(LOL) Oh my... I don't know that I would share that link with anyone, that's embarrassing. You should keep 'Your Jewish News' to yourself.

Disprono.com

Having listened to Obamas speech the other night, while dining with his close Muslim friends, one would have thought this was to be a major civil rights break through for Muslims. (This would be the first mosque in NY, right?) Instead, professor Obama waxed eloquently about the Constitution and our founding principles, reminding us all why thinking and common sense are no longer necessary, just blind compliance to our intellectually (and morally) superior leaders...

Continue reading at - Disprono.com

Having listened to Obamas speech the other night, while dining with his close Muslim friends, one would have thought this was to be a major civil rights break through for Muslims. (This would be the first mosque in NY, right?) Instead, professor Bobo waxed eloquently about the Constitution and our founding principles, reminding us all why thinking and common sense are no longer necessary, just blind compliance to our intellectually (and morally) superior leaders...

To read more - Disprono.com

I really spent some time thinking how to reply to this comment, because, I realized that we have fundamental disagreements about the natural rights of men (this includes individual property rights, which you clearly, based upon your argument, disagree with). Never one to shy away from a challenge:
1. "This land was stolen from the indigenous peoples of that time" – Really. Should we apply this to EVERY country? How far back do we need to go to determine the rightful owner? Were mistakes made in America? Of course, but are we now bound to the sins of our fathers?
2. "In this day and age, and with all of our resources, why aren't we finding a way to mend our neighbor's fence so that ALL of our property values can rise?" – This is collectivism, also known as communism. I would recommend you look up Stalin, circa 1908. Sounds great, ends bad. People succeed, because of the personal struggle, not in spite of it.
3. "And to see some politicians, ahem, John McCain, flip flop (like his hair) over the years, it brings into question the veracity of the claims" – Their claim is real, their concern about the issue, is not.
4. "The bottom line is that there won't be any solution to this issue. By nature, it's supposed to exist here in this country" – No, its not 'supposed' to, it exists because of the fallibility of man. I would challenge you to this question; can you name one country that has done more to overcome and eliminate 'racism' and 'bigotry' in its society, than America? Nope. How about one that even cares? Have you seen how Mexico treats its own ‘illegal’ immigrants from their southern border?
5. "We did it with the Natives by helping to create financial opportunities with the development of casinos" – Um… You think we helped the Indians? We decimated them. Have you seen the poverty, alcoholic, or even the unemployment figures? This may be the single greatest argument EVER, against government helping anyone!
6. "Why didn't our writer include our neighbors to the north who come here illegally when he pointed out facts to support his assertion? It is not the white-skinned border crosser who poses a threat to this country's majority, it is the brown-skinned crosser who stands to be the majority voting block in years to come. What better way to prevent that? Eliminating their admittance into the country." – Ah yes, there it is, in true Jessie Jackson style, the race card. This is generally seen as an admission that you have no actual argument, but are simply speaking out of emotion on the subject. If you do have an argument, that falls within the laws of this country (or a suggested NEW law), I am all ears.
What scares me most is that you found no merit to my post. What I was speaking to IS the foundations of American exceptionalism (yes, I said 'exceptional'), and what is also unique to ONLY this country. You made no attempt to defend these. If we follow only SOME of our laws, then the 'Law' lacks the 'force of effect'. If we are a nation of men and NOT a nation of laws, then we lack 'equal protection' under the law. Without equal protection, we are not free. Period.
Thanks for the comments!

While I wouldn't expect anything less from Rev. (I am pretty sure God doesn't want me to use that title, but...) Al Sharpton, The mere fact that he seems to be the only one defending Rangel, well now, that leads me to only one thought:

If all you can muster out of the Den of Corruption is a washed up race-baiter extraordinaire, you probably did it and it isn't going to go well for you. I mean, the democrats will defend the Miranda rights of enemy combatants in theater and they find you too toxic? Not good at all.

Liberty... Freedom... WillNotEndWithMe.com

Um, Chuck? You do still work for NationalBarackChannel, correct? Trust me when I say this Chucky; No one has mistaken you for an unbiased journalist in a very, very long time… Wash down a couple Ambien with some Kool-aid and we’ll see you tomorrow.

Liberty... Freedom... WillNotEndWithMe.com

I second that.

From the people who have brought us such fiscal winners like, Medicare, Social Security, et al… Now we have tons of secret documents released by WikiLeaks? These guys couldn’t manage a toll booth…

Freedom... WillNotEndWithMe.com