executive Branch of the federal government.

        What part of “first” are you having trouble with?

        And why didn’t you pick up on the fact that the alleged reason for this FBI tattletale’s discussion of this was to plant the idea that Petraeus could not be trusted, and there was fear he might betray his country?

        Surely even YOU are able to see the sly maneuverings of the administration in planting little nuggets of disinformation designed to undermine not just the credibility but perception of the moral courage of a hero of this nation, just to try to avoid accountability for a truly cowardly and despicable decision.

        Surely even YOU can see that the message in this tattling is that “We are really afraid that Petraeus will betray his nation to avoid being embarrassed…”—-the subtext being that he is weak and therefore not credible, so don’t listen to anything he says because he just can’t be trusted.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 2:29 pm

        Spook, it’s not just that casper seeks out only articles he believes will shore up his own biases, it’s that he couldn’t even process the information in his own link!

        He actually thought that a Republican “was the first to know” without even registering that not only was the Republican TOLD this by someone else, and therefore could NOT be the “first to know”, he was told by someone employed by an agency of the Executive Branch.

        AND he missed the fact that the reason for telling Cantor was to get out the message that Petraeus is a loose cannon, that his loyalty to the nation is suspect, and therefore that he is not really credible as he is the kind of guy who would sell out his country to avoid a little embarrassment.

        casper’s blind allegiance to a system he doesn’t even understand, and even his knee-jerk hostility to a system he understands even less, is one thing. But his inability to even understand what he reads is quite distressing, considering that whatever does make it through his filters and the subsequent maelstrom of his thought processes is going to be fed to his poor students as fact.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 7:02 pm

        Spook,
        “When I first got into blogging back during the 2004 primaries, I used to do the same thing Casper does: search for articles and studies that supported my POV and/or refuted the liberal POV.”

        I didn’t seek out the article. I came across it several hours ago and thought it would add to the discussion. It wasn’t a gotcha. I’m not even sure how you think it applies to a liberal POV. Sad that you and Amazona feel it necessary to attack me for an article that I didn’t write. What it shows me is that you are far more interested in attacking me than learning the truth in the matter.

      • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 7:26 pm

        What it shows me is that you are far more interested in attacking me than learning the truth in the matter.

        Ain’t karma a bitch?

    • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 1:23 am

      The issue is not the affair it is that the writer calls it honorable to hide the affair – to cover it up lest some allegedly important government project be affected. If you can’t see the problem here then I’m genuinely sorry for you.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 6:56 am

        Mark,
        Liberal morals aren’t any different from conservative morals. Morals vary from person to person. What you are trying to do with this post is once again divide our country into us vs them, something that is done far too much by both sides.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 11:31 am

        But of course casper can’t see the difference. To him, the post is about an unfaithful husband, and then casper has spun that over into an unfaithful CONSERVATIVE husband. and then of course has tried to link that to political philosophy, which is understandable because he has no clue as to what political philosophy even IS and has it all muddled up with various Identity Politics issues.

        casper is just befuddled, and driven for some reason to come here to show us how befuddled he is.

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 11:31 am

        Casper,

        I am genuinely sorry for you that you believe morals vary from person to person.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 12:14 pm

        But on the Left, everything is relative. This is what allows them to declare with absolute certainty, when talking about serial adulterer and accused rapist Bill Clinton, that character is not important in a president, and then turn around and savage someone from the opposition for having an affair even though it resulted in a long lasting marriage.

  4. bozo November 11, 2012 / 7:29 am

    Oh, come on. This is clearly a letter from Doug Hampton to Megyn Kelly circa June 11, 2009.

    Somebody is punking someone.

  5. tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 7:33 am

    I see our resident progressive (proggy) drones still have a massive problem with reading comprehension.

    And in usual fashion, they try (poorly and predictably, mind you) try to project and deflect the real issue.

    “Liberal morals aren’t any different from conservative morals.”

    Really cappy? Are you serious? Let’s see, conservatives want to protect the unborn while the other wants to snuff them out, at any stage, and wants the federal government to pay for them and FORCE people to provide and also finance them even if it is against their religious beliefs.

    Wow, cappy, that has to be the most ridiculous (albeit STUPID) statement you have said here. And sadly, there will be many, many more.

    Pathetic.

    • mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 9:37 am

      The world is not black and white and you are truly delusional. There are many pro-life “liberals” as there are many pro-choice “conservatives. You, unfortunately, find complexity overwhelming and consequently reduce things into simplistic groupings. It’s absurd to claim that liberals want to “snuff them out”. Really? They actually have that desire? Is it recreational? I do not begrudge anyone for being pro-life. But Roe v Wade is settled law and it’s not libertarian to moralize to others. That’s one of my issues with you people. You’re not really conservatives, you’re theocrats.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 11:12 am

        Ooohhh, mitche finds the term “snuff out” to describe the poisoning and/or dismemberment of inconvenient children to be OFFENSIVE. Not the acts, you understand—just that phrase.

        And mitche goes on to try to sell more of his religious bigotry, in his effort to link respect for human life to religious belief, and then to spin that into a desire to have a nation run by a religion. (Though it is interesting to see a rabidly radical Lefty as much as admit that respect for human life is the territory of people of faith.)

        Now remember, just yesterday mitche treated us to some quite lengthy tirades in which he laid out and then expanded upon some of his more radical and insane ideas, so these come as no surprise, being as they are merely the latest in the string of proofs he has established.

        And he is doing the Lefty Shuffle and defining terms for us again. This time he defines “libertarian”. Yet he can’t define his own political philosophy. Hmmmm.

        Maybe we could take up a collection and send him some extra strong heavy duty Reynolds Wrap. as his own tinfoil hat doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job of blocking the voices.

  6. tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 7:35 am

    cappy: “What you are trying to do with this post is once again divide our country into us vs them,”

    obAMATEUR has already accomplished this the last four years of campaigning and his pResidency.

    Honestly, are you that willfully ignorant or just ideologically blind?

    • mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 9:38 am

      Ideology IS blind nit wit.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 12:12 pm

        No, mitche, all ideology is not blind.

        Some ideology is quite clear eyed and objective, subject to ongoing evaluation and analysis. I put the conservative ideology of allegiance to the Constitutional form of government for the United States in this category. It is not emotion-based, but develops over time as understanding and appreciation for the Constitution develops and grows. It is an objective decision that one form of clearly understood governance is better than another clearly understood form of governance, and it is based not on wishful thinking or Magical Thinking but on proven history of both models.

        This is hardly “blind”.

        However, I agree that for many, ideology IS blind, in that it is really emotional attraction to various personal issues without the understanding that they are merely facades for a political system. In this case, however, I would not say that this an “ideology” but rather the lack of an ideology, in favor of just looking at superficial issues instead of the basic form of governance that IS political ideology.

        Regarding non political ideologies, then yes, some can be “blind”. Not necessarily all, but some can be.

        I find that people who make the sweeping pronouncements that ideology is by nature blind, particularly political ideology, are people who have not bothered to do the studying and research to align themselves with any particular ideology, who hover on the outside of actual political thought and analysis but still feel qualified to make judgments and offer opinions.

        it’s an interesting phenomenon.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 1:25 pm

        “Ideology IS blind nit wit.”

        That’s what I said, bitchie.

        “The world is not black and white and you are truly delusional. There are many pro-life “liberals” as there are many pro-choice “conservatives.”

        Unfortunately, for you, the Democrats, especially the obAMATEUR, made the last campaign as black and white as it could get. Dozens of commercials were aired stating that if the Republican won, then the women’s “right” to choose would be taken away. The Democrat candidate would of course “protect” that “right”. They made it as black and white as possible – the ENTIRE party ran with that theme. It was at the convention.

        Too bad for you, your own party shot down your poor irrelevant argument. My argument is valid. The liberals stand for murder while the conservatives stand for preserving life of the unborn.

        Sheesh, your extremely poor reading comprehension is still getting the better of you. You look more like the average dumbed down obAMATEUR voter with each and every statement.

        Pathetic.

      • dbschmidt November 11, 2012 / 3:57 pm

        A section from a previous post that seems to fit here better. From James Carville;

        “Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

        The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

        Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

        What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

        The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

        Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

        Nuff said.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        “dbschmidt
        November 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm #
        A section from a previous post that seems to fit here better. From James Carville;”

        Except the quote is probably a fake.

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/carville.asp

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        GMB,
        The snoops article mention your source. Show me an original source (speech, article, etc,) written by Carville.

      • dbschmidt November 12, 2012 / 12:11 am

        See, Casper requires irrefutable proof to counter any idea it has before it farts it out into the mainstream. Snopes is hard core left wing (substituting your terms) so prove it otherwise. Go back to my original post and track down the “lies” you claim. Otherwise–just another cow flatulence you need to record in order to corner your claim on Global Warming (which is a true lie.)

      • ricorun November 15, 2012 / 11:17 pm

        dbschmidt: Snopes is hard core left wing (substituting your terms) so prove it otherwise.

        If Snopes is considered “hard core left wing”, one wonders if there is any common ground left.

    • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 10:43 am

      Tired,
      As I said, it is done far too much by both sides.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 1:32 pm

        Sorry, cappy but your “your side does it too”won’t stand here.

        ObAMATEUR ran the worst devisive campaign in modern history. Their are dozens of articles stating that the gender gap is the widest it has ever been. The pResident made this campaign about gender, sex, race, class, income, etc etc.

        I know, I know, the next excuse will be that you will put out there is “I never heard of that” or “I can’t find any such articles”….. Like the last time I proved you wrong.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 11, 2012 / 2:28 pm

        On this very blog, they’ve done nothing but pledge unceasing antagonism toward Obama–then they claim that HE is “divisive.” And they don’t seem to even grasp how contradictory that is.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 2:40 pm

        Actually, truthie, on this blog we have not “pledged” anything but allegiance to the Constitutional rule of law. Perhaps you need a new dictionary.

        But we have been unceasingly critical of the political philosophy represented by Obama, and yes, there has been the shorthand of just referring to “Obama” instead of using the longer and more accurate phrase of “the political philosophy and agendas promoted by Obama”.

        Get over it.

        Yet we have not tried to tell any demographic in this country that any other group of people hates it, or threatens it, or is intent upon harming it, or that they should consider any other Americans “enemies” and then focus on “revenge” and “punishing” them.

        We have not told black people that white people hate them and want them repressed, much less that white people want them back “pickin’ COTTON!!!” We have not told black people that those who believe in the Constitution want to bring back slavery. We have not told women that the Left is waging a “war on women” and is intent on DENYING THEM ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE!!!! , that the Left actually hates women and does not want them to be able to earn equal pay for equal work. We have not told Hispanics that white people are their “enemies” or anyone that people who believe in the Constitution are “domestic terrorists”. We have not warned people to be wary of returning veterans.

        And so on.

        Yes, to an Identity Politics Default Lefty, it is impossible to know the difference between political disagreement and efforts to divide the nation into disparate and mutually distrustful and even hating groups based on race or gender—because to people like you, this IS politics.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        AMA, to these mindless drones, like cappy and “truth” (bodie, Monty), simply disagreeing with obAMATEUR is being divisive.

        That is why these simple-minded fools will never be anything but drones, regurgitating the same nonsense as their masters.

      • 02casper November 11, 2012 / 4:49 pm

        Sorry tired, you’ve never proven me wrong.

      • tiredoflibbs November 11, 2012 / 8:53 pm

        “Sorry tired, you’ve never proven me wrong.”

        Only in your deluded world cappy.

        This statement alone proves you wrong: “Liberal morals aren’t any different from conservative morals.”

        I and others trashed your grossly erroneous OPINION with fact.

        Ama alone runs circles around you. Until you realize that your thought processes are seriously flawed, you will continue to be wrong and reveal yourself to be a fool.

        Pathetic.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 11, 2012 / 9:43 pm

        “Yet we have not tried to tell any demographic in this country that any other group of people hates it, or threatens it, or is intent upon harming it”

        Well, that’s just a ridiculous lie. Off the top of my head, you’ve told that to:

        Christians
        Catholics in particular
        “job creators”
        business owners
        and just plain conservatives

        And I’m sure there are plenty more. If you must lie, at least try to tell a plausible one. The one you told is even more blatantly ridiculous than vowing to disagree with everything Obama does, then claiming that Obama is being divisive.

      • ricorun November 15, 2012 / 11:22 pm

        Amazona: Actually, truthie, on this blog we have not “pledged” anything but allegiance to the Constitutional rule of law. Perhaps you need a new dictionary.

        Actually, Amazona, it seems most here (including you) allege to more than the Constitutional rule of law.

  7. mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 12:52 pm

    I know you will scoff at this too Ama, but I have very definite ideas about a governing philosophy. But it is just that; a philosophy, a guide and it is flexible. I spelled it out months ago to you. What is not flexible is my repugnance with others who want to impose their morality via legislation or who deny the empiricism of science with passages from the bible. Specifically, if someone thinks abortion is murder, don’t have one! Global climate change is real but a reasonable person understands that the bible isn’t the PDR, the periodic table of the elements or a treatise on the works of Einstein. Evolution too is an accepted fact. If someone chooses not to give credibility to those things, fine. But as the Gadsden Flag says, “Don’t Tread On Me”. Don’t try to teach creationism in a science class, don’t put forth Person-hood amendments and pay attention to the weather.
    At any rate, several yrs ago I took a number of surveys to identify my political viewpoints. And here is the scoff part. I am a left leaning Libertarian. Strict adherence to any philosophy is not adaptive. For some reason you use the constitution as a measuring stick and belittle any one who doesn’t. Then you; in your snarky, pseudo intellectual parlance deride me. The fact of the matter is that people who think what you think and alienate others with your in inability to find common ground and have such a hostile attitude about it are in a shrinking minority. The ship to the future has sailed. Would you like a row boat?

    • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 1:03 pm

      I have very definite ideas about a governing philosophy. But it is just that; a philosophy, a guide and it is flexible.
      —-
      For some reason you use the constitution as a measuring stick and belittle any one who doesn’t.

      The Constitution isn’t a measuring stick; it’s a contract between a government instituted by men that spells out what the government is empowered to do and what the government cannot do.

      I have an idea, Mitche. How about you and I play poker, only instead of using Hoyle’s rules, we’ll use flexible rules — MY flexible rules. Or maybe I sell you a house using a “flexible” sales contract. Or better yet, how about you come to work for me under an employment contract that is “flexible” — again, flexible being defined by me. You see how that works?

      • mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 4:40 pm

        I’m not a card player. And contracts can be both broken and amended.

      • ricorun November 13, 2012 / 8:47 pm

        Actually, the Constitution IS a measuring stick, and there are lots of reasons in it to argue it is. But perhaps Spook’s example of poker rules is the best one. True contracts typically go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages, while the entire Constitution, including all the amendments, goes on for just a few. But perhaps the most important thing is that the different articles in it are not totally consistent with each other. Therein emerge things like the elasticity clause, the interstate commerce clause, various rationalizations for several aspects of the PATRIOT act, et. al.

      • Amazona November 13, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        Fearing that the blog was starting to lose the insanity edge provided by mitche and bozo, rico rushes in to save the day.

        “True contracts typically go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages.”

        Good to know. “Typically” eh? Written a lot of these hundreds-of-pages contracts, have you? Or signed them? Thousands of pages? Really?

        In 2011 I entered into five contracts, totaling nearly $12M. None was longer than four pages, and that was just one of them. The others were shorter. I have never SEEN a contract that went on for hundreds of pages.

        Just curious—do you know what a contract is? I’m starting to wonder about how you bought your house, or financed a car.

        rico, wherever your alternate universe may be, it is clear that the Mother Ship is way overdue to pick you up and take you home, where you can peruse those many-hundreds-of-pages-contracts so “typical” of your native culture.

      • ricorun November 15, 2012 / 8:00 pm

        Amazona, you have a great knack for focusing on the things I say that are of lesser importance and ignoring the most important points. I’ll keep that in mind.

        And while I commend you on signing short contracts in 2011, and sincerely hope they don’t come back to bite you in the butt in 2013 and beyond, that’s beside the point. What you ignored is what I indicated is most important point, i.e: the Constitution — “that the different articles in it are not totally consistent with each other. Therein emerge things like the elasticity clause, the interstate commerce clause, various rationalizations for several aspects of the PATRIOT act, et. al.” You didn’t address that point AT ALL. But you should have first and foremost, because such things have been a bone of contention since the inception of our union. Likewise, it’s pretty apparent that you are not comfortable with the rulings of the final arbiter of such issues — namely, the Supreme Court. And frankly, neither am I. So I’m with you there, though I’m pretty sure we disagree somewhat on what rulings unsettle us most. But the bottom line is this: THE VERY FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT REMAINS AS RELEVANT AS IT EVER WAS most definitely indicates that the Constitution is NOT a very good contract, but more of a measuring stick.

        You can call it an “alternative universe” if you wish, but that’s how it is. Especially given your views on what makes a good scientific theory, not to mention a coherent ideology, I think it is necessary to ask… who, exactly, is living in an alternate universe?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 16, 2012 / 8:45 pm

        “You can call it an “alternative universe” if you wish, but that’s how it is. ”

        What Amazona calls an “alternative universe” is simply reality, which is the alternative to her world within the bubble.

    • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 2:06 pm

      Spook, you have made this offer many times in the past, and it is always ignored by the Lefties because they simply cannot answer it.

      mitche expresses “… repugnance with others who want to impose their morality via legislation…” yet this is the core of every law we have. If a man feels it is not wrong to kill his wife for infidelity, he will still have to face a law based upon the decision of society to impose morality via legislation, and will learn that under the law he has committed murder. If mitche feels he is quite capable of driving with a blood alcohol level of 1.2, he will quickly learn of the legislation which has imposed the morality that he has no legal right to endanger others by doing so.

      Just in this young nation we have had examples of things which some people did not feel were morally wrong—-killing Indians, enslaving blacks, and denying property rights and voting rights to women are the three that quickly come to mind—-and every single one of these has been legislated to impose a moral standard.

      To paraphrase mitche, if you don’t think killing your business partner to gain control of the company is wrong, don’t do it! If you don’t think racial discrimination is wrong, then just don’t do it, but leave those who disagree with you alone, because it is repugnant to legislate morality!

      Evolution IS an accepted fact. What is a theory is that life began with a random series of random events. The Rabidly Radical Left, such as mitche, love to pretend that awareness of the THEORY of random development of all life without a creationist act to start it off is exactly the same as denying the proven evidence of evolution after life was kick-started. Creationism is nothing more than offering another theory of that kick-starting event, other than the random collision of various particles. The subsequent evolution of life forms is not questioned. The determination to lie about the reality of the desire to offer more than one THEORY is the basis of much of the rabid Lefty’s bizarre claim that conservatives deny science.

      By the way, we have explained this to mitche and his kind right here on this blog, many many times, and the insistence on repeating this lie no matter how often it has been debunked is proof of the insane need to disparage political opponents on non-political grounds, which I assert is because they CAN’T argue with us on political grounds because they don’t have any.

      mitche whimpers about not finding “common ground” yet he has never answered my question of how, exactly, there can be “common ground” between the belief that the federal government MUST be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and the belief that the federal government must be unrestrained regarding its size, scope and power.

      How, exactly, would “common ground” between these political models work? Big government in odd-numbered years, small government in between? Because if you try to be a “moderate” and find a kinda-big, kinda-small, infinitely flexible little-here big-there compromise, you end up with chaos and instability.

      Here is the truth, which the Left denies and tries to shout down whenever it is explained.

      Aside from the real big issue of whether or not human life has intrinsic value, and can or cannot be assigned value based upon age or any other criterion, all other issues are well within the scope of compromise, of “common ground”. Note that I said ISSUES.

      But they are issues which must be addressed at the state or local level.

      What cannot be moderated without being destroyed is the basic blueprint for how to govern the country. Once you ignore the Constitutional requirement of a severely restricted federal government, you are outside the boundaries of Constitutional law. Period.

      The only way to deal with this is to set aside the ISSUES that the Left keeps throwing out to distract people from the real decision that needs to be made, and have an open and honest debate on the political model that should be the way the nation is governed.

      And if the choice, after examining all the evidence of the successes and failures of both systems, is that the people choose the big-government model, then the next step, if we are to be a nation of laws, is to either amend the Constitution or officially discard it in favor of another.

      Right now, under our current law, there is a process. We either follow the Constitution or we go through the process to change it. But if we simply ignore it, we are being very “flexible” but we are also being illegal.

      As for the issues, this is a simplification but a pretty accurate one. Each and every “issue” that played such a role in the recent national election was, under our current unchanged rule of law, not even an issue which should have been considered at the federal level. They are not among the enumerated duties and are, therefore, unless otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, legally allowed only to the states or the people.

      They were thrown into the mix because the Left knew that in any election in this country based solely on the choice between the Constitutional requirement for small and severely limited federal government with most of the power and authority kept at the state and local levels, or large and unrestrained federal scope and power with little authority retained by the states, the Left would have no chance of prevailing with the electorate. The Left knows that its only chance is to create so much confusion, so much churning emotion, so much distrust, so much hysteria, that the true elements of the election, the choice between the two political models, will be lost in the noise.

      So you throw in all these emotionally powerful issues and pretend that this is what the election is really about, counting on the success of the dumbed-down public school system to have produced an electorate too ignorant of the laws of their own country to realize they are being duped.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 11, 2012 / 9:45 pm

        “Creationism is nothing more than offering another theory ”

        Creationism is not a theory. It’s a hypothesis–one that is still lacking any supporting evidence, at that.

      • Amazona November 13, 2012 / 10:22 pm

        It also lacks any contradicting evidence.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 16, 2012 / 8:44 pm

        “It also lacks any contradicting evidence.”

        That sound you hear is millions of scientists worldwide facepalming at your ignorance of how science works.

  8. ricorun November 11, 2012 / 1:01 pm

    Mark: A bit of Droit du seigneur, I guess – while there is little evidence that such a thing really happened in medieval times (t would be something directly in contravention of Christian teaching and thus it would have been condemned by Church authority if it ever reared its head) it does neatly encapsulate both the utter moral collapse of liberals as well as their servility to their lords.

    While not examples of “Droit du seigneur”, there are several firmly established examples, and quite a few widely accepted rumors” of popes and other high officials of the Church engaging in sex out of wedlock (with both females and males) as well as fathering illegitimate children. In addition to that, a few popes were still married when elected to the Holy See.

    • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 1:27 pm

      rico, when did clerical celibacy become a rule of the Church?

      And how does the lack of clerical celibacy relate in any way to droit du seigneur” ? Oh, that’s right—you admitted that it does not, but you just couldn’t resist the opportunity to get in your snide digs.

      Classy………….

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 4:55 pm

        Amazona,

        Pretty much – I mean, I’ve seen some non-sequiters from our liberals from time to time but this really does take the case.

      • ricorun November 15, 2012 / 8:14 pm

        Speaking of non-sequiters, Mark, your attempt to associate an individual’s moral torment with their political and/or religious affiliation, without any stated evidence at all, reigns supreme. You, more than most it seems, should know better. I pray for your soul.

  9. mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 1:01 pm

    I paraphrase

    Of all the surprising and revealing results from Tuesday night, there is one relatively small bit of exit polling data that I think is the key to understanding the entire evening.

    You’ve probably heard by now that Mitt Romney won white voters by a sizable margin, while Barack Obama ran up huge margins among African-Americans and Latinos.

    In fact, he won Latinos by 71% to 27%, an even wider margin than in 2008 when he won them 67% to 31%. But almost no one has noticed what to me is the most shocking result, and that’s how the two candidates did with Asian-American voters.

    Now, Asian-Americans made up a very small sliver of the electorate, just 3%, so a presidential candidate’s performance within that group doesn’t necessarily carry with it massive electoral consequences.

    But Asian-Americans are also, according to the latest census, the fastest growing racial sub category in America. In fact, the census projects that by mid-century they will make up 9% of the country. And as it happens, Asian-Americans are also the nation’s highest earning ethnicity, with median incomes even higher than those of whites.

    So you might have predicted that Mitt Romney would do well with them, since he won among voters making more than $100,000 a year.

    But he did not. He got creamed, losing Asian-American voters 73% to 26%. This is a shocking result not only because just 20 years ago George HW Bush carried Asian-Americans comfortably, or because the margin is so wide,but because the entire category of Asian-American is so obviously a construction there’s little reason to suspect members of the group would vote with each other in any discernible pattern.

    Think about it for a moment: What exactly do a Filipino nurse in Hartford, Connecticut, a Pakistani geologist in the oil fields of Texas and a 5th-generation Chinese-American cop have in common? The same could be said for Latinos, of course, and even African-Americans, heck, even—gasp—white people. That’s because race is a social construction, not something out there in the world, but something we as a society create the rules, rhetoric and identities for. And in the political process nothing more assuredly creates firm political group identities than the experience of prejudice, contempt, marginalization and condescension. That is: In American history, the racial identity of those not classified as white tends to be forged in the furnace of contempt by the majority.

    That is the grand irony of this election and more broadly the predicament of the Republican party. Conservatives are creating their own electoral enemies. The beating heart of modern conservatism is its visceral appeal to anxieties and fears of white Christians. This is a different statement than saying the beating heart of modern conservatism is white racism or white supremacy. It’s not, or not principally. It is simply white “identity” politics, with all of the pathos and ugliness that implies. And if you don’t believe that, go read some conservative comment threads, or click over to the Drudge Report or Fox News, two outlets with a preternatural sense of the deepest anxieties of the modern conservative base.

    Look at the ceaseless coverage of the New Black panthers, and voter fraud and immigrants living high on the hog off government welfare, and the absolute frenzy the right whipped up over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

    Once you understand this then you can see that the Republican party’s problems are deeper than, say, Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, or even the far less controversial DREAM Act. That policy opposition is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The deeper issue is that for conservative politicians and networks and websites there is simply too much to be gained by feeding the sense of persecution and siege that many white Christians feel down to their toes. I’m not sure what is going to shift those incentives, because that insecurity, as an emotional fact is real and isn’t going away.

    This does not mean demography is destiny, since the construction of political identities that correlate to our racial categories is a dynamic process and not a fixed fact about humans, and it does not mean that Democrats are ensured some permanent majority in perpetuity because their ability to make the electorate look like the country — that is their ability to turn out their voters — may wax and wane depending on the candidate and the election.

    But it does mean that only way our politics avoids the increasingly ugly spectacle of a revanchist party attempting desperately to strengthen its appeal to a shrinking pool of white voters, is if the movement’s leaders show some genuine leadership and stop cultivating their base’s worst instincts.

    • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 1:11 pm

      I paraphrase

      Just who are you paraphrasing, Mitche? I’m sure you didn’t write that entire screed.

    • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 1:24 pm

      Allow me to correct this hateful rant:

      ” in the political process nothing more assuredly creates firm political group identities than the experience PERCEPTION of prejudice, contempt, marginalization and condescension. ”

      Therefore, the Leftist drumbeat of false accusations of these things, with the intent of creating this perception.

      Because Leftist ideology cannot prevail in this nation and must be first hidden behind facades of emotionally appealing “issues” and then the voting public must be divided into disparate demographic groups which are manipulated into mutual distrust, resentment and even hatred.

      “That is: In American history, the racial identity of those not classified as white tends to be forged in the furnace of contempt by the majority .”

      Utter crap. This is nothing more than a continuation of the strategy outlined above—the effort to portray white people as having contempt for other races.

      mitche, ask Spook to explain the Rule of Holes. You need to get a grasp of this concept and quit digging.

      • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        mitche, ask Spook to explain the Rule of Holes. You need to get a grasp of this concept and quit digging.

        Or brush up on his Mandarin Chinese.

    • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 2:13 pm

      Thank you for that link, GMB. I was pretty sure mitche was plagiarizing some other work—–no one so free with his apostrophes is going to be using words like “revanchist”—-but I didn’t know whose words he was stealing so freely without attribution.

      I guess legislating morality regarding the use of other peoples’ words is also repugnant. I’m starting to get a sense of the flexible nature of mitche’s Utopia.

      And of course he keeps giving us the most vile, hate-based, inherently dishonest screeds from the most insanely hate-driven liars he can find, which does seem to tell us who he has chosen to speak for him.

      As I said, spinning far outside the gravitational pull of reality, and sanity, too.

    • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 11, 2012 / 9:47 pm

      “Conservatives are creating their own electoral enemies.”

      They spent so much time and effort trying to suppress voting that they ended up making the targeted groups much more intent on voting. Funny how that works.

      • Amazona November 12, 2012 / 11:02 am

        The claim of attempting to “suppress”voting is one of the more vicious of soooooo many vicious lies spread by the Left this campaign. Yet the vast majority of black and Latino voters support voter ID requirements.

        You know who fights this requirement? The white male leaders of the Left, who know how important it is to be able to bring in busloads of immigrants and street people to vote as they are instructed.

        The claim that insisting on voter ID actually caused more people to vote in protest is not a vicious lie, just a silly one.

  10. GMB November 11, 2012 / 1:21 pm

    “Evolution too is an accepted fact.”

    Talk about a shovel ready LOLzer.

    It is a theory that can not be proven using the scientific method. It is belief not a fact. In other words, evolution is just another religion. One that can not be proven by any means that a scientist can reproduce.

    Prove me wrong.

    • Retired Spook November 11, 2012 / 1:56 pm

      GMB, same for global climate change except that global climate has changed numerous times over the geological history of the planet. But the assertion that, somehow, the actions of man are suddenly altering the entire global climate in the short span of 130 years, when taken in the context of the geological age of the earth, is one of the most laughable claims imaginable.

      • GMB November 11, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        I wish temperatures would hurry up and rise. I have dibs on 4,000 acres of prime permafrost near Savissivik. I would like to plant next season.

        😛

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 4:58 pm

        I, too, am looking forward to opening up a beach resort outside Sitka, Alaska…

      • mitchethekid November 11, 2012 / 5:30 pm

        And you arrive at this conclusion how? Unlike some of the others on this blog, at least you seem to concur that temps are rising and weather patterns changing. What’s laughable is when someone like GMB ignores empirical evidence that temps have steadily over the past 10 yrs. Drier droughts, more severe rain, hurricane and tornado events. 100 yr floods now happening every 2 yrs or so. Yeah, just a bunch of liberal BS. As far as creationism, it gives comfort to those who need a belief in a transcendent deity. I have no problem with teaching creationism but not as an alternative in a science class. That’s like offering an alternative to math in a trig class. The magic pony’s are the reason 2 + 2 = 4.
        Teach creationism in a comparative religion class because that’s what it is. Religion. A belief that some being created the universe. I suppose that’s a possibility but since humans are not capable of knowing for sure (and what good would that do anyway) and the history of religion is written by man, it conflicts with the evidence. Why couldn’t life have arisen by a random series of events? Why couldn’t self- awareness and consciousness be a manner in which the universe becomes aware of itself? Ever heard of Joseph Campbell? Or the Egyptians? Or metaphysics? Or The Buddha?
        But you’re conservative and are restricted by your linear thinking and as such have a need to feel superior to someone like me. My good news, is that your side, your way of thinking has been rejected. I would venture to guess that the handful of folks who post here are over 60 (except Matt and Mark) and are; shall I say, absent of skin pigmentation. Other than myself, how many Jews post her? How many Taoists? How many Muslims? See where I’m going? You can make yourselves feel better by making fun of me but that’s all you have. Your derision of my “faith” in science and the evidence before my eyes doesn’t make global climate change go away. Nor does it make evolution some drug induced idea. Sadly for you, you see these things as a competitor for a belief in a transcendent being. You think that if someone has faith in science that they are an atheist. Just like you think that if someone is a democrat (which I’m not) that they support recreational abortion. II honestly do not know how you function in the day to day world. Better go to Walmart and get some ammo. They will be open on Thanksgiving just to squeeze a few extra pennies from the public and deny their employees a full day with their families. I think Neo was on to something when he used a spelling from the Vietnam era. Amerika. Funny how sides have switched.

      • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 5:39 pm

        Wow, evolution AND climate change are both professed to be total crap on the same thread! And this on a topic suggesting that one man’s reluctance to go public and shout from the rooftops about his wife’s moral failings is somehow indicative of liberals’ “utter moral collapse”.

        So I guess my first question is… how does any of these things map onto the supposedly “core” ideology of constructionist Constitutionalism? What am I missing?

      • GMB November 11, 2012 / 6:25 pm

        Ignore empirical evidence? Oh my how could I ever do such a thing?
        I am still wondering why there were Viking farms near Nuuk during the Medieval Warm Period.

        How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period? Can you?

        Rico. All you have do is provide evidence than can be proven via the scientific method to prove either one.

        Can you?

      • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 6:35 pm

        My second question is… if you really think the preponderance of scientific thinking is merely evidence of a vast conspiracy, what kind of message do you think are you providing to the next generation?

        My third question is… if not evolution, then what? What causes extinctions, changes in phenotypes, etc.? Why is the paleontological record so consistent with the geological record, with genetics, and with molecular biology? Is it just a vast conspiracy? Or is it just a cosmic mystery?

        My fourth question is… if not climate change, then what? Why is the atmospheric concentration higher now than it’s been in at least 800,000 years? Why is Arctic ice melting? Why are glaciers receding on average? Why are oceans heating up? Why are sea levels a foot higher off New York now than they were 100 years ago? Sure, all of those things are predicted by global climate models, but they are not dependent upon them. In other words, the models didn’t cause them. So what did? Is it just “natural variation”? If so, what do you think causes those “natural variations”? Something has to, right? Or is it just another cosmic mystery?

        Assuming the answer to questions 3 and 4 lean toward the “cosmic mystery” answer, my fifth question is… is it necessary that one is forced to believe in cosmic mysteries in order to be considered a proper conservative? Said in another way, is it necessary to eschew broad scientific consensus in order to be considered a proper conservative? And if so, explain to me what it has to do with constructionist constitutionalism.

      • GMB November 11, 2012 / 6:51 pm

        “Said in another way, is it necessary to eschew broad scientific consensus”

        First step in this whole mess is to accept “broad scientific consensus”
        does not equal a fact that be proven via the scientific method.

        Once you have accomplished that let us talk some more.

        “Why is the paleontological record so consistent with the geological record”

        Why are bones aged by the stone they are in and why are stones aged by the bones they contain?

        But again, I ask for anyone who BELIEVES in evolution to merely prove it using the scientific method.

        Is that too much to ask that you prove your scientific facts with the scientific method?

        I suppose so. No one has done it yet.

      • Norma Stitz November 11, 2012 / 8:28 pm

        GMB

        I have read your posts over the last few weeks and find them thought provoking and insightful, but I think you are on the wrong side of the evolution argument.

        Evolution has been proven countless times and covered in hundreds of scientific journals. It is proven with colonies of bacteria, and other fast-reproducing organisms. Colonies grow and are then introduced environmental challenges and the organisms evolve unique DNA, become new bacteria, after surviving the challenge.

        A ten-year study at Princeton showed that modern dogs came from repeated selections of less aggressive foxes. After 12 generations the foxes changed color and grew spots and developed doglike head and body features.

        Antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis and HIV that constantly evades each promising therapy are real-world examples of modern evolution.

        Though it is still commonly called the “Theory of Evolution” it has, indeed, been proven many times.

        You are a good thinker, GMB, and I agree with you on everything I have read from you in the last few weeks. Please abandon this part of this thread, as I fear it opens our side to mockery.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 9:26 pm

        Norma, the question is not whether organisms can or do evolve for various reasons. The question is, does all life today, all the various species so different from each other, come from the same random collision of particles which,in and of themselves, had no element of what we would consider life?

        Or was there a creation of life at some undetermined point, by a Higher Power, after which followed a series of evolutionary developments?

        As each is a theory, and neither can be proved or disproved, both should be presented as examples of different views on the origin of life on this planet.

        A paleontologist friend gave me some teeth from some prehistoric horses, who were no bigger than a medium sized dog. The structure of the hoof of a modern horse indicates a former structure of five digits, with something similar to our toenails, and it is believed that the toenail-like structure melded together to form a single hard covering over four of the phalanges, which grew together, to form the foot and hoof structure of the modern horse. The “chestnut” on the inside of the leg, at about the knee, is thought to be the vestigial remains of what would have been the fifth digit, roughly analogous to our thumb—-the foot part grew downward and the bones elongated, moving the thumb-like structure farther from the other four digits and the new thick keratin covering we now call a hoof.

        But this does not address the question of the origin of the first horse, or ancestor of the horse, or how the wildly divergent species of the world could have originated from the same spark of life supposedly created by a random collision of particles.

        Some scientists who have devoted their lives to studying things like this have come to the belief that there was, in fact, an intelligent design at some point along the evolutionary spectrum. Because we don’t know we should teach both possibilities. And we need to keep in mind that the strident objections to this come from people who have a belief system, just as religion is a belief system, and they are doing much the same thing as two opposing religions would be doing if each declared that it was the only True Way and the other was false.

        They claim they are pitting science against religion but in fact they are pitting one belief system against another, and each of them depends heavily on faith and not at all on “empirical proof”.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 9:39 pm

        rico, rico, rico—-this insistence of yours on inventing things that no one else has really said, so you can argue with them, is really getting tiresom.

        No one has said, hinted or implied that “… the preponderance of scientific thinking is merely evidence of a vast conspiracy…” That is without a doubt the single most stupid thing you have ever said, and that, son, is saying something. I mean, it’s not only palpably false, there isn’t even anything remotely like it that could have spun you off course and into this bizarre alternate universe. It is sheer invention.

        The only way you guys can argue at all is to continually shift the terms of the discussion, substitute some words for others, and redefine terms as you go along.

        So you can work yourselves up into quite a righteous tizzy if you insist that the only definition of “evolution” is that of the origin of all life evolving from whatever one-celled life form that allegedly sprung into existence after the collision of some random particles, none of which was in itself any kind of life form. If you cling to this, then when someone says he does not believe this, you can lurch sideways into a sneering attack on the intelligence and religious belief and political affiliation of this person by claiming, falsely, that he does not believe in any form of evolution at any time during the history of earth.

        We accept quite easily that many forms of life we know now have evolved from other forms, over long periods of time. That is not and never has been the issue.

        The issue is Intelligent DESIGN without a claim as to when it occurred, only that it produced the origins of the creatures we see today, in more primitive forms.

        We have gone over this time and time again, yet people like you persist in coming back and repeating the same debunked canards.

        No, rico, no one thinks that “… the preponderance of scientific thinking is merely evidence of a vast conspiracy.” I don’t know of anyone but you stupid enough to even come up with the phrase, or dishonest enough to attribute it to anyone else.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        rico, your claim that your list of climate changes has been predicted by modeling is simply false. Anyone who has followed this knows that not only have many if not all of the computer climate models been faulty, scientists have admitted this.

        We have a lot of theories about what may have caused some of the wild swings in global temperature and climate over the eons. When someone found a frozen mammoth with flowers in its teeth and stomach, it was a pretty good indication that the change in temperature was very rapid, nearly instantaneous, as the flowers were a type that grows in mild climates. I think we have agreed that this wild swing in temperature was not caused by human activity.

        We know of dozens, if not more, of dramatic climate changes, over many thousands or millions of years, and we know that none of them were caused by human activity. So the leap to the conclusion that the very slight change in global temperature over the past half century or so WAS caused by mankind seems to be a pretty big one.

        But until some questions can be answered with certainty, all the noise about the “catastrophe” of the minor elevation in temperature, which leveled off a decade ago, is just that—noise.

        1. What is the normal temperature of the Earth?
        2. What is the proof that the recent slight upward movement of average temperature is not a normalization of temperature from an abnormally low temp?
        3. What is PROVED to cause global temps to rise?
        4. What can be done about it?
        5. Even if something COULD be done, should it? Slightly higher temperatures result in longer lifespans, less use of various energy sources for survival, increased food production and increased productivity. It makes transportation easier and safer. Where is the “empirical proof” that this change is harmful? Different is not necessarily worse, you know.

        As for your stupid “conspiracy” theory—-the closest thing to it has nothing to do with “…the preponderance of scientific thinking…” There is proof, however, of faking data to promote a false conclusion regarding AGW, and while it might be a mere coincidence, many of those who have participated in this one single conspiracy have also become quite rich from it and stand to become even richer if they pull it off. In the area of AGW alone, not the rest of “scientific thinking”, we know from their own words that many of the scientists whose words formed the basis for the theory knew it was false, or at least knew they could not prove what they intuited to be true. I think they may have truly believed that their statements were “fake but accurate” but even if they really thought they were right and just couldn’t prove it they should not have faked the evidence and written false reports.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        OMG, rico, you proved me wrong. I thought your “..preponderance of scientific thinking…” bilge was the stupidest thing you could possibly say, and then by the end of your post you proved me wrong.

        “….is it necessary to eschew broad scientific consensus in order to be considered a proper conservative?”

        I am stunned. I had no idea you could possibly come up with anything so ludicrous, so totally unrelated to reality, so just plain dumb.

        But wait….you are not through!

        “And if so, explain to me what it has to do with constructionist constitutionalism.”

        Your thought processes, such as they are, remind me of some fishing line tangles I have tried to deal with. Sometimes you just have to accept that there is no way the mess can possibly be untangled, and you cut it off and start fresh with a new stretch of line.

        rico, if either of these statements comes from an actual belief or understanding on your part, then I accept that the tangle is beyond salvation. I’ll just move on. You started a death spiral of insane assertions, and it took you the only place it could. The thing is I just don’t care. Stay down there in this muddle and mess, because even if anyone could untangle this convoluted unreal fantastical invention, you’d just come up with another one. Why bother?

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 10:09 pm

        mitche—-stop digging. For the love of anything you might hold dear, please please stop digging. Every post is just crazier than the last one, and it is just too disturbing to see you degenerate so quickly into such babbling insanity.

        “….What’s laughable is when someone like GMB ignores empirical evidence that temps have steadily over the past 10 yrs.”

        Steadily what? They have not risen, and they have not dropped. Is GMB ignoring the “empirical evidence” that nothing has happened?

        The bastid. Get a rope!

        And so on.

        You have become a complete laughingstock. The sight of your name on a post is a signpost saying “Insanity Ahead” and we know what follows is a spittle-drenched rant of incoherent rage and general goofiness. Not fun goofy, not even Disney Goofy, but a sad and pathetic death spiral into creepy goofy.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 10:16 pm

        rico, are you and mitche drinking out of the same well? Is it true, perhaps, that no one has ever seen you speak while he is having a drink of water, and you are one and the same? Because there is a thread of insanity running through your consecutive posts that is a little disturbing if you really are two different people.

        “And this on a topic suggesting that one man’s reluctance to go public and shout from the rooftops about his wife’s moral failings is somehow indicative of liberals’ “utter moral collapse”. ”

        NO, THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT THAT AT ALL!!!!! IT DID NOT “SUGGEST” ANY SUCH THING!! IT IS NOT ABOUT THE MAN, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE WIFE, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE AFFAIR, IT IS ABOUT A SELF-DESIGNATED “ETHICIST” WHO HAS ADVISED THE MAN TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE BASED NOT ON WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT WHAT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT.

        Not only is this clearly the topic of the thread, it was then explained. More than once. And you still don’t get it.

        If there is a bright side to this litany of insanity it is that both you and mitche are of the same gender and therefore cannot reproduce and meld these genes into a new and truly strange life form.

      • M. Noonan November 11, 2012 / 11:16 pm

        Amazona,

        I realize I’m not the best writer in the world but I didn’t think my meaning would be so obscure to our liberals – you’d think they’d understand that my problem is the approval of immoral actions in the service of political goals. I guess they are so wedded to winning in politics that all is subordinate to it – or they just really don’t have any reading comprehension skills.

      • dbschmidt November 12, 2012 / 12:16 am

        Norma,

        Evolution has been proven countless times and covered in hundreds of scientific journals.

        No, it hasn’t. I like your posts but evolution is not settled science past the theory stage at best. Try again.

      • neocon01 November 12, 2012 / 1:13 pm

        reek-O

        what am I missing”

        brains? common sense? etc.

    • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 9:00 pm

      GMB: Rico. All you have do is provide evidence than can be proven via the scientific method to prove either one.

      Can you?

      I presume you are referring to the scientific method as applied in the context of experimental science, where one can manipulate one or more independent variables and observe the effects on one or more dependent variables.

      Actually, that has been done in the case of evolution, where separate species of simple organisms were coaxed to evolve from a progenitor species under controlled laboratory conditions — borrowing the well-known principles from evolutionary biology of population separation into different ecological environments in order to demonstrate the effect of natural selection pressures on genetic variability.

      But that’s not good enough, say the nay-sayers. They concede that speciation can occur by evolution. But, they argue, no one has demonstrated phylogenetic change under laboratory conditions. Actually, that has been demonstrated too — in at least one instance scientists have coaxed a single-celled organism into multicellular colonies, with different cells showing different functionalities depending upon where they were situated in the colony (i.e., closer to the periphery vs. closer to the center).

      Did I answer your question yet? Probably not.

      The fact is that in some cases it’s impossible, or practically impossible, to run experiments. For example, we could run an experiment on global climate to see if the anthropogenic CO2 loading in the atmosphere (something which has been directly measured by the way, so it’s not in doubt), has any effect. But that would require everyone in the world to stop using fossil fuels for a sufficient amount of time to allow the atmosphere to clear. Since the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated to be somewhere between 100-200 years, the world would have to be free of anthropogenically generated CO2 for, say, 300-400 years. I suspect that might be too much to ask, lol!

      But just because running an experiment is impossible or implausible doesn’t mean the variables they could potentially isolate aren’t having an effect. But it sounds like that’s where you’re at in your thinking — if you can’t PROVE anything is happening, then it’s best to assume that NOTHING is happening. And if that’s your thinking, then try PROVING it. And if that’s not your thinking, then what is? See, to me, it’s not good enough to claim it’s all because of “natural variability”, and leave it at that. Even if the variation is totally natural, there must be a way to explain it, right? And if you don’t think so, then you’re one of the “cosmic mystery” people.

      But there’s a middle ground. Climate science, like astrophysics, geophysics, and yes, even evolutionary biology, are places where experiments are virtually impossible and thus where observational scientific techniques come into play. These are not techniques you’re likely to be introduced to in grade school, or even undergraduate college for the most part. Observational techniques rely on complex multivariate statistics in an on-going, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly accurate attempt to identify the variables of concern, to identify their relative contributions, and to identify their interactions. As importantly, they also identify, also in an on-going, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly accurate way, the variables that are less of a concern. Granted, by virtue of the fact that they are based on correlational techniques, however sophisticated, they can never PROVE anything. But they CAN go a long way towards restricting other potential explanations.

      Spook is the one that got me into thinking about climate change many years ago. I think it was somewhere around 2005. Mind you, I had been a subscriber to (the peer reviewed) “Science” and “Nature” magazines, and reading them pretty much from cover to cover for a couple of decades at that point (science is my thing, but it’s a very broad topic), and in relatively short order I figured out that: (1) I didn’t know enough to truly understand the methodology of climate science, and; (2) there were plenty of other reasons to champion renewable energy and energy efficiency that had nothing to do with climate change. It is, after all, an energy problem at heart. More importantly, the most essential questions had to do with the FUTURE of energy — globally — not just in the here and now. And at the time Republicans were pretty much on-board with the concept. Perhaps they were too fixated on corn ethanol at the time, but still, they weren’t averse to other options. Now it seems like they’re against ANY support for ANY renewable energy option. And that, I think, is the wrong approach. An aversion to the government attempting to picking winners (an approach I likewise disdain) is not the same as an aversion to any sort of investment. But that seems to be the mood of the current GOP. And I think that’s a very bad thing. We are on the cusp, people. And if we don’t follow through the damage will be irreversible to our national interests.

      • GMB November 11, 2012 / 9:27 pm

        No, what scientist have proven is that yes, they can make single cell organisms evolve into something else. What has not been proven is that anything has ever evolved into any form of life that is currently on this planet.

        This, if you use the scientific method, should be provable. You are asking people to accept your belief system not your proof.

        Wolf, coyote, dog. All canines. You have no proof that canines evolved from something other than another canine.

        Evolution. Global Warming caused by humans. Should these things be proven with facts or opinions.

        Rico. I know of no one who is against renewable fuel sources. I use one myself. I am against closing down coal fired power plants to appease the greenies. The common person will not be able to afford it when electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket”

      • ricorun November 11, 2012 / 10:29 pm

        GMB: No, what scientist have proven is that yes, they can make single cell organisms evolve into something else. What has not been proven is that anything has ever evolved into any form of life that is currently on this planet.

        Perhaps your comment was misstated, but the fact that the experiment was done on this planet and wasn’t transported somewhere else seems to defeat that argument. Am I missing something?

        Wolf, coyote, dog. All canines. You have no proof that canines evolved from something other than another canine.

        Okay, it appears my portrayal of “nay-sayers” applies in your case. Specifically, it appears you’re suggesting that scientists need to demonstrate, in the laboratory, a change in genus in a vertebrate. A change in phylum from single celled to multicellular colonial species is not good enough. You want a demonstration that scientists can achieve in a few years what took evolution a few million years to achieve. Otherwise, it’s all BS. Do I have that right?

        Further, I’m guessing that it’s not good enough if scientists were, through genetic manipulation, to produce a genus that is distinct from the genus of its “parents”, that wouldn’t be good enough either. Because, after all, that would only demonstrate that new genuses can be propagated by intelligent design — am I right? And that would only be an indication that people have more in common with Flying Spaghetti Monsters than God. At least I hope so. Thus, if such happens (and I’m sure it ultimately will), we’re back to Square One in the search for the ultimate Intelligent Designer.

        So really, what is your alternative explanation? Surely you’re not going to stop with something so vague as “cosmic mystery”, or “no comment” are you? Neither explains anything. In fact, it only shows a reluctance to search for an explanation! You can’t just say it’s wrong purely on the basis of your beliefs, you are required to provide a cogent, alternative explanation. Otherwise it’s like Galileo revisited. Are you fine with that? Seriously, what is the mechanism you envision? And what evidence do you have to support it? Speak up, man!

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 11:39 pm

        rico, you don’t need to distort everything into incomprehensible mush. It’s really not that complicated.

        The Leftist claim that the Right denies science, denies “evolution” etc. is nothing more than more attack nonsense. The question is whether or not some people, regardless of their political philosophy, do not think the THEORY of random explosion of a life form which then morphed into every different life form on the planet is a compelling one, or the only feasible one. They tend to think that a more compelling THEORY is that there was, at some point along the evolutionary spectrum, an Intelligent Design at work. They would like both THEORIES taught.

        They would like both THEORIES given equal weight because they know that neither THEORY can proved, or disproved, with what we know now.

        You waste a lot of words on arguing a lot of nonsense, most of it apparently coming from the voices in your head as you are arguing against things I have never heard expressed and even admitting that you are arguing against your own guesses.

        “Otherwise, it’s all BS. Do I have that right?”

        Of course you don’t have that right. Why should you start now? Failure to prove means failure to prove, which means it remains a THEORY. You can call it BS if you wish but no one else is.

        You seem to desperately want to drag people into one of your endless jibber-jabber discourses and it’s just silly.

        There are two THEORIES. They are called THEORIES because neither has been proved. Guess all you want. I could guess that God could appear to you on a burning bush and take you on a voyage through time where you could see the process of evolution after He kick-started this whole Life On Earth thing, and “that wouldn’t be good enough either”.

      • Amazona November 11, 2012 / 11:42 pm

        Instead of just churning out wildly verbose jibber-jabber why don’t you focus on some questions that, if answered with true knowledge, would actually contribute to a discussion.

        1. What is the normal temperature of the Earth?
        2. What is the proof that the recent slight upward movement of average temperature is not a normalization of temperature from an abnormally low temp?
        3. What is PROVED to cause global temps to rise?
        4. What can be done about it?
        5. Even if something COULD be done, should it? Slightly higher temperatures result in longer lifespans, less use of various energy sources for survival, increased food production and increased productivity. It makes transportation easier and safer. Where is the “empirical proof” that this change is harmful? Different is not necessarily worse, you know.

      • dbschmidt November 12, 2012 / 12:22 am

        Well, according to Mitch and Rico,

        Parasites evolved into attorneys, global warming caused fish to evolve into humans and whatever, lastly coyotes turned into apartment managers. Issue solved. 🙂

      • bozo November 12, 2012 / 6:38 am

        The Leftist claim that the Right denies science, denies “evolution” etc. is nothing more than more attack nonsense.

        Hey, that’s great. Ammo is about to tell us how her body “shuts that whole thing down.” Scientifically, of course.

      • GMB November 12, 2012 / 9:09 am

        Rico, like it or not I do not need another explanation other than that appears in Genisis.

        I do not have the need to go further down this path as to understand why and where we appeared on this planet. I also have no need for those who wish meet people like you half way and harp upon intelligent design.

        Lets look at the bottom line. Either evolution can proven or it can not be. Do you have any proof other than opinions and consensus?
        If not you are just another member of a religious group forcing your beliefs on others.

        Whether it be in a laboratory or by observation and reproduction please provide some proof of your assertions.

        Until you do, I say nay to evolution. I stand by it.

      • Amazona November 12, 2012 / 11:19 am

        Not being an ideologue whose ideology is to merely skulk around looking for opportunities to pounce with personal attacks, but a reasonable person who likes to understand why things are said, I actually did a little thinking about the “shutting down” comment.

        Oh, it was dumb and it was wrong.

        First, Akin is not “the Right”. He is one guy, evidently not a terribly well educated guy regarding reproductive science, but just one individual. So the callous effort of creatures like the freakzo to portray him as the voice of an entire POLITICAL movement because of one dumb statement is a great example of the thoroughly dishonest nature of Leftist discourse.

        Second, every woman I talked to about this statement had no problem understanding his MISunderstanding. You see, for oh, I don’t know, A HUNDRED YEARS IF NOT MORE, women trying to conceive have been told to “just relax”—that worrying about getting pregnant will keep them from getting pregnant. I know when I was trying to start a family I must have heard this a hundred times, from well meaning people who were certainly not allied in a conspiracy to DENY SCIENCE.

        My doctors told me this. It is conventional wisdom.

        On top of that, people who are dealing with either the reality or the fear of infertility are bombarded with stories of women who gave up on conceiving, adopted, and then became pregnant—the moral of these stories always being that once they quit trying, their bodies “relaxed” and allowed conception to occur.

        It is not only possible to find Akin’s comment wrong, it is reasonable and fair and HONEST to also understand that his mistake lay in extrapolating from these hundreds and hundreds of anecdotal stories, and perhaps the experience of someone he knows, that if “relaxing” and being free of the stress of trying to get pregnant will allow pregnancy to occur, then being in a highly stressful situation such as a rape will have the opposite effect, and inhibit pregnancy.

        But look at what it would take to understand the leap he made, wrong as it was, from conventional wisdom repeated over and over, accompanied by examples purported to prove it true, to an incorrect conclusion.

        Reasonable
        Fair
        Honest

        So we can see why the Left could not do this.

        And if we look at the obverse of these words, we can see how and why they come up with the kind of vicious toxic sludge the freaky clown so loves to wallow in and spread around.

  11. GMB November 11, 2012 / 10:13 pm

    When you go through the long list of evolutionary theory, you see a lot of, “ifs, maybes, possibles, thinks, evidence suggests, and assumptions.

    What you won’t see if any proof. Give proof that cannot be refuted.

    Question everything! Unless it is some liberal dogma masquerading as a fact. Or else!!!

    • neocon01 November 12, 2012 / 1:21 pm

      reek-O

      how did a one cell organism originate from mud that was hit by lightning re produce it’s self?
      How did it “evolve” into a two cell organism, then reproduce its self into dinosaurs, fish, monkeys and humans?
      How did eyes, ears, feet and obamas just happen?

      lets hear it

      Oh and on AGW

      US midwest
      T-REX’s
      GLACIERS
      Temperate

      NEXT?

    • mitchethekid November 12, 2012 / 2:15 pm

      Show proof that god exists. Undeniable, irrefutable evidence. There is more evidence for evolution and global warming than there is for an imagined deity. God is an idea of man, not the other way around. What you have is faith based on a lack of evidence and science challenges your faith. Historically, It always has. That’s why things that humans didn’t understand were attributed to god (Thor for example) and priests were the ruling class. This entire conversation is pointless though. It’s unfortunate that you can’t rectify a belief in a higher power with the mechanism of evolution. The universe is not static and the conditions that existed in it’s infancy are only now becoming replicable. Ever heard of the Large Hadron Collider? Do you know what it does? How do you explain the fossil record? Why is it so important to you to deny global climate change. Heck, you won’t even consider that human activity is a contributing factor. The arrogance is awe inspiring. Humans change their environment and not just topically. Evolution is a myth created by an atheist who hates the idea of a god, global warming is a scam to regulate the oil companies, NASA is controlling the weather and Romney won.

      • Amazona November 12, 2012 / 2:57 pm

        Show proof that God does not exist. Undeniable, irrefutable evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution once life has been established, none for a non-creationist establishment of life. There is ample proof of global warming over eons, time and time again, in between times of global cooling. Men who seek to find meaning in their lives look to science and to God, and many scientists also find it easy to believe in God. Men who acknowledge no greater power than themselves prefer to deny the existence of God. Both ideas are creations of man, one a concept of a Higher Power and one a denial of it.

        What you have, mitche, is a belief system which exists solely on faith, without evidence to support it. Science which is actual, true, proven science challenges no faith. “Science” which is based on speculation, wishful thinking, bigotry or fragments of knowledge is a belief system in and of itself.

        “It’s unfortunate that you can’t rectify a belief in a higher power with the mechanism of evolution.”

        What is worse than unfortunate, what is incomprehensible without factoring in some kind of mental illness which may or may not consist in large part of compulsive lying, is that you persist in using the term “evolution” to describe all degrees and time spans of evolution, simply lumping in evolution of all species from random collision of particles with evolution of species after creation by Intelligent Design. As we have established here, this lie is an essential part of your argument, as you must first invent an Other which denies proven fact to support your efforts to denigrate and ridicule that Other and posture as intellectually superior.

        “How do you explain the fossil record?”

        By the fact that fossils exist.

        “Why is it so important to you to deny global climate change.

        Why is it so important for you to continue this ridiculous lie, that conservatives deny global changes in climate?

        “Heck, you won’t even consider that human activity is a contributing factor. ”

        Nonsense. Sure it is a possibility which is CONSIDERED. It is just not proven.

        “Humans change their environment and not just topically.”

        Yet “environment” is not “climate”. And when we point to savage blizzards and plummeting temperatures in the midst of this so-called global catastrophe of alleged out of control global warming, we are scolded that weather is also not climate.

        At least one of the voices in your head seems to have some relationship with reality and realizes that you are so deep in the weeds, intellectually and rationally, that the only thing left is to double down on your insanity and go for the reductio ad absurdum tactic of inventing wildly ridiculous claims of belief by this hated Other, so you can make fun of them because they are so ridiculous.

        “Evolution is a myth created by an atheist who hates the idea of a god, global warming is a scam to regulate the oil companies, NASA is controlling the weather and Romney won.”

        Poor poor mitche, howling at the moon, frustrated into frantic hysteria by the refusal of thinking people to buy into his insanity, reduced to this feeble and transparent and utterly failed effort to make the Other look stupid.

        But everyone knows that no one believe evolution is a myth, just a proven process back to some point where it is no longer proven but just a theory that millions of disparate species evolved from, as GMB said, a speck of mud hit by lightning. The “atheist who hates the idea of a god” is just more mitche insanity, bubbling up in big stinky glurps from the depths of what is more and more proved to be a murky subconscious.

        Global warming is a fact, as is global cooling, and it has nothing to do with oil companies. Glurp Glurp.

        NASA is controlling the weather. Glurp Glurp

        Romney won. This, I am sure, in the depths of that intellectual fever swamp of yours, by being linked with the other stupid things you said, is supposed to tie them all together into one big bizarre conservative fantasy, which you can then make fun of.

        But it’s all YOU, it all comes from YOUR mind, YOUR pathology, YOUR limitless well of hatred and resentment which has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with your insatiable need to feel better than other people even if you have to invent an inferior Other and assign various inferior attributes to it to allow you to live in the fantasy.

        What that tells me, aside from the obvious fact that you’re just plain effin’ nuts, is that deep down you do realize that you can only ever, EVER, be morally or intellectually superior to anyone or anything unless you invent, from whole cloth, a dramatically INFERIOR Other with which to compare yourself.

        And you are right.

  12. Amazona November 12, 2012 / 12:51 pm

    I guess if a thread on Liberal Morals can be sidetracked into endless mumblings about evolution, I can add this. (emphasis mine)

    
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/petraeus-affair-fbi-investigation/2012/11/11

    Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. —

    FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus’s affair were shocked when told by bureau officials that despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election: Only then would President Obama ask for Petraeus’ resignation.

    The White House claims President Obama and his national security advisors were first informed of the Petraeus’ affair on Thursday, two days after the election.

    But the official timeline strains credulity. Senior FBI officials suppressed disclosure of the highly sensitive case, apparently to avoid embarrassment to Obama during his re-election campaign.

    On Oct. 10, I was contacted by a longtime FBI source who told me that a bureau investigation had uncovered Petraeus’ affair with a journalist and that it could potentially jeopardize national security.

    The veteran agent related to me that FBI agents assigned to the case were outraged by what were they were told by senior officials: The FBI was going to hold in limbo their findings until after the election.

    “The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,” an FBI source told me. “To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.

    My source said the FBI had been investigating the matter since last spring and the probe was considered among the most sensitive investigations the bureau was handling.

    Both FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Justice Department were aware of the investigation, according to my source. The source did not specifically know whether Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder or FBI Director Mueller had given the order to delay taking action until after the election.

    However, Mueller meets at least once a week with the president and routinely informs him of highly sensitive investigations and threats. An FBI investigation of the CIA director should have been at the top of that list.

    In fact, it would have been a scandal if the FBI had not informed the president or the attorney general of an investigation of the CIA director.

    Last Friday, the White House announced that Petraeus had resigned over an extramarital affair. At the time, I was completing my own investigation into the matter based on what my source had told me.

    On the same day, my report for Newsmax, “FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation,” revealed for the the first time that an an FBI investigation of Petraeus’ emails had triggered his resignation.

    Since then, the White House has claimed that the president was surprised when told of the FBI investigation two days after the election.

    If the president genuinely did not know about the probe, it would constitute malfeasance by the White House. But my FBI sources doubt the order to suppress the probe’s findings until after the election — while taking a chance with the nation’s security — was made by the bureau.

    **********************

    While I am still offended by the idea that Petraeus would betray his country to avoid being embarrassed by his affair, I also understand that this is the official position of security officials—-that when someone with access to classified information is also involved in something which might expose him or her to blackmail, this is a security concern. Period. They can’t set this aside because of personal attitudes toward the people involved.

    It’s that “process” thing again, that conservatives find so invaluable and Liberals dismiss with scorn. But the process is to address certain things in a certain way, thereby removing personal bias from the equation. It is why conservatives were concerned about the dalliances by President Clinton, as they exposed him to the same kinds of pressures if he were committed enough to keeping them secret. It is why homosexuality was not allowed in higher levels of government—-not because of homophobia but because it could make the person involved susceptible to pressures to trade information, or access, or favors, for silence.

      • neocon01 November 12, 2012 / 1:27 pm

        Firing Generals and Admirals over Benghazi

        The TV news has mentioned this, but let it drop.

        Obama fired General Carter Ham, head of Africom. Then he fired Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East . General Ham was fired right in the middle of the Benghazi attack, and Admiral Gaoutte was fired shortly afterwards. Service rumor has it that both officers were re leaved of command because they were sending re inforcements to Benghazi against Obama’s orders to let the consulate be overwhelmed

    • neocon01 November 12, 2012 / 1:28 pm

      Ubama’s PURGE has begun…

  13. Jeremiah November 12, 2012 / 7:10 pm

    Liberal Morals:
    Moochers electing looters to steal from Producers.

    • Amazona November 12, 2012 / 9:18 pm

      I think calling all Liberals moochers or looters or thieves is counterproductive. Most of the people who voted for Obama are decent people who are just politically ignorant and don’t realize that when they vote for an issue the are really voting for a political system.

      • Jeremiah November 12, 2012 / 10:42 pm

        Maybe you’re right.
        However, I am under the firm conviction that a majority of them that voted for him are on some kind of government assistance, or want government to intervene in, and be a big part of their lives.

    • neocon01 November 13, 2012 / 2:26 pm

      bmitchtheKID

      what a total absolute steaming pile of BS

Comments are closed.