Cleo's Mom

Thank you. But I have to say that after reading "Idiot America" I have come to see how we actually give idiots a platform these days when in days of old they would have been laughed at and run out of town on a rail. We legitimize them but allowing them to speak as if they know what they are talking about. Why are we even interviewing the birthers? They are whackos. We've always had whackos in society but they were largely ignored, laughed at or dismissed. We pay Hannity to speak about stem cell research at some gathering of conservatives. What credentials does he have to speak about this? We spend millions of dollars on a court case because some religious right people won a school board majority in Dover, PA and wanted the school to teach creationism and the town got divided and there was a lawsuit. The creationism people got blown away during the trial and they lost the next election. Reasonable people won but it cost the district money it could have used on real educational things. We allow people who reject legitimate science in favor of their religious or political views to control the dialogue. And we listen to them on tv and the radio. Because it moves units and that's what it's about. I would recommend that book for anyone who wants to see how all of this is happening in our world today.

Story Updated. Morning Feature: Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement by NCrissieB Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:12:42 AM PST now almost anyone who watches cable news has heard about this week's Research 2000/Daily Kos poll about the beliefs of the modern Republican Party. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said the responses show Republicans are "insane," and variations on that theme seem to dominate the progressive media. On the conservative side, Bill O'Reilly called the poll, and DKos, "a fraud," and Brad Blakeman said R2K/DK haven't "divulged" the questions or sampling data. In fact, both the questions and complete crosstabs are here. I don't think the poll shows the Tea Party GOP are "insane." It shows that what's left of the GOP are more a religious movement than a political party. More below the fold.... NCrissieB's diary :: :: Tea Party GOP - A Religious Movement The results of the R2K/DK poll on Republican beliefs were provocative, if not always surprising. Former Republican Bruce Bartlett compiled this table showing some of the results: In a blog post titled Why I'm Not a Republican, Bartlett added: "I can only conclude from this new poll ... that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid." Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein hints that the results show "a substantial portion of the Republican base is completely divorced from reality." Mother Jones' Kevin Drum offers a "Cliff Notes version: Republicans are nuts." Yesterday's Abbreviated Pundit Round-up offered some other comments as well. As noted above, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas said the results show Republicans are "insane." But "insane" misses the key to what remains of the Republican Party, and in so doing underestimates the political power of a movement that Gallup polling says represents only 28% of voters. Having purged their moderates, the Tea Party GOP are now as much a religious movement as a political party. Two revealing questions QUESTION: Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world? YES 77%; NO 15%; NOT SURE 8%. QUESTION: Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? CHRIST 67%; OTHER 15%; NOT SURE 18%. These questions and their responses explain both the rest of the poll and the surprising power that remains in the Tea Party GOP. With only two exceptions - whether marriage is an equal partnership and whether women should be allowed to work outside the home - the other responses mirror the teachings of contemporary American Christian fundamentalism. Simply, while Democrats worry whether government is doing enough to help Fred, our archetypal average American ... ... the Tea Party GOP worry whether government is doing enough to please God as they imagine Him. I think this last sentence says it all. We see it here on these posts. They want their biblical interpretions to be the driving force behind government policies except when it comes to helping the poor.

This was one of Pres. Obama's campaign promises. He is making good on it. He can actually tackle more than one issue at a time and it's going to be done with input from the military and by congress. It is actually an issue of national security because we have lost some very good men and women in the military because of this. Arabic translators, which are badly needed, and hard to replace, have been discharged. That makes no sense.

I have been on the prescription form of alli, which is xenical, for almost 10 years. It works but you have to be careful about eating food with too much fat or you can have "leaks" - not pleasant. After 10 years I know how and when to use it. I was banded almost 18 months ago.

How about this? Halliburton, Enron, Wal-Mart, AT&T, GE, Microsoft, IBM, Citigroup, et al... Conservatives like giving away government money too, they just do it differently. Whether they are billion dollar sole-source contracts to Halliburton, farm subsidies that benefit California millionaires with a hobby ranch in Wyoming, or the twelve billion dollars squandered monthly in Iraq, conservatives are quite liberal with American tax dollars. Related Conservative Failures Quagmire in Iraq The special government favors that private contractors in Iraq—from Halliburton to Blackwater—enjoy, are like money in the bank to their stockholders—and a drain on the rest of our pocketbooks. read more » Corporate Wilding Corporate Wilding Sometimes it’s hard to figure out where corporate welfare ends and outright corporate malfeasance begins. When California privatized its power grid, it was both a gift to energy companies like Enron, and an open invitation to swindle the public. read more » Failing Hurricane Katrina Victims After the federal government set up special tax-advantaged "Gulf Opportunity Zones" to help Katrina victims who needed housing, is it any surprise that some of the money ended up with developers building luxury condos hundreds of miles from the storm? read more » Abandoning Patients at Walter Reed When conservatives privatize a government function like the management of Walter Reed, they always say it's to make the services better and more efficient. They never call it what it actually is—a giveaway straight from the public purse. read more » More conservative failures In the name of individual responsibility, conservatives proudly deny a helping hand to the poor and powerless. Meanwhile they ladle money into the banks of the rich and powerful in the form of tax subsidies or unquestioned contracts. Free Market Fundamentalism > Corporate Welfare Free Market Fundamentalism often leads to corporate welfare because deregulated markets often allow corporations to become so overgrown, even to the point of monopoly, that their influence over the government balloons and balloons. They can game the system so that government programs end up funneling money straight into their own pockets. The giant retailer Wal-Mart has more workers enrolled in many state Medicaid programs—which are supposed to be reserved for poor people—than any other employer. They even hand out guides to help workers enroll in the programs. When the taxpayers subsidize services that companies should be providing to their employers themselves, that's corporate welfare. Meanwhile, one study found over 240 examples of subsidies from taxpayers to help Wal-Mart build new retail outlets and distribution centers—in fact, 90 percent of these huge warehouses that Wal-Mart claims it needs were subsidized from the public purse. That's corporate welfare, too. How does a company like Wal-Mart get away with it? Partly, by wrapping themselves in a mythology that their history was an entrepreneurial miracle—and that its gobbling up of smaller retailers happened because they did a better job in some kind of open, dog-eat-dog competition. In actual fact, it couldn't have happened without special favors from statehouses and Washington D.C. It takes a lot of ideological mumbo-jumbo to call that a triumph of the free market—but somehow conservatives manage it. Trickle-Down Economics Conservatives’ false belief that anything having to do with business is automatically part of the free market both causes and justifies corporate welfare. Government subsidies—which conservatives teach us rot moral character, but only in the case of vulnerable individuals—get miscast as the operations of this mythical free market. The institutions that end up with the "freedom" always turn out to be big businesses, who throw around their market power to bully everyone else. Ordinary Americans end up less free—and the wealthiest Americans end up cornering the market. Here's how: Tax Subsidies. The federal government gives tax subsidies to business for particular purposes. Often these incentives are created in hope that the free market will find solutions to our nation’s problems. However, the tax subsidies given to huge corporations and dishonest businessmen are often abused, subverting the free market in the guise of unleashing its dynamism. The Oil Industry. With fuel prices soaring, oil companies are reaping record profits. Yet conservatives gave them $30 billion in tax subsidies to offset ordinary business expenses such as exploration. Disdain for Government > Corporate Welfare Ronald Reagan summarized the soul of modern conservatism in his first inaugural address "Government isn't the solution to our problem,” he said. “Government is the problem.” By erasing government's role as referee, regulator and guarantor of the common good, such dogma gives away the store to already-powerful interests, and leaves ordinary Americans unprotected. Here are some examples: Tax Avoidance Big corporations pay staffs of attorneys and consultants to find legal ways to dodge taxes. They incorporate in Bermuda or the Bahamas, or they create fantasy charitable trusts with no tax liability. Meanwhile, as conservatives shrink government, the number of IRS tax auditors has dropped by a third since the 1990’s. From 2001-2003, 275 large corporations on Fortune’s 500 list earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the IRS and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then those 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. Instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits—$557 billion—to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent. Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by $43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003—for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years. General Electric tops the list of corporate tax dodgers during the study years. It avoided $9.5 billion in taxes from 2001-2003. Other large scale corporate tax dodgers include: Citigroup at $4.6 billion; IBM at $4.6 billion; Microsoft at $4.6 billion; AT&T at $4.5 billion; and Exxon Mobil at $4.3 billion. Other corporations paid NO taxes during the study years between 2001-2003 while reaping huge profits: Principal Group with $2.1 billion in profits; AT&T with $5.7 billion in profits; and Time Warner with $4.9 billion in profits. Enron Enron took advantage of lax oversight following deregulation and formed a complicated web of more than 2,800 subsidiaries — more than 30 percent (874) of which were located in officially designated offshore tax and bank havens. The federal government gives tax subsidies to favored businesses or to favor certain business behavior. In some cases, it can subsidize important advances. In many cases, it’s just a gift. Pay-to-play politics are another example of the fallout of conservative ideologies in practice. Oil Companies Oil Well During a time of record high oil prices and record profits among oil companies, Congress gave subsidies to oil companies worth $30 billion over five years. They receive $5.4 billion in subsidies for exploration and an additional $4.7 billion for the depletion of discovered wells. Yet the oil companies receiving these subsidies have seen huge profits: Exxon Mobil at $36 billion; Chevron at $189 billion; Conoco Phillips at $166 billion; and Valero Energy at $81 billion. Miscast Morality > Corporate Welfare Conservatives rose to political power on the wings of a critique of welfare—so long as the entities getting the welfare critique were single black mothers. Ronald Reagan used to chase around the campaign trail telling a story—entirely invented—about a Chicago mother supposedly receiving so many welfare checks off various phony social security numbers she was able to buy a Cadillac. Unfortunately, stories of corporate welfare—unlike Reagan's welfare Cadillac—are absolutely true. And yet you'll rarely hear conservatives getting their back up over them, let alone using them to try to win elections. Conservatives are great at moralizing when the target is a vulnerable individual. When it's a big corporation that's exploiting the public purse, they're silent. WOW!! Is this ever true. And those mean spirited conservative beliefs for the least among us while advocating for the big corporations is well represented by you conservatives.

Are you dense or being deliberately obtuse? Please read the following slowly. Reposted since you obviously didn't read it the FIRST time: WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year. The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea. Do you see that? Tax cuts and spending curbs. Please find a credible source that says that anyone on this committee proposed tax increases and that is why the republicans voted against it. And if that is the reason (which it isn't) then why not just approve the commission and then vote down all the tax increase ideas when offered? But you just throw things out there without backing them up. I stand by what I have posted. Those 6 republicans were for the commission until Obama was for it and then they were against it because they hate Obama and want him to fail. Unless you find something credible to back up what you are saying, quit posting your opinion as fact.

But the government IS supporting ALL the corporations through tax breaks and incentives. And for the wall street banks that were bailed out - what don't you understand that that was OUR money (taxpayer money) in the banks that they gambled with? Our government insures our deposits in banks but only up to a certain amount. So corporations and these banks depend on government welfare which is OUR tax dollars. My taxes and my deposits ARE my business. So AIG got billions in taxpayer subsidies (bailout) after making horrible business decisions with people's money and you are okay with them giving a $100 million dollar bonus to someone?

Please quote your source for anyone on this commission proposing tax increases. And if the republicans thought that was what democrats were going to propose (and knowing they were against it) why would 6 republicans co-sponsor it and then vote against it? You just won't admit that they voted against it just because Obama was for it. Period. End of story.

I just saw him talk about this the other day at one of his townhall meeting where he said in one program they eliminated $20 billion because of duplication of services. That was just one program. He did eliminate waste in the current budget. You mean he didn't personally notify you about it? Tsk, tsk.

From Pattygreen: I agree that there are many private corp. that overpay their employees, but what's that to you or anyone else? Why should it bother you that someone wants to pay their employee a large sum for the work they do? If they can afford to be generous, then why does it bother you? If the government is doing that with our money, then we have a right to compalin, but private businesses should be allowed to grow and prosper at their own will. This is called free enterprise and it's what makes this the greatest country to live in. Because the big banks of wall street who came to DC with their hat in their hands begging for a government (read: taxpayer) handout threatening complete collapse of the economy if they didn't get it - then turns around and pays those who made all the bad decisions big bonuses. Millions $$$ With our money. What don't you get about the unfairness of that? That is OUR money they are gambling with, making bad decisions with and paying bonuses with.

Yes, I listened to the SOTU and thought it was great. I did not hear about any existing domestic programs being expanded. The only new things I heard were: 1) Financial reform of wall street: doesn't cost anything and will protect taxpayers 2) Repaid TARP money being given to small banks to loan to small businesses to create jobs. The GOP always harps on small businesses and private sector jobs. 3) Freezing of programs other than defense, veterans, social security. Of course had he not proposed a freeze, he would have been criticized for that. It's never enough for his critics. Geez. :smile2: And btw - he can't freeze current spending because that budget has already been passed by congress last year. The new budget goes from Oct. 1, 2010 until Sept. 30, 2011. Take a civics lesson, will you? 4) Investments in clean energy and green energy. Just like China is doing. But it doesn't take China 60 votes to get anything done. China just does it and is ahead of us. Did anyone ask bush how he was going to pay for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich? NO. Were all these critics in a coma then? Of course not, but it was bush, not Obama and that was the difference. All this outrage is just so phoney.

What huge government expansion of public assistance or welfare or any of the current programs are you talking about? What new programs are being proposed? Reining in the cost of healthcare (which is 1/6 of our economy) will help to REDUCE the deficit. That's a big part of what the healthcare bill was about. And the healthcare bill would reduce not add to the deficit. We've been over that. No need to rehash. So all this panic and fear,etc.. is not realistic. We need to invest (spend) money now to get this economy back on track. A healthy economy helps reduce the deficit.

You're WRONG. The public option has always been a popular part of the bill. It was some of the other provisions that people didn't like, plus those who liked the public option withdrew their support of the bill when it was removed. So, healthcare became less popular after the public option was removed.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This wasn't about imposing taxes, it was about a bipartisan COMMISSION to investigate how to reduce the deficit. From the Huffington Post: WASHINGTON (AP); The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year. The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea. So, again, why did the 6 republicans who co-sponsored this commission vote against it when Obama said it was a good idea? It's about tax cuts and spending curbs - isn't that what the republicans (and you) have been yapping about?

I think you would be very surprised to know that a lot of people who receive any type of government assistance are employed. You always portray them as lazy ass slackers who stay at home all day watching their big screen tv. Of course you always have an example of misuse of public assistance and extrapolate that to everyone. Your attitude is very cold-hearted no matter how you try to defend it with all your rhetoric. And you can quote the bible all you want but Jesus walked among the poor and there are far more examples of passages about helping the poor and least among us. Life was different in those times, people lived in small villages with extended families. It could not have been written to predict a country this size with 350 million people. So, it didn't precisely say that government should help poor people but you seem to want other bible passages to become part of the way our government does business (anti-gay, anti-abortion) but not those passages that say about helping the poor. Then it's NOT about the government, it's about family. Just more hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable. Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that. I believe that families need to care for their own elderly. Another unrealistic solution to the millions who are in nursing homes. You always think that if you did something, well, then EVERYONE should be able to do it. Everyone's situation is different. Do not judge, lest ye be judged. There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes. There is such a thing as birth control. People need to either be responsible for the care of their children on their own after they are born, or get on some form of birth control if they can't do it. When the government pays for their folly, it does not discourage them from having as many kids as they can't afford. why should the childcare expenses of others be placed on the rest of society? This is wrong. You didn't use birth control, got pregnant and went on welfare. So what that you paid it back, you used it because it was there to help and you took the help. I don't blame you for doing that. But I do blame you for saying "use birth control" - which can fail, by the way. And if you want people to get off welfare and get a job, then they will need subsidized childcare. There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work. Then they should receive it. Like i said before, I'm not against some government help, just not the monstrous amount of "so called" help we give away. It is so called because it is not to anyones benefit to enable them. Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it. Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

Until he is able to deal with an agenda that doesn't involve cleaning up bush's messes. The unemployment was rising in 2008 (under bush) and continued to do so in 2009 (under Obama), but the stimulus helped keep the unemployment from reaching 15%. Economists from both sides of the political spectrum agree on the benefits of the stimulus. Even McCain's campaign economic advisors are out there saying that if he had been elected the unemployment rate would still be 10% or higher. The bank bailout started under BUSH, but Obama gets blamed for it. But the banks are paying it back with interest. And it kept them from completely collapsing which would have been a disaster for our economy. Healthcare: Well, of course bush couldn't be blamed for anything here. He just ignored the problem. Go to the ER, he said. Like Obama said, if you want to score points on polls, just do nothing. And you can't be criticized. I blame Obama for not pushing harder for the public option and taking control of this issue rather than letting congress handle it. People turned against healthcare when the public option was removed. Don't ask, don't tell: Obama should have just issued an executive order to remove this. So, I blame him for not doing this. I blame Obama for trying too hard to get bi-partisan support when it is clear that the republicans have no intention of supporting anything he does.

Once again, you didn't answer the question. Why did 6 republicans who co-sponsored the bill vote against it after Obama supported it? They were for it until Obama was for it. Then they were against it. Not only is that hypocritical but shows their anti-Obama sentiment and they desire to have him fail. And when bush entered into two wars that we couldn't pay for he did so while also enacting 2 tax cuts for the rich - which were pushed through congress by the republicans through reconciliation. NOW THIS IS UNHEARD OF, STUPID AND RIDICULOUS and contributed to the huge deficit bush created. But did you hear anything about this from the so-called liberal media? No, once again he got a pass. And I was paying attention, even if you weren't.

The issue that was being debated was who voted for Obama and why. You said whites wanted a black president. I said they voted for him despite his being black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush, was smart, well-spoken and people were looking forward to brains being in the white house again. His race didn't matter. The video you posted was not at all relevant to this debate. And yes, I posted the video about the stupid McCain/Palin voters. So there are stupid voters on both sides. What's your point?:thumbup:

I have long maintained on here that from the republicans in congress to those who take to the streets - it isn't about deficits, spending, healthcare or anything else. It's about Obama and wanting him to fail. These people have never accepted Obama as their president and just want him (and with him it would be America, too) to fail. I offer the following as an example: By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars. So what to do, what to do? Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt. The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators. And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill. The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress. As soon as Pres. Obama supported this commission, the 6 republicans who sponsored it, voted against it. So, Pattygreen - what explanation, other than just hating Obama and opposing everything he promotes, do you give for this development??

The reason people weren't paying attention to bush, as you put it, is because he was a republican and when people opposed him they were called unpatriotric, unamerican and siding with the terrorists. This includes the media. Not one person asked bush how he planned on paying for 2 wars and 2 tax cuts for the rich. NOT ONE. But with Obama - as soon as he uttered the word healthcare, the neocons were demanding to know how it would affect the deficit and how it would be paid for. AND WHAT BUSH DID DOES MATTER NOW. DON'T YOU GET IT? :thumbup: The things that Obama is getting criticized for now are the things he has had to do to CLEAN UP BUSH'S MESS. The bank failures, the economy, the rising unemployment, the rising deficit, lack of healthcare - ALL THESE THINGS STARTED UNDER BUSH AND BECAUSE OF HIM. Now that Obama is dealing with cleaning up the messes of bush, he is criticized, which is totally unfair.:smile2:

Alert the media!!! Voters are stupid. I guess those people are the only ones in America not to watch Fox news because surely Fox news would have reported ad infinitum, ad nauseum that Obama made a slight slip up and said 57 states. Oh,my! Horrors! :thumbup: How can he be elected president if he thinks we have 57 states??? So what else is new? That right-wing video doesn't dispute what I posted, which I stand by.

From Pattygreen - quote: I didn't say he didn't get white votes. He won because he was black, and even the white people as well as everyone else wanted a black man to be in the presidency. He could have been a black mickey mouse and he would have won. The american people are ready to have someone of color rule here. We want the seperation of race to be evident here. You have it completely backward. White people voted for Obama DESPITE the fact that he was black. They voted for him because he wasn't bush. They didn't care what color he was. I do believe that the black people voted for him because he is black, but they did not make up the majority of those who voted for him. The whites did. For those who supported Clinton and for whom race did matter - many of those switched to McCain. I worked for both the Clinton and Obama campaigns and I can tell you that race was not a factor. Just the fact that he wasn't bush and he had brains and could speak intelligently and supported the liberal agenda was enough to energize the base.

There are 350 million people in this country. The needs of the poor, disabled, elderly and least among us are far too great to be serviced by the capricious nature of handouts among those whose choose to be charitable. Medicaid to pay for nursing home care is an example. It is very expensive. About $6000/month per person. That's after all the person's assets are used up. And please don't go into your example about how the family should take their incontinent, bedridden elderly parent into their home and provide 24/7 care, meds, therapy and medical care. We've already been there, done that. There are single parents who need government subsidized child care in order to be able to work and pay taxes. There are disabled people who need social security disability because they can't work. Liberals want a safety net for these people. This distinguishes us from countries like Iran and Uganda. I don't want to be like them. I want the United States to be a country that is proud of how it helps those who need it. Liberals don't want a lifelong dependency, just a hand up when needed. That's who we are. And I'm proud of it.

Of course you see it differently because you see it through the lens of idiots like Glenn Beck. REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY ALERT!!! Bush tried terrorists in civilian court and they were found guilty and are in prison. Haven't escaped. But all done under the radar. No big media scrutiny. Here's what he said: Bush In 2006: Terrorists Should Be “Tried In Courts Here In The U.S.” With Republicans hammering the Obama administration for trying suspected 9/11 terrorists in a New York court, a Democrat points out that in 2006, George W. Bush seemed to say outright that terrorists should be “tried in courts here in the United States.” There was no outcry at the time. In a news conference on June 9th, 2006, Bush described his discussions with the prime minister of Denmark over the fate of Gitmo detainees this way: I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We’d like it to be empty. And we’re now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people. But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States. We will file such court claims once the Supreme Court makes its decision as to whether or not — as to the proper venue for these trials. And we’re waiting on our Supreme Court to act. Now, however, because it's OBAMA, well that's different. The republicans have to be against it. I guess they were FOR civilian trials of terrorists before they were AGAINST it. And as for Gitmo - because of the torture (under bush) that took place there, it is a great recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. Along with that whole Abu Ghraib thing. Closing it would take that away from the terrorists. And let's not forget that BUSH released many terrorists from Gitmo to their native countries to be re-entered into it after going through a program. Many of these have turned around and re-joined the terrorists. Now, why didn't we hear about this from the liberal media? And get the scrutiny that Obama is getting? Because bush got a pass and Obama doesn't.