Declaration of Independence review

Bama Dad says:
July 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm • Edit

As we approach the 4th of July I think it is appropriate that all should read the Declaration of Independence and contemplate the meaning of it’s wording. Pay attention to some of the grievances listed that compelled these men to write such a document, then think of how we are governed today.

About these ads

Comments

  1. IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    New Hampshire:
    Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

    Massachusetts:
    John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

    Rhode Island:
    Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

    Connecticut:
    Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

    New York:
    William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

    New Jersey:
    Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

    Pennsylvania:
    Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

    Delaware:
    Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

    Maryland:
    Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

    Virginia:
    George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

    North Carolina:
    William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

    South Carolina:
    Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

    Georgia:
    Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

  2. Charlie Stella says:
    July 2, 2012 at 10:34 am • Edit

    Pay attention to some of the grievances listed that compelled these men to write such a document

    and ignore slavery … nice touch

    • I don’t think we as a nation ignore our past faults. It’s taught universally in our public schools. And what does that mean to us and the world today? Some 160 plus nations meet every five years and declare the US and Israel to be the most guilty of inflicting slavery. No mention of the Arabs or Africans doing the enslaving. Cuba is outspoken on US guilt despite the fact there were more slaves brought to Cuba than the US.

      I like the second verse, which is rarely sang in public,
      God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
      Confirm thy soul in self-control,
      Thy liberty in law.

      O beautiful for spacious skies,
      For amber waves of grain,
      For purple mountain majesties
      Above the fruited plain!

      America! America!
      God shed His grace on thee,
      And crown thy good with brotherhood
      From sea to shining sea!

      O beautiful for pilgrim feet
      Whose stern impassion’d stress
      A thoroughfare for freedom beat
      Across the wilderness

      America! America!
      God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
      Confirm thy soul in self-control,
      Thy liberty in law.

      O beautiful for heroes prov’d
      In liberating strife,
      Who more than self their country lov’d,
      And mercy more than life.

      America! America!
      May God thy gold refine
      Till all success be nobleness,
      And ev’ry gain divine.

      O beautiful for patriot dream
      That sees beyond the years
      Thine alabaster cities gleam
      Undimmed by human tears.

      America! America!
      God shed His grace on thee,
      And crown thy good with brotherhood
      From sea to shining sea.

    • :(

    • …and they ignored women, children, drunks, idiots, Indians, Mexicans… too. So what?

      The intent was all men – and unnecessary to explicitly numerate them all.

  3. Of course, the Declaration did not happen on July 4th.

    It happened on July 2nd. It just so happened that most signed it on July 4th, though a few signed it much later than that too.

    So Americans, as usual, are celebrating on the wrong day.

    • Most don’t need a reason to celebrate, just an excuse…

    • Yeah, but July 2nd was a Wednesday. Nobody parties on a Wednesday. It wasn’t until they were all drunk and partying Friday night that they actually signed and posted the declaration! ;)

    • I have read several sources on the history of the Declaration of Independence lately. Some excerpts from one source (link provided at the end):

      “The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: “Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

      The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the “United Colonies.”

      In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King’s American subjects were “engaged in open and avowed rebellion.” Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.

      One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies’ ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists “to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies.” On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A “Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments” was passed on May 10, 1776.

      At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that “the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states.”

      It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies’ case for independence.

      The Committee of Five

      The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee “unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress.” (If Jefferson did make a “fair copy,” incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson’s rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson’s own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.)

      Jefferson’s account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.

      On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson’s. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4. Then, at last, church bells rang out over Philadelphia; the Declaration had been officially adopted.”

      read more:

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html

      @ Flag- Obviously many events led up to our independence. However, the founding fathers dated the actual document July 4, and they rang the church bells on the afternoon of July 4th in celebration of the official adoption of the document. Seems they considered that the date to remember, and celebrate as the “birth date” of the new republic.

      One I have learned- no matter which date Americans chose for their celebration, you, Flag, would choose another and then be critical of everyone else. You’re just that kinda guy.

      Have a happy 4th of July, SUFA! And a special shout out to all the veterans who have made the celebration possible! Here’s a huge heartfelt thanks to you all!

      Murf

      • Murphy

        One I have learned- no matter which date Americans chose for their celebration, you, Flag, would choose another and then be critical of everyone else.

        Well, not “critical”, but amused.

        I am the same about Xmas, Easter, most birthdays, anniversaries, any “holiday”, etc.

        I consider it strange to “celebrate” a particular day over another particular day or some event in the past as if it was important today.

        It is funny to me people need to find an excuse to take a day off and party.

  4. Opinions?

    California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents
    Share
    By Jim Sanders

    jsanders@sacbee.com
    Published: Monday, Jul. 2, 2012 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
    Last Modified: Monday, Jul. 2, 2012 – 9:26 am

    Beaver had June and Ward.

    Ricky had Ozzie and Harriet.

    Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.

    When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility – but that could end soon.

    State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents.

    “The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today,” the San Francisco Democrat said.

    Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships.

    Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno’s bill as a new attempt to “revamp, redefine and muddy the waters” of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.

    “It comes as no surprise that he would try to say that a child has more than two parents – that’s absurd,” said Lopez, whose group calls itself a leading voice for Bible-based values.

    Under Leno’s bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them.

    SB 1476 is not meant to expand the definition of who can qualify as a parent, only to eliminate the limit of two per child.

    Under current law, a parent can be a man who signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, for example. It also can be a man who was married and living with a child’s mother, or who took a baby into his home and represented the infant as his own.

    Leno’s bill, which has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly, would apply equally to men or women, and to straight or gay couples.

    Examples of three-parent relationships that could be affected by SB 1476 include:

    • A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father.

    • A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.

    • A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well.

    SB 1476 stemmed from an appellate court case last year involving a child’s biological mother, her same-sex partner, and a man who had an affair with the biological mother and impregnated her while she was separated temporarily from her female lover.

    Designating multiple parents in such cases could enhance the child’s prospects for financial support, health insurance or Social Security benefits, thus reducing the state’s potential financial responsibility, supporters say.

    In bitter breakups involving two unfit or incapacitated parents, a judge might have more flexibility to keep a child out of foster care by recognizing the existence of another parent, Leno contends.

    The key factor is a child’s best interest: SB 1476 does not force judges to do anything, it only provides them with discretion to recognize multiple parents if doing so not only is beneficial, but is required for a child’s well-being, Leno said.

    Californians give judges great power to split families with the stroke of a pen, so there is a duty to do it right, said Ed Howard, senior counsel for the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. “And we can’t get it right if we’re forcing judges to rule against their judgment.”

    Opponents counter that the issue is complex and that allowing multiple parents in one section of law inevitably raises questions that could spark litigation in other sections.

    Tax deductions, citizenship, probate, public assistance, school notifications and Social Security rights all can be affected by determinations of parenthood, notes the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists.

    “This bill, in our opinion, if passed, will cause significant unintended consequences,” said Diane Wasznicky, the group’s president and a family law attorney in Sacramento.

    Assemblyman Donald Wagner, an Irvine Republican who opposes SB 1476, noted it could spark litigation, say, in a case of a wrongful death of a child with four potential parents and determining who has a claim.

    Karen Anderson, of the California Protective Parents Association, said the legislation could result in a child being bounced among multiple adults in a bitter family breakup.

    “It’s hard enough for children to be split up two ways, much less multiple ways,” she said.

    Attorney Catherine Sakimura of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a co-sponsor of SB 1476, said judges would be required under the bill to consider a child’s stability in awarding custody and visitation.

    SB 1476 states that concerns about child stability “may mean that not all parents share legal or physical custody.”

    Wasznicky counters that it makes no sense to declare someone a parent, essential to a youngster’s well-being, but then “cut that person out” of the kid’s life.

    “Either someone is vital enough in a child’s life to be labeled a ‘parent’ and have certain rights and obligations to the child, or the person is not,” she contends.

    Ellen Pontac, a Davis gay-rights activist, said she and her wife, Shelly Bailes, each had two children when they began their relationship 38 years ago. She understands how someone can function as a child’s parent but accrue no legal rights. Government should accommodate changing times, she said.

    “I just think that people should be able to create their own lives,” she said.

    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/4604048/california-bill-would-allow-a.html#storylink=cpy

    • I think 2 parents are enough! Do I really need 2 moms nagging me to sit up straight? Or eat my vegetables?

      Or 2 mothers-in-law telling me…how to do EVERYTHING?? :: shutter ::

    • Place is broke, getting deeper into the hole every second and they worry about this crap. Like standing on the deck of the Titanic at a 45 degree tilt and arguing about the caviar at the table yesterday morning. What do you think the Chinese would pay for the place? As is of course no refunds or exchanges allowed.

  5. Here’s your big chance. You’ve got 2 days to write up your grievances and list how you want to be governed today.

    Or you all could just keep pissing-n-moaning for another year, and then…do nothing again next year… :(

    • I do not piss-n-moan -I rant and scream :)

      My grievances are already on this site-in post after post.
      As far as how I want to be governed-a whole lot LESS !!!!!! With a lot more common sense and a whole lot less corruption and stupidity!

      • VH,
        Sorry – my mistake!!

        But you do need to write it down – because the details matter:

        What does “a whole lot LESS” mean?

        And define “common sense” and “stupidity!”?

        And how much is a “whole lot less corruption?”
        How much are you willing to spend to accomplish this?
        How will you know when you’ve reached your goal?

        Just trying to help… ;)

  6. Let’s see if this works.

    • So many of these guys look like actors I’ve seen before. De javu all over again?

      What symbolism … for whom the bell tolls?

      Doesn’t Adams look like Joe Pesci?

      Was Franklin really a southpaw?

      • Hey Chuck! Found you a foreign film to enjoy!

        The Movie on Health Care That Obama Doesn’t Want You to See
        By Jeff Lipkes

        It’s not a documentary, and it’s not by a conservative. The writer and director is a French-Canadian leftist, or former leftist. But, among other things, the film is a horrifying and hilarious exposé of health care in Canada. The film is The Barbarian Invasions by Denys Arcand, and though it did well in the U.S. for a foreign picture, winning the Academy Award for Best Foreign-Language Film in 2004 and grossing over $25 million, it hasn’t been seen by nearly enough people.

        Barbarian provides a vivid glimpse of what we have in store if President Obama is re-elected in November. I should perhaps at this point issue the usual “spoiler” caveat, though as it’s a film about a man with terminal cancer, there isn’t much of a plot to spoil. Like many good movies, it’s the interactions of the characters and the ways in which relationships evolve under stress that make the story interesting.

        Rémy is dying of an unspecified cancer. His ex-wife Dominique pleads with their estranged son to fly back to Quebec from London and see his father for the final time.

        The source of the estrangement is clear enough from the early minutes of the film. Rémy is an outspoken socialist history professor, a libidinous devotee of the counterculture. His son, Sébastien, is an arch-capitalist, a commodities arbitrageur for a bank in the City, who “never reads a book,” Rémy says disgustedly. Each heartily despises the values of the other. But it is only the son’s Gordon Gekko morals — his willingness to bribe and bully — and his deep pockets that enable Rémy to escape the horrors of the Canadian health care system.

        These are depicted in gory detail. At the start of the film, the camera follows a nurse down the hall of Rémy’s hospital. Patients in various states of distress are parked in the hallway. The corridor is packed to capacity. The nurse, bearing hosts for communion, threads her way among groaning and coughing patients, carts of dirty laundry, and electricians at work. Rémy is lucky to have a room, though it has about half a dozen other patients in it, and the staff are continually confusing him with his roommates.

        The hospital is ruled by its union bosses. Nothing gets done without their approval. Laptops are routinely stolen, but “lost” computers can be promptly located after bribes to the union chief.

        Sébastien notices that there’s an entire floor below his father’s that is unused. Lying about his identity, he gets an appointment with the hospital’s administrator and requests that his father be moved to a room on the empty floor. The lengthy answer he receives is a brilliant parody of health care bureaucratese. Undeterred, Sébastien offers the administrator a folder filled with $100 bills, and he promises further “reports” each week. After protests — “we’re not a third-world country!” — the cash is accepted. The son then pays the union lavishly to refurbish the room, and Rémy now has a private suite.

        Rémy’s problems with the hospital continue. He is told by his doctor that he requires a PET scan, but he will have to wait at least six months. The only solution is to cross the border to the hated U.S. of A. Sébastien makes the arrangements, and the father is scanned promptly by a private clinic in Vermont that caters to Canadian “health tourists.” The results are faxed to Rémy’s doctor while the van is still en route back.

        Sébastien makes arrangements to send his dad to a first-rate hospital in Baltimore. Rémy objects; he doesn’t want to leave his friends. But none have come to visit, so Sébastien contacts them, including some of his father’s former lovers, and persuades them to return to Quebec. The movie centers on the reunion of these characters, who were the subjects of Arcand’s earlier The Decline of the American Empire. They are all ex-radicals and ex-sexual revolutionaries. Their reminiscences are bittersweet. They are able to laugh at their infatuation with successive leftist “isms” and are even embarrassed by their embrace of the Cultural Revolution in China. And they recognize how their promiscuity alienated their children. But they don’t grasp the extent of their legacy. And they don’t comment on how their politics eviscerated an efficient and compassionate health care system in Canada.

        There are some other sharp social and cultural observations in the film. Sébastien’s antique-dealer fiancée has accompanied him back to Quebec. In a moving scene, she visits a vast basement in which statues, chalices, monstrances, etc. from the city’s abandoned churches are stored. The old priest who accompanies her tells her that Quebec was once like Spain or Ireland, and then, suddenly, sometime in 1966, people stopped going to church. The fiancée has to tell the priest that there is nothing of value for the firm she works for. The camera rolls slowly down the rows of discarded virgins and saints, much as it rolled down the hospital corridor packed with discarded patients.

        You can read all you want about the conditions in Canadian hospitals or the wait-times for procedures that can be performed within 24 hours in the U.S. But there is nothing like seeing the horrors in living color.

        No regular AT reader doubts that ObamaCare’s individual mandate — now a tax — is just another step on the road to the nationalization of health care. The requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions is still another step. While few question that if individuals switch jobs, their coverage ought to be transferred to the new insurer, the idea that a company be obliged to offer insurance to someone without regard to that person’s medical record perverts the entire premise of insurance. It’s something like being permitted to place a bet after the race is over. The object, obviously, is to bankrupt the insurance industry as quickly as possible.

        And no conservative doubts that socialized medicine will convert the U.S., too, into a third-world country, where better treatment can be purchased by bribes and political leverage. Canadians with money can come to Bellingham, Buffalo, and Burlington. Where will we go after ObamaCare has been around for a few years?

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_movie_on_health_care_that_obama_doesnt_want_you_to_see.html#ixzz1zZGDAPFT

      • Guess ya just gotta watch the whole thing. The bell is sort of a “die is cast” thing. Franklin was probably left handed, never said that “beer is proof God loves us” but did say ‘wine is proof God loves us”. William Daniels is the definitive John Adams as is Howard Da Silva Ben Franklin. Da Silva was a HUAC target in the early fifties and has the distinction of playing the same character, Meyer Wolfsheim, in both versions of “The Great Gatsby” the Alan Ladd and the Robert Redford one. As a film buff, The ’46 version was better but Redford more true to the character. Someday computer graphics will allow Redford to be inserted into the ’46 movie. Now, that will be something!

        Had the privilege of seeing “1776″ on Broadway when first launched. Same basic cast. What a show!

        Regarding technical inaccuracies, after the James Stewart character Rance Stoddard finishes telling the reporter who really shot Liberty Valance, an event that launched Stoddard’s political career forty years earlier, The reporter remarks, “When the truth becomes legend, print the legend.”

  7. This is what I mentioned in the previous post. Why aren’t we hearing more about this possibility?

    http://www.fox19.com/story/18910419/reality-check-if-affordable-care-act-is-a-tax-is-law-invalid

    • Because it has already been justified away.

      CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

      The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1.

      In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155
      U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
      U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

      Got that? In Part II of the decision, it’s not a tax so the case can go forward but by Part II, it’s magically OK under the taxing power.

      Yes, that is correct, Kathy.

      If it is in favor of the government to call it a tax, it is a tax.
      If it is in the favor of the government to call it a penalty, it is a penalty.

      No matter what, whatever it takes, the court has deemed its duty to figure a way for the government to enforce itself.

      Now, look into the future. If the court now says its job is to make any legislation “work” even it has to contradict itself in the same paragraph, what (if you ever had it) Constitutional protection you may believe you have.

      And now you know why I have always said human evil is created whenever men try to manifest a contradiction.

    • Kathy, I think you are correct. If it is a tax, then it was improperly (illegally) passed. It would take another case to argue this. Unfortunately the cynic in me says the SCOTUS gets to choose what cases it accepts. SCOTUS will not embarrass itself by going over this again.

  8. Have to agree with BF (almost) on this tax/penalty business. If the 1% wants it called a tax or a penalty, it’ll be called one or the other. Consider it another bone (a very small one as compared with universal health care-what the rest of the civilized world has) thrown to ward off the current crisis of unemployment (soon to be replaced with a lot of jobs re-entering the marketplace at much less than they used to be (minimum wage will look like a good deal to those out of work and profits will soar even higher).

    What a system.

    • Still waiting for answer. Who are the 1%? Old rich, new rich, any rich? Rockefellers, Kennedys, Soros, Jobs, Gates? Anybody who went to the Ivy’s? Anybody in government? The mainline media? Does it matter how you got the money, working vs. inheriting?

      You seem to have a broad brush on the subject. Wonder if there are any exceptions. I am sure that the bottom 50% would agree that anybody in the top 50% is the 1%. Polls I have seen show that about $ 60,000 per year is the definition of “rich” for most making less.

      I have my own theories, the recent SCOTUS decision plays into my fantasies. Roberts wants to be: 1. loved and 2. invited to the right parties. That’s all it takes to sell out.

      • Who are the 1%?

        Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.

        Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009, according to a 2011 report from the Economic Policy Institute.

        But that’s just the “black & white.” We all know there are many shades of grey.

        Old rich, new rich, any rich?

        Can be any rich, but not necessarily all rich. And doesn’t necessarily have to be rich. And “rising star” may not have the income yet, but is acquiring the power.

        Rockefellers, Kennedys, Soros, Jobs, Gates?

        Used to be. Used to be. Yes. No. No. And all could be…

        Anybody who went to the Ivy’s?

        No.

        Anybody in government?

        Can be, but government is not a stable source of power.

        The mainline media?

        Not the “on screen” personalities . Murdoch – Yes.

        Does it matter how you got the money, working vs. inheriting?

        Nope. It matters how they use it.

        Wonder if there are any exceptions.

        Yes. And this is the important part.

        The “One Percent” are the wealthy power brokers that control industry and government for their own benefit. The reference to 1% is just an indication of where these people are on the income/wealth curve.

        Not everyone with an income in the 1% is a One Percenter, and vs versa.

        • But would Charlie agree?

          • We all know there are many shades of grey

            Not on this site, Todd (not for most here). Unfortunately, the phony arguments of “liberty” and “envy” are all the Ayn Randers have. If you’re not rich, you’re envious of the rich. If you’re out of work, it’s because you’re lazy … and so on. Absolute absurdity. They rely on propoganda the same way they claim other systems/culture/countries/governments do. It is as comical as it appears, except they’re serious (i.e., they believe the black adn white bullshit”).

            To answer Stephen’s question. Yes, Charlie agrees with what Todd wrote. Where I and Todd probably disagree is on the economic system. I believe it is capitalism that leads to the mess we have (1% ownership of the government). I suspect Todd has more faith in our political system (and the Democratic Party, although I doubt he’s a blind faither–maybe just vs. the GOP) but … I also suspect he’d be in favor of more progressive steps toward socialism (i.e., democratic socialsm) … a hybrid at a time. It’s inevitable we’ll get there someday … because capitalism only works for the very few and it’s getting to be fewer and fewer every day.

            How ’bout those Buffalo Bills! Still undefeated in 2012 …

      • Steven, I’d say the 1% are the 1% of the most wealthy individuals with U.S. citizenship (mostly like the Sheldon Addleson’s of the world but I’m sure there are some good people within that percentage (for all I know, Addleson is a damn fine person) but protecting one’s interests will always take priority … so I’m sure there are good people amongst the most wealthy (contrary to popular opinion (and BF’s bullshit)< I don't hate rich people. I hate the system by which they've become rich people.

        My guess is way more than the 1% own the government, but it is money that owns the gov't collectively (corporate interests first and foremost) … they set the rules, let's face it. Right now, this imbecile Obama has given Insurance companies 30,000,000 more customers. I believe in universal health care but Obama isn't close enough to that yet for me to cheer him on. I figure this will backfire soon enough and it depends on how much worse off the bulk of the population is when it happens as to what will happen after that. We shall see.

  9. bamadad says:

    D13

    1000 rounds of 30 carbine on sale for $360 at:

    http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/aguila.html

    I have used the Aquila ammo in my 30 carbines and it did just fine, clean and no misfires.

  10. Those of you that have not read the Affordable Care Act…..better read it. Even those of you on the left. You may be surprised what is in it.

    Mammograms over the age of 40…will be eliminated.
    Prostate testing over age of 40…will be eliminated.
    $400 billion being taken out of medicare and part B being slashed by 40%
    You will NOT be allowed to retain your current health coverage when it expires without a penalty.
    CAT scans as a preventative cancer screen will be eliminated.
    14 increased taxes and 8 new taxes…including taxes on medical devices.

    Just to name a few……….I would suggest everyone read it.

    • It is hard to know how to even fight now that the SC has made this ruling-even getting ObamaTax overturned won’t undue the harm Roberts has done. I have been trying not to rant but I just can’t help myself. Screw Roberts -the man is a traitor to his own proclaimed principals and to his country.

      July 3, 2012
      Government Wins Even ObamaCare Ruling’s ‘Silver Lining’
      By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

      Some conservatives believe there’s a silver lining in Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding ObamaCare because he pays lip service to limited government. Folks, the constitutional rule of law lost. To use a more appropriate metaphor, the only thing that looks silver is the shining metal of knives the government wields.

      The unprecedented takeover of one-sixth of our economy and the greatest loss of individual liberty that the largest number of Americans have suffered in over a century is just the tip of the iceberg. Whatever rhetorical spin one can put on Roberts’ opinion is more than offset by the practical, deep, transcending, and even hidden effects of the ObamaCare ruling.

      It is risible that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their ilk will feel the least bit restrained by Roberts’ civics lesson about limited federal government power. Obama must be laughing all the way to his next fundraiser with bankers.

      John Roberts’ nonsensical, activist opinion upholding ObamaCare is even worse than it appears. First he claims that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Next, to uphold the individual mandate, he claims that it is a tax. Even tax-loving Democrats are denying Roberts’ sole basis for upholding ObamaCare — that it is a tax. How curious!

      The ObamaCare decision will embolden Barack Obama and left-wing statists in their quest to rule America in disregard of the Constitution. Now they have reason to believe that nothing and nobody in government has the constitutional guts to stop them. They are lawbreakers whom the court just set free to go commit more lawbreaking.

      Their lust to trample the Constitution has just been whetted. Lawsuits to defend our freedoms — by those who can afford the millions of dollars to get through the court system — add to Obama’s strategic and twisted joy. Every dollar spent on lawsuits by victims and freedom-lovers is one less dollar spent to defeat Obama and his statist allies politically, while taxpayers foot Obama’s legal bills for his unlawful acts.

      Obama now has a clearer path to fundamentally transform America, and in far more areas than just taking over our health care. Statists can attack liberty at will, and courts are now free to justify it under the taxing authority. You can bet your last dollar that statists are already strategizing more of the same.

      Obama, especially, never needed to be emboldened. Instead, he needed to be humbled and chastened. He has already assumed authorities of a dictator. The ink on the Supreme Court’s Arizona immigration decision was not even dry when he issued an edict to punish that defiant state by revoking federal immigration enforcement there. What else will he now do to those who dare defy him?

      The ObamaCare decision didn’t just embolden Obama and other elected statists. Ask any constitutional conservative lawyer who has dealt with government lawyers or bureaucrats. When litigating challenges about government authority, government lawyers twist court decisions in ways to expand government power. Bureaucrats? They’re worse.

      Government lawyers assuredly have already honed in on one line from page 17 of Roberts’ opinion: “[I]t is now well established that Congress has broad authority under the [Commerce] Clause.”

      Statist judges will facilitate more government power by citing that one line. They build on quotes taken out of context, and add government power that prior court decisions never intended. In The Law That Governs Government, we call this compounding:

      Lawyers understand, perhaps better than most, that cases (and freedoms) are won and lost in the margins; that is to say, not by the notorious violations of law, but in the minutiae. The minutiae compounds itself in ways not or barely noticeable until it’s too late.

      Bureaucrats operate in world absent constitutional considerations. They see their jobs as enforcing the laws and regulations over which they have jurisdiction, and the Constitution be damned. They are entirely insulated from the threat of being voted out of office or from other negative consequences when they abuse their authority, which tends to make them arrogant about their power.

      ObamaCare will embolden nearly all government bureaucrats, even those whose mission doesn’t involve enforcing ObamaCare. Not only do bureaucrats ignore the Constitution, but they frequently violate the laws that they enforce. Their attitude when confronted with their own lawbreaking? So sue us.

      They know that they are insulated even from court adjudication through the Byzantine Administrative Procedures Act, which requires challengers to exhaust “administrative remedies.” Victims of bureaucratic lawbreaking must go through hearings conducted by administrative law judges not confirmed by the Senate, but chosen by the agency itself. The umpires wear the uniforms of the team being challenged.

      And, if challengers do have the resources to get through that process and then seek relief from the courts, judges typically defer to an agency’s own interpretation of the laws that it enforces. It’s Kafkaesque.

      ObamaCare adds more government bureaucrats who will act like TSA employees with regard to our personal privacy and who will show the all the charm of Department of Motor Vehicles workers.

      In operation, it is meaningless that Roberts’ opinion waxes on about limited and enumerated powers, state sovereignty, federalism, and other such doctrines important to constitutional conservatives. Besides, Roberts could have set forth the very same civics lesson on the limited power of the federal government, yet sided with the four justices who thought ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

      The principal duty of any court is to adjudicate the matter before it. Opponents of ObamaCare lost the case. Period. There is no silver lining and no spin that can compensate for such a devastating defeat when one understands how government operates.

      To paraphrase Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion, the ObamaCare decision “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view” of power that “has virtually no limits.”

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/government_wins_even_obamacare_rulings_silver_lining.html#ixzz1zZTAuN9Y

    • Colonel,
      Please provide a link to your source for this information.

  11. Andy Griffith
    Dead at 86
    R.I.P.

    0630_andy_griffith_getty
    update_bar
    8:15 AM — Ron Howard ‏just went to Twitter to post a message about his friend Andy Griffith … writing, “His pursuit of excellence and the joy he took in creating served generations & shaped my life I’m forever grateful RIP Andy.”

    0314_divider_graphic
    Andy Griffith, an icon of TV, has died … this according to Andy’s close friend, former UNC President Bill Friday.

    Griffith, who became famous for “The Andy Griffith Show,” passed away at his home in Manteo, North Carolina this morning.

    Friday broke the news to WITN News in North Carolina.

    In addition to starring in his show and the subsequent “Mayberry R.F.D.,” Griffith was a Grammy award-winning southern gospel singer. Of course, Griffith also starred in the long-running series, “Matlock” and often made guest appearances in other shows, including “Dawson’s Creek.”

    There’s a famous statue of Andy and Opie — played by Ron Howard — in Raleigh, North Carolina.

    Griffith was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2005.

  12. A new study funded by the Department of Homeland Security characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists.html

    Just some thoughts on how our government feels about many of us. I have never once had the desire to blow myself up or kill innocent people, where do these jackwagons dream this crap up?

  13. Charlie,

    Here is your list

    The Superclass List
    The Superclass List is a creation of David Rothkopf which his book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and The World They Are Making (publ. March 2008) is based upon. There are four key elements of success that unite the ones, the Superclass, that possess the unparalleled power over world affairs. These elements are: geography, pedigree, networking and luck.

    The verified list

    In the book Rothkopf writes the list exists and contains 6,000 individuals, but is not to be shown in public as there will be so much discussions about who does or does not qualify to be on the list. In interviews he mentions individuals that are on the list. This list contain names that he argues he has verified.
    Argentina

    Cristina Fernández de Kirchner[2]

    Australia

    Rupert Murdoch[2]

    Belgium

    Albert Frère[2]
    Etienne Davignon[2]
    Maurice Lippens[2]

    Brazil

    Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva[1]

    Chile

    Andronico Luksic[1]

    China

    Hu Jintao[2]
    Fu Chengyu[1]
    Ding Lei[1]
    Lou Jiwei[1]
    Yang Huiyan[2]
    Zhou Xiaochuan[2]
    Richard Li Tzar Kai[2]

    Colombia

    Luis Alberto Moreno[1]
    Shakira[1]
    Julio Mario Santo Domingo[2]

    Egypt

    Amr Khaled[2]
    Amr Moussa[2]

    Denmark

    Janus Friis[2]

    France

    Nicolas Sarkozy[2]
    Pascal Lamy[1]
    Michèle Alliot-Marie[1]
    Baudouin Prot[2]
    Jean-Claude Trichet[2]

    Germany

    Angela Merkel[2]
    Josef Ackermann[1]
    Josef Joffe[1]
    Rene Obermann[2]
    Reinhard Mohn[2]

    India

    Lakshmi Mittal[1]
    Sonia Gandhi[1]
    Ratan Tata[2]
    Kalanidhi Maran[2]
    Rana Talwar[2]
    Kushal Pal Singh[2]
    Mukesh Ambani[2]
    Indra Nooyi[2]
    Tenzin Gyatso[2]

    Iran

    Ali Khamenei[2]

    Ireland

    Bob Geldof[1]

    Italy

    Silvio Berlusconi[1]

    Netherlands

    Jeroen van der Veer[2]

    Japan

    Hiroshi Mikitani[2]
    Osamu Suzuki[2]
    Akira Mori[2]

    Kenya

    Wangari Maathai[2]

    Kuwait

    Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah[2]

    Lebanon

    Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah[1]

    Liberia

    Ellen Johnson Sirleaf[2]

    Libya

    Patrice Motsepe[2]

    Mexico

    Mario Molina[1]
    Genaro Larrea Mota Velasco[1]
    Guillermo Ortiz Martinez[2]
    Carlos Slim Helú[2]

    Nigeria

    Aliko Dangote[2]
    Odein Ajumogobia[2]
    Francis Arinze[2]

    North Korea

    Kim Jung II[1]

    Qatar

    Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani[2]

    Russia

    Alexei Miller[1]
    Vladimir Putin[2]
    Vladimir Popovkin[2]
    Andrey Likhachev[2]
    Oleg Deripaska[2]

    Saudi Arabia

    Bandar bin Sultan[1]
    Al-Waleed bin Talal[2]

    Singapore

    Ho Ching[1]

    South Africa

    Nelson Mandela[2]
    Patrice Motsepe[2]

    South Korea

    David Yonggi Cho[1]

    Portugal

    José Manuel Barroso[2]

    Sweden

    Carl Bildt[3]
    Marcus Wallenberg[3]
    Ingvar Kamprad[3]
    Fredrik Reinfeldt[3]
    Carl-Henric Svanberg[4]

    About 20-30 Swedes are on the list.[5]
    Switzerland

    Peter Brabeck-Letmathe[1]

    Turkey

    Kemal Derviş[2]

    United Arab Emirates

    Khalifa Mohammad Al-Kindi[2]

    United Kingdom

    Gordon Brown[2]
    Mike Turner[1]
    Richard Branson[1]
    Bernie Ecclestone[2]
    Lakshmi Mittal[2]
    John Silvester Varley[2]
    Mark Thompson[2]

    United States of America

    George W. Bush[2]
    Arnold Schwarzenegger[1]
    Ronald Sugar[1]
    Jeffrey Immelt[1]
    James “Jamie” Dimon[1][2]
    Robert Zoellick[1]
    Oprah Winfrey[1]
    Indra Nooyi[1]
    Al Gore[1]
    Lee Scott[1]
    Michael Mullen[1]
    Mark Zuckerberg[2]
    Pierre Omidyar[2]
    Steve Case[2]
    Sumner Redstone[2]
    Michael Bloomberg[2]
    Rex Tillerson[2]
    Ben Bernanke[2]
    Ken Lewis[2]
    Stephen Green (banker)[2]
    Lloyd Blankfein[2]
    Sergey Brin[2]
    Larry Page[2]
    Bill Gates[2]
    Warren Buffett[2]
    Jerry Yang[2]
    Henry “Hank” Paulson[4]
    Joshua Bolten[4]
    Gavin E. Warner[4]

    Vatican

    Pope Benedict XVI[2]

    Venezuela

    Lorenzo Mendoza Gimenez[1]
    Gustavo Cisneros[1]

  14. CPAC’s boy wonder swings left

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78068.html#ixzz1zbEFNMtV

    “I think it was naive,” Krohn now says of the speech. “It’s a 13-year-old kid saying stuff that he had heard for a long time.… I live in Georgia. We’re inundated with conservative talk in Georgia.… The speech was something that a 13-year-old does. You haven’t formed all your opinions. You’re really defeating yourself if you think you have all of your ideas in your head when you were 12 or 13. It’s impossible. You haven’t done enough.”

    I guess this is what happens when conservatives engage in critical thinking… ;)

    Maybe this is why Santorum is against education.

  15. There hasn’t much discussion about gas prices lately. Why is that? Wasn’t gas supposed to hit $5.00 a gallon by now?

    I guess Obama fixed that problem because gas has dropped to under $3.50 a gallon…

  16. Todd,
    Do not cheer so fast.

    Europe is in trouble and will fall into recession.

    The US is in trouble and is in a recession.

    China is in trouble and is falling into a recession.

    Oil goes down in an recession. People are stay-cation and gas inventories are elevated compared to historical levels.

    As much as the government has tried to raise the price, the economy is beating them.

    Then the economy will beat Obama some more – Oct. is traditionally the bad news month.

    Not that any of this will help Romney. It is tweedle dumb vs tweedle stupid.

    • I just read your post……….gas prices going back up already…..it is all driven by recession. China and Europe in a whole lot more financial trouble than USA.

    • I think everyone is hoping/helping keep Europe afloat until Nov. election. The Saudi’s have been trying to stablile the price of oil instead of driving it up. The all want Obama re-elected for their own interests. A weak America helps Europe and Obama/Geitner have shown they will finance them. Saudi’s want to keep the US dependant. Just push the crash back a few more months….

      • LOI,

        It is important to realize that the efforts to shore up international, national and local economics and politics occurs before every election no matter who is in power.

        It is a fundamental belief that the global events at the moment should not be the factor in choosing a President for the next 4 years.

        • “It is important to realize that the efforts to shore up international, national and local economics and politics occurs before every election no matter who is in power.”

          OK, but GW Bush was not popular with France or Mexico for different reasons. Everyone in the Euro would want a US president that is supportive of them right now. A fiscal conservative would stop the bail-outs of US and European banks, stop our printing money which will require they stop printing money.

          Mexico wants an open border, which Obama is trying to give them and Romney has said he will stop.

          The Saudi’s do not want the Keystone pipeline to be built, not the gulf opened for drilling.
          A lot of foreign interests are better served with Obama keeping power.

          • LOI,

            Hahahahahahha (sorry, its my Friday today and I am in that mood)

            You truly believe there is a fundamental policy difference between Reps and Dems.

            Romney will bail out Europe’s banks if Europe’s banks need it.

            There is no fiscal “conservative” anywhere in Washington sans Ron Paul. Believing Romney will “somehow” reign in the spending is naive. It cannot happen (Public Choice Doctrine), and will not happen. If it could have happened, it would have been done 20 years ago, when it was at least possible.

            Today, it is impossible.

            Keystone makes not one spit of difference to Saudi Arabia.

            The only interest out there – except for minor squabbles – is to keep power. Who actually sits in the Big Chair is moot – the same Party is in control, the Warfare/Welfare Party.

            • Yabut, Don’t you think getting Obama out is important? I mean, he has outspent them all.

            • Check my words again. No where did I say I think Romney will do as he has said, and that was not my point. I think I have made a case that shows many or most foreign powers have reason to prefer Obama. Another question would be do they have the ability to influence a Presidential election. I do think they are all trying to keep the wheels on until the election with some notes coming due in January….

              And Keystone is just one example of the policy Obama has enforced, shutting down nearly all new leases on federal land. I think that means a lot to the Saudi’s, since the price of oil is reflected in supply and demand. They do not want the US to increase it’s production one % or ten…Simple economic self-interest!

            • same Party is in control, the Warfare/Welfare Party.

              I thought for a second there, you had your pipes cleaned and were going in the right direction …. it’s the 1% that’s in control … and you know it.

    • Black Flag,
      No kidding – did you think I was serious?

      But let’s not kid ourselves that this is just supply and demand. Speculators in the futures market drives oil prices up and down so they can profit.

  17. Not that any of this will help Romney. It is tweedle dumb vs tweedle stupid.

    Something we agree on …

    But, if the rest of yous here are gonna take pot shots at Obama for gas prices skyrocketing a few months back, you sure should be thanking him (the preference is on your knees) for them dropping now.

    Or doesn’t it work that way?

    This reminds me of Obama being in charge when Bin Laden bought it … it was Bush! Yeah, right.

  18. Happy 4th of July everyone! :) Hopefully, as I am, family time is the name of the day. It will be a hot one here today, but the Bar B Que will go on! Looking forward to ID2, it’s overdue!

  19. Happy Birthday USA………despite our problems and missteps….congratulations….you have given more positive influence and goodness to the world in 236 years than all of civilization in thousands of years.

  20. I posted this up above, but figure it is too buried up there, so here it is again…

    I have read several sources on the history of the Declaration of Independence lately. Some excerpts from one source (link provided at the end):

    “The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: “Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

    The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the “United Colonies.”

    In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King’s American subjects were “engaged in open and avowed rebellion.” Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.

    One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies’ ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists “to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies.” On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A “Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments” was passed on May 10, 1776.

    At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that “the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states.”

    It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies’ case for independence.

    The Committee of Five

    The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee “unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress.” (If Jefferson did make a “fair copy,” incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson’s rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson’s own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.)

    Jefferson’s account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.

    On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson’s. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4. Then, at last, church bells rang out over Philadelphia; the Declaration had been officially adopted.”

    read more:

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html

    @ Flag- Obviously many events led up to our independence. However, the founding fathers dated the actual document July 4, and they rang the church bells on the afternoon of July 4th in celebration of the official adoption of the document. Seems they considered that the date to remember, and celebrate as the “birth date” of the new republic.

    One I have learned- no matter which date Americans chose for their celebration, you, Flag, would choose another and then be critical of everyone else. You’re just that kinda guy.

    Have a happy 4th of July, SUFA! And a special shout out to all the veterans who have made the celebration possible! Here’s a huge heartfelt thanks to you all!

    Murf
    Reply

    • Murf, great post! Amazes me how rich we are in history.

      • We are, for sure. Last night, my husband and I rode our bicycles over to a neighboring city to watch a fireworks display….and I couldn’t help, as always, but think of what it took in blood tears and sweat to be able to celebrate this way in this country. It never fails to send a chill up my spine.

        And while in the spirit of thanking those who have toiled on the behalf of others, thank you for all the work you do on this blog. It is greatly appreciated.

        Murf

        • You may enjoy reading a little on the first founding father, but most can’t guess who…

          (link deleted due to possible virus)

          And you are welcome. I have enjoyed the learning and challenging my own reasoning.

          • Great link…..thanks. And you’re right, I wouldn’t have guessed who it was….

            Murf

          • Dude! I read your link then went to the homepage of that site. I got a huge warning flag, the likes I’ve never seen before, warning me not to visit that site because it has content known to cause viruses. Figured I’d lay that out there….. ;)

            • Thanks dudette! I’m not seeing any problem, but better safe than “OH chit!” And with a site named, “War on You”, might be a warning there….will delete the link.

              Samuel Adams – Dissident Founding Father
              10 Dissidents Who Changed the World: #10

              10If you had to pick one founding father who was the most dissident, rabble-rousing patriot, it would have to be Samuel Adams. And, without him, U.S. citizens would probably still be paying taxes to pay down England’s war debts.

              In 1722, Samuel Adams became the tenth child born to his devout Puritan parents in Boston. But, he was only the second of his brothers and sisters to live past the age of three. His dad was a church deacon, and when Adams was only 14, he entered Harvard College to begin studying theology.

              At Harvard, Adams became interested in politics and the writings of John Locke, an English philosopher. According to Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, “no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.�

              Adams was so enthralled, that, over 30 years before Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote his master’s thesis on “whether it be lawful to resist the Supreme Magistrate, if the Commonwealth cannot otherwise be preserved.”

              Hard-boiled Times in the Colonies

              Samuel AdamsAfter college, Adams had to get a job. So, he returned to Boston where his father got him employed in the accounting office of a mercantile business. But, it wasn’t too long until the young patriot was fired for displaying a flagrant lack of interest in business matters.

              Next, his father gave Adams �1,000 to start his own business. Adams loaned half to a friend (who never paid it back…) and blew the rest, so then his father put him to work in the family’s malt business.

              Finally, Samuel sensed his calling and ran for public office. In 1746, he got elected as clerk for two future members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

              A couple of years later, Adams and some friends launched The Public Advertiser, a weekly publication filled with political editorials and commentary.

              In his personal writings for the publication, Adams began to reject England’s restriction of the rights of American colonists. He said that citizens shouldn’t get too caught up in their respect and praise for political leaders. He also said that people should believe the constitution, not the leaders who dictate it.

              Tragedy Strikes

              Just when things seemed to be looking up, in March 1748, Samuel’s father died. Samuel inherited the family brewery and a third of his father’s estate (it was divided between his sister and younger brother). But, money not being Adams’ strong point, by 1760, he was broke. By 1761, he was �8,000 in debt.

              To make ends meet, he worked as a tax collector. But more importantly, over the next decade, he became an increasingly outspoken and dominant leader in town meetings.

              Adams tirelessly penned protests against the British Stamp Act, which taxed the colonists to pay off debt incurred by England’s military machine. He championed the “inherent and unalienable rights” of the people, and wrote even more protests against English taxes added to imports. Then, when British troops were stationed in Boston, Adams became more dissident than ever.

              The Boston Tea Party

              Because tea smugglers—such as Samuel Adams’ very rich friend John Hancock—snuck tea into America without paying the British tax, tea sales plummeted for tax-paying tea importers. By 1773, the British East India Company was running a large debt and was stuck with huge warehouses filled with tea they couldn’t sell. So England passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to avoid the colonial tax altogether. It also undercut the smugglers’ tea prices, which took a bite out of the earnings of many colonists.

              Boston Tea PartySamuel Adams organized a protest group called the Sons of Liberty. He organized increasingly larger protest gatherings until, on the night of December 16, 1773, over 8,000 people gathered at Boston’s Old South Church.

              On a signal given by Adams, about 200 men left the meeting and headed for Griffin’s Wharf to attend what became known as the Boston Tea Party.

              Disguised as Mohawk Indians, the dissidents boarded three East India Company ships that carried �10,000 worth of tea. It was more work than party considering the protestors hauled 45 tons of cargo from hold to deck, and dumped every last pound overboard by morning. The tea washed up on Boston’s shores for weeks.

              Some condemned the Tea Party, including Ben Franklin, and it only made Britain tighten its controlling grip on the American colonies.

              The Declaration of Independence

              Although the Boston Tea Party was condemned by some colonists, it inspired plenty of others.

              Soon, Adams’ dream of independence began to rub off on his second cousin, John Adams, and his wealthy friend, John Hancock. At the suggestion of Adams, representatives from all 13 colonies met to unify efforts against England. And, on July 4, 1776, Samuel Adams, his cousin—and future President—John Adams, and John Hancock, all three signed the Declaration of Independence.

              Samuel Adam’s Later Years

              Samuel Adams StatueAdams attended the Continental Congress until 1781. Then he served in the Massachusetts State Senate, as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, and from 1794-97 as the state’s governor.

              In 1803, at the age of eighty-one, Samuel Adams died in Boston.

              While other founding fathers often get the glory, it was Samuel Adams who first laid the groundwork for independence. It was Samuel Adams whose dissident pen inspired tax slaves to wake up and be free. It was Samuel Adams whose pioneering use of the media and strategic persuasion inspired thirteen colonies to unite against empire.

              And for that, he’s one of my favorite 10 Dissidents Who Changed the World.

              * * *

              “Without the character of Samuel Adams, the true history of the American Revolution can never be written. For fifty years his pen, his tongue, his activity, were constantly exerted for his country without fee or reward.” ~John Adams.

              “If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams.

  21. Happy Thursday :)

    Looking at another scorcher here again. The temp isn’t bad, it’s that dang humidity. We got our first deer of the year yesterday. A nice young doe about 100 pounds or so. This was a crop damage tag for our neighbors farm, one left to fill before Sept 26th.

  22. Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013

    By John Kartch

    Published July 05, 2012

    While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive health insurance plans kicks in.)

    Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:

    1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

    This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

    These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

    2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax

    This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.

    The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.

    3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap

    The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.

    The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.

    For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.

    4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income

    Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.

    And, last but not least…

    5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase

    This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.

    As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zlQqe1X8

    • Lawyers Have Already Drafted 13,000 Pages of Regulations for New ObamaTax Law
      Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, July 5, 2012, 12:37 AM

      It’s a lawyer’s dream!
      Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.
      FOX News reported:

      With the Supreme Court giving President Obama’s new health care law a green light, federal and state officials are turning to implementation of the law — a lengthy and massive undertaking still in its early stages, but already costing money and expanding the government.

      The Health and Human Services Department “was given a billion dollars implementation money,” Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said. “That money is gone already on additional bureaucrats and IT programs, computerization for the implementation.”

      “Oh boy,” Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute said. “HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans.”

      The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations — an effort well under way:

      “There’s already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not even done yet,” Rehberg said.

      “It’s a delegation of extensive authority from Congress to the Department of Health and Human Services and a lot of boards and commissions and bureaus throughout the bureaucracy,” Matt Spalding of the Heritage Foundation said. “We counted about 180 or so.”

      There has been much focus on the mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but analysts say that’s just a small part of the law — covering only a few pages out of the law’s 2700.

      “The fact of the matter is the mandate is about two percent of the whole piece of the legislation,” Spalding said. “It’s a minor part.”

      Much bigger than the mandate itself are the insurance exchanges that will administer $681 billion in subsidies over 10 years, which will require a lot of new federal workers at the IRS and health department.

      “They are asking for several hundred new employees,” Dorn said. “You have rules you need to write and you need lawyers, so there are lots of things you need to do when you are standing up a new enterprise.”

      For some, though, the bottom line is clear and troubling: The federal government is about to assume massive new powers.

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/

  23. Nonsense.

    The size of the daily oil trade is 10% of the total of all trade of all things in the world. It is impossible for “speculators” to manipulate the market for gain.

    Speculators buy and sell based on future projects of supply and demand – and one day, the reality replaces the future and speculators take profit or losses. They do not “manipulate” the price you pay – the price they pay to each other may change based on their guesses influencing other guesses – but that is trapped within bids between speculators.

    When the day comes for that contract to be settled, the price of that barrel is the price.

  24. Wow-this Country is done

    July 5, 2012
    Big Brother set to use eminent domain powers to rip off investors and line the pockets of Obama backer
    Ed Lasky

    Eminent domain powers have long been a rallying point for believers in the primacy of the Constitution and the importance of protecting private property from the rapacious hands of Big Government. A new issue has arisen that may stoke the ire of Tea Party folks and others concerned with the prospect of an ever growing role for politicians and their allies in our lives.

    Various California communities are exploring — with the help of Democratic investor cronies connected to Bill Clinton and others — their eminent domain powers to seize mortgages owned by private investors. These mortgages would then be sold to a newly formed investment company who hope to buy these mortgages on the cheap and profit from them in the months and years to come.

    Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal reports :

    A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.

    Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. “I don’t see how you could find it anything other than appalling,” said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.

    Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire property that is then reused in a way considered good for the public–new housing, roads, shopping centers and the like. Owners of the properties are entitled to compensation, which is usually determined by a court.

    But instead of tearing down property, California’s San Bernardino County and two of its largest cities, Ontario and Fontana, want to put eminent domain to a highly unorthodox use to keep people in their homes.

    The municipalities, about 45 minutes east of Los Angeles, would acquire underwater mortgages from investors and cut the loan principal to match the current property value. Then, they would resell the reduced mortgages to new investors.

    Those new investors would be the venture capital firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners, that is planning to hire Evercore Partners to find investors for this gambit. Evercore was founded and is led by Roger Altman, who served in the Clinton administration and has been busy raising funds for Barack Obama’s campaign.

    As Timraos notes:

    The seizure of home-mortgage liens, but not the underlying homes, hasn’t ever been conducted through eminent domain, as far as the group’s principals can tell. And while they believe they have a strong legal case, they expect loan owners to sue.

    “California legal precedent and political posture favor the program and constitute an ideal proving ground,” Mortgage Resolution Partners said in a presentation to investors reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

    The document said it would begin with a $5 billion effort in California that could grow to three million mortgages as part of a $500 billion multistate effort.

    The new investors use the powers of Big Government to bully private holders of these mortgages into turning them over to the government at prices depressed by the current malaise in the real estate industry. These investors would then hope to ride out the weak, but nascent recovery, to sell these mortgages at higher prices in the future.

    Who gets harmed? Well, for one, the old mortgage holders who get shook down by the government and are compelled to sell their investments at a reduced price via eminent domain proceedings. The concept that private property being a right enshrined in our nation’s founding documents might be old-fashioned in the Age of Obama (who violated debt holder rights in the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler), but still may resonate with most Americans.

    We all would suffer in the end because future investors would be far less likely to make mortgage loans if they feel Big Brother could sweep down at times of market weakness, buy these loans on the cheap, and resell them to politically-connected cronies.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/big_brother_set_to_use_eminent_domain_powers_to_rip_off_investors_and_line_the_pockets_of_obama_back.html#ixzz1zlk11pvz

  25. Coulter Column: French Revolution Was Godless Antithesis to Founding of American Republic

    By Ann Coulter | July 05, 2012 | 11:46
    Ann Coulter’s picture

    It has become fashionable to equate the French and American revolutions, but they share absolutely nothing in common beyond the word “revolution.” The American Revolution was a movement based on ideas, painstakingly argued by serious men in the process of creating what would become the freest, most prosperous nation in world history.

    The French Revolution was a revolt of the mob. It was the primogenitor of the horrors of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s slaughter, and America’s periodic mob uprisings from Shays’ Rebellion to today’s dirty waifs in the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd.

    The French Revolution is the godless antithesis to the founding of America.

    One rather important difference is that Americans did win freedom and greater individual rights with their revolution, creating a republic. France’s revolution consisted of pointless, bestial savagery, followed by Napoleon’s dictatorship, followed by another monarchy, and then finally something resembling an actual republic 80 years later.

    Both revolutions are said to have come from the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers, the French Revolution informed by the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the American Revolution influenced by the writings of John Locke. This is like saying presidents Reagan and Obama both drew on the ideas of 20th-century economists — Reagan on the writings of Milton Friedman and Obama on the writings of Paul Krugman.

    Locke was concerned with private property rights. His idea was that the government should allow men to protect their property in courts of law, in lieu of each man being his own judge and police force. Rousseau saw the government as the vessel to implement the “general will” and to create more moral men. Through the unchecked power of the state, the government would “force men to be free.”

    As historian Roger Hancock summarized the theories of the French revolutionaries, they had no respect for humanity “except that which they proposed to create. In order to liberate mankind from tradition, the revolutionaries were ready to make him altogether the creature of a new society, to reconstruct his very humanity to meet the demands of the general will.”

    Contrary to the purblind assertions of liberals, who dearly wish our Founding Fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on pikes, our Founding Fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.

    As Steven Waldman writes in his definitive book on the subject, “Founding Faith,” the American Revolution was “powerfully shaped by the Great Awakening,” an evangelical revival in the colonies in the early 1700s that was led by the famous Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, among others. Aaron Burr, the third vice president of the United States, was Edwards’ grandson.

    There are books of Christian sermons encouraging the American Revolution. Indeed, it was the very irreligiousness of the French Revolution that would later appall sensible Americans and British alike, even before the bloodletting began.

    Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, the date our written demand for independence from Britain based on “Nature’s God” was released to the world.

    The French celebrate Bastille Day, a day when a thousand armed Parisians stormed the Bastille, savagely murdered a half-dozen guards, defaced their corpses and stuck their heads on pikes — all in order to seize arms and gunpowder for more such tumults. It would be as if this country had a national holiday to celebrate the L.A. riots.

    Among the most famous quotes from the American Revolution is Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”

    Among the most famous slogans of the French Revolution is that of the Jacobin Club, “Fraternity or death,” recast by Nicolas-Sebastien de Chamfort, a satirist of the revolution, as “Be my brother or I’ll kill you.”

    Our revolutionary symbol is the Liberty Bell, first rung to herald the opening of the new Continental Congress in the wake of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, and rung again to summon the citizens of Philadelphia to a public reading of the just-adopted Declaration of Independence.

    The symbol of the French Revolution is the “National Razor” — the guillotine.

    Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, all died of natural causes in old age, with the exception of Button Gwinnett of Georgia, who was shot in a duel unrelated to the revolution.

    Of all our Founding Fathers, only one other died of unnatural causes: Alexander Hamilton. He died in a duel with Aaron Burr because as a Christian, Hamilton deemed it a greater sin to kill another man than to be killed. Before the duel, in writing, Hamilton vowed not to shoot Burr.

    President after president of the new American republic died peacefully at home for 75 years, right up until Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.

    Meanwhile, the leaders of the French Revolution all died violently, guillotine by guillotine.

    The Fourth of July also marks the death of two of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who died on the same day, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.

    We made it for nearly another 200 years, before the Democrats decided to jettison freedom and make us French.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2012/07/05/coulter-column-french-revolution-was-godless-antithesis-founding-americ#ixzz1zpGnYuka

    • Alrighty then. I see what kind of mood you’re in today.

      Teacher: Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?
      Student: On the bottom.

  26. Atlas Still Shrugging . . .
    By Victor Davis Hanson
    July 6, 2012 11:45 A.M.

    The only mystery over the release of unemployment statistics was not whether it was going to be bad — everyone can sense the stasis in their own community first-hand — but whom would Barack Obama blame: Bush? The Republican Congress? The E.U. meltdown? The recent hot weather or summer in general? ATM machines? Hurricanes on the horizon?

    After sharp recessions, we usually get more robust than average recoveries, but since June 2009, things have not recovered at all really, and we are in a sort of permanent European-style slowdown — sort of a recession, sort of a weak recovery.

    If one wanted to ensure permanent 8 percent to 9 percent unemployment, one might try the following:

    1. Run up serial $1 trillion deficits

    2. Add $5 trillion to the national debt in three and a half years

    3. Impose a 2,400-page, trillion-dollar new federal takeover of health care, with layers of new taxation, much of it falling on the middle class and employers, even as favored concerns are given mass exemptions.

    4. Scare employers with constant us/them class warfare rhetoric about a demonized one-percenter class and its undeserved profits; constantly talk about raising new taxes and imposing regulations, ensuring uncertainty and convincing employers of unpredictability in regulation and taxes. You cannot convince a country to go into permanent near-recession, but President Obama is doing his best to try.

    5. Appoint a bipartisan committee to study the fiscal crisis and then neglect all its recommendations.

    6. Subsidize failed green companies, while denigrating successful gas and oil concerns, as well as putting rich oil-and-gas federal leases off limits.

    7. Vastly increase unemployment insurance, disability, and food-stamp constituencies, while promising all sorts of mortgage, credit-card, and student-loan bailouts.

    8. Borrow hundreds of billions for stimulus programs that are not shovel ready, but are rather aimed to bail out state budgets, pensions, and unions.

    9. Federalize elements of non-profitable private companies, while threatening to shut down profitable plants for supposed union or environmental incorrect behavior.

    10. Do not address changing the above policies, but rather blame others for such self-induced stagnation.

    Do the above and you can pretty much always ensure something like the present slow-down. Both employers and consumers are convinced that these are uncertain times, when money is better hoarded and protected rather than risked, given the uncertainty of administration policy and the certainty that profit-making is looked upon as suspicious. And just as many believe there will be no let up until the end of 2012, so, too, they trust that after that date, the long-term outlook — energy-wise, tax-wise, technology-wise — is pretty good, suggesting that they should weather the current storm to be poised for its passing soon. We are now at an impasse: The nation is shrugging, and will the president try to coax it to start lifting again, or in petulance, add more weight?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304886/atlas-still-shrugging-victor-davis-hanson#more

    • I guess he’s gonna add more weight and at the same time he’s cutting the military budget. Seems to be a habit with him.

      U.S. Navy Going Green, Spending Extra 622% to Use Chicken Fat Fuel

      Jul 05, 2012 06:17 PM EST

      We must repeal Obamacare! Sign the petition!

      The U.S. Navy has started going green under the direction of Obama’s Secretary of the Navy Roy Mabus. They started using a special “green fuel” for their “Great Green Fleet,” which will be tested this month while completing its Rim of the Pacific exercise. Unfortunately, this green project already reflects the worst aspects of the Obama Administration’s green agenda. The fuel being used by the “Great Green Fleet” is colossal waste of taxpayer money.

      The standard aviation fuel used by the Navy $3.60 a gallon. The “green fuel,” made from things like algae, chicken fat, and seeds, costs $26 a gallon. Rob Port of Say Anything Blog further highlights the absurdity of the Navy’s “green fuel” project:

      The article reports that Obama’s Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus calls the “green fuel” “vital for the military’s energy security.”

      Apparently Mr. Mabus hasn’t heard that there is an energy boom happening in this country right now, with entire oceans of reserves of oil and natural gas being opened up by new production techniques and favorable market conditions. “Peak oil,” or the idea that we’re going to run out of oil, is a notion that has been thrown on the scrap heap by the innovators in the fossil fuel energy industry.

      Yet, the “peak oil” nonsense is still the driving force behind this expensive boondoggle.

      Your tax dollars, hard at work.

      The Obama Administration tried and failed to make green energy viable with his 2009 stimulus bill. Now his administration is trying to use the consuming power of the Navy to drive up the demand for untested and outrageously expensive “green fuel.” Anybody care to guess how the latest green project will turn out?

      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhall.comstaff/2012/07/05/us_navy_going_green_spending_extra_622_to_use_chicken_fat_fuel

  27. charlieopera says:

    Hey, Wingos! You gotta love Chris Rock!

    The comedian, whose latest project is executive producing Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell for FX, ruffled more than a few feathers after sending out this message to his followers: “Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks.”

    • Another racist jerk with no connection whatsoever to slavery. He sure did pocket awholelotta white people’s money, and laughed all the way to the bank. Bet he makes fewer trips to the bank after this comment.

      You missed the memo to move FORWARD….

      • charlieopera says:

        No connection whatsoever … do those blinders come in one size fit all?

        I doubt Chris Rock is worried about the 15% (or so) of whites who will find the truth so offensive as to not pay to see him … in fact, Anita my love, I suspect those who won’t go never did go … I’m sure not offended … and beyond the chuckle of the moment, it’s a rather sad and true observation.

        Perhaps an inconvenient truth?

        • Truth has many layers-what I ask myself is if holding onto the anger for past injustices helps or hurts the African-American community-I believe with all my heart it hurts them-it hurts their children. It promotes hate-pure and simple-it keeps their children and mine from moving past the stupid prejudices that should be in the past.

          Nothing we do as a society will ever be enough until we stop teaching our children to hate.

          • charlieopera says:

            So it’s all one way? V.H., I think you know where I’m going with this … see Gman.

            • No, it’s not all one way-but you might note that society as a whole has condemned prejudices against black Americans, as well as any other minority.

              But the left seems determined to promote prejudices against White people based on the desire to have the STATE take care of said minority. But this is a lie-the STATE will never really take care of anyone. Minorities better wake up to the truth-fair will get you a little bit of nothing-if the poor, what ever their race wants to make it-they must realize that they will have to do it with their own skills and ambition, the government can’t, and I’m not even sure they really want too. They will as G correctly states simply make slaves out of all of us.

              • charlieopera says:

                You go V.H. … stand up for racism …

              • Would you like to point out just where my comments support racism? Or do you think, like so many socialist/communist talking heads-that throwing the word racist out there-makes you the automatic winner of any debate.

    • Chris, LOL! A great hero of the lefties and the Hollyweirdos. I hope all us white peoples had a great holiday, I know I did :) Ya know Charlie, maybe if we brought slavery back, we could elliminate welfare and put people to work. I don’t know how I’d use a slave, so I would pass, but it’s a thought. What say you Captain Canolli ?

      • charlieopera says:

        I say racists at heart are shitting their pants because the scales are tipping in population (you’re now the minority, Gman) … chickens coming home to roost … I wonder how people like yourself would feel in 200 years after 150 of enslavement. Just a thought …

        The cannoli man is always thinking ahead …

    • He’s just an asshole, with a big mouth, that’s all. Has no problem taking “whitey’s” money and doing the modern Stephan Fetchitt thing. Only Dick Gregory put his money where his mouth was and basically stepped down from where he was headed in the late 60′s to do political humor exclusively. That’s a man I can respect.

      No matter what you say or how many times you say it. This country has done the most for the most. Errors and all. It has never stopped trying to improve itself. That is, up until now.

      • charlieopera says:

        This country has done the most for the most.

        At the expense of the most … no matter what you say or how many times you say it.

  28. You might be right Charlie! When the EBT cards fail to buy anything because of a bank holiday or high inflation, the zombie appocalypse will occur and they will take to the streets and burn their neighborhoods down. Nothing has changed much for them, their owners are the State and they are still slaves. You, however, would like all of us to be slaves (of the State) under Communism. Not sure if what you want is any different than the governments of 250 years ago, slaves are slaves.

    • charlieopera says:

      All I know, Mr. Supremcist, is the neighborhood I grew up in, and there have been studies about how racist it was (i.e., whites trying desperately to keep blacks out of it), is now nearly 100% black and the houses are just about unafordable (i.e., their value went up instead of down).

      What I want, Gman, is for you to talk your shit to a couple of friend’s of mine (their faces). Keyboards and telephones make the cowardly mighty brave …

      I’m just saying …

      • I’m just saying? Let me just say Charlie, that goes for you too. First thing, was what G! said TRUE? Second thing, what did he say that was offensive? Did he fail to bend over backwards stating there are more whites with EBT cards than there are blacks and Hispanic’s combined? And let me say what he did not say, that the mob violence that IS happening shows it is nearly 98% more likely any mob violence will be a black mob or Hispanic. And if that offends you or any of your friends, sorry but I find the act, the truth, to be offensive, not someone speaking a truth. And for the record, I do tell several blacks that I have a concern over black violence, to their face. Makes me wonder if my friends are a little more honest, with themselves, than your friends?

        Chicago’s Race and Gang Wars Continue, But the NATO Summit Was A Success
        Melanie Kowalski

        Hypocrisy is alive and well and living in Chicago, especially found within the corridors of the fifth floor of City Hall, the Chicago Police Dept HQ on State Street, and the editorial offices of the Chicago media chieftains and op-ed writers.

        The media is reporting the investigation of more flash mob attacks in the Near North/River North area of Chicago, but yet not one word is reported that these continue to be black on white crimes. The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman in an op-ed piece, stated in so many words that race was not mentioned unless it was relevant to the story. If the flash mobs were white, and the victims black, the media would take hold of that face in a New York minute, and Al Sharpton and his minions would be holding press conferences in Daley Center decrying hate crimes and demanding further action be taken and justice for the victims.

        Meanwhile, gang wars continue unabated on the city’s West Side and in some of the poorest neighborhoods. On the 4th of July, 16 people were shot, including a 10-year old caught in gang crossfire. Two weeks ago, over the June 23/24 weekend, 30 people were wounded, 4 dead, and CBS News’ 48 Hour Crimesider reported that “rising murder rates have made Chicago more dangerous than a war zone” and “while 144 Americans have died in Afghanistan in 2012, 228 Chicago residents have been killed.”

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/chicagos_race_and_gang_wars_continue_but_the_nato_summit_was_a_success.html#ixzz1zrs5zs2V

        • charlieopera says:

          LOI, I’d LOVE to be there when you talked this shit to someone’s face … like I said about internet keyboard/telephone tough guys …

          As to your statistics … I think you’re leaving a few things out … then again, your blinders are firmly in place and you couldn’t see the situations for what they are anyway.

          We can put people on the moon and bring them back … close animals, etc., etc., but we can’t figure out how to stop gang wars? Maybe it’s because “we” don’t want to … putz.

          • Charlie, Charlie,,

            Did I make up the gange violence? Am I making up the mob violence? Answer that first. No answer? Avoidence? You’ed like to be there when I talk to my friend? Pretty sure he wouldn’t care for you, but he’ed be polite. He would also be professional, since he is a police officer. He see’s on every patrol where most crime is and most of it is black on black crime. So is my friend, the black police officer a racist? And the thing is we seem to agree that nation wide, the police ignore black on black crime. When it spills over and a white person is hurt, everyone pays attention, for a little while. Usually someone will be arrested and go to prison and everyone go back to ignoring the violence in the housing projects.

            You say we can’t figure out how to stop gang wars? Add to that violent crime. Yes we do know how and have done so in countless instances. One I have read about is Rudy in the Big Apple, they started arresting people for petty crime and as a result, violent crime dropped. Who would have thought a criminal frequently doesn’t specialize and will commit the little and big crimes almost like it’s a habit…..

            Putz? Ok, I don’t expect to have earned your respect. I research and write an article on the modern plight of Native Americans and all you talk about is how evil our ancestors were and therefore all Americans that don’t prostrate themselves with feelings of guilt. And I offered a solution to TODAY’S problem, which you ignore. And then there’s slavery, which to you seems to only mean American’s and American history. Do you think the Arabs killing Christains in Egypt and other ME countries is OK? The point, that is happening TODAY and these are the same Arabs that sold, sometimes captured most of those slaves. I never claim the US was not part of the problem, but you only seem willing to blame only the US. Reminds me of a mother-in-law riding in the back seat, we never get you there smooth enough or soon enough. But then, you won’t drive youself to where you want to go either..

            • charlieopera says:

              He would also be professional, since he is a police officer. He see’s on every patrol where most crime is and most of it is black on black crime. So is my friend, the black police officer a racist? And the thing is we seem to agree that nation wide, the police ignore black on black crime. When it spills over and a white person is hurt, everyone pays attention, for a little while. Usually someone will be arrested and go to prison and everyone go back to ignoring the violence in the housing projects.

              Apology for the putz comment. It was born of frustration of what you continue to do (ignore the causation of black on black crime). It has much to do with poverty and lack of opportunity. I know you all assume people living through generations of poverty and crime are going to one day jump up, see the error of their ways, and begin studying hard so they too can enjoy the American dream (the way you all assume everyone can because YOU do it/have done it). It is as arrogant an assumption as the U.S. imposing itself on foreign nations for the sake of Democracy (One of the several reasons for invading Iraq comes to mind).

              It seems to me that the way Native Americans and what happened to them, as well as slavery, are conveniently turned away with: “Yeah, it was bad, it was terrible, but what am I supposed to do about it now? It wasn’t me who killed off Native Americans. It was me who held slaves, etc.” It is a marginalization that defies logic, but here it is (over and over and over and to the point of sanctifying (and excusing) your FOUNDING FATHERS because some of them were conflicted about ignoring slavery and native americans (although the later was never even an issue to them).

              You say we can’t figure out how to stop gang wars? Add to that violent crime. Yes we do know how and have done so in countless instances. One I have read about is Rudy in the Big Apple, they started arresting people for petty crime and as a result, violent crime dropped. Who would have thought a criminal frequently doesn’t specialize and will commit the little and big crimes almost like it’s a habit…..

              Interesting, because I was a huge Rudy supporter going into the last presidential election. I fell for some of the bullshit around him too until I read up on most of it (and it was mostly bullshit, as it turned out). Once he put on the red sweater during christmas and backed down on his pro abortion stance for the sake of the right wingers in his party, that did it for me) … but the interesting aspect about crime in New York, as it turns out (at least one theory that was shown to be accurate in several places around the world at once) was the decreasing populations of those cities. Literally, there were less people in them at the time of the so-called great drop in violent crime. What Rudy also did, which I’m surprised to many concerned with liberty here seem to support, is create a police force that ignored the laws they were entrusted to protect (starting with his friggin’ commissioner).

              Putz? Ok, I don’t expect to have earned your respect. I research and write an article on the modern plight of Native Americans and all you talk about is how evil our ancestors were and therefore all Americans that don’t prostrate themselves with feelings of guilt.

              Again, apology for the putz comment. My bad.

              But the drama of prostrating is getting old. Let’s lose it already.

              And I offered a solution to TODAY’S problem, which you ignore. And then there’s slavery, which to you seems to only mean American’s and American history. Do you think the Arabs killing Christains in Egypt and other ME countries is OK? The point, that is happening TODAY and these are the same Arabs that sold, sometimes captured most of those slaves. I never claim the US was not part of the problem, but you only seem willing to blame only the US. Reminds me of a mother-in-law riding in the back seat, we never get you there smooth enough or soon enough. But then, you won’t drive youself to where you want to go either..

              I never said (EVER) slavery was only America’s problem. EVER. But the way it is dismissed here (token “it was a terrible period in American History,” etc.) falls far short of understanding the after effects of inherent racism (not calling you a racist, but society on the whole–and I do understand it goes both ways, but that only makes it more a reason to try and understand the root causes and how hard it might be for people to transcend it).

              As to the middle east … I’ll say it again. This is where I agree with Ron Paul. It’s none of our friggin’ business what goes on there. So long as we maintain a nationalist identity, we best ignore what happens outside our borders and take care of home. When the world (i.e., nation states) can move on and stop feeling to superior to each other, then we can worry about each other (i.e., countries–which should be the goal). So long as we are “American first”, we need to wake up and smell the coffee … we’re superior to no one and should worry about what goes on here first.

              • CharlieOpera,
                I don’t “ignore the causation of black on black crime”, I just disagree with you and agree with the Bill Cosbey’s of the world. I think it’s a shame that so many in the US live in poverty. It’s a double damned shame the poverty rate INCREASES with increases in entitlement. The Greater Society created just the opposite. And I don’t blame the kid that grew up poor for anything until they use violence.

                But I do blame you. You admit America is not the only nation tainted by its history on slavery.Great! BUT you only bash America in all your posts. This is another group that blames only America.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Conference

                Are you with them? Have you taken a side that only we are the evil in the world? If that is the only evil you speak of, what else could there be? And if you condem ONLY the white man always starting with the founding fathers, you are giving the violent black man an excuse for his violence. Trevon Martin did not appear to have been raised in poverty, but you condone his actions, blaming the other guy for being white and defending himself. You condone violence if it’s committed by a minority or the poor against the wealthy. You do this every time you only hold the white’s or the rich accountable.

                Somewhere in you, you’re kinda American in your outlook. Stop blaming the founding fathers for a bit, what about the ideal that started our country? What about the Indians that assimilated, bought property, prospered? Andrew Jackson ignored a SCOTUS ruling and waged an illegal war against them. That is who you should rail against! Using his power to commit crimes, ignoring the law. After the civil war & the Jim Crow erea, blacks were assimilating into our society. Johnson may have ment well, or he may have intended to stop this process. Doesn’t matter the intent, the results are what you rail against, black-on-black crime that’s ignored accross the nation.

                “I say racists at heart are shitting their pants because the scales are tipping in population”
                I can agree with that..I don’t think most or many Americans are racist. I think seeing a well dressed black man is accepted, seeing a thug of any color is cause for concern. And that may be where we will always disagree. I will call them thugs, you will call me a racists. And by condoning their behavior, you promote the Trevon Martain’s of America…

          • Bullshit amigo. Put in my time in places where most whites fear to tread and never had a problem. Breaks my heart to see what was done to those people in the name of “helping them”. Such human capital reduced to scamming their way around welfare agencies.

  29. Charlie, your such a funny guy :) I, like most here, I promote Liberty and Freedom. Skin color or race is a non-issue. I have seen the best and worst of all races. If you can’t tell, I’m just relating slavery (of the past) to slavery (of today) and the slavery that you so desperately want (as in Communism). Government, for the most part, are the slave keepers, mostly liberal Democrats. I don’t want any government at this point, they are corrupt to the core. However, you want more government, so just who is really against slavery? Hint, it ain’t YOU :lol:

    • charlieopera says:

      I promote Liberty and Freedom

      Careful, GMan … this strawman bullshit argument is way too fugazy to take seriously anymore … you’re in danger of the foghorn again …:)

      • Kristian says:

        Charlie.

        The other day on another post I defended you by stating that you couldn’t really be as obtuse as you would have us believe. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to retract that statement after having read your last few posts. That you could even suggest that anyone here even remotely promotes slavery is one thing, but to disrespectfully attack someone and call them a coward because you don’t agree with their position makes you a coward my friend and the one wearing the blinders. Gman has served our country with honor and put his life on the line to protect your right to spout such drivel. A suggestion would be that if you want any respect on this site that you learn how to respect others whose opinion differs from yours. Until you can do that, I’m afraid your credibility is pretty much shot, with me at the very least. I can’t and won’t speak for the others here.

        • charlieopera says:

          If Gman spouted directly what his marginal comments seem to suggest, I’d call him brave. As to his serving his country, that’s about as credit worthy to me as your comments about my being obtuse. While I believe the country should treat ALL VETERANS with absolute and total benefits (medical, educational, etc.), tha’s where it ends. My respect for individuals has nothing to do with their service to a country. Sorry, but that’s how it works with me. You either earn my respect as a person or you don’t. I especially respect the Colonel here for two reasons: He’s ALWAYS respectful and he’s always articulate. Gman has treaded the margins of racist diatribe several times. Once I sarcastically did my best to offer him an out (when he remarked something about “the gorilla must be stopped” (or some such nonsense). You can ignore that crap all you want. To me it’s as cowardly as it gets. My name is up here, honey (Charlie Stella) … I don’t hide behind a fugazy moniker. I understand why some do, but most others here don’t come half as close close to making racist comments. Gman may be the most decent person on earth (I hope he is) and we usually get along, but when he starts dropping comments to purposely offend as regards race, he loses credibility with me and I call him out on it. If that insults your sense of dignity, I suggest you get a new sense of dignity.

          My credibility is shot with you? I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’ll try not to kill myself.

          • Kristian says:

            I just got finished reading the new article that US Weapon posted and now I understand his concern. If I wanted this kind of discourse I would have stayed with the blog on Fox.

    • We are cooling off here! In the 90′s and the air is changing. Feels good. Now could just really, really use some rain. Heading out to the links – going to take advantage of the roll on the dry ground.

      • You are crazy. Still sweltering here @101* Supposed to start cooling tonight..right now that seems pretty far off. Even went and got half my hair chopped :)

    • Did it help?

    • Wow, what a great tag-line:

      “The Absurd Report…chasing liberals like villagers after Frankenstein” ~Doug Giles

      But I think it should be:

      “The Absurd Report…making up shit that makes us crazy right-wing conservatives feel superior to everyone else” ~Doug “dip-shit” Giles

      http://www.snopes.com/katrina/soapbox/snowfall.asp

      • Wow Todd. You went to an awful lot of bother to put me in check. Only problem is: I had no ulterior motive. I just wanted to cool everyone off with a pretty snow picture. You are the snow man, I figure you would have appreciated that. I guess not. Remind me next time I’m in a playful mood when it’s 101 freakin degrees to exclude you from my post. And while I’m at it, snopes may very well be correct (cough), but isn’t it ironic that the article was posted by THE ABSURD REPORT! baaaaahahaahahahaha!

        • Anita,
          That story, and the many similar versions, are nothing more than a cheap shot at the people of New Orleans. What’s (not) surprising is how the story is constantly exaggerated to try to satisfy the right-wing’s need to feel superior.

          Yes, I am a ‘snow man” and appreciate a good winter story, but there are plenty of good ones that are actually true. When the story is exaggerated and politicized, it loses any value.

          It’s not IRONIC that this article was posted by THE ABSURD REPORT. The ABSURD REPORT is just another right-wing screed. The Bear would fit right in here at SUFA.

          I’ve seen that photo many times. It’s not in the UP or anywhere in the USA. It’s the Trans Labrador Highway in Canada. Huge snow drifts closed the Trans Labrador Highway between Red Bay and Lodge Bay from February to April 2004. This would have been a much more refreshing link on a hot day. Enjoy!!

          http://www.thedieselgypsy.com/Labrador%20Snow.htm

  30. Stop the presses… EXTRA EXTRA!!! The CA legislature has passed and Gov. Moon Beam Brown has signed the bond bill to fund the high speed rail system. So please plan your vacations now to take a super fast (~90 mph) trip from Nowhere, CA (Madera) to exciting and populous Oil Patch, CA (Bakersfield). See the wonderful sites (dry and parched grassland since they shut off the water to the farmers) of the Central Valley with the Coastal Range to the west and the Sierras to the east. Have an gourmet (airline style) ham sandwich in the dining car. Sorry no smoking cars or bars, this is a family ecotrain.

    Of course once in operation it will lose money so that will justify extending it to the exciting metropolis of Somewhereville, CA. By that time CA and the Feds will be even more bankrupt and in need of more shovel ready jobs to stimulate the economy. But the depression will be so bad that no one will be able to afford a ticket since they had to raise the fees to cover some of the costs.

    Don’t even think about driving I5 instead. All the gas tax money will be redirected to the rail project so by the time it is build I5 will be pot hole filled not so super highway. All the more reason to take the train to Nowhere.

    I think I am going to move to Rescue, CA. Oh wait, I already live there.

  31. I wonder why the “left” is so upset at the Maine governor referring to the enforcement of Obamacare using the IRS, as the New Gestapo?

    Lets take a look:

    Ge·sta·po
       [guh-stah-poh; Ger. guh-shtah-poh] Show IPA
    noun
    1. the German state secret police during the Nazi regime, organized in 1933 and notorious for its brutal methods and operations.

    adjective
    2. of or resembling the Nazi Gestapo, especially in the brutal suppression of opposition: The new regime is using gestapo tactics. (example)

    Note : “Gestapo tactics” in general are intimidating official procedures.
    Note : Figuratively, any brutal secret police organization may be called a “gestapo.”

    A new “law” was passed that violates and takes away a fundamental right….the freedom of choice. The Internal Revenue is hiring thousands of new agents with the direct responsibility of doing what…. hunting down and interrogating prisoners (err…American Citizens) on whether or not they have the mandated insurance. They will be able to use brutal tactics (ie: confiscation of assets, bank accounts, garnishments) to FORCE you to abide by the law..up to and including jail and detainment (see enforcement IRS procedures under the added 3,121 pages of the Internal Revenue Code that the new Obamacare law adds).

    So, in conclusion, the freedom of choice has been taken away ( Hitler-esque), the IRS (Gestapo) has the power to detain, confiscate, or otherwise detain or jail you for failure to obtain insurance (brutal methods).

    I think the term “New Gestapo” fits very well.

    • Colonel,
      I’ll ask again – where do you get your “facts” about ObamaCare?

    • Ok Colonel,
      Since you don’t want to give your sources, I’ll help you out a little.

      The Internal Revenue is hiring thousands of new agents with the direct responsibility of doing what….

      To write procedures, update computer systems, and build technology infrastructure to support payments like the new tax credits for individuals and small businesses…OMG – the humanity…of providing tax credits…

      hunting down and interrogating prisoners (err…American Citizens) on whether or not they have the mandated insurance.

      Don’t be ridiculous…

      They will be able to use brutal tactics (ie: confiscation of assets, bank accounts, garnishments) to FORCE you to abide by the law..

      No, they can’t do any of this.

      up to and including jail and detainment

      No, this is explicitly prohibited.

      (see enforcement IRS procedures under the added 3,121 pages of the Internal Revenue Code that the new Obamacare law adds).

      I don’t know where you got this! Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?????

      So, in conclusion, the freedom of choice has been taken away ( Hitler-esque), the IRS (Gestapo) has the power to detain, confiscate, or otherwise detain or jail you for failure to obtain insurance (brutal methods).

      So, in conclusion, the freedom of choice has been taken away ( Hitler-esque), the IRS Colonel (Gestapo) has the power to detain, confiscate, or otherwise detain or jail you for failure to obtain insurance crossing an imaginary line in the sand (brutal methods).

      I think the term “New Gestapo” fits very well.

      Well Colonel, you outta know – you’re an expert when it comes to using Gestapo tactics…

      Are you jealous that the IRS might do it better than you?

  32. @ Charlie Gman has treaded the margins of racist diatribe several times. Once I sarcastically did my best to offer him an out (when he remarked something about “the gorilla must be stopped” (or some such nonsense).

    OK Charlie, I believe you missed this: charlieopera says:
    June 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
    Why, GMan … if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were making a racist comment above. But knowing how honorable and brave you are, it must be that I read it wrong (or that you wrote it wrong) … because you’re way too much a man to hide behind something as vague as a monkey reference. Perhaps you meant gorilla in the room (Obama/Romneycare)?

    Reply
    gmanfortruthG-man says:
    June 28, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    Yes Charlie, I did mean the Gorilla in the room, as in the whole Federal Govt. Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt. Sorry to hear about your Mom’s health as well, Hope she will get better.

    Reply

    I’m oviously a racist, because I call it how I see it. You and I are the same Charlie, You blame their problems (poverty, lack of chances) on their skin color. I blame crime on the same thing, poverty, lack of chances). The difference is that most of the problems exist under areas that have long been run politically by Democrats. Please check out the real Youngstown, Ohio. This is a great example of how high crime and poverty run hand in hand. And it’s been run by Demovrats forever. Do ya think that the obvious problem could be skin color, or political leadership?

    • charlieopera says:

      Good explanation, Gman. I see some faith restored in your response. Of course, you continue to mistake me for a Democrat, but that’s another story. I blame it on capitalism. I blame most of this country’s ills on capitalism; not that socialism or communism or any other ism would solve the ills, especially after the damage capitalism has created, but again, that’s another argument for another day. Sometimes, however, you get pretty mean-spirited in your assaults on minorities (and I know you know what I’m talking about) and when you do that, I’ll continue to call you out on it.

      Dems/Reps … same bullshit, different label.

  33. charlieopera says:

    @ LOI:

    BUT you only bash America in all your posts. This is another group that blames only America

    I think all we discuss here is America and it’s wonderful contributions to humanity (sarcasm intended). Probably because I live here has something to do with it, too … I mean, seriously, LOI …

    Trevon Martin did not appear to have been raised in poverty, but you condone his actions, blaming the other guy for being white and defending himself. You condone violence if it’s committed by a minority or the poor against the wealthy. You do this every time you only hold the white’s or the rich accountable.

    So far all I know about the kid (Martin’s) actions was that he was shot for no good reason other than profiling by a wannabe who obviously couldn’t fight (28 years old vs. 17 and he (the 28 year old) seems to have gotten his ass kicked–something totally avoidable had the 28 year old listened to the 911 operation and cease from trailing the kid. If the kid defended himself, more power to him.

    As to my “taking the side … every time” … I think you’re putting things in your own head.

    My objection to the TM situation has more to do with an absurd law than anything else. It is a law completely out of control and completely unnecessary in my opinion.

    Somewhere in you, you’re kinda American in your outlook. Stop blaming the founding fathers for a bit, what about the ideal that started our country? What about the Indians that assimilated, bought property, prospered? Andrew Jackson ignored a SCOTUS ruling and waged an illegal war against them. That is who you should rail against! Using his power to commit crimes, ignoring the law. After the civil war & the Jim Crow erea, blacks were assimilating into our society.

    I don’t blame the founding fathers … I just don’t worship them. I point to the hypocrisy of their democratic invention (a government for the rich by the rich). Nothing much has changed without the people (not the rich) forcing those changes.

    To wit: a little lesson here, LOI … it was 1965 before black were given an iota of a chance to “assimilate into our society” (i.e., voting rights act).

    “I say racists at heart are shitting their pants because the scales are tipping in population”

    I can agree with that..I don’t think most or many Americans are racist. I think seeing a well dressed black man is accepted, seeing a thug of any color is cause for concern. And that may be where we will always disagree. I will call them thugs, you will call me a racists. And by condoning their behavior, you promote the Trevon Martain’s of America…

    Well, you’re right about your pointing to their clothes being a bit racist. It is. And although I don’t know a damn thing beyond what has been reported about Trevyon Martin, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM supporting his cause. A kid carrying a soft drink and candy should not be shot because some paranoid wannabe asshole with a gun he obviously shouldn’t be carrying shooting him because he probably can’t win a fist fight (If there was one) against a kid 11 years younger than he was.

  34. @ Charlie, Somehow I find your comments rather condescending. Fear not captain Canolli, I answer to no man, ever. I’m not racist, rather I see how it’s being played against all of us, especially the minorities. That sad part is, nothing will change anytime soon, too many idiots playing the race card when it don’t belong, Kind like the bullshit Trayvon Martin case. It has been said, they can medicate the mentally ill, but they just can’t fix stupid!

    • charlieopera says:

      It has been said, they can medicate the mentally ill, but they just can’t fix stupid!

      And sometimes, Gman, you’re living proof.

  35. Charlie, If thats all you got, well, your the joke that won’t last long.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: