Steve

Interesting... Obama's olive branch to Iran turned into sanctions hammer http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-olive-branch-iran-turned-sanctions-hammer-203803187.html strategy is pretty good. Foreign policy was supposed to be his weakness but its been pretty good overall. I think foreign policy isn't too complex once you get an objective view of both sides of an issue. Maybe I'm naive but there are a lot of things discussed on this site that after reading comments from members who are knowledgeable about it and its debated, a good policy could be reached.

I would assume it could be successfully fought in court but the court costs may not justify it. I would have to assume their trade/lobby group can show the stupidity of it but wouldn't bet the gov't will act with reason.

Here's my quandry. I hate that Obama is for it and would gladly not vote for him because of that and other things. So, can HH, Flash and others tell me that Romney, Perry or Gingrich (the likely nominees) would NOT have signed it or even worse backed a stronger version of it? As far as civil liberties it seems to be Paul or no one, with regards to the major candidates. The inconsistency in the Obama thrashing (and its deserved) is that 'your' man is worse. Which shows us how f*cked up the country is given the choices we have.

Jules, I've been saying for years it was Volcker but Reagan got the credit. The sitting president gets the credit or the blame. What did Reagan accomplish economically? He made us a debtor nation.

The reasons may be that both Presidents were not the ones the party elites wanted. They were both outsiders and thereby not trusted. Also, Carter was aloof. He was not personable. Tip O'Neil the long time Dem head of the house actually got along with fellow Irishman Reagan than Carter. He did not like Carter at all. Obama hasn't forgotten that the entire Democratic leadership backed Hillary. They backed him only when they had to. It may also be his governing style as well.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/20111229175312305398.html Generally speaking, the pro-Israeli adage and sound-bites are the brainchild of Israel lobbyists and Republican like Frank Luntz. But even Luntz has warned: "Don’t pretend that Israel is without mistakes or fault. It’s not true and no one believes it". In his how-to-market-Israel guide, he adds, "We’re at a time in history when Jews in general (and Israelis in particular) are no longer perceived as the persecuted people. In fact, among American and European audiences -sophisticated, educated, opinionated, non-Jewish audiences - Israelis are often seen as the occupiers and the aggressors. With that kind of baggage, it is critical that messages from the pro-Israel spokespeople not come across as supercilious or condescending." "You can be sure that Gingrich did not care a whit for what Palestinians, here or in the US, would think. The Palestinian vote will not decide swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or, above all, Florida; a considerable shift in the Jewish vote could." Alas, there is no other point to this stupid statement. As Remnick said, Gingrich is ready to go very far to promote himself such as claiming that: "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." And yet, he has a lot of catching up to do with House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, an ardent Republican Jewish supporter of Israel who reckons "the 2,000-year-old dream of a Jewish state is in jeopardy, the Palestinian culture is infused with hatred and the international community is replete with anti-Semitic vitriol". He and the other Republican leaders and candidates speak of Israel as if it is the only country in the Middle East; as the only reliable ride in a sea of tyranny. As if nothing changed over the last year, alas. The Republicans have gone so far out, that Israel’s own friends and supporters in the US, have been repulsed including the J street lobby. ...So fearsome, it is referred to simply as "The Lobby". It’s not only what the Lobby can do to help, but more importantly what it could do to destroy a politician. The Lobby has been quite irresponsible in the way it throws its weight in Washington in recent years. Back in 1992, then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, told the Lobby, for lack of better word, to shut up. In recent days, the Lobby has alienated some of Israel’s own friends among the US elite, including some in the organised American Jewish community. The New York Times widely-read columnist Thomas Friedman wrote: "I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." Friedman stated the obvious, but also touched a nerve. This is a very touchy subject. However, it is part of the presidential selection process. All the politicians try and 'out Irsael' each other. This is done at the expense of fairness in dealing with the middle east issues. I'm a Christian. A born again Christian and a Zionist. Okay...okay...more accurately, I'm a hypocritical, whore mongering born again Christian. Happy? My views on Israel becoming a country can not be defended logically. Its from my view of the bible and I empathize with those who not only do not share that view but also say it should not be used as a reason for it to become a state since not everyone believes what the book I hold sacred as true. Totally agree. I do try and be fair with regards to the issues presently and the facts that I see is that Israel is too often a bully and antogonist when it settles into areas that are Palestinian and takes away water rights and the like. Israel does some things right but should also be criticized and dare I say, reprimanded for some things it does wrong. I hold our nation dear and the process to choose a leader as well. What I think is abysmal is that not only our foreign policy but our candidates are basing their view on what Jewish voters in states such as Florida primarily will think or do. I have always had a sympathetic view of Jews. Primarily my beliefs, my parents are zionists as they believe scrhipture and we both share a history of slavery and coming out of the bondages of slavery. However, due to our modern histories of slavery and Jim Crow for blacks and rampant and blatant anti semistism and genocide for Jews many Blacks and Jews have become hypersensitive with regards to ANY criticism and view it as racist/anti-semitic. Jews have a far less case in America than Blacks given the successes they have but Blacks have also had meteoric rise as well. I would think no one who was of age in the '60s, my parents included, and they are a most optimstic pair, would envision the current success of Blacks in America including the Presidency. My parents didn't think I'd live long enough to see a Black president. The political process is corrupted. Not only the Jewish vote, but the Cuban vote in Florida runs our policy towards Cuba. Its has to stop. The influence has to stop. There needs to be enough Jews, Blacks, Cubans of more sober minds as well as enough of the rest of Americans to nullify the hyper sensitivity vote of the aforemeontioned groups.

Agree in theory but in practice, the ones that didn't see combat seemed to have the less respect for the lives of the military fighting men. Its no coincidence that its people like Ike and Colin Powell were hesitant to get involved in wars that were of a poltical nature and why Cheney and others like him were itching to get in one.

lol HH, can't blame a guy for going to Harvard. Had he always planned to be President, it would have been wise for him to go to one of the service academies or do some time after college or as a reservist. For his purposes, he did the right thing.

LMAO. I'm gonna sneak some extra hot pepper on your plate next time we have dinner. I have some very liberal eating establishments to show you

I agree only with the part about not belittling non combat duty and I apologize for that inference in my post. I'm a huge supporter of military folks. Always have, as I've stated before I have siblings and relatives who have served and a few have seen combat. I actually turend down a commission for the Naval Academy in HS. Not enough women and I didn't want to do another 6 years and be out at 28. I know I wouldn't have been able to hack it frankly. I had a neighbor who was a WW2 vet but had to drive supply trucks in Europe because he wasn't allowed to see combat (although there were black combat units). He felt bad about it. I was thinking you were lucky and he said at the time everyone wanted to do their part and he said at that time in America more than any point before or since you really appreciated the country, even minorities. A friend's Puerto Rican uncle was able to serve but he was very light complexioned. Anyway, the list made it seem like Reagan was fighting and he wasn't. He did his part and would assume proudly but it was deceptive to some extent I thought. At least Obama didn't dodge anything like Cheyney and Bush. Maybe he would have, we don't know. But it always seems its those types are quick to send troops to die. Ike wanted out of Korea and although I think (Flash may know best) started sending advisors to S. Vietnam, I don't think he wanted a large scale war.

Nixon at least tried to get some action but should Reagan be on the list? Nearsightedness. BS! Reagan's Military Service: After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve[28] on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa.[29] He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937.[30] Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[31] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[32] Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the First Motion Picture Unit (officially, the "18th AAF Base Unit") in Culver City, California.[32] On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[32] He returned to the First Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.[29] In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[29] He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[33] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.[33] By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF Nixon: Nixon completed Officers Candidate School and was commissioned as an ensign in October 1942. His first post was as aide to the commander of the Ottumwa Naval Air Station in Iowa. Seeking more excitement, he requested sea duty and was reassigned as the naval passenger control officer for the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command, supporting the logistics of operations in the South West Pacific theater.[37][38] After requesting more challenging duties, he was given command of cargo handling units.[39] Nixon earned two service stars and a citation of commendation, although he saw no actual combat. What ever one says about Obama's lack of military service. He's resisted using them at times like in Libya. Carter went to the Naval Academey at least.

I've enjoyed a few of Sowell's books but frankly he's gone a bif off the deep end when he ventures into politics. He's great with stats and such and making compelling cases for or against accepted dogma but the last several years and when he's not using stats he has become so entrenched in conservatie dogma he's become a caricature. If he were intellectually honest he'd see that Republican presidents are no where close to the ideology they profess. Even his beloved Reagan. Small government preacher left us with a huge debt and America became a debtor nation in trade under him. Don't know why Republicans insist on deifying Reagan. A President who really had grounds for impeachment legitimately and not the bitter partisan Clinton impeachment vote. Maybe because there hasn't been many Repubican presidents in the modern era to do that about. Ike could be. Other than that there haven't been a decent Repbulcan president since possibly Teddy Roosevelt.

From what I understand the stats don't bear out about illegals voting. Frankly, they are scared of bringing attention to themselves and avoid such things. This is about reducing the vote. Another matter I would want to see reveresed is allowing those who have been convicted of a felony crime to be able to get their right to vote again. If you have paid your debt to society, why can't all your rights be restored? Its crazy that an ex-con can technically be President or a member of Congress but can't vote? There is no valid reason I can think of for someone not to have all their rights restored. Of course this is a voting bloc that Republicans would hate to see come to fruition. (HH, I think I've found my inner Liberalism ) Actually this is something I've always advocated because it doesn't make sense to disenfranchise so many people. Its not a popular stance and they will say 'you want rapists and murderers to vote?'

Interesting that Ike got elected partially to get us out of the Korean War. The one thing about Colin Powell, he comes off as a guy who would not want to fight a war and may be too cautious. However, I recall when we were fighting the gulf war he said in a very cold hard way words to the effect 'we will encircle the enemy and strangle him'. It was chilling the manner he said. No emotion, no sympathy just as if its goign to be a fact. Always wanted him to run. He would be honest if nothing else.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?ref=global-home Representative Ron Paul, the congressman who favors the most minimalist American combat role of any major presidential candidate and who said all of the above quotes, has more financial support from active duty members of the service than any other politician. This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations — totaling $113,739 — from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike foes at the slightest provocation. What seems, at first blush, counterintuitive makes more sense upon further review. There’s a long tradition of military people being attracted to politicians with Paul’s strict interpretation of the Constitution. Not even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. The troops have become props for politicians who shower them with fulsome praise, while dreaming up schemes to send them into harm’s way. Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost — in trauma, in lives ruined, in friends lost, in good intentions gone bad — of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in a campaign, paltry though it may be in comparison to the corporate lords who control a majority of our politicians, says a great deal. And if the overwhelming service support for Ron Paul is any indication, the grunts of American foreign policy are gun-shy about further engagement in “useless wars,†to use Dr. Paul’s term. “It’s not a good sign when the people doing the fighting are saying, ‘Why are we here?’†said Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran who lives in Des Moines, Iowa, and is supporting Paul for president. “They realize they’re being utilized for other purposes — nation building and being world’s policeman — and it’s not what they signed up for.â€

Austin TX NAACP dirctor Nelson Linder on Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQunL58Ddjw

Ron Paul has been targeted recently as a racist. Specifically with reagards to newsletters that have been well known about from 20 years ago. This is Ron Paul's views on how his views on drugs and the court system affects blacks and minorities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

It took more sober headed Republicans to do it. The Senate has a reputation for being the more savvy of the two houses. The fact they were willing to hurt people knowingly and go against something they are for just to spite Obama says it all. Large parts of the party is simply disgusting. All the more reason for me to continue not voting for any of them since a few years ago.

I have absolutely no faith in Romney. Newt has a lot of baggage and I actually think he could do a few things good believe it or not. He's a wild card though. I don't know if he has the temperment for the office. He may be a bit too thin skinned. In any event Obama, even though he's been disappointing (Not the same reasons Republicans do) may surprise us if he gets a second term. The old adage that a President spends the first 4 years trying to get re-elected and the last 4 years trying to get into the history books may embolden Obama. I think he will quite possibly have a great 2nd term. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/matt-damon-slams-obama-democrats-one-term-balls_n_1162511.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk1&pLid=122259&ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=321726,b=facebook Matt Damon, one of Barack Obama's earliest supporters and once one of his most staunch advocates, slammed the President in the new issue of Elle Magazine. "I've talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, 'Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician,'" Damon tells the magazine. "You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better." Referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Damon continued: "If the Democrats think that they didn't have a mandate -- people are literally without any focus or leadership, just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off ... Imagine if they had a leader." That echoes the President's own words to Diane Sawyer in March of 2010 when he said, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president... There's a tendency in Washington to think that our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That's not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and to help people." The slam follows in the same vein as a number of other criticisms Damon has made of the President and the Democrats, including in March, when he criticized Obama's education policy. "I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them." Later that month, he hit Obama on his handling of the economic crisis. "I think he's rolled over to Wall Street completely. The economy has huge problems. We still have all these banks that are too big to fail. They're bigger and making more money than ever. Unemployment at 10 percent? It's terrible," he told the Independent. Damon also criticized the President's inability to get transformative things done, saying, "They had a chance that they don't have any more to stand up for things. They've probably squandered that at this point. They'll probably just make whatever deals they can to try to get elected again." Currently, Obama and the Democrats are fighting with the House GOP over passing a compromise two month extension of the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, amongst other things; they've already removed increased taxes on the wealthy from the deal. Damon's criticism rings with disappointment after he so publicly lent his support to the then-Senator Obama during the 2008 election. He spent time campaigning for the then-candidate at rallies, promoting him through a MoveOn video contest and attending fundraisers for the man who would become the 44th President. In August, the star ripped a cameraman and reporter from a conservative publication who challenged his stance on education at a Save Our Schools event in Washington, DC. He then moved on to economic policy criticism. "The wealthy are paying less than they paid at any time else, certainly in my lifetime, and probably in the last century," Damon told a reporter at the same event. "I don't know what we were paying in the Roaring '20s; it's criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don't mind paying more. I really don't mind paying more taxes. I'd rather pay for taxes than cut 'Reading is Fundamental' or Head Start or some of these programs that are really helping kids. This is the greatest country in the world; is it really that much worse if you pay 6% more in taxes? Give me a break. Look at what you get for it: you get to be American." Speaking of the then-protracted negotiations over the debt ceiling, he did show some sympathy for Obama. "I'm so disgusted," he said. "I mean, no, I don't know what you do in the face of that kind of intransigence. So, my heart does go out to the President. He is dealing with a lot."

Many Republicans not wanting to pass legislation they favor for no reason other than not passing may make Obama look bad. Thoroughly and utterly disgusted with large number of Republicans. The party is rotten at its core. The party would rather hurt Americans than give any semblence of apearance that Obama may have done something even if they agree. Furthermore in the past, they laud any compromise by Obama as proof he is weak. Further making any future compromise untenable. This is NOT the party I want running things. A party that sees the opposition party as the enemy in everything. Too many Republicans view the party AS America. Its one and the same to them and anything else is anti American. The party is wrought with hypocracy. It talks about backing candidates because they are Christian because afterall this is a judeochristian nation but have no problem backing a Mormon, a faith the fundamentalist view as a cult over a Obama who is a self confessed born again Christian. Romney's religion shouldn't even be an issue. Its inconsequential. They talk about debt and all its evils but both Reagan and Dubya left the nation with huge debts. Oh, but its okay because they were Republican. Its so much utter BS. Also, if you are a Republican and you actually work with Dems you're tainted, not good enough. McCain was not liked because he actually worked with Dems to bring about important legislation. Huntsman was ruled out of the race immediately for accepting an ambassadorship to China under Obama. Its a sick party and it doesn't support anyone in it who can do anything other than parrot the part line and be willing to be controlled by the heirarchy and the big money organizations that gives them money. Someone said it best a few months ago. Democrats want to protect America from entities (big oil, etc.), while Republicans want to protect America from other Americans. http://news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-cave-payroll-tax-cuts-extension-140256639.html "This isn't a typical Democrat versus Republican issue. This is an issue where an overwhelming number of people in both parties agree," the president said today. "How can we not get that done? Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things, we can't do it? It doesn't make any sense." The president, who delayed his vacation to Hawaii with his family because of the stalemate, was surrounded by individuals who wrote to the White House detailing how the end of the payroll tax break would affect their lives. The White House is pursuing an aggressive campaign on social media to highlight the loss in benefits that millions of Americans will incur on Jan. 1 if Congress doesn't act. Americans, on average, would lose about $40 per paycheck if the tax cuts expire. On Wednesday, Obama himself personally took to Twitter asking Americans to share what that loss would mean to them. "Forty dollars can make all the difference in the world," Obama said today, as he read out stories from Americans who had responded to his request. "Enough is enough. The people standing with me today cannot afford any more games." Obama said more than 30,000 people have responded to the White House's "What 40 Dollars a Paycheck Means to American Families" campaign on Twitter, Facebook and whitehouse.gov. House Republicans faced increasing pressure, even from their Senate counterparts, to find a compromise quickly. Outwardly, the House GOP leadership showed no outward sign of caving in, reiterating defiantly that they would not support the Senate bill. "The fact is, we can do better," Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a news conference. "It's time for us to sit down and have a serious negotiation and solve this problem." But internally, even rank and file House Republicans were beginning to break away from House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership's insistence that Congress approve a year-long deal to extend the payroll tax cut, instead urging the speaker to consider a short-term deal. Rep. Sean Duffy, a freshman Republican from Wisconsin, today called on his leadership "to immediately bring up the Senate's two-month extension for an up or down vote." "Middle class families deserve a Congress that will rise above the squabbling and ensure their taxes don't go up right after Christmas," Duffy wrote in a statement. "This is about preventing hardworking Wisconsin families from paying an extra $40 a week for the dysfunction in Washington, D.C." Another House Republican freshman, Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas, wrote a letter to the speaker that asked for all options to be on the table as time runs short. "We are now in a position that requires all options to be on the table, that requires Republicans to not only demand a willingness to compromise, but to offer it as well," Crawford wrote in a letter to Boehner. All week long, conservatives ranging from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to Karl Rove took shots at Boehner and the House GOP for holding out for a long-term extension. "There's no doubt this hurts the Republican Party, and that bothers me a great deal, as a Republican," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS News this morning, adding that he feels bad for American taxpayers who are "innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire." "This is really tragic for the American people. And I would say that next November, no incumbent is safe, nor should they be," McCain said. Senior Democrats today pounced on Republicans for not agreeing to the two-month extension. "Republicans have been arguing about process and politics," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said today. "The stakes are too high to be arguing about politics and process. The Republican contention that the two-month compromise somehow is unworkable is simply untrue."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses. Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party. I found the gist of this article utterly distasteful. Republicans in Iowa as well as the higher ups are rueing the possibility of a Ron Paul win as though its a bad thing for Iowa and for the party. So, Iowans expressing their constitutional right to support who they think is best can be a bad thing? How the f*ck is that? If ever I was so disgusted with the Republican party its this article. What makes it worse is that Iowans are supporting Ron Paul as he is. There is no glossy media blitz as we typically have with candidates where weaker minds are pretty much fooled by big money thrown at them. No, Ron Paul wins people over purely on his rhetoric. I want Americans to vote. Even if its not for the person I want. Everyone voting can never be a bad thing. I know we cynically talk of the ignorant and easily fooled voting out there but teh fact is this is friggin' America and we should not only encourage but applaud when more and more Americans decide to vote and not sit on te side lines. Anyway, this article goes to show you how un American the Republicans are. If its not their man then its a bad thing. WTF? Ron Paul is doing what Obama did last time in Iowa. He's winning people over one at a time. One more reason NOT to consider a Republican candidate UNLESS its Ron Paul. This from one of his people said it best about him, agree or disagree but.. Paul officials note that they’ve embraced the Iowa way. And even establishment Republicans like Branstad concede that the congressman has done it “the old-fashioned way†and enjoys the best organization of any of the candidates. “Dr. Paul is hands down the most authentic, principled candidate in the race, and we have run the best, most comprehensive campaign,†said Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton. “Iowans will help further cement their national status by choosing Dr. Paul and proving that sincerity, seriousness, consistency and hard grassroots campaigning wins in Iowa, not glitzy, media-anointed, establishment front-runners.†But many Iowa Republicans, convinced that Paul’s views are well out of the party mainstream, believe that rewarding such an effort in the short-term would risk the very process itself in elections to come.

http://news.yahoo.com/calif-teen-sentenced-killing-gay-student-201729479.html VENTURA, Calif. (AP) — A teen who fatally shot a gay junior high classmate in the back of the head during a computer lab nearly four years ago was sentenced Monday to 21 years in state prison, capping an emotional case that focused attention on how schools deal with sexual identity. Brandon McInerney, 17, dressed in a white T-shirt and blue pants, didn't speak at the hearing, but his lawyer said his client was sorry for killing 15-year-old Larry King. "He feels deeply remorseful and stated repeatedly if he could go back and take back what he did, he would do it in a heartbeat," Scott Wippert said. McInerney will report to prison next month, after he turns 18. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and unlawful use of a firearm after jurors deadlocked during his trial as an adult on a first-degree murder charge. Several jurors said afterward that they didn't think McInerney should have been tried as an adult. McInerney had just turned 14 when he shot King in front of shocked classmates at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard on Feb. 12, 2008. Prosecutors alleged it was a hate crime driven by homophobic rage because King wore girl's clothing and flirted with McInerney. The killing became a flashpoint for gay rights groups that said it was further evidence that children often pay a horrible price when they come out. Comic Ellen DeGeneres, a lesbian, weighed in on her talk show and said gays shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens. Because of pretrial publicity, the trial was moved from Ventura County to Los Angeles County. King's father, Greg King, read a four-page letter lambasting everyone from jurors, who he called incompetent, to the media for not focusing enough on school leaders "bungled" handling of his son's situation. He said the shooting had scarred students who testified, calling it their "9/11." School administrators were criticized for not doing enough in the weeks leading up to the killing at the Oxnard school to quell a simmering feud between the two boys and for allowing King to wear heels and makeup. School district officials said they were upholding federal law by protecting Larry King's right to express his sexual orientation. Greg King blamed the school district for not heeding requests by his wife to help tone down their son's flamboyant behavior, despite having a plan that called for preventing the boy from drawing attention to himself. "The school could have and should have prevented Larry from engaging in the provocative behavior he was involved in," he said. He saved his strongest statements for McInerney, who he said his family couldn't forgive. "You took upon yourself to be a bully and to hate a smaller kid, wanting to be the big man on campus,'" Greg King said to McInerney on behalf of his wife. "'You have left a big hole in my heart where Larry was and it can never be filled.'" King's family and Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox wore buttons with the teen's face on it, while some of McInerney's supporters wore powder blue wristbands that read "Save Brandon." Some teachers and jurors also attended the hearing. Outside court, Dawn Boldrin, a teacher who gave King her daughter's homecoming dress, had kind words for both of the teens. "I probably would just hug him," Boldrin said when asked what she would do if she could meet McInerney. "I know he's a good kid." During the trial, prosecutors portrayed McInerney as a teen who couldn't control his anger and was influenced by white supremacist ideology. Jurors rejected the claim that the killing was a hate crime. Prosecutors said the plotted killing was first-degree murder and that McInerney should be punished as an adult. Defense attorneys, who unsuccessfully argued to keep the case in juvenile court, said McInerney reached an emotional breaking point after King's advances. They said he snapped when he heard King wanted to change his first name to Latisha. Under teams of the plea bargain, McInerney's murder conviction was stayed and he received the harshest possible sentence under California law for voluntary manslaughter — 11 years — and use of a firearm — 10 years. McInerney is ineligible for time served for good behavior because he pleaded guilty to murder. Following the hearing, defense attorney Robyn Bramson said McInerney is close to getting his high school diploma and plans to take advantage of any opportunity afforded him in prison. "I really think this is a story that if you follow up in 21 years you'll find a kid who has rehabilitated himself," she said. The irony is that this kid who shot a gay kid will probably go to a prison where he'll be raped by other men. I feel for the family of the killed kid. I really do. I do take exception with one thing about their anger. They are angry at the Principal for not stopping their child from wearing high heels, etc. which I can only assume was done in part to be provoke other students. Of course it should not be a reason to kill anyone and it can be argued he has a right to dress the way he wants. However, I wouldn't show up at a racist school with a white girl or at a predominantly Jewish school with a swastika armband either knowing that my actions would inflame passions and incite violence. His mother told the school to make her son dress less provocatively. Isn't that her job? He was a teenager. A classic case of passing the blame by the father. Take some responsibility. As for the kid being charged as an adult. He was 14 but he had time to think about his actions and get a gun and shoot. A spur of the moment anger flash, okay, premeditated, no. Try as an adult. The kid is getting 21 years and I wouldn't call that a slap on the wrist. Anyway, its a tragic event.

Christian right are hypocritical. A person's religion shouldn't matter but they say it does. Obama a self processed born again Christian. Christian right won't support him. Even though Bush's faith was the reason manhy used as why they support him.

Apparantly North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has died. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/18/world/asia/north-korea-leader-dead/?hpt=hp_t1 I actually think its a good thing. I have to assume his son is more pragmatic and will move towards some sort of normalization. The people are starving. However, some say its the military thats actually in charge. If so, then the threats will continue but nothing large scale.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/des-moines-register-backs-mitt-romney-gop-nomination-014155146.html The Des Moines Register officially endorsed Mitt Romney's bid for the Republican presidential nomination Saturday, handing the former Massachusetts governor an influential show of support ahead of January's Iowa caucuses. In backing Romney, the paper's editorial board praised the candidate's "sobriety, wisdom and judgment" and said he offers the best qualities and experience of anyone in the Republican field. "He stands out especially among candidates now in the top tier," the paper said of Romney in an endorsement published online Saturday. "Newt Gingrich is an undisciplined partisan who would alienate, not unite, if he reverts to mean-spirited attacks on display as House speaker. Ron Paul's libertarian ideology would lead to economic chaos and isolationism, neither of which this nation can afford." Romney, the paper wrote, has an "ability to see the merits of tough issues from something other than a knee-jerk ideological perspective" suggesting Romney "would be willing to bridge the political divide in Washington." "His record of ignoring partisan labels to pass important legislation when he was governor of Massachusetts suggests he is capable to making that happen," the Register wrote.