Technically, We Are Legal Ass Clowns

The last week or so has seen a growing call for the President to withdraw participation in the conflict in Libya. These calls, which I certainly echo given my “defensive only” posture on the use of our military forces, are currently being based on the fact that Obama did not seek or receive Congressional approval to conduct this particular military action. Well, in the official answer from the White House this week, we were told that, TECHNICALLY, he doesn’t need Congressional approval for what is happening in Libya. His reasoning is that the war in Libya is too small to require Congressional approval and that United Nations has approved the action anyway.

First, let me say that I don’t give a rat’s behind what the United Nations does or does not approve. I have worked under their banner and used to feel differently. However, the more I watch the United Nations, the more I recognize the body as a useless and agenda driven machine that doesn’t practice what it preaches, doesn’t even begin to acknowledge the concept of individual national sovereignty, and that wishes to makes its own rules in order to bypass the governmental systems of countries that don’t fall in line on their own (specifically countries like the USA). As a very simple litmus test, do we really think it prudent to adhere to the standards of a body that would place Libya, China, and other serial abusers on the UN Human Rights Council (a body who’s ONLY permanent agenda item, literally, is Israel)?

I do not recognize the United Nations as a legitimate body any longer. I think that we should pull our funding of them (the US currently contributes roughly 22% of the UN’s annual operating budget). And we certainly should not attempt to justify our actions by claiming that “the UN approves of our actions.” The UN also thinks Israel is a blatant violator of human rights while ignoring Syria, Darfur, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, China, and actually praising Libya…

And let’s not forget what NATO is doing in Libya. It is clearly a violation of the very mandate that they were created under. The NATO mission is supposed to be one of defense of nations only. Exactly what other country did Libya attack again?

The bottom line is that George Bush started two wars during his administration. He sought and received Congressional approval for both of them. That hasn’t stopped the radicals on the left from claiming he is waging illegal wars. Yet many of these same radical lefties refuse to denounce President Obama for military actions in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and plenty of others that aren’t being heralded in the news.

The fact is, as we have discussed on many occasions in the past, that the United States seems to have a predisposition to involve itself in military action whenever and wherever we feel like it. And this has got to stop. I am a military guy. I get it; there are some really bad folks out there and it certainly appears to be prudent in the eyes of some to be proactive in rooting out those bad folks before they have the opportunity to move against us. The result has become that, simply because of our size and power, the United States has fallen comfortably into the role of the world’s police force. I used to accept this. After all, someone has to keep rogue groups and rogue nations in check. And we are the most capable at doing so.

I don’t accept it any longer. Because we have become less like Andy Griffith as a benevolent police force that protects the helpless and more like the group of jackasses that brutally beat Rodney King and then attempted to justify it afterwards. We are “bad cops” now. We are that cop who takes bribes from drug dealers, allows hookers to go free so long as we get a free session, offers protection in illegal activities for a price, and is willing to kill our partner if they threaten to rat us out. We have become Alonzo Harris in “Training Day”, without the possibility of getting an Oscar for great acting.

And what makes it even worse is that now we seem to deem it acceptable to take military action against a country under the banner of “in the national interest of the United States.” What a vague concept. And what a wrong concept. We deem our national interests so important that we feel it acceptable to attack other nations in order to benefit our economy, our imports, our likes and dislikes, our whatever. This is like the police force saying that it is in their interest to not have any black men in their city, so they start shooting every one that they see. After all, they are acting in the best interest of the city in general. We wouldn’t accept it in our cities, so why are we accepting it when our government does it to other countries?

NO WE HAVE NOT... But we will

The time has come for the United States to stop intervening in the world. If we are willing to put aside the fact that we are morally wrong for interfering in the business of other sovereign nations, the fact remains that we simply cannot afford to continue these foreign policy approaches to dealing with the world. We, as a country are far beyond “broke”. I heard a Congressman the other day say that our nation is flat broke. I thought to myself, “we were flat broke about 14 trillion dollars ago, jackass. Now we are worse than broke, we are in a hole we cannot get out of.”

And this presents the United States with a unique opportunity, that is if we can somehow force our politicians to stop their war-making ways. We have the opportunity to disengage from the pattern of intervention and intrusion that we have been on for decades and decades. We have the perfect excuse. We cannot afford to intervene any longer. We should be telling the world, “listen, we are financially struggling these days. So we are going to bring all our troops home, stop spending money fighting your battles for you, and work to ensure that we get our economy fixed. Trust us, this will be more beneficial to all of you in the long run anyway since the world economy is so vitally linked to ours.”

It is the perfect excuse to change the way we engage the world. It isn’t too late for us to learn from our mistakes and become a better neighbor. Can you imagine the difference this might make in the world’s perception of the USA? It wouldn’t happen overnight, but it would happen. The animosity towards the US would die down. The terrorist recruiters would lose one of their major tools (that would be the fact that we interfere with their region and their religion). I have outlined my thoughts on when our military should be used extensively in the past. The key point should be repeated, however: DEFENSE ONLY. Defend ourselves and defend our allies only upon request and proof that our ally was not taking actions that warranted their being attacked.

Mexican Cartels Like to Think They are Tough. They wouldn't think they were so tough....

Just think about the time and attention that is dedicated in this country to fighting wars, protesting wars, planning wars, funding wars, debating wars. Think of all the resources that we could put into more productive endeavors if we just stopped taking military actions in countries that are not the United States of America.

How easy would it be to secure the border if that was the only real action required of our military? Illegal immigration would become a thing of the past. And Mexican drug lords wouldn’t operate anywhere near a border defended by our real military, and just as importantly, backed up by Special Operations Groups that don’t have to waste their time abroad.

How easy would it become to fund our military if we focused only on weaponry designed to defend our country instead of destroying other countries? Of course a lot of our weaponry does both. We occupy a land mass that makes it damn near impossible to effectively invade our country and that makes defense far more simple than most countries can dream of. Deploying our military throughout the US only would make it impossible to attack us effectively.

How much better would our economy be if we could put our focus there instead of dividing our attention between it and a myriad of other military actions and foreign policy SNAFUs?

If They were Facing THIS Instead

How much easier would obtaining the resources we need be if we were suddenly able to fairly negotiate with all countries instead of eliminating half of them because they are our “enemies”?

How much harder would I have to search for writing topics if Washington didn’t supply me with an endless supply of hypocritical and immoral excuses for violence abroad?

I am sure you all know this but I will put it in writing anyway. This is not a slap at the military. I don’t fault the military for a single bit of this. They are honorable and honest men who do what is required of them. This is a slap at our foreign policies and the bullshit politicians from both parties who seem to love initiating violence against anyone they please. And it is absolutely both parties. The Democrats are just as much war-lovers as the Republicans are. The Republicans just turned away the dirty hippies because it was clear all the acid and marijuana had eroded their critical thinking skills  ;)

The bottom line is that I am through accepting these arguments from politicians like Obama (who I absolutely think is the biggest liar we have had in office to date, and that is saying something). He can make the claim that, technically, he has a right to engage in military actions of the type he is defending. But I am not interested in what is “technically legal.” I am interested in what is moral and what we should be doing.

Being a “technically legal” ass clown doesn’t make you any less of an ass clown. And Washington has two buildings at the opposite ends of the National Mall filled with nothing but ass clowns.

About these ads

Comments

    • Late Friday, the White House acknowledged that both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Pentagon’s top lawyer concluded that the conflict in Libya should be considered “hostilities,” in opposition to what the White House has claimed.

      The National Journal reports that President Obama, his lawyer Robert Bauer, and State Department legal adviser Harold Koh don’t believe the term “hostilities,” as described in the War Powers Act, applies to U.S. action in Libya. Because troops are not in danger and the U.S. is acting in compliance with a United Nations resolution, the president felt there was no need to get permission from Congress for actions in Libya.

      The White House also claims that the departments of Justice and Defense think the president’s interpretation of the War Powers Act is legitimate, meaning there’d be no need to get congressional approval.

      (The non-war in Libya)

      But according to the New York Times, Defense Department lawyer Jeh Johnson and Justice Department acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel Caroline Krass expressed their views that the U.S. intervention in Libya should be defined as “hostilities.”

      Not surprisingly, Speaker of the House John Boehner agrees.

      Boehner sent a letter to the president this week, informing him that without congressional approval, the mission in Libya would officially be in violation of the War Powers Act as of June 19. Boehner’s letter is the embodiment of rising frustration in the Republican Party with what they view as the president’s refusal to provide a “compelling” national security “rationale” for military actions against Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/18/disagreement-in-administration-over-war-powers-and-libya/#ixzz1PoxArYVp

      • What do we expect-changing the definition of words-looking for loop holes-lines right up with what they do to the Constitution and that “living document” mentality.

  1. Common Man says:

    USW;

    I don’t think you are going to get a lot of disagreement today. I don’t think anyone out there believes Barry was right in attacking Libya, certainly not morally and absolutely not legally.

    But, every since we started calling wars “Police Actions” the government has been skirting the Constitution to achieve whatever they so desired. I’m still curious why in the hell we went into Viet Nam, was it oil?

    The money we spend funding these efforts is bad, the reputation we promote is worse, but the real horror is the lives we waste; and I mean totally waste; our own children for God’s sake.

    CM

    • I’m waiting to see what Matt & Buck say, since they still seem to think Obama is worthy of their votes in 2012. I think Viet Nam was a knee-jerk reaction after Korea in defeating the “red threat”. I have asked a few people if they now thought both or either were justifiable now, after enough time has passed to reflect. Older people mostly think it was the right thing to do, younger, mostly say they don’t know…..

      • Common Man says:

        LOF;

        I have friends that went to VN, a number of them did at least 1 tour that involved fire-fights. 99% of them do not believe we did anything to halt or slow the so called “red” progression.

        The great majority of them will tell you it was a waste of time and a sameful waste of lives; on both sides.

        CM

        • I would not disagree with you or them. Myself, I am still undecided. Some of it can only be considered from the perspective of the cold war and cannot really be answered. If the US did not act to counter the USSR, would they have continued violent expansion, or was their economic demise unavoidable? Add to that, when would they have fallen if the USA had not forced them to push so hard economically?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Obama is better than the alternative was in 2008. He wouldn’t have been my first choice. I was personally leaning toward Kucinich – what does that say about me? I’ll make my judgment after I know who the alternative is in 2012, but given the current field, it’s likely that he’ll get my vote again. (I’m not so disenchanted (yet) that I’ll vote for a third party (ie, waste my vote) or pull a black flag and vote for none-of-the-above (tempting as it is). Maybe in 2016?

        That said, Nam and Korea are no-go’s for me. It’s not that defeating communism wasn’t important (though it, of course, would defeat itself without our help if given enough time). Nor is it that the good folks of S. Korea and S. Vietnam weren’t worthy of our help (they might have been – I’m really not qualified to say). It’s just that there’s really no justification for us to get involved with a war that doesn’t directly impact our own security – it’s none of our business and, truth be told, we frequently just make things worse by escalation. Beyond that, there’s no justification ever – EVER – for conscripting civilians and forcing them to fight and risk their lives, and especially not for the civil war of some other country as a nebulous proxy war.

        If Americans thought it was so important to help the S. Vietnamese / S. Koreans, they could have gone over and fought, or they could have sent their own money to help. If it’s a worthy enough cause, I’ll enlist, thank you very much. But the thought of using my money to kill people in some other country and then enslaving innocent civilians (and that sure as hell is what a draft is) and force them into a war-zone resulting in 53,686 (Korea) and 58,209 (Vietnam) American deaths (to say nothing about the natives’ deaths or our wounded/crippled and psychologically damaged).. well it’s untenable.

        PS: This goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, and, yes, Libya. Oh, and the Civil War, also – if you want out, you should be free to go – but take your proportionate share of the national debt with you!

        Happy Monday to everyone!

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning :)

    The ass clowns need to be abolished. The attack on Libya was total BS and should have never happened. I agree with USW on this, we should pull back and be defensive only, it would be a better world.

  3. I heard this on the news the other night . The statement was -We have bases around the world for defense-if we close all the bases, it would leave us, our interest, and our alleys open to attack and alot of damage could be done before we could reach the area and that our being their made an attack less likely. Military people-what do you think?

    • Well, you don’t want my opinion,(non-military) but I’m going to give it anyway. Most of them, who’s going to attack them if we pull out? Japan and Germany are not at risk and have recovered fully from the war, so should be able to defend themselves. S. Korea is at risk, but again, should be able to defend itself. Defense is cheaper than offense if you intend to invade and conquer. That said, offensive actions where you just inflict damage can be done cheaply, requiring the defender to attack to stop their opponent.

    • Mathius™ says:

      what do you think?

      It’s not our fight. What does it have to do with me? What right do I have to choose sides and pick a winner? What right does the government have to take money from me to help one side of some other conflict? Why should we be the world’s policemen? No…. it’s not our place.

      Of course there will be a number of wars which break out immediately after we pull out, but only because we’ve been artificially holding up peace – it’s like a ref standing between two hockey players – their business isn’t resolves, so as soon as the ref walks away, they’re going to drop gloves again. They need to settle their own issues.

    • Howdy, VH. You will have to explain where our national interest is. With the demise of the Soviet Union, there is no credible threat to the US. China is a military non factor except for nukes and they do not win that game at all. Our military should be for defense. Now, there are shipping lanes in international waters that need protecting and without exerting military power, they would be attacked…I firmly believe that. NATO is a joke and the United Nations is a bigger joke and non effective. Quit funding them and leave them alone, I have no problem letting the world solve its own problems. We are the biggest kid on the block both militarily and economically. Let the world catch us.

  4. Can’t disagree with anything in your article, USW. If, for no other reason, (and there are many other reasons) use the WE CAN’T AFFORD IT excuse.

  5. Devil's Advocate (Anita) says:

    Technically the countries we have been at war in (not with) are better off now than before….so looking forward — is it worth it?

    • Does” I have no idea” work? I think about the slaughter of the Jews by Hitler, which the world just ignored for a long time. The horrors of the Sudan. And my heart and head have a war.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        So because we ignored Sudan, should we also ignore Libya?

        Many here argue that it was immoral of us to go in, but why? Perhaps we shouldn’t have for a variety of reasons, but couldn’t it be considered moral to step in and help protect those who were about to be slaughtered? Again, there are clearly other issues here and this, much like everything else, isn’t a black and white issue.

        • USWeapon says:

          That is a good point, Buck. I won’t say that it was immoral of us to step in and help reduce the number of innocent civilians that would die. However, I do believe it immoral that NATO forces are killing innocent people anyway. The question becomes who will kill more innocent civilians… the Libyan army or NATO?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            True.

            But I wouldn’t say the decision to go in was immoral. Perhaps it could be said that, after that initial decision to go in, the manner in which NATO has run this whole thing has been immoral.

            • By this same argument, would you say it was not immoral to go into Iraq? Vietnam? Korea?

              I thought you were against Bush’s wars, so why does Obama get a pass?

        • Morality is bull shit when you pull the trigger. There are no morals in war. Period. Leave Libya alone. Let them be slaughtered. IF you justify Libya, then why are you not justifying an even greater slaughter of mankind by the millions in Africa. We are not and should not be the worlds policeman and we have no obligation to be,

  6. Buck the Wala says:

    Alright, I’ll play devils advocate (its the lawyer in me).

    Let me just say up front that I have next to no free time today so not sure I’ll be able to defend my statements, but will try to throughout the day. Further, the views espoused herein do not necessarily mirror those of its author, Buck the Wala, but are being thrown out there in an attempt to raise a counter argument to that parroted by SUFA-ites this Monday morning.

    The War Powers Act (hereinafter referred to as the “WPA”) does not include a definition of the word ‘Hostilities’. Further, the term had not been defined in the legislative history for the WPA, subsequent legislation, in court rulings, etc. etc. etc. It is a pretty important term for purposes of the WPA, yet Congress never saw fit to define it! Although court actions have been brought relating to the WPA, the Courts routinely duck the issue as a political question, separation of powers, yada yada yada. So, what does the term ‘hostilities’, as used in the WPA, mean?

    Answer, nobody knows. Obama is absolutely right that this MAY (key word, MAY) not raise to the level of hostilities. Everyone here seems keen on tossing this argument out on its face, but it is a legitimate question. And, going forward, should most certainly be defined (you know, in order to avoid such loopholes in the future, something I’m sure everyone would agree would be a good thing). Unfortunately, I can all but guarantee that this will not be resolved as SCOTUS, if a case was to be brought, would once again duck the issue.

    So while I may agree that this is a bit ridiculous as, to me, I believe this type of scenario was envisaged by the term ‘hostilities’ (a much broader term than anything else they could have opted to use), the lawyer in me finds it a very novel question and one deserving of an answer without immediate ridicule.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Thank you, counselor.

    • Buck,

      If you need a lawyer to go through wording, paraphrase and redefine it in so many bizarre ways, twist and infer, make up things so to “justify” your actions…..

      …you know you are doing evil.

    • I am at a total lost, Buck. Please tell me any possible definition of hostilities which would exempt-the dropping of bombs, blowing up buildings and killing people as not an overt act of warfare. I posit that it is almost impossible to ever define a word where someone will not try to find a loop hole-so I simply must ridicule an argument that is obviously ridiculous and an obvious attempt to override common sense.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        One needs only look to the Obama Administration’s argument for an example.

        “U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”

        And again, I’m not saying I agree with the Obama Administration. All I am saying is that there does exist a question to be answered. Let me echo one journalist’s thoughts on this:

        “I think those differences are significant; but I am not sure they would convince the ordinary American. I am not sure they convince me.”

        • Buck says: ““U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition”

          D13 says: Not so fast there, sir. We are not constrained and we are not support….

          • Perhaps an explanation is in order here…..we, the US, is under no constraint by NATO and never has been by design. We are the only NATO member that can operate without constraint. Support….support has different meanings in the military. In the case of Libya….direct air strikes is not logistical,,,it is tactical support. We are supplying the greatest amount of equipment, the greatest amount of weaponry, the greatest amount of personnel and the greatest amount of intelligence. If you wish to say support….it needs to be qualified as tactical support and quit playing semantics,

    • “The War Powers Act (hereinafter referred to as the “WPA”) does not include a definition of the word ‘Hostilities’”
      “The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission”(what type of mission?)
      “the Osprey fired shots to keep locals away, then swooped in and rescued the second crew member.”(shots fired at people, US soldiers are boots on the ground)
      “The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries ”
      “a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment.”
      (air campaign, air strikes and bombardment sure sounds like Hostilities. But to a cat, it’s a game, to the mouse, it’s a life or death struggle. And a mouse in our homes has more meaning than thousands being killed in Libya, even though it’s being done in our name)

      BERLIN – A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

      The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.

      A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.

      Britain’s Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.

      One of the jet’s airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out “OK, OK” to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.

      “I hugged him and said: ‘Don’t be scared, we are your friends,'” Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman’s hand.

      “We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies,” he said. “We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away.”

      A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

      Amruni said the Osprey fired shots to keep locals away, then swooped in and rescued the second crew member.

      The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.

      The aircraft, based out of Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano Air Base in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The cause of the crash is being investigated.

      The Air Force has said only that B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighters are participating in operations over Libya. The U.S. involvement in Libya is being run by Africa Command, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany.

      The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries that began Saturday has rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from what had appeared to be imminent defeat.

      On Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment.

      But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi’s troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, has appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.

    • Twisted explanations like this is why there are so many lawyer jokes.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But Kathy, is it really all that twisted to ask for a definition of the very term that would determine whether or not Obama is in violation of the WPA?

        • Sure Buck, and the Constitution is unconstitutional because they didn’t define the meaning of freedom. And what does “Rights” mean? If it’s not defined, how can a government violate them?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            No one in the Obama Administration is arguing the WPA is unconstitutional. Rather they are arguing that it doesn’t apply to this particular situation.

            And the word freedom doesn’t even exist in the Constitution (except for the 1st Amendment).

            • Terry Evans says:

              I don’t know…If it were GWB that entered into this situation without Congressional support, I really don’t think you would be so dismissive of the action. I take that back, I am SURE you would not be. If you were to say otherwise I would have to call a foul…that goes for a few others here as well…Mathius…Todd.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m not being dismissive. I’m playing devils advocate.

              • Terry Evans says:

                Oh yea…sorry about that, got caught up in the moment!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                :)

              • Mathius™ says:

                Hey! I would have thrown Bush under the bus for something like this. Then I would have run over him with the bus, backed up, and run over him again. Then I would have rented

                But I like Obama (in general), so I’ll only hit him with it once. As I said, and have said, and will continue to say, I am not qualified to gauge the technical legality of the action. I am perfectly content to leave that up to a court (though not the kangaroo court that is an impeachment hearing a la Clinton). That said, I think it’s a dumbass move to get involved and none of our damn business. I think that if we can justify Libya, then we can justify just about anything and there’s no end to it. I think that we are not, should not and cannot afford to be the world’s police. I think that UN resolution be damned, with two (major) war and a (major) economic crisis and a (super double-plus massive) debt on our hands, we should have taken a pass and let someone else handle Libya – or better yet, let the Libyans take care of it themselves.

  7. I do not recognize the United Nations as a legitimate body any longer

    Now, you simply need to take each and every reason you do not see the UN as legitimate and apply it to any government body.

    You will come away with exactly the same disgust – and, thus, no longer recognize any governmental body as legitimate.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    Seems the WPA is the wrong issue here. This should be a Constitutional issue. It is very clear that to order the military into action against a foreign nation, it requires an act of Congress. The President has never had that power under the Constituion or the WPA, with the exception of an event where we are under attack. Both documents are very clear to this point.

    • “But I am not interested in what is “technically legal.” I am interested in what is moral and what we should be doing.”
      Obama is ignoring the law as written under the WPA. Start impeachment process and let the courts have their say.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I’m not qualified to discuss the legality or lack thereof of his decision to attack Libya. All I can say is that it seems like a bad idea to me and that I can’t shake the feeling that I’m missing a vital piece of the story.

        That said, I have a quick question for you. How do you feel about the Clinton impeachment? Justified? Not justified? Partisan politics? Right? Wrong? What?

        • Terry Evans says:

          I think he was and is a scumbag…did he do anything illegal?…not so sure, but he did soil the Presidency. It was mostly partisan politics though…IMO.

        • Partisan politics. Did he lie under oath? Yes. Justified? “ell no. They turned it into a witch hunt and the only question was when he would be burned, not if. Strongest feelings are about all our tax dollars wasted on lawsuits against him and Hillary.

    • USWeapon says:

      Excellent point, G!

  9. Canine Weapon says:
  10. R.I.P. BigMan.

  11. :|

  12. Q: What does NATO do?

    A: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949. In accordance with the Treaty, the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO is playing an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping.

    (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/faq.htm)

    Libya is NOT a member of NATO. NATO has no right to interfere or involve itself in any military actions of aggression (offensive) wherein they are not defending the freedom and security of a member nation.

    Obama has NO justification for sticking the United States into a fight in Libya – regardless of any legal twisting that is being, or may be, used to support his actions. NATO certainly is in violation of its charter.

    It is time for the US to give up the idea that we are the world’s cop – sticking our nose into the business of other nations, and doing so only if it interests the president to do so. He (and previous) Presidents have no problem letting other nations attack and slaughter their citizens or keep them in a state of desperation from oppressive & tyrannical governments – why should it be any different in Libya, or Syria, or Pakistan, or…………

    IT ISN’T OUR RESPONSIBILITY. Not before, not now, not in the future. Our military is to defend United States territory and her citizenry.

  13. Ray Hawkins says:

    Hi everyone – slight hijack here…..

    There is always plenty of FUD surrounding the evil hackers of the world…..but the ante is up on this one:

    Anonymous, LulzSec Groups Team Up In ‘AntiSec’ Hacking Campaign
    (from: http://www.darkreading.com/database-security/167901020/security/attacks-breaches/231000026/anonymous-lulzsec-groups-team-up-in-antisec-hacking-campaign.html)

    The Anonymous and LulzSec hacker groups have teamed up to target government agencies and banks and leak any classified information — including emails — in a hacking operation they have dubbed “AntiSec.”

    The first victim of the new wave of attacks was the U.K.’s Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), whose website was down for a while today but is now back up and running. LulzSec took credit for the outage, but warned that DDoS was only one of its weapons. “DDoS is of course our least powerful and most abundant ammunition. Government hacking is taking place right now behind the scenes,” the group posted today via its Twitter account.

    The loosely affiliated hacktivist group announced its intentions via Twitter and a posting on Pastebin this morning. “Welcome to Operation Anti-Security (#AntiSec) – we encourage any vessel, large or small, to open fire on any government or agency that crosses their path. We fully endorse the flaunting of the word “AntiSec” on any government website defacement or physical graffiti art. We encourage you to spread the word of AntiSec far and wide, for it will be remembered. To increase efforts, we are now teaming up with the Anonymous collective and all affiliated battleships,” the posting said, encouraging volunteers to join in the hacking of government agencies and banks and other major organizations.

    (read more at link above)

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      These groups do contain some incredibly talented folks, expert at evading even the most complex defenses. Sadly, they also contain lower level kids who can still exploit rudimentary defenses that your government has spent millions not to address. Yes – its true – the simplest attacks still work and work well. So the millions of dollars in your taxes that get flushed down the toilet on securing information and data may only increase as this “new” battlefront is propped up. And yes – you can expect more buzz on Executive Powers and laws designed to give the Government control over more Critical Infrastructure (which they get define btw). These groups keep folks like me up late at night and very busy during the day. Seemingly they keep our Government busy at finding newer excuses and how not to do basic blocking and tackling. Sad it is.

      • Mathius™ says:

        ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping ping

        ::connection lost::

    • Mathius™ says:

      My friend sent me this last night (not sure if he’s involved or not.. I suspect he might be).

      Sounds like they think of themselves as pirates.. but I think the SUFA pirates might have other ideas.

      I think that their goals aren’t sufficiently clear – it’s more like Project Mayhem than “hactivism.”

  14. Mathius™ says:

    Best health care in the world!

    http://www.gastongazette.com/news/bank-58397-richard-hailed.html

    USA #1!
    USA #1!
    USA #1!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Came across this last night too.

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Kind of ironic that in order to get his free health care he had to rob…..wait for it…..wait…..a Canadian owned bank!

      • Mathius™ says:

        The funny thing is that the dollar he “robbed” was probably taken by the police as evidence. It will be months before you guys get it back, if ever.

    • “The only thing Verone qualified for was food stamps. The extra money helped, but he felt desperate. He needed to get medical attention, and he refused to be a burden on his sister and brothers.

      “The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept,” he said. “I kind of hit a brick wall with everything.”

      Last resort

      A couple of months ago Verone started weighing his options.

      He considered turning to a homeless shelter and seeking medical help through charitable organizations.

      Then he had another idea: commit a crime and get set up with a place to stay, food and doctors.”

      So his choices were, ask for help from his family, ask for help from the government, ask for help from charity and yet he skipped all these and instead chose to commit a crime in order to get mandatory care from the government… Doesn’t sound like a last resort…

      Why is it that people are unwilling to ask for help when they can’t afford health care, but they are more than willing to demand it of those same people via government mandate?

      • Mathius™ says:

        An excellent point, JB.

        I would say that you’re, of course, correct, that it was not a “last resort” but the resort he found most preferable. Of course, his sister could have said no, but he didn’t ask. And, of course, the charity (not government by the way – they turned him down already) could have been unable or too slow to help him.. but it seems that he didn’t try that either.

        That said, it’s still a sad commentary on the state of American medical care that the man who worked honestly and productively his whole life should be reduced to such a condition as having to use homeless shelters or being a (probably massive) financial burden on his sister, just because he was laid off (presumably through no fault of his own).

        • I agree that it is sad, but where does it say that if you work hard your whole life you will have everything you need? Is he entitled to a job?

          My main point in all this is that, yes, I believe we are morally obligated to help people in need. I would absolutely bankrupt myself in order to save the life of my family or even close friends. I would absolutely help someone I trust with their medical bills or whatever. I have a big problem, though, with the government mandating it. If I give money, it is my choice to give money I rightfully own. It is my choice to give as I wish, no?

          The funny thing is that there wouldn’t be much of an issue here if people all gave to charity as, I believe, is their moral obligation. That said, the US dwarfs the charitable contributions from other nations. How can it possibly be that there is not enough charity in this country to cover the heath care needs of people like this?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Health care is very expensive. And it is very widely needed. Charity cannot reasonably be expected to cover the demand sufficiently.

            Not saying, necessarily, that the government is the solution, just that I don’t think charity is the (whole) solution either..

            My two cents.

            • Mathius,

              Charity is not the “WHOLE” solution.

              Paying your own way is the solution, with charity to assist.

              • Mathius™ says:

                The man tried to pay his own way. He had worked productively his whole life and had saved money. We was no longer physically able to do so. At that point, he had to fall back on charity (his sister’s or public charity), no?

                In pirate land, would he just die? How do you see his plight playing out (remembering that there are millions of people just like him and that health care is very expensive and that not everyone has a sister or the ability to fall back on savings). Serious question.

              • Terry Evans says:

                His whole life?? He was employed, according to the article by Coke for 17 years…not sure about the rest of the time. I have been down and out at a low point in my life…I required some medical attention at the time. There was a charity hospital in the town in which I lived…I went. It took all day to get seen, but it was handled, and committing a crime NEVER crossed my mind. This guy had alternatives other than the route he took…IMO.

  15. “couldn’t it be considered moral to step in and help protect those who were about to be slaughtered?”

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/21/sudan-ethnic-cleansing-begins-again/

    • Mathius™ says:

      I would argue that.. yes… somewhat…

      A better answer would be to grant asylum to anyone who wants it and ship them over to East Texas.

      • “A better answer would be to grant asylum to anyone who wants it and ship them over to East Texas.”(Does that include Syrians?)

        With a death toll estimated at 1,300 civilians plus more than 300 soldiers and police and a pending refugee crisis at its borders, the uprising in Syria has been absent from US and other Western nations’ media headlines.

        That has raised questions for columnist Mark Steyn. In an appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s Thursday radio show, Steyn addressed the situation in Syria and asked why it’s being ignored.

        “It’s perplexing to me that they’re far more interested in pro-Western dictators like [former Egyptian dictator Hosni] Mubarak than they are in somebody like [Syrian Dictator Bashar] Assad,” Steyn said. “Now I’ve been in favor of knocking off Assad for a decade. I think he’s weak. He’s not like his father. He is prepared to kill, but he’s not got that cunning that his father had. And hereditary dictatorships in that sense are always weak.”

        Is there a lesson to be learned here, in that if you take a more aggressive tack against your own people as was the way Assad has unlike Mubarak earlier this year, you escape Western scrutiny?

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/17/steyn-u-s-media-ignoring-syrian-uprising/#ixzz1Pv4M85mN

        • Mathius™ says:

          Anyone who is in need of asylum from dictators or ethnic cleaning (what a BS euphemism that is!) et cetera, should be given asylum in East Texas. I’m even ok with paying to ship them here.

          Want to fight it out? Ok, go ahead, but it’s your fight, not mine. Want to avoid the fight, come on over and start a new life.

          That should be our policy.

  16. Mathius™ says:

    “Burgert is the former leader of a Montana militia group known as Project 7 which allegedly plotted to assassinate local officials, go to war with the National Guard and overthrow the federal government.”

    “In 2004 he was sentenced to ten years in prison for a string of firearms offenses, including conspiracy to possess illegal firearms, possession of a machine gun [...]”

    So, my question is this: which one of you is this? Is it you Kent? Is this why you’ve been so quiet lately?

    http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/155397-militia-man-who-shot-at-police-still-loose

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You never know, it could be me :)

      • Mathius™ says:

        Well I know it has to be someone here.. Kent was my first guess.. but you’d probably be my next guess..

        Give ‘em a run for their money, Gman!

  17. D13 said, “NATO is a joke and the United Nations is a bigger joke and non effective.”

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4754

    Bluntly About NATO
    “despite two millions in uniform, NATO has struggled to sustain the deployment of 25-45’000 troops in boots on the ground but also in support assets”.

    From the desk of George Handlery on Fri, 2011-06-17 10:47
    Duly Noted

    It follows from the nature of alliances that their evolvement is burdened by tensions. This is especially true of arrangements that bind fully sovereign entities together and whose primary aim is the protection of independence. Accordingly, compared to NATO, the Warsaw Pact had fewer crisis but the ones that broke out –Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Solidarnost – proved explosions. Tito’s break with Moscow does not entirely fit the list, as formally Yugoslavia’s relationship to the USSR has been bilateral. Meanwhile, since 1949, NATO’s internal dissonances were audible while they never led to the deafening rumble of the WP’s dissonances.

    De Gaulle’s order that NATO leave French soil is not comparable to the turmoils in the alliance that legalized Soviet domination. The only opposition the General encountered has been one of the best comebacks of history. The US’ ambassador responded to the demand that “everything must go” by asking whether the graves of those that liberated France should also be removed. For lesser offences, the Kremlin removed national leaders. Outstanding is the case of Imre Nagy, who, once pushed, declared neutrality and Hungary’s exit of the WP. Nagy was hung for treason and other trifle charges. Such discrepancies discredit those that compare the WP and NATO to declare them analogous products of the Cold War. The distortion of the facts is not an accidental. The seeming error serves a purpose. It is to undermine the legitimacy of the Atlantic Alliance and to imply that, with the WP gone, NATO, should also be formally abandoned.

    In its last issue, Duly Noted has dealt with the decay within NATO. In doing so, the piece concentrated on Germany’s case. After that posting, Mr. Gates, the departing Secretary of Defense, has devoted his final policy speech to the problems of the alliance. The lecture concluded that, due to the members’ abuses, NATO might face a “dismal future”. It gives significance to the terminology what Mr. Gates intended to achievewith his report. The swan-song testimony represented no political ambition but rather the personal concerns of a public servant whose value is proven by his service in two American administrations. Thus, the report is a summary of troubling experiences that resulted in the warning of a pilot about to leave the ship.

    Precisely because the address got less attention where its intended audience is located, the salient points deserve to be reconstructed.

    Since NATO’s founding, the world has changed. Originally, there has been a clear threat by an easily defined enemy. Appearances suggest that the Alliance has defeated its foe and that this makes a tightly knitted organization superfluous. The assumption of victory due to a common effort might be pleasing but that does not put the claim beyond debate. Whether the Soviet threat was overcome because of NATO or in spite of its weaknesses is, at best, an open question. Today’s challenges are still subtle and thus easy to ignore. However, its the roots are sunk in fertile soil. Upon maturity, the foe will become as challenging, as was Communism – another faith relying on a mighty army.

    Besides self-confidence derived from a seeming success and a blinfolded sense of security, there is another vicissitude that follows from the difference between 1949 and the present. At the time of the treaty’s launch, Europe has been in ruins and America, in relative terms, at the peak of her global power. Accordingly, the US bore the bulk of the association’s burden and she acted as the protector of a war- weakened region. In ‘49 reality imposed a one-sided division of the obligations. Ergo, the treaty served to provide a formal foundation for America’s protective intervention and included a warning that Europe’s entities were not easy targets of aggression.

    Sixty years of protected progress under the American umbrella, restored a natural material balance within the alliance. In terms of population, GDP and defensive potential, Europe achieved more than parity with the USA. While this is a major achievement of the compact, it also outdates NATO’s accustomed “division of labor”. Nowadays there seems to be no reason why America should continue to pull the cart. Nor is it apparent why Europe’s main contribution should be to criticize Washington’s efforts from the elevated view provided by the perch on the coach.

    The “above politics” wisdom of Gates –the White House states that he did not speak for the Administration- justifies a summary. The more so, since this signal of a potential turning point, received less attention than it deserves.

    The burdens of sustaining the alliances from its, albeit large, national base and its costs encumber a tiring America. The continued engagement in behalf of allies that do less than their condition would allow and that refuse to be “partners” when inputs are demanded, cuts the “appetite” to continue the arrangement. America’s disproportionate defense spending is a subsidy of Europe’s generous social programs. A new generation of Americans is apt to rebel, as they might “not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost”.

    The frustration that drives the warning is understandable. In Afghanistan, the reservations of European governments have limited their participation. In Libya, while formally supporting the prevention what amounts to “self genocide”, most of NATO remains in effect neutral. Active members have shown that even against a negligible régime such as Kaddafi’s, their mobilizable means were as insufficient as was their political will. This short breath is no surprise. Defense expenditures have been neglected as – due in part to America’s resigned acceptance- it could be assumed that the “senior partner” has no choice but to defend “Europe”. No wonder that, in Gates’ words “despite two millions in uniform, NATO has struggled to sustain the deployment of 25-45’000 troops in boots on the ground but also in support assets”.

    Projected against that screen, the forecast is expectable. “The reality is that there will be dwindling appetite in the American body politic to extend precious funds in behalf of nations that are unwilling to devote the resources to be serious partners in their own defense.” From the implied attempt to remain uncommitted even in matters that concern them, follows that “what I have sketched out is the possibility for a dim, if not dismal future of the trans-Atlantic alliance”. Then, consolingly “the members “have it within their means to halt these trends”. Therefore, if the security arrangement is to continue, “The drift of the past years cannot continue”.

    Presenting the case for the limited utility of the hollowed out alliance seems to be an overdue service. If taken seriously, it calls attention to a pressing problem in need of a solution. In the case of the USA, here her alternatives to NATO as it is must be considered. The more so, since significant segments of the allied populations prefer to see the enemy in America, and not in movements that questions their right to their way of life. The issue boils down to whether there are alternatives. Is the US condemned to defend countries that are unwilling to exert themselves and that prefer to be “neutral” while their own business is straightened out for them?

    Her global interest and responsibilities make America interested in solid bridges to a vigorous Europe. This makes some allies and bonds indispensable even if she must prepare herself for more unilateralism. In the pursuit of this goal, it is advisable to wager on the strong. In doing so, the alternative beyond NATO is a series of bilateral commitments. These should involve countries that, as partners, appreciate security guarantees that surpass their national means to protect an independence that, due to their experience, they do not take for granted.

  18. Well I now see how Libya will play out. It will all be Bushes fault!, (the USS George H. W. Bush supercarrier)

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/is_another_shoe_yet_to_drop_in_opinion-gate.html

    Opinion-gate consists of the President’s rejection of legal opinions from the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Defense which said Mr. Obama couldn’t do what he wanted, in favor of one from the legal counsel of the State Department which said he could. Opinion-gate raises immediate questions of war and peace, the President’s power as commander-in-chief and Congress’ war-making power. In particularly, it spotlights the highly-controversial War Powers Resolution, which was passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto by a Democratic Congress at the height of the Watergate Scandal.

    The State Department opinion which Mr. Obama accepted says that he is not required to seek Congressional authorization for continuing to do what the United States military and covert services have been doing in Libya. The two opinions which he rejected — from the legal officers which modern American presidents typically look to for such guidance — say that he is required to do so.

    The reason this is no theoretical exercise is that, as of Sunday night, the NATO effort continues to flounder. British papers were reporting that the Libyan rebels are saying they’re out of money. And a NATO air strike gone astray may have killed a bunch of civilians.

    Meanwhile — pretty much unreported by the Western media, an American nuclear supercarrier, the USS George H. W. Bush, with her Carrier Strike Group and a Marine Amphibious Ready Group led by the USS Bataan, continues to cruise in the Central Med. There are 2,000 Marines in that ARG.

    The legal position President Obama has adopted would allow him to unleash that lethal firepower on Moammar Gaddafi and his rump government at any time — thereby putting our military in harm’s way — without prior Congressional authorization.

  19. On Executive Power, Is “Hostility” Barack Obama’s “Torture”?
    By Michael Scherer Monday, June 20, 2011 | 89 Comments

    Barack Obama ran for president on a platform of more limited executive power. “No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient,” he said in August of 2007. “The law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers.” Candidate Obama also introduced a resolution declaring that President Bush required Congressional permission before bombing Iran. “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told the Boston Globe.

    As the current debate over the War Powers Act and Libya shows, this is not how President Obama has carried out his job. Obama’s knock against Bush’s executive power overreach in 2007 had two major strands: The first was that Bush had not consulted Congress enough. The second was that Bush had misinterpreted the intent of Congress to meet his own ends, in one case by redefining a term, “torture,” and in one case by threatening to ignore the advice of his own Office of Legal Counsel during a debate over warantless wiretapping. Though the issues of wiretapping and torture are off the table, both criticisms can now be leveled against Obama.

    In 2002, Bush’s Justice Department lawyers came up with a novel definition of “torture,” over the objections of several military attorneys, that green-lighted the president’s plans for a harsh interrogation program. Obama’s in-house and State Department attorneys have come up with a novel definition of “hostilities,” over the objection of Pentagon and Justice Department attorneys, that allows U.S. forces to continue bombing Libya without seeking Congressional approval, as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.

    Furthermore, by seeking to avoid Congressional authorization of the Libyan campaign, Obama is distancing himself from his own position during the 2007 campaign, which required Congressional authorization for a bombing of Iran. “Any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress,” read the text of S.J.Res. 23, which Obama introduced on November 1, 2007. There is no question that the bombing of Libya, which Obama argues does not count as a “hostility,” at least meets the standard of “any offensive military action.”

    During the campaign, Obama argued that the President had more leeway in taking unilateral military action in cases where U.S. self-defense was an issue. “As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama told the Globe. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.” In the case of Iran, which is suspected of developing nuclear weapons that could be used against U.S. interests, there is a case for self-defense. In the case of Libya, no one has argued that U.S. self-defense is directly at issue.

    Obama is by no means the first president to try to find a way around the War Powers Act. As a senior Administration official pointed out last week, presidents have long tried to argue around the plain language of the law to define bombing campaigns and other military offensives as non-hostile. “There have been numerous instances where the United States has supported or been engaged in some form of military activity, which has not been viewed as rising to the level of hostilities,” the official explained. But the Obama argument, which contends that use of unmanned drones to drop bombs is not hostile whereas live pilots dropping bombs may be, is nonetheless novel.

    The central issue for Obama is not a legal one. The courts, by precedent, are unlikely to question his interpretation, and the House and Senate are unlikely to agree on a course of action that would formally object to Obama’s legal reasoning. This issue is between the Obama of 2007 and the Obama of 2011, which are difficult to reconcile. Under Obama’s current formulation, a sustained, unilateral, unmanned bombing of Iran with international cooperation would be allowed without Congressional approval, something candidate Obama would have surely objected to four years ago.

    The situation calls to mind a joke Seth Meyers told a few weeks back at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, while standing next to Obama. “Who knows if they can beat you in 2012,” Myers told the president. “But I tell you who could definitely beat you Mr. President? 2008 Barack Obama. You would have loved him. So charismatic; so charming. Was he a little too idealistic? Maybe. But you would have loved him.”

    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/20/on-executive-power-is-hostility-barack-obamas-torture/#ixzz1Pvg089rM

    I feel I must state that I never loved Obama- but back to the real point- reading this article and his exact words-shows that even Obama doesn’t believe he had the right to go into Libya without congressional approval-much less stay in after the deadline.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Jon Stewart did something really funny once a while back where he staged a “debate” between a politician and the same politician as a candidate. He used real video clips and had the two “debate” the issues. It was really funny to see (god, I wish I could remember who) the guy argue completely opposite sides of the issue and try to justify things that the other him flatly was “against”…

      Sometimes I think this could be hysterical if he did it Obama vs candidate Obama.

  20. Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter

    By Kevin Boie MYFOX

    Published June 21, 2011

    Rosalina Gonzáles

    CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A Texas mom has been sentenced to probation and has lost custody of her children for spanking her daughter.

    Rosalina Gonzáles of Corpus Christi pleaded guilty on Wednesday to Injury to a Child for swatting the 2-year-old on her buttocks.

    According to prosecutors, Gonzáles in December hit the girl with an open hand, leaving some red marks.

    Police arrested Gonzáles after the child’s grandmother reported the injuries and took the child to a hospital.

    Gonzáles will serve five years probation, take parenting classes and follow guidelines laid out by Child Protective Services

    KZTV10.com reports that the ruling judge in the case made it clear that spanking is a crime.

    “You don’t spank children today,” Judge Jose Longoria is quoted as having said. “In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don’t spank children.”

    Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/06/21/texas-mom-gets-probation-for-spanking-her-daughter/#ixzz1PvqN3qjq

    • Mathius™ says:

      That judge needs a spanking of his own…

      Now where did I put leave that 2×4…

      • Agree, and I got spanked plenty when I was young I spanked my kids. But there is a line…..we got custody of my (estranged) step son because his mom’s boyfriend beat the daylights out of him leaving pretty bad bruises. We took him to the cop shop on a Sunday evening and Monday morning we were in a courtroom getting full custody. She also had an older child taken from her (right out of the classroom) on the grounds of child neglect.

        • Mathius™ says:

          See, Anita, I couldn’t agree with you more. Though spanking isn’t really my cup of tea, as it were, I don’t have kids so I can’t really weigh in with any personal experience. What I can say is that spanking, as a measured response seems to me like a perfectly viable repercussion for unacceptable behavior where verbal reprimands seem to be ineffective. While I certainly agree that “beating” a child is wholly unacceptable, spanking is “painful” and embarrassing, but within bounds that I feel are within the parents’ jurisdiction – it may be (though I’m not qualified to judge that either) an effective training tool for children.

          The only thing I would say is that it should never be done in anger. You shouldn’t spank a child because you’re mad, but because you need them to learn a lesson. It should never be acceptable to strike your child because you’re angry. The spanking is about the child and the child’s behavior, not about you.

          My humble opinion.. but let’s see where I stand when I have kids …

          • When you have kids the only time you will spank them is when you’re mad. :) A crack or two usually does the trick, if not YOU are the one with problems.

            • Bamadad says:

              I disagree, I never spanked my children in anger, I sent them to their room until I was not angry. After a while I would go in and we would discuss the issue of why they were being spanked then do the deed. All of my children are grown now but they will tell you the waiting was worse than the corporal punishment.

  21. Mathius,

    The man tried to pay his own way.

    Because he merely “tried” is justification for him to steal, right?

    He had worked productively his whole life

    He made money and spent it in a manner he chose for himself – he made trade offs, which means he rather he had “somethings” and “not those things” – and that is what trade off means.

    Because he freely chose for himself, now he wants a Mulligan … he still wants the things he bought, but he does not want to suffer the trade offs – he wants that too!

    In pirate land, would he just die?

    In pirate land, you reap what you sow, and have no right to steal from me to mitigate that.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “In pirate land, you reap what you sow…”

      And he is, by being thrown in jail for his crime!

      • Buck,
        Only if one believes in “jail”, which I do not.

        The State has no right to throw him in jail. It is up to the victims to choose their own compensation and restitution.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Not asking if he had the right to “steal”.. I know you don’t think that.

      I’m asking how this would play out for millions of people who get severely sick every year if we all lived in PirateLand. He works, he saves, he gets laid off, he can’t get a new job due to illness, he can’t afford medical care.. he could have tried his sister or public charity, yes. But not everyone has a sister to fall back on. Do you think that charity would step up enough to provide for most people in a situation like this, or would they just die?

      I’m asking how you see it playing out on the large stage.

      • Mathius,

        not asking if he had the right

        But you are.

        Human Rights do not need justifications at all.

        That is why it is called RIGHTS – you exercise them without requiring an excuse to do so.

        So in “Pirate Land” as you say, your Exercise of your Rights requires NO COMMENT for, against, or why or why not – NOTHING.

        So if some people want to help him, fine.
        If others do not, fine.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Flag, are you able to answer the question?

          What do you see happening? Everyone exercises the rights they have and their best judgment or poor judgment…. and…?

          They… what? Save more? Charity steps up? Medical costs come down enough? They just die? They just don’t get sick? How do you see it working in PirateLand? Yes they exercise their rights, but what does that actually mean in terms of a scenario like this one?

        • Mathius,

          Do not ask me to guess the motives and actions of other free men. I do not, nor ever, can know this, and neither can you.

          You can ask me about what I would do – but it would be equally fallacious to extrapolate that into society.

          You can reason that social order exists when the weak of society are secure – for if the weak are secure in themselves, by the Law of the Universe, so are the strong.

          Thus, no society can retain cohesiveness where the weak are in fear. Therefore, in a Pirate Society by its existence, must have built some means and processes which accomplishes this – but what specific method out of the near infinite ways to do this is wholly unreasonable to ask.

          • Mathius™ says:

            In other words, you have no idea.

            But somehow it will work out.

            Got it.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Please don’t tell me you are surprised by this ‘answer’…

              • Buck,

                So you want me to think for you … why? Are you disabled?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No, but I would like an answer as to how YOU believe this will play out. Something more than just, “free men are problem solvers and will solve the problem…”

              • Buck,
                As I said to Mathius, it is a fallacy to extrapolate what I would do to be what a society does.

                To answer your question:
                Men of charity would provide as much or more as necessary.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And if and when they did not?

                As Mathius is quick to point out – health care costs are extremely expensive.

                Or is the answer simply that free men will provide charity to the extent they view it as a problem. To the extent they do not provide charity, so be it?

              • Mathius™ says:

                So that’s the short answer? People will be more charitable?

                Are you aware that that’s in direct conflict with Mathius’ Second Law: People. Are. Selfish.

            • Mathius,

              Free men solve problems – in fact, they are the greatest human engines at solving problems, which is why you have a standard of living that you have.

              How men solve any particular problem is up to the men who solve that problem, not you – since you are not solving the problem.

              If you want to think about it, you can come up with millions of non-violent, moral, and voluntary way to solve the problem – so I do not know why you think I need to do this for you.

              If you do not want to solve this problem, then don’t – someone else will, since free men solve problems all the time.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not to be too tongue-in-cheek, but wouldn’t one way to solve this problem be univeral health care for all?

                I know, I know, that wouldn’t be ‘free men’ solving a problem, it would be ‘free men’ violently imposing on others. The horrors!

              • Buck,

                Not to be too tongue-in-cheek, but wouldn’t one way to solve this problem be univeral health care for all?

                I know, I know, that wouldn’t be ‘free men’ solving a problem, it would be ‘free men’ violently imposing on others. The horrors!

                Correct.
                I said moral, voluntary way not evil.

                I know that means one must think beyond being an irrational barbarian, and for many people that is too hard to do.

              • I really have a problem with the one sided morality arguments-its immoral to steal but allowing people to die is okay.

                Matt -people are not selfish as much as they have just been taught that it is the governments responsibility to help people.

                Buck- the extent of charity that man will give is limited and so is what insurance can buy you or government would give you. So that argument is sorta moot, IMHO

                Why don’t we try to figure out why medical costs are so high-I highly suspect government interference is a leading cause? Why don’t we try to lower cost and encourage charity instead of discouraging it-and see where we stand.

                As far as nationalized health care or even insurance-a step too far for all the reasons that have been discussed on here.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Mike walks into a bar and sees Ray sitting at the end of the bar with a great big smile on his face. Mike says, ‘Ray, what are you so happy for?’

    ‘Well Mike, I gotta tell ya.. Yesterday I was out waxing my boat, just waxing my boat, and a redhead came up to me.. Tits out to here, Mike. Tits out to here! She says, ‘Can I have a ride in your boat’? I said ‘Sure you can have a ride in my boat.’ So I took her way out, Mike. I turned off the key and I said’ It’s either screw or swim! She couldn’t swim, Mike. She couldn’t swim!”

    The next day Mike walks into a bar and sees Ray sitting at the end of the bar with a even bigger smile on his face. Mike says, ‘What are you happy about today Ray?’ ‘Well Mike…. I gotta tell ya… Yesterday I was out waxing my boat, just waxing my boat and a BEAUTIFUL blond came up to me…tits out to here, Mike. Tits out to here! She said ‘Can I have a ride in your boat?’ I told her ‘Sure you can have a ride in my boat.’ So I took her way out, Mike. Way out much further than the last one. I turned off the key and I said, It’s either screw or swim!’ She couldn’t swim, Mike! She couldn’t swim!’

    A couple days pass and Mike walks into a bar and sees Ray crying over a beer.

    Mike says, ‘Ray, what are you so sad for?’

    ‘Well Mike, I gotta tell ya …. Yesterday I was out waxing my boat, just waxing my boat, and the most desirable brunette came up to me…tits WAY out to here, Mike. Tits WAY out to here. She says, ‘Can I have a ride in your boat?’ So I said, ‘Sure you can have a ride in my boat. So I took her way out, Mike, way WAY out… Much further than the last two I turned off the key, and looked at her tits and said It’s either screw or swim!’ She pulled down her pants and …..

    She had a pecker, Mike! She had this great BIG pecker!…
    And I can’t swim Mike! I can’t swim!”

    • Canine Weapon says:

      MEN IN HEAVEN
      When everyone on earth was dead and waiting to enter Paradise , God appeared and said, “I want the men to make two lines. One line is for the men who were true heads of their household, and the other line for the men who were dominated by their women. I want all the women to report to St. Peter.”

      Soon, the women were gone, and there were two lines of men. The line of the men who were dominated by their wives was 100 miles long, and in the line of men who truly were heads of their household, there was only one man.

      God said, “You men should be ashamed of yourselves, I created you to be the head of your household! You have been disobedient and have not fulfilled your purpose! Of all of you, only one obeyed. Learn from him.”

      God turned to the one man, “How did you manage to be the only one in this line?”

      The man replied, “My wife told me to stand here.”

  23. Buck,

    And if and when they did not?

    And now you are making up fairy tales.

    What if the sun explodes?
    What if the asteroid hits?
    What if the water rises 20 feet?
    What if what if What if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what ifWhat if what if

    …to no end because there is no end.

    I said before, free men solve problems.

    • Buck,

      And if and when they did not?

      To end your senseless what if of fairy tales, you need to understand what I said above.

      No society survives the slaughter of the weak.

      Thus, society will solve such problems or else society will collapse …the latter, too, being a solution.

      So do not worry your little mind trying to manufacture what-if scenarios until the end of time.

      Society of free men will solve the problem, or it will evaporate.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Buck!

      PirateLand utilizes liberal amounts of pixie dust.

      Why is this so hard for you to understand?

  24. Mathius,

    So that’s the short answer? People will be more charitable?

    Are you aware that that’s in direct conflict with Mathius’ Second Law: People. Are. Selfish

    Fortunately, Mathius’ Laws are not Universal, nor common – but really only apply to Mathius himself.

    People help the weak because the People want help when they are weak…. that’s the Golden Rule … and that is a Universal Law

    • Mathius™ says:

      A universal law is that, when it comes down to it, people are inherently selfish. If you are hungry enough and I have food, you will not hesitate to club me over the head and take it. If helping me means significantly worsening your odds for survival or generates discomfort in your life, you will not help me.

      The strong take from the weak. The hyena robs the cheetah who chased and killed the antelope which killed and ate the grass.

      Human beings are animals. We are smart animals, but we are, inescapably, animals.

      • Who do you hang out with? :) This is not my experience-I think it takes extreme times and extreme fear to reduce mankind to animals and then it is only some. Unfortunately it only takes a few to do alot of harm.

      • Mathius,

        A universal law is that, when it comes down to it, people are inherently selfish.

        You do not complete your sentence. Selfish – that is wanting more of a good thing or something else? You do not define it.

        People want more of a good thing – so what’s your point?

        If you are hungry enough and I have food, you will not hesitate to club me over the head and take it.

        You are a barbarian, and therefore address the world as a barbarian, and think other men are like you.

        You would throw a child out of life raft to save yourself – this is an act of barbarian.

        Civilized men leave the life raft so that women and children can escape with their lives.

        But you cannot understand that, because you are a barbarian.

        Human beings are animals. We are smart animals, but we are, inescapably, animals.

        If such a thing was even slightly significant, civilization would be impossible.

        Civilization exists, therefore, your review of humanity is seriously flawed.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Hear that Mathius, you’re nothing but a barbarian! Exactly what I’ve been telling you for years now!

          • Buck,

            You can tell a barbarian he is a barbarian, but he will not know what you mean because he knows nothing else – and as such has no comparison from which to judge.

            It is like telling Mathius he is Mathius – why would he think you are saying something profound?

            Only civilized men understand such things, for it takes effort to utilize reason – while it takes no effort to be irrational.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I am aware of the fundamental nature of the human brain. The genetic drivers of everything is that we are commanded to propagate our DNA. We are mules, enslaved to a cause billions of years in the works. There is nothing more. We are collections of cells containing nuclei containing deoxyribose nucleic acids. There is no “soul” there is no “self” – it is all an illusion. Your consciousness exists only as a function of the brain in order to help the biological organism make “good” decisions for purposes of enhanced survival and increased rates of reproduction and superior mate selection – it got big and complex and doesn’t always function right, but if you look at the evolutionary history, that’s what it’s there for. There is no such thing as “pure altruism” – it is self-serving in some way, always.

          Humans will serve themselves because it is in our nature. To believe otherwise is to delude yourself and choose to live a life in a happy fairy tale.

          • Mathius,

            Yet, civilization exists – which must mean your analysis is fundamentally flawed somewhere.

          • Bamadad says:

            If what you say is true, no man would rush to a burning car to save a stranger, or run to save a child who wandered onto a busy highway, no soldier would sacrifice himself to save a comrade or any number of things that tend happen frequently.

  25. USDA fines Missouri family $90k for selling a few rabbits without a license

    a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Nixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.

    But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.

    The Dollarhite’s story, originally picked up by conservative blogger Bob McCarty, has turned into a call to arms for critics of the government’s reach and now has both Democratic and Republican lawmakers vowing to intervene.

    John and Judy Dollarhite began selling rabbit meat by the pound in 2006, and as pets to neighbors and friends in 2008.

    Raised on the three-acre lot on which their home sits, the rabbits were heralded by local experts for their quality and kept in pristine condition.

    When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation.

    But by selling to pet stores for resale, the humble Dollarhites became “wholesale breeders of pet animals,” said Dave Sacks, a spokesman for USDA who defended the fine, even while admitting it “looks curious” to the average person.

    That’s especially so since the Dollarhites face no accusation they mistreated any animals. Instead, they committed what’s called in regulatory parlance a “paperwork violation” under the Animal Welfare Act, a 1966 law intended to prevent the abuse of animals.

    The fine is part of a campaign to step up enforcement of the law that has included levying fines on magicians who use rabbits in magic hat tricks. An Inspector General report prompted increased enforcement, Sacks said.

    In an interview, Judy Dollarhite, who said she “passionately” voted for Ross Perot in the 1990s, told of her interactions with government bureaucrats that sound like they came from a libertarian’s nightmare.

    Blissly ignorant about the licensing requirement, a USDA inspector arrived unannounced in November 2009 at the Dollarhites’ home. The inspector had viewed invoices at a pet store that was purchasing the rabbits, helping her track down the family’s home.

    “This cage is a quarter-inch too small, you’d have to have this replaced,” the inspector told Judy Dollarhite, she recalled.

    In fact, there are no actual written USDA standards for what constitutes proper care of a rabbit by a wholesale breeder of pet animals, Sacks said. Instead, the process is a “negotiation” between a USDA official and a breeder when they apply for a license.

    The inspector left the Dollarhites’ home, telling Judy Dollarhite she needed a license and saying she would send an application, Judy Dollarhite said. But the instructions were unclear and the application never came, Judy Dollarhite said.

    Two months later, in January 2010, another USDA official called, asking for a meeting with the Dollarhite family at their full-time business, a small computer store.

    The inspector watched the store for an hour from his car before the meeting, and his physical appearance put off the small business owners.

    “He was covered head to toe in filth. Jeans is one thing, but these were slicked. He had ‘Grizzly Adams’-style hair,” Judy Dollarhite said.

    The inspector, whose name Judy Dollarhite could not recall, intimidated the couple, claiming to have interviewed their neighbors about their political beliefs.

    Scared they would face a small fine for a part-time business that had only resulted in about $4,000-$5,000 in sales and $200-$400 of profit, the Dollarhites agreed during the meeting to immediately suspend their business, which the inspector said would help their case.

    Over the next weeks, Judy Dollarhite traded all of her rabbit breeding equipment on Craigslist — rather than selling it so she could not be engaged in “commerce.”

    Eight weeks after their meeting, the Dollarhites called a USDA office in Maryland. A man there said, “We’re going to make an example of you,” Judy Dollarhite said.

    USDA spokesman Sacks said he didn’t know about the interactions between the USDA and the Dollarhites. Roxanne Folk, the USDA point of contact the case against the Dollarhites, declined to comment when reached by phone.

    It wasn’t until April 19, though, that the Dollarhites received official word from USDA.

    A letter from Sarah Conant, the chief of the Animal Health and Welfare Enforcement branch of USDA’s enforcement division, said, “Our investigation shows that you have violated the United States Code of Federal Regulations … You may … settle this matter by paying $90,643.”

    A draft settlement agreement attached to the letter specified that the Dollarhites had, according to USDA’s investigation, sold 619 rabbits in 56 transactions over almost two years.

    The Dollarhites told USDA they aren’t accepting the “offer.”

    “My client rejects that proposal,” wrote their attorney, Richard Anderson, in a May 19 letter, noting that according to USDA’s own literature, its 6,000 annual enforcement cases average “a penalty of $333.33 per case, and yet you contend it would be appropriate my client tender a penalty of $90,643.00.”

    One Washington lobbyist for the industrial farming sector said the penalty was ludicrous. The rabbit sales “are on the scale of a high school 4-H project,” the source said.

    USDA spokesman Sacks said the $90,643 fine “looks curious to say the least.” But he insisted it was necessary for USDA to punish violators to ensure businesses across the country register, putting them on the USDA’s radar screen for inspections and possible enforcement.

    “This is the only way we can ensure these animals are getting the care they need,” Sacks said.

    Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill and Republican Rep. Billy Long have contacted the Dollarhites, saying they’ll help intervene with USDA. And a Tea Party group is planning a protest at a USDA office in Ozark, Mo., office on Wednesday.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/usda-fines-missouri-family-90k-for-selling-a-few-rabbits-without-a-license/#ixzz1NNQNH8mi

    • Mathius™ says:

      This seems.. skewed..

      I’m not questioning the fine (or the absurdity thereof).. but “We’re going to make an example of you” and the description of the inspector intimidating them and asking about political beliefs.. not sure I buy that.. seems like something I would say if I’m trying to drum up sympathy and build up a cause celebre.

      That says, they should fight this, of course, and whoever made the initial settlement offer is an idiot.

  26. V.H.

    I really have a problem with the one sided morality arguments-its immoral to steal but allowing people to die is okay.

    Yet, there you sit in your nice home, filled with gadgets like a computer and TV, plenty of food, car(s), vacations….pontificating about “allowing people to die” like in Africa etc.

    Why do you not sell your house, your gadgets, eat only one meal a day, sell your car and send all your wealth to Africa and save some lives?

    HYPOCRISY! You demand others must do as you (im)morally demand, but nicely exclude yourself from your own complaining

    • Does that make VH a barbarian too?

      • V.H.

        Is she advocating violence over reason?

        • Not the way I read it. I think (with due respect) you’re putting words in her mouth.

          • Anita,

            I do not read V.H. as advocating violence over reason either. I am pushing her to reason more carefully.

            She did post this:
            its immoral to steal but allowing people to die is okay

            …the “but” negates what comes before it, so, she said:

            “It is NOT immoral to steal as long as it helps you live.”

        • Violence over reason-hmmmm-my reasoning-in order for man to survive as more than the animal, Matt believes we are-we must have freedom but we also must care about and help take care of those who need the help. I know you hate the idea of being forced to do anything-and I would much rather not force anything. But the moral imperative to KNOW that you have a responsibility to help is as necessary to a civilized society as freedom.

          • V.H.

            Violence over reason-hmmmm-my reasoning-in order for man to survive as more than the animal, Matt believes we are-we must have freedom but we also must care about and help take care of those who need the help.

            And I said no society survives the slaughter of the weak.

            But we do not need to attack non-violent men to stop the slaughter of the weak – indeed, attacking non-violent men is slaughtering them

            It is NOT imperative that I have a responsibility for anyone other than myself. It is NOT necessary for anyone to do anything for anyone else.

            Men solve human problems because it makes human lives better as they are “human” they make their own lives better.

            I said before, People help the weak because People need help when they are weak

            • Other words:
              People help other people because People see themselves one day needing help.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Other words:
                Please help people because doing so helps themselves.

                But only to a point.

                If I give you everything I own, it is unlikely that I will get a good ROI.

              • Mathius,

                Re:ROI
                Again, you are fantasizing and pretending it is a proof.

                What reason would you give me everything? It makes no sense, so, what ever you think you are trying to demonstrate is non-sense too.

                People help people, and some to the point of their own death, so I am not sure “to what point” you think there is a limit?

  27. On June 9, unarmed Gaston County, North Carolina man James Verone help up a bank demanding the sum of $1. After getting the cash from a teller, he patiently waited in the bank for cops to arrive.

    Twelve days later, MSNBC has picked up on the story as an example of the desperate straits that unemployed, uninsured persons will go for health care.

    Yet neither anchor Chris Jansing in the 10 a.m. Eastern hour nor Tamron Hall in the 2:00 p.m. hour mentioned that there are low-or-no-charge health clinics in Verone’s backyard.

    A little Web search yields the website for Gaston Family Health Services, Inc., a nonprofit group with seven clinics that claims to “[provide] care to more than 30,000 patients per year (1 in 11 Gaston County citizens), through more than 100,000 clinical encounters.”

    For example, there’s the Gaston Family Health Services clinic on West Hudson Boulevard in Gastonia that promises it provides “primary care services for patients who can’t afford healthcare.”

    Of course, Verone was also looking for free housing for three years as a way to mooch off the government until he was old enough for Social Security, reported Rad Berky of NBC affiliate WCNC this morning on the station’s website:

    He is hoping for a three year sentence. He would then be able to collect Social Security when he got out and said he would head for the beach.

    “I’ve already looked at a condominium. I’ve spoken to a realtor on Myrtle Beach,” Verone said.

    Jansing omitted that fact from her report. For her part, Tamron ran a news package by Berky, who of course included Verone’s dream of coasting through life on the taxpayers’ dime until he’s 62:

    BERKY: James is hoping for a three-year sentence. He figures he’d then be able to collect Social Security when he gets out and says he’d head for the beach.

    VERONE: I’ve already got a condominium. I’ve spoken to a realtor, [it's] on Myrtle Beach.

    Verone is clearly delusional, a liar or both, and yet Hall introduced the story by suggesting it was just a logical option one might take, albeit extreme, when unemployed and without health insurance:

    So just how much is health care worth to you? One desperate North Carolina man claims it is worth a stay in jail.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/06/21/msnbc-hypes-story-man-who-robbed-bank-prison-health-care-leaves-out-fr#ixzz1PwVMDik3

    • Mathius,

      I’ve already got a condominium. I’ve spoken to a realtor, [it's] on Myrtle Beach.

      Exactly!

      He spent his money to buy a condo on the beach, but wants other people to fork over money for his health care

      Trade off’s Mathius, Trade off’s – and people are taught to believe that they can have what they want, and steal what they cannot get.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Don’t look at me.. I posted this earlier.. this is LOI’s post. Leave me out of it.

  28. A knight in shining armor isn’t always the key to a woman’s heart. Case in point: Jan Rudnicki, a 40-year-old Polish man who hopped onto a horse and plowed into a female’s house in hopes of sweeping her off her feet.

    According to the Croatian Times, a drunk and shirtless Rudnicki jumped on the equine, who galloped right through Gosia Domoslawska’s front door.

    As we all know, these sort of advances aren’t well received in instances of unrequited love, so an uninterested Domoslawska called authorities after Rudnicki stormed through her place. The faux savior could spend up to five years in jail for aggravated breaking and entry.

    Domoslawska was sitting in front of her television when Rudnicki allegedly barged into her home uninvited.

    “He’s a loon,” Domoslawska told the publication. “I never fancied him before and I certainly don’t now. If this was supposed to win my heart he must be seriously off his rocker.”

    Rudnicki’s buddy Mirek Nowak said he didn’t think his friend would actually follow through with horsing around.

    “At first we thought Jan was joking,” Nowak told the Daily Mail. “But then he went outside, climbed onto this horse — which he’d ridden to the pub — and set off bare-breasted and bare-backed. The next thing we knew, he’d been arrested.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/14/drunk-wannabe-knight-rams-into-womans-house-in-failed-attempt-at-wooing/#ixzz1Pwnxn82j

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: