More Thoughts, Part Deux

I know that I have been harping on the voting in Federal election issue. I also know it may be getting on some nerves :) but that’s the point, get mad and prove me wrong. Remember, I stopped voting at the Federal level recently, it’s not a longtime belief. I’m going on the record by saying that no one can show anything legitimate that would prove my premise wrong. Remember, we are where we are, despite all the voting in Federal Elections. If you feel that the Feds are not corrupt, say so. If you feel they are representing the people, as intended, say so. But be prepared to back it up.

About these ads

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Just trying to get a discussion going, try not to take it personal! :)

    • OK, I did something right and comments are back :) Me thinks it’s a hacker from the Whitehouse :lol:

    • get mad and prove me wrong

      Seriously? You win Gman.

      That’s the only comment that you will acknowledge. Now since you have won, tell me what happens on day one after the non election.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Perhaps it is the “non revolution”??? :wink:

        Maybe I can tell the IRS agent to pound sand because I didn’t vote for his stinking Govt! The NON AUTHORITY will most certainly cower and leave me alone! :wink:

        • we can suddenly drill baby drill, mine for coal, we won’t be called racist anymore, no more election problems, we can pray in public, those open air monuments will stay open, the entire area of federal land west of the Mississippi will be free..first come first served since there is no one to pay..no more SCOTUS, POTUS or FLOTUS..I can go on….

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Great thoughts, but your taking things way out of context.

            I’m starting to see Alinksky like attitudes coming out. Interesting things happen when the closet doors start to open

  2. This subject isn’t going away, even after the 2016 election. Whether it’s true or not isn’t really my concern, but what happens if it is proven true somewhere down the road? http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamas-back-dated-forged-selective-service-form-hits-washington-times-full-page-ad/

    These people aren’t quitting. That says something about them, they believe in what they bring to the table. Interesting to wonder what could come of this.

  3. THis is a great response to Lt Col. Robert Bateman’s article in Esquire (in the link) in which he said “We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers,” The linked letter in response directly to LTC Bateman is fantastic. It also has some other interesting thoughts within it, enjoy! :)
    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/veteran-schools-anti-second-amendment-lt-colonel-robert-bateman/#BECRhoLzZXAdWHpP.99

    • I think that the Colonel would do well to rethink his position. There was this thing once called fragging. I wonder how many of his troops would be interested in removing my cold dead hands from the stock of my favorite Garand? How many would be interested in obeying unlawful orders to kill their fellow citizens?

  4. Was Obama LYING when he wanted to attack Syria? (I know, dumb question, all he does is lie). http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/natos-war-on-syria-just-got-dirtier.html

    This says a lot about our Govt as a whole, going back to Bush.

  5. While I believe the states have the Constitutional right to deny a federal law, It’s the people that make the final decision. Do we continue to tolerate the intrusive Federal Govt? Or do we/I say, I remove my consent to be governed by you, you are corrupt? If both are done in large numbers, what recourse do the Feds have? NONE!
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/s-carolina-aims-to-nullify-obamacare/

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Constitutionally, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to “mandate” that a State incorporate or follow a Federal Law, unless the Federal Law deals with something specifically designated as a Federal Power in the Constitution. Since Obamacare clearly fails the test of being something specifically designated as a “Federal Power”, Constitutionally speaking, the States do not HAVE to accept it as law.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    G

    States do not have Constitutional AUTHORITY to “deny” federal laws, UNLESS the Constitution clearly identifies the authority as State and NOT Federal.

    The various statements quoted in the article (Madison, Jefferson, etc) are not explanations of Constitutional Authority. They are statements about the Power of Dissent.

    So a State could be acting outside any Constitutional Authority to “deny” a law, just as any Citizen would. Instead it would be simply acting in defiance of or in “dissent” against the actions of the Federal Govt.

    This works when the State actually has the affection of its people. Because it then “represents” the people. However, if the political factions within the State are as equally divided as we see nationally, this will dilute the power of dissent. It will instead be used to “isolate” and “ridicule” those who take this action (Alinsky).

    I am not arguing against the nullification effort, to be clear. I am simply pointing out that nullification is not codified in the Constitution. It is “implied” and “understood” to be a basic “RIGHT” of people and as such their representative State.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks JAC, maybe that’s what I have been trying to achieve, nullification/dissent at the individual level. A Cold Civil War. I’m not trying to win anything( as I’m being accused), but sharing my beliefs in the current times. There ar millions who see what I see, but there are those who will cling to normalcy. Until the Fed corruption and overreach has stopped, I remove my consent, period. Dissent at its purest form, just say NO

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The biggest FLAW in your arguments here is in accusing those of us who understand the role of “voting” ,and do not share your “voting is stupid” mindset, of supporting the status quo.

        It is condescending as well as devoid of any basis in fact. Making such claims ignores all the arguments, complaints and discussions that have occurred here among the SUFA crowd.

        That is why you get the reaction you get on this subject. Not because folks want to maintain the existing “system”.

  7. More Thoughts Part Trois – a Hypothetical:

    Earth 3185 A.D. A moon is discovered in a ‘relatively nearby’ solar system with an atmosphere, ecosystem, and what appears to be a small colony of advanced intelligent life forms.

    A research team is immediately formed and sent on a 40 year transit to investigate. It confirms that indeed there is a thriving ecosystem and colony of intelligent life.. several actually.

    After a careful 100 year study, you learn the predominant species are a leftover hybrid discard from an earlier visiting scientific expedition, …that they are on a steep development curve as they breed fast, learn quickly, have an IQ comparable to humans, are exceptionally physically dexterous and agile, are slightly smaller than humans with a genetic evolutionary predisposition to increase in size up to approx. 11 feet tall and 700 lbs, and are hardwired with a tendency to be very territorial and aggressive.

    They are at the point in their development where they are beginning to understand simple mechanical concepts such as wheels and levers, developing tools and weapons out of natural resources, developing hunting and battle strategies, learning agriculture and a heat making chemical reaction similar to ‘fire’ on Earth.

    By all reasonable estimates, you can conclude, that if left alone and ignored, within 2000-3000 years they will have reached their ‘Space Age’, discovered Earth and will be attempting contact. …And when considering their territorial and aggressive nature, will likely eventually attempt conquest.

    What do you do?

    A – Exterminate them now, before they become an inevitable threat to Humans and the entire galaxy?
    B – Continue to monitor their development with little or no intervention, At which point they attempt contact, respond with diplomacy and govern their capacity to become a legitimate threat…by force if/when necessary.
    C – Manipulate their DNA code over time in order to filter out their tendency to be aggressive, and otherwise regulate and guide their entire course of development.
    D – Something else

    • Just A Citizen says:

      We set up shop on their moon, baffle and amaze them with our tech, convince them we are in fact GODS and then convince them to construct Pyramids in our honor.

      We build massive facilities to handle our occupation and inhabitation.

      Eventually we find another more suitable location and we pull up roots. We leave them with their religion, pyramids, cave drawings and scratches in the ground.

      As we leave someone makes a joke about how these creatures will spend the next millennium or more trying to remember and then figure out how all these “structures” were created.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    The day has finally arrived. I knew it was coming. It turns out that yesterday was my LAST day of commenting on the Huffington Post. I recently invited some other “civil” and “good thinking” left wingers to join us on SUFA. If they wish to engage in some good discussions and arguments.

    When I find those that will engage we usually find many areas of agreement. The fundamental issues are not so different. It is really our approach to the solutions.

    Here is the deal, which causes a small chill on the back of my neck. Huff Po, under the excuse of “improving the civility of discussions” now REQUIRES people to CONNECT TO A VALID FACEBOOK account in order to “REGISTER” to make comments.

    I notice this morning that most commenters now have their REAL names, or approximations, posted with each comment.

    So now we have the AOL “owned and operated” Huffington Post REQUIRING linkage to FACEBOOK as a condition of public discussion. I am sure this is really about “improving civility”.

    Just as I am sure aliens towed the moon from another galaxy and placed in in our orbit.

    So now those who work at HP can make sure the debates are civil on the site, while they pass your name, location, and Facebook history to the ??????

    If I were Buck, I would be screaming for a Federal Law to require HP to provide me with the service without this requirement. But instead I will simply NOT ABIDE by their Requirement. At first I thought I would now use the site but no comment. I have changed my mind and will now NOT USE the site at all.

    That is right, I am BOYCOTTING the Huffington Post.

    The downside it that now I will have to spend far more time to find interesting articles or view points on the left to post here. The HP was a pretty good site for accumulating a lot of different stories on different topics.

    • “If I were Buck, I would be screaming for a Federal Law to require HP to provide me with the service without this requirement”

      Umm…no, I wouldn’t.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You did yesterday. Something along the lines of I would FORCE Doctors to accept ALL insurance companies.

        Translation: I would FORCE HP to allow me to comment without having to link to facebook.

        There is really little difference at the CORE.

        • Actually there is a huge difference, but ok. And as I continued to say, I do remain very much torn on the subject, just that at the end of the day I believe I would err on that side of the equation.

          Or better yet, let’s just abolish the whole current insurance system! Single payer here we come! (Where’s Charlie when you need him for a good rallying cry!?)

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            So you replace one kind of FORCE with ANOTHER.

            How about you remove ALL force from the Insurance market. How about we do the same for the medical field.

            Increased supply and reduced costs…………….here we come.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Buck,

            “Single Payer” is a myth. Who is this “single payer”??? The Government? Oh but wait, where does the government get money?

            1. Taxation of the citizens
            2. Borrowing from other nations

            That means that in reality “single payer” doesn’t mean anything at all!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          I must address your argument that these things are “different”.. whether “significantly” or “hugely”.

          You build two pillars upon a rotten foundation. Then you argue that the pillars are “significantly different”. Yet they BOTH stand upon a rotten foundation.

          In the end, at the CORE, they are no different.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    ANITA

    I will have to cheer for the Redskins this coming weekend. COUSINS is now the starting QB.

    I have liked this kid ever since he gave Kellen Moore credit for Sparty’s beating Georgia in that bowl game two years ago. That was a huge and honorable admission. Plus, the kid has talent and seemed to play better than RG III at the start of the season. I thought he had earned the starting job given RG never played a down in pre-season.

    Anyway, hope the Spartan alum does well. As long as he is not playing against my Seahawks…. :)

    • Hadn’t heard he was at Washington. He came in at the same time as Dantonio, led Sparty in two Big Ten Championship games. And…he beat the Wolverines 4 times! That alone earns messiah status in my book. I’ll join you in cheering for the Skins.

      What happened to K Moore? Is he still here? :)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Last I checked he was still in Detroit as the number “three”. He had a great pre-season playing most of the last game with a couple TD’s and no picks.

        I doubt we will ever see him play except in pre-season. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get an offer “coaching” somewhere.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    TEST

    If YOUR VOTE really has “no value”, then why do politicians and interest groups spend Millions of Dollars each year to get YOUR VOTE?

    • Why do politicians pay millions in a campaign for a job that will never pay a monetary return (wages)? Illusion is apparently very expensive, but the money is mostly not theirs anyway. I have been asking myself this question forever. Since the only monetary GAIN as a result of this investment in a campaign can only come from corrupt sources. Greed and Power likely play a role as well. Just like the DNC pouring money into Colorado for the recall elections. They were, in no other way to say it, trying to BUY their political views and force them on people who don’t want them.

      The money part is part of my issue with the elections. It is all controlled by two parties, who have a monopoly on the entire election process, to include WHO gets in a Presidential debate and WHAT questions will be asked.

      Now, next test! Would a candidate that is spending HIS/HER own money, be doing so for good reasons? If that candidate spends millions, there HAS to be an underlying reason. Power? See Nanny Bloomberg!

      So the next step in this process is to follow along with ya’ll over the next election cycle, and watch all the money spent to convince you to vote…..for your own shackles. As I see it, the Feds are acting as Ruler’s, not representatives. Their all on the same team and laughing all the while you folks are wallowing around trying to find a candidate that fights your ideals, only to be outspent in a fixed election that has already been decided. Funny, I remember the series we had here about the “Perfect Candidate” and I don’t recall anything close to achieving what a perfect candidate should be like.

      But hey, there’s gonna be a vote, so have at it. :)

      • A slightly different look at today’s politics. Under the current left/right paradigm, doesn’t the WHOLE system pervert a supposed free society? How can one side be free if the other side is forcing their views and compliance to those views on the other side? My premise is that, as long as we as a nation have this type of political divide, we CANNOT ever be called a FREE society. My answer is to eliminate the two party monopoly, pull the teeth out of the governments and let the PEOPLE decide how they want to live :)

        If Buck wants to live in a socialist type society, why not let Buck and like minded people have one? We can call it Buckapolis :) Only those who chose to live in Buckapolis are subject to their laws. The borders a strictly defined, but can be no larger than 15 square miles. Then we can have JACapolis, which is somewhere in between socialism and anarchism. The same rules apply as Buckapolis, no bigger than 15 square miles. This can go on and on for all the different political desires in today’s society. Then, because people can live in the “society” of their choosing, we can once again be called a FREE nation. The Gay’s will be happily married, the Atheist’s free of religion, the socialist’s all equally poor, and the Anarchist’s free of government controls. I’m sure that all groups can agree on certain subjects, like pollution control for example.

        What do ya’ll think about this idea? :)

        • In other words you are proposing the dissolution of the USA…nothing radical here…

          • Not all Buck, My proposal keeps the States and the Federal govt (although in a much smaller capacity). The small Apolis’s are similar to cities, where like minded people can live together under the rules they want. In these cities, they make the laws and the taxes, etc.

            The Fedral govt will still handle the military, National parks and museums, National Highways and I would guess a few more things based on agreement. In short, the Feds would return to their original intent. Small and not up our asses everyday :)

            The States would gain more power in many ways, like managing pollution, State parks and lakes, etc. They would take over many of the duties the Feds have illegally claimed.

            More coming in a few!

  11. This is a terrific question from Larry Elder:
    Obama said he’d change name “Redskins” to avoid offending Native Americans. How many Cuban-Americans were offended by the Raul handshake?

    But this entire thread is hillarious!:
    http://twitchy.com/2013/12/10/forget-the-death-glare-check-out-what-furious-flotus-did-to-obama-pics/

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    What seems so innocent is just a more benign form of Crony Capitalism.

    http://t.money.msn.com/now/bah-humbug-new-christmas-tree-tax-proposed

  13. http://lastresistance.com/3990/liberal-columnist-obamas-approval-ratings-adam-lanza/

    The folks on the Left are digging some very deep holes. Are these people sane?

  14. Term limits? This article isn’t a bad idea, but it shows how money affects reelections. Once again, the evil of the two party system.
    http://patriotupdate.com/articles/time-term-limits-arrived/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      • Where does the problem lie? Why “ain’t it right”? How do we fix it (I agree, the shit ain’t right)? When do we wake up and realize it’s the bums that are VOTED for that are the cause of most of it. The poorest place in the US have been RULED by Liberal Democrats for decades, That, ladies and gentleman, explains why some things “just ain’t right”. The politicians in DC protect their rich and wealthy donors, at the expense of the working class and the poor, that is why things “just ain’t right”. Get the corrupt government out of the way, let the free market readjust to being free and watch things become right again. :)

    • Just A Citizen says:

    • Just A Citizen says:

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    I have wondered for several years how long it would take MLB to address the “collisions” at home plate. Looks like the time has finally come.

    http://t.foxsports.msn.com/mlb/mlb-intends-to-ban-home-plate-collisions-no-later-than-2015-season

  16. America, if there was ever a time in our nation’s history that it was imperative that we as Americans separated ourselves from the constant dribble of the false paradigm of American politics, the time is definitely now. I find myself in total disbelief as I watch the obvious consequences of the corruption, massive wasteful spending, the outsourcing of the American labor force and many other ills that have plagued this nation for decades come boiling to a head like a massive pimple on a teenager’s forehead. When this pimple pops, it is going to hurt. We have to stop pretending that there is only one corrupt political party and that it’s the one that we don’t vote for. We must accept that it has been the successful employment of divisive tactics by the communists seeking to dominate our wills that have brought us to where we are. Over the course of the last year, I have had the distinct pleasure of sharing my interpretation of these events with you. Whether I drew on my experience of being educated by radical Alinskyite leftists, or researched the goals of the communists and connected them to daily events; it’s all coming to fruition, and if we do not wake up and collectively shout “No,” and defend our liberty, we will not win this America.

    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/silent-chinese-invasion-america-implementation-disarmament-citizens/#lHYrLmVCjcZpRC2x.99

    I am far from alone! :evil:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Do you realize that if you argue for “let the free markets” work in one comment you cannot bitch about jobs being sent over seas in the next. Right?

      Or do you want to “define” free markets in a way that addresses the jobs and export issues?

      • We do not have free markets JAC. They are far from it.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I did not say we did. However, Companies in a FREE MARKET economy would be FREE to find jobs where ever they want to look for them. They would be FREE to make goods in China and send them to the USA if it “cost” less.

          So you need reconcile the contradiction in your complaints. Pro Free Market yet upset that jobs go overseas and China is kicking our butt.

          Let me suggest your salvation is in the “proper conditions” for Free Markets.

          • Proper conditions indeed. Once the Govt is mostly removed, business’s will open and grow. It’s easy for small zones to eliminate foreign competition, by keeping all costs down. Without the vast amount of taxes and govt intrusion, this will be easily accomplished. Once the free zones begin trading goods, the only issue will be to keep costs down on the basic needs in life. At the beginning, most free zones would have the materials needed to move forward and most overseas imports could be removed from the market. US companies will quickly pick up the slack and America can prosper again. That’s never going to happen with current situation, but we will continue to lower our living standards, that’s for sure.

            A question for you. Do you think the US dollar will remain as THE worlds reserve currency throughout our lifetime? I do not, for the record.

            • By the way, thanks for not shying from the subject! Discussion is a great way to learn from one another. Will my thoughts work in the real world? Who knows. This country was probably considered the same way back in the 1700′s as my ideas today. Par for the course.

          • And, let us not forget that in a free market society, there are no tariffs, no import or export fees, no subsidies, no tax.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    Boise State has ONCE AGAIN gone to its well of homegrown coaches for Peterson’s replacement.

    Guess Saban was wanting to much money………….. The Colonel is rumored to be putting up the revenue on two oil wells towards the Saban “Signing Bonus” in hopes of turning him into a LONGHORN.

    • I think Saban stays in Bama, why leave a program already set to compete for a championship every year?

    • Ha! I wouldn’t think the Colonel would offer that much for Bama’s leftovers..remember he had to strut the Crimson colors a few years back?

      I see Boise St is going to Honolulu for Christmas…hope they like playing in the rain.

    • I heard that the Colonel is going to become the new defensive coach. I understand that there are new orders for exploding shoulder pads, razor wire cleats, lessons in martial art tackling, HUD displays built into helmets, and laser training for in flight footballs.

      But, what do I know?

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    How is your proposal above any different than what we have. Maybe less power at the Federal Level but the separation or Balkanization you propose is pretty much what we have.

    Cities = Progressive Domination.

    Towns = A mix

    Country = Conservative Domination.

    Some States are Red, others Blue and many Purple with the above applying throughout.

    By the way, let me suggest that your frustration with voting NOT having the affect you want or the people running NOT MEETING your criteria is not so much about corruption as it is the fact WE are in the MINORITY.

    • It is, somewhat, but my proposal would remove all laws that don’t conform to the individual areas. Like I said, the socialist can be themselves, the gay’s can be themselves and so on. Enter another community, you abide by their laws while you visit. Don’t like what you see, stay the hell out. We would still have the laws on murder, rape (to include Muslims), theft etc. These would be in simple terms, not something we need lawyers figure out. People can move from one free zone to another, if life in one is not agreeable. This is how you find out what people want, let them try different ways without a 100 years and generations of lessons learned. Eventually, freedom will be a way of life, not what has to be fought for at every turn.

      I know, it’s a big pipe dream type idea. Getting would still require ending the rule of the ruling class, which probably won’t happen in my lifetime.

  19. Why knowing history means something, because people that don’t make asses of themselves. http://www.prisonplanet.com/slate-writer-lets-ditch-santa-claus-because-hes-white.html

    This is racism in it’s truest form, when anything white becomes a racist issue, someone needs mental help.

  20. How much do you think insurance companies will be willing to pay doctors when doctors are forced to accept them?

    • That was for Buck

    • AMENDMENT XIII

      Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

      Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

      Section 1.
      Neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Section 2.
      Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Well played by Calif. friend. VERY, VERY well played.

      • T-Ray, now your just being a racist :roll: This section doesn’t apply to doctors, because doctors really don’t work, they just practice :) JAC is right, let a corporation do this and all hell would break loose.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Jennie

      I will let Buck address your question for himself.

      However, I would like to share one thought which I have come across many times in the past couple of months. That is, it is a comment made often by folks I have debated on this subject. Those on the sites like Huffington Post.

      They openly express their view that Doctors will come to accept LOWER pay and LESS PROFIT. Because what else are they going to do? They have all those debts and have spent all that time. These folks simply believe they will put up with the cost controls and other demands, because they have little choice.

      I have wondered how such a theory or belief could come to be in America. Then I remembered the rantings of our resident communist bullhorn. To them, work is slavery. We are a slave to wages. So it would only follow that if you believe work or wages are actually slavery, you would have no qualms about actually “forcing” people to work, accept insurance or to take a lower wage for their labor.

      The irony, of course, is that they would scream to high heaven if an Corporate Executive demanded the same thing of their employees.

    • I don’t know but that is something that can pretty easily be addressed.

      And remember, this is where I err given the current paradigm of the health care system.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        What EXACTLY is the problem with the “current” paradigm.

        We spend more on health care is not an REAL ISSUE, it is just political rhetoric.

        So what is the problem that was so great it required the ACA or “Single Payer”?

        • JAC, we’ve been through the issues with our health care system before. Wasn’t it you that proposed (or perhaps supported? or perhaps I’m completely confusing your stance with someone else’s) of abolishing insurance altogether?

          Not quite following how you don’t find that we as a nation spends more on health care (with worse results) as a real issue….

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I do support no insurance, but I do not support using Govt to “abolish” it.

            Insurance, including the Govt forms of it, are partly responsible for the INCREASED UNIT cost of medical care.

            We spend more because we MAKE MORE. So NO, I do not see our total expenditure as a “Nation” as a REAL issue. Certainly noting worth tipping over the entire cart to address.

            Now how about you answer my question.

            • As we’ve been through I view access to quality and affordable health care as an essential. It is a problem that we spend so much more than other nations (and no, it is not because we make more). It is a problem that people in this country have to go bankrupt due to medical bills (note: the majority of those forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills have health insurance). It is a problem that people with insurance have been denied coverage when they need it most. It is a problem that one loses their coverage when they lose their job.

              It is a problem that we as a nation cannot seem to get what every other western industrialized nation has realized long ago re universal coverage / single payer.

              The current system is broken. At least the ACA, despite its many flaws, addresses some of the problems with the current system. Which is why I’ve said its at least a step (a small step, mind you) in the right direction.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Re Bankruptcy due to medical bills.

                http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-myth-of-medical-bankruptcy

                So is the criteria now a “single” person is to much? If not then how many?

                We were just told that 5 million losing their preferred Insurance Policies was a “minor” impact. So where is the “threshold” for “crisis” or the “need for Federal Action”??

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Here is another on bankruptcy. Wanted to be “fair”. This one makes your argument.

                But notice the connection to the “special interest” group.

                Also notice the date of June this year. Why is this important?

                Health Care Costs have been DROPPING for the past three years. So how can “increased” health care costs be driving these bankruptcies??

              • Don’t have time to do the research today, but have in the past and there are numerous studies out there on this point.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                One more. I know you don’t like reading these things but it is hard to summarize.

                This one is undoubtedly biased but contains some interesting things. Stuff they claim as “fact” which has little basis. Others that may be fact but are really outside the realm of insurance coverage……..like our heart disease and diabetes rates in the USA.

                Note US vs other spending. That my lawyer friend is the impact of our GREATER WEALTH.

                We “waste” money on what we consider critical IF we have that money to waste. Single payer or any other payment plan does not prevent this. UNLESS of course it contains MANDATORY cost controls.

                Which means a Govt Bureaucrat is now deciding what is “QUALITY” health care.

                http://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/aetnas-vision/facts-about-costs.html

      • How would you address it? Would government set the rate that doctors are paid?

    • @ Jennie…….what are you worried about? One of the main things that is happening now is concierge services and hospitals. Even though I am on Medicare now and have a supplemental insurance policy with USAA…( the veterans health, Tricare, is now being decimated by the ACA, to the point that I get better coverage now out of Tricare ), I have joined a concierge group.

      I have done so because I have read the ACA in its entirety and I see that the older generation is indeed going to be denied services ……and payment through Medicare is going to be less and less the older one gets, concierge is one way to get quality care.

  21. Just A Citizen says:
    • I like Pope Francis because he is a righteous kinda guy. He is doing what he can to fix things in the church and using his influence in the interest of morality and general improvement.

      While he may mistake a socialist/fascist pseudo-capitalist mixed economy for a capitalist economy, he has a legitimate point. He sees a problem. The money goes up, but doesn’t come back down. He is calling bullshit on trickle-down economics. And he is correct in his observation.

      It is difficult to make a sandwich with bread crumbs.

      Modern economies are designed to funnel money from the people to big government and corporate empires. They have been so manipulated and regulated in favor of those in power, the result being virtual economic enslavement for the large working class population. In current form, it works more like a tool of mobility suppression.

      The answer is, of course, creating/implementing free market systems…to bypass the current disaster.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Trickle Down Economics is a left wing INVENTION use for propaganda purposes.

        The POPE should understand what the hell he is commenting about. Even if he is trying to focus on the impacts, he needs to make sure his assessments and language are accurate.

        Maybe as a “spiritual” leader he should have limited himself to comments about the wealthy’s attitude toward their fellow man, or the increased propensity of dishonesty and fraud.

        • You make good points. I don’t disagree. I only give him credit for trying to do the right thing.

          ” Maybe as a “spiritual” leader he should have limited himself to comments about the wealthy’s attitude toward their fellow man, or the increased propensity of dishonesty and fraud. ”

          Again, I don’t disagree.

          Arguably, he IS addressing that. Consider the atmosphere among the world leaders. He is stepping out among them and publicly stating his position from a moral standpoint. It is as if he is is saying to world, as well as his powerful associates, “.c’mon y’all, quit being greedy…lets look out for the little people, because the system is jacking them. “

          • Further,

            He is being a ‘good Catholic’ in representing the church. ..getting ‘points’ with his people.

            As I understand it, Catholics are all about charity for the poor and disabled. I have heard rhetoric about how Catholics make an enterprise out of charity with Bingo halls and the like, …but find yourself in a position of hunger, ..they will be the first to feed you.

            • Thank you! Bout time somebody picked it up. For well over 100 years, closer to 150, in this country the church has established hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc. All this was done to keep its primary mission.

              Recently St. Vincent’s Medical Center on the edge of NY’s Greenwich Village was forced, after more than 100 years to fold. If you dug you would see the real estate deals involved and the so called administrative teams being brought in to straighten out the finances who ultimately robbed the place blind but the real reason, the thing that started the slide into bankruptcy was that they were the first and only hospital to welcome Aids victims. By the time these poor folks showed up they had no insurance or jobs. The hospital died to try and save them. Since there was a 20 year gap between events, people have a hard time linking them. Since the Church is anathema to the Gay population, they probably applauded the demise of the hospital they sure did nothing to stave it off.

              • With me, it is more than just ‘picking up on it’.

                There are a lot of Catholic churches and charities in my home town. My mind is so saturated with examples of Catholics being charitable, that when presented with the word “charity”, my mind automatically references charitable deeds by local Catholics. I suppose I have been indoctrinated by circumstance to associate charity with Catholicism.

                That is really unfortunate what happened to St. Vincent’s. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. Maybe as the economic situation worsens, people will grow to better appreciate their local Catholic charity.

  22. Despite the source, the author does well in explaining the budget deal and how both parties are on the same team. These people in DC are a joke :roll: http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-john-boehner-and-paul-ryan-should-immediately-resign.html

    • Yes, it’s early. The winds are down for awhile which gives me some hunting opportunity. It’s 9 degrees with a -3 wind chill, but that’s not all that cold compared to the -17 wind chill yesterday morning :)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You claim they are both on the same team because you don’t get what you want.

      Yet one of those players has ZERO power to enforce any serious Budget changes. Unless they are willing to agree to large tax increases on the upper brackets.

      So HOW can the R’s accomplish any serious SPENDING CUTS.

      If there is no answer then the criticism is nothing but NOISE designed to keep people pissed off. And what does that accomplish in the end?

      Romney got 2 million fewer votes than McCain because the Conservatives were pissed off. Those 2 million could have put him in the White House. Yet those same Cons are howling about Obama’s re-election and chastising the Republican leadership for not doing something that they can not do.

      Politically speaking, the only relevant question is not how much they can cut spending right now, but whether there is any real advantage to “compromising” at all. What is the ACTUAL benefit of passing a budget that will allow “appropriation” bills to move forward vs more Continuing Resolutions.

      Now don’t get me wrong here. I think they are screwing up because they listen to much to the Media and polling data. However, there is a reality than none of the COMPLAINERS seem to be willing to address. Levin last night was going on about the need to Fight. OK, fight about WHAT?? What good is the appearance of a Fight if you cannot accomplish anything by fighting???

      And ask yourself this question. WHY are the Republicans so bothered by the Sequestration. Because without a compromise that is the current law. If they walk away from the table Sequestration continues. So WHY are they afraid of that alternative?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      “Paper is poverty. It is only the ghost of money and not money itself” Thomas Jefferson

      Also relates to one of your previous post about the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. Once the holder of the dollar/currency loses faith in it, there will be a general collapse. This is being played out by the private deals between countries and by passing the dollar. It is backed by nothing tangible. Commenting also on the link you posted that included Jefferson’s belief that subsequent generations should not be liable for committments of the previous generation and so forth and so on. Children even in Jefferson’s case were not held liable to his debts. His estate was liquidated to pay them when he passed. This was a major change in US estate law versus British law. He believed the government should operate the same way. Look at the condition our cities, States and Federal Government are in due to committments made that they never had any reasonable means to pay for except by future generations and printing more “ghost money”.

      • The debts incurred by governments, at all levels, were never intended to be paid back, ever. One day people will figure this out. It’s a Ponzi scheme that politicians play in.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The sooner the better. I think you posted this a while back. That the government entitlements are not a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme the victims are voluntary.

          • I wasn’t talking about entitlements, I was replying on govt debt. Although entitlements are a cause of debt, it isn’t the sole cause. Plus, local Govt’s like Detriot don’t pay entitlements, that’s a State/Federal expense. Watch how those govt union workers get screwed on their retirements as these govt’s go bankrupt. Shameful, because these politicians knew they would never be held responsible.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    THE BUDGET DEAL

    Here is the perspective from the “other” side. Now given that this person has “academic credibility” and a megaphone, and that there are thousands just like him who believe this crap, EXACTLY what do the Republicans or the rest of us need to do to ACTUALLY get the Fed Budget under control? from CNN:

    Editor’s note: Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is a co-author of “Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better Bargain for Working People.” He also has a blog, Beat the Press, where he discusses the media’s coverage of economic issues. Follow him on Twitter @deanbaker13.

    (CNN) — The two-year budget agreement crafted by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan can best be understood as a deal that is convenient for members of Congress. It is pretty bad news for the rest of the country.

    The convenience for members of Congress is straightforward. We have seen several dramatic standoffs over the budget and extensions of the debt ceiling since the Republicans took control of the House in 2010. This has led to one government shutdown and twice brought us to the brink of the government’s default on its debt.

    While these standoffs have been bad news for the country — especially the shutdown, which meant services were not provided and workers were not paid — they were probably worse news for members of Congress. They had to spend many late nights haggling over deals, and their approval ratings tumbled in opinion polls.

    In this way, the two-year budget deal is good news for Congress, because it means there won’t be any major budget standoffs until at least 2015. This gets them at least through the election year.

    The story for the rest of the country is not as good. First, it is important to note one of the items not included in the deal. There was no extension of unemployment benefits. As a result, more than 1 million laid off workers will see their benefits cut off in 2014. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will slow growth by 0.2 percentage points and reduce the number of jobs by around 300,000.

    Of course, Congress could still vote to extend benefits when it comes back in January. Even if this does happen, however, many unemployed workers will still up ending missing one or two checks.

    While Congress did do some reshuffling of funds to make the sequester cuts less painful, one item on the reshuffling list deserves special attention. The budget deal would require that federal employees increase their contributions to their retirement, effectively cutting their pay by another 1%. This cut comes on top of pay freezes that effectively cut real wages by more than 5% over the last three years. Apparently, Congress has not yet tired of beating on air traffic controllers, food inspectors and other members of the federal work force.

    But the biggest issue for most of the public is that this is a federal budget that will continue to impose a drag on the economy by preventing the sort of growth that we need to return to full employment. While the stimulus approved by Congress boosted growth and added between 2-3 million jobs, the steep deficit reduction of the last three years has slowed the economy, costing millions of jobs.

    The basic point is straightforward. The economy still does not have a source of demand to replace the demand generated by the housing bubble. Bubble-inflated house prices led to a record pace of construction and a consumption boom as homeowners spent based on their illusory bubble-generated housing equity.

    With the bubble gone, we are missing close to $1 trillion in annual demand in the economy. There is no mechanism in the private sector that will cause it to replace this demand on its own. Businesses don’t invest just because we profess love for job creators. They invest when they see demand, which is not the case in the current economy.

    In the longer term, we can hope to replace the bubble-generated demand of the last decade with more net exports. This would come about through a lower-valued dollar that would make our goods more competitive internationally. However, we are not going to see a lower-valued dollar tomorrow. This means that as a simple matter of logic the only way to replace the demand lost due to the collapse of the housing bubble is through the government.

    But the budget deal negotiated by Murray and Ryan will do nothing to expand demand in the economy. They could have devoted funds to rebuilding the infrastructure, retrofitting homes and businesses to make them more energy efficient, and improving health care and education. Instead we see further cuts that will both lead to deteriorating service and fewer jobs.

    This means that millions of people will continue to be unemployed or underemployed for the foreseeable future and workers will lack the bargaining power to secure their share of economic growth. But at least the lives of members of Congress will be easier.

    Happy holidays!

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    BUDGET DEAL

    Here is some data that shows why Mr. Baker’s comments are filled with more rhetoric than truth.

    http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/10/federal-budget-numbers-continue-to.html

    Focus on the data and not the bloggers commentary at the end. I think a few of his conclusions are NOT supported by his own data.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is a separate topic to kick around.

    QUESTIONS: WHY should the mother be charged with any crime at all? WHY should she be subjected to any “prison time”??

    GREELEY, Colo. – The mother of a 3-year-old Frederick, Colo. boy who accidentally shot himself in the head has been charged with criminally negligent child abuse resulting in death, reports CBS Denver.

    Dione Warren, who turned herself in to authorities Monday night, appeared in court Tuesday with her attorney along with her husband Jeremy McCollum, who is the child’s stepfather. Her bond was set at $75,000.

    Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck said he took Warren’s loss into account in weighing charges but said she was negligent for leaving her son alone at home where he could access a deadly weapon, CBS Denver reported.

    According to police and court records, Warren’s son, Sheine Steine, shot himself in the head in October at their home in Frederick after finding a handgun between the mattress and frame of a bed. The gun belongs to Sheine’s stepfather, who hasn’t been charged, reports the station.

    Warren told police it’s possible her son had watched McCollum put the gun in its place.

    Warren first told police she was home at the time but was in another room when she heard the gunshot. She later told police she was smoking in her car on the driveway, reports the station.

    According to court documents, Warren’s young daughter told detectives her mother left the toddler home by himself while she dropped the girl off at school.

    The little girl also reportedly said, “Actually my mom and dad didn’t want me to tell you that.”

    The DA would not discuss whether the stepfather could also be charged in the case.

    Warren faces four to twelve years in prison if convicted.

    Let me add, given the charges and the STATE’s response it is little wonder the parents tried to cover up the fact that mom left the kid alone while taking the other to school.

    • I wonder how and why the state justifies punishing her.

      The family has suffered a natural form of punishment in that their penalty/consequence for negligence is the loss of a child.

    • Well, obviously stepdad, the brain dead dummy, should be charged first. The Mom gets it for basically leaving the kid home alone. Obviously way too difficult to bundle up the smaller one and bring him along. Funny, my wife bundled up our twins for years so she could take the oldest to school. No excuse for these folks, none.

      Hey, is he really a stepdad or is it just the typical shack job?

    • What purpose would prison time serve? maybe she should stand on a busy street corner with a sign that says ” I was lazy, which got my 3 year old son killed ! Don’t be LAZY”

  26. What would you do? Don’t know if this is a series, but this is good.

    http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/25083-want-to-have-a-little-faith-restored-in-humanity-watch-this

    • Nice video ! I wonder how many Left wingers would say they were all actors? Or that black women don’t act racist so it all BS? I think that it’s an example of what MOST Americans are all about, regardless of political views. The real racists are a very very small minority (Aryan Nation, Skin heads). I agree with those who spoke up, that’s what needs to be done to all the wrongs being done to people, whether it’s an act of racism or an act of Govt tyranny, standing up and saying NO can carry lots of weight. Great find Kathy :)

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Chicks on the right… from… INDIANAPOLIS!!!

      Check them out at WIBC.com. They have an afternoon radio show from 4-6:00 PM Eastern Time which you can probably listen to via the internet.

  27. http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17154-congress-rushing-to-approve-2014-ndaa

    Once again, the federal govt, both parties I might add, continue to attack our Constitutional Rights with laws like this. In short, kiss your 4th and 5th Amendments rights goodbye. If Obama wants to shut someone up, it’s legal to do so.

    Yes, I bring these things up to tell people that the govt is not working for you, but ruling you, period. Add the to the Food Safety and Modernization Act of 2010 and bingo, we’re all nothing but paupers to the ruling class. If you would like a link to a lengthy article on that law, I can provide that as well. Wake UP America!

  28. I think it may be safe to say that the Global Warming fraud is soon going to go away! :)
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/world-looks-to-dump-obamas-green-cr-p/

    I do feel bad for those that fell for this crap, they have been duped and made fools of by the very people they support. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    Solution to some of your concerns about Health Insurance.

    Health Insurance TRUSTS.

    By statute, establishes a FIDUCIARY relationship between the Trust holders, managers and the Beneficiaries.

    No more BS delays in coverage, cancellations of members, etc, etc.

    • JAC, it would have just been simpler to fix the problems, fix the pre existing condition problem (Ohio did this by law, which is within their authority), provide low cost, high deductible insurance to those that don’t have through one or two simple insurance type companies (like the VA).

      That wasn’t what was intended, total destruction was intended. Make the crisis and come save the day, OY VEY! Obamacare isn’t intended to help anybody. :) Just more Left Wing lies to move their slavery agenda forward. :evil:

  30. What does everyone think of the NSA spying on you? Granted, most of us have nothing to hide from the bastards, but that’s not the point. Do you believe you have the right to privacy with E-mails, Phone calls, text messaging, Skype, other internet messaging etc. ? While having them read this blog, since it’s open to public view, is not a problem (flipping middle finger at them :) ). all the other areas mentioned should be private,

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-spies-are-forcing-privacy-email-services-to-shut-down-because-they-cant-spy-on-emails.html

    But they ain’t ! :evil:

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      We as a nation are so obsessed with safety and prevention of any harm in any form, the government feels that it is their duty to do anything within any means to perform that function, regardless of what Constitutional rights they violate or re-interpret to fit an agenda. That is why the American sheeple are just rolling over. Just look at General Alexander’s explanation about the gathering of all communications on everybody. “We have to do it this way because it’s the only way we know how to keep the people SAFE”. The Supreme Court ruled that communications that leave your possession are no longer private. The writers of the Constitution were very concerned about “General Warrants” that were used by the British in the colonies.

      • It’s not the Governments job to keep us safe, that’s responsibility belongs to the people. The gates are closing around the sheeple, and most have no clue. What a surprise they will get when they do :roll:

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          That is the governments reasoning and excuse for their abuses of law. Just think of all the “Barbarians at the Gate” excuses governments have used over history to justify their actions. The legal system in this country today is one of the most successful pacification projects on a nation yet conducted. In Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Soviet Union it was in your face. Here it is so subtle. When I question people about this, they say “but what can I do” not in a way to make change but that there is nothing that they can do about it and it is inevitable. These responses are also from relatives who grew up and lived in the Eastern Bloc. Just think of how many people were killed on 9/11 and compare it against the number of people the police have killed in our country since then and also how many innocent people have been killed by our forces worldwide. But it’s for your safety. I am being sarcastic.

  31. Great video on what the ACA really achieves! Buck, Mathius, Todd and Charlie could learn something here :) http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&aref=ur0&mpid=105&load=9172

    • Mathius™ says:

      Am I the only one who finds it obnoxious when someone tells me that I “could learn something here” as I’m some stupid kid who needs to learn a thing or two?

      Maybe I’m being overly sensitive.

      • Relax! At least you didn’t get called Alinsky, and I’m on his team! :)

        • Mathius™ says:

          I don’t know.. it just comes of as condescending.

          And I don’t care to be condescended to.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            It has NOTHING to do with your age (I consider you quite smart), It’s all about your Left leaning tendencies, which I think you will realize the err’s of your ways soon enough :)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Perhaps your judgment on the question should depend on whether the post was actually “new” information and thus educational in some way.

        If you did learn something then why would it be condescending??

        Is it because there is an “assumption” that you don’t know??

        I agree with Anita on this one. Perhaps your a little overly sensitive these days.

        Now the million dollar question is WHY!

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Maybe the old Republican guard should defect to the Dem Party. That is one way for the Dems to become a more moderate group.

    Boehner could lead the movement. I would be glad to volunteer to help fill the empty seats he leaves behind.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/john-boehner-conservative-groups-have-lost-all-credibility-20131212

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Maybe there is something to be learned from the North Koreans. I think GMan must have been there “consulting” lately.

    http://news.msn.com/world/north-korea-says-it-has-executed-kims-uncle

    I am just “guessing” there is far more to this story than we will ever know.

  34. 911 to VH !!

    It’s time for you to report in! ;)

  35. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • It would be nice if the insurance companies failed to comply. They are between a rock and a hard place to begin with. Sebelius is “strongly suggesting” they break the law…again. If they all stood together and said no..and if people continue to fail to sign up, what can HHS do? Lots of people will go without coverage, but with the high deductibles the coverage is useless to most people anyway.

  36. First, South Carolina now Georgia. Starting to see a trend here. This could be the end of Obamacare if enough States take this route. http://visiontoamerica.com/16398/legislators-introducing-bill-to-nullify-obamacare-in-georgia/

  37. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Scott Walker in Wisconsin has proposed an interesting alternative to Obamacare as well. It is likely to become State Law there.

  38. Now this is a serious matter. Buck and Mathius, when I reference Welfare queens, these are the types of people I’m speaking of. I’m not talking about those who need temporary help or get help because they have low paying jobs. In many of these cases, help is warranted. In this case, it is not:

    You may not know this, but Obama has an aunt living on welfare in Boston. She is also an illegal alien. But, worse, she says that we, the American people, are obligated to pay her way for free because she is simply entitled to our money with no effort required on her part.
    http://visiontoamerica.com/16394/obamas-illegal-immigrant-aunt-on-welfare-says-you-must-pay-her-way/

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      How about the POTUS back up his rhetoric about income redistribution and share part of his multi-million dollar income with his deadbeat relatives.

      • Because the socialist redistribution of income is about trickle up redistribution, not down. You really don’t think the wealthy Lefties really want to share do you? Hell no they don’t, they want everyone else to do it (which is why I laugh when I read stories about those who wanted healthcare for everyone, only to find out that they share in paying for it) :)

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Agreed. None had passed econ 101. How in any way could you include 30 million, now 50 million more people, whether coerced or not, into the system, remove any limits on care, increase items covered and no denial of pre-existing problem, and say the costs will go down. When pigs fly. The only way the costs will come down is if the government removes all the laws mandating coverage, remove insurance from a companies responsibility and allowing business tax deductions. Put it all on the INDIVIDUAL and costs will drop like a stone because people can not and will not pay for the extravagently inflated medical costs. I asked my Mom before she died, how much did it cost for her to have me and my brother back in the early 50′s. She said < $100 each and no insurance. She said it was natural, like getting a cold. A normal child birth today in the Wake County area costs $20K. That is within the normal child bearing years and there were no complications. Another personal example. 12 Years ago I landed in emergency for a issue that if not treated immediately could have lead to a heart attack or stroke. Spent 4.5 days in a private room, they ran every test imaginable trying to get to the root cause. The root cause is not relevent but the bill is. It totaled $9K. Not bad. However, two years later I had to have an MRI on 3 vertebrate in my back. The company had subsequently changed insurance carriers and they no longer allowed me to go to the local hospital. The MRI cost $9K for 45 minutes at the approved hospital. The previous 4.5 day visit had also included and MRI on the same region in my back and also my neck. Correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't Muslims exempt from the ACA?

  39. I have often put up videos of police being brutal and out of control. In this video, I agree with the police officer and commend him for his explanation to the public, which he did not have to do. Sadly, in out world, we have to have police, and most are good people trying to keep the peace.
    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/12/shut-lady-cops-arrest-worlds-annoying-woman-painful-video/

  40. This is a victory for VH and the pro-lifers! But there is more to the story. The lady who left the kid alone who shot and killed himself was very negligent, there’s no doubt about that (does she deserve jail for being stupid?). What is the difference when a woman is stupid and gets pregnant, only to kill the child through abortion? Should her stupidity also call for jail time?
    http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/inconvenient-numbers-dont-lie-math-abortion/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Last week I spent most of one day and part of another arguing with people over this at HP.

      The propaganda machine had obviously taken affect as the number of women commenting and using the “rape insurance” BS was astounding. When I explained the whole thing, the concept of insurance, etc. they just moved to the next talking point or ended it with calling my a Misogynist “TPublican”.

      The fun one was when they would resort to the typical “left wing female” response about Insurance covering Viagra or other ED medication. When I said I had no problem with men having to pay for an ED treatment rider for the same reason as the abortion rider, they were completely befuddled. At this point I was usually accused of being an “ignorant homeschooled TPublican”. Apparently these folks don’t realize how much better educated most home schooled kids are these days.

      The saddest part in that is that these people actually believe, or at least spout off, that treatment of ED is the SAME as an abortion.

  41. I don’t think this government could run a men’s bathroom without screwing it up :roll:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/man-claims-harassment-from-telemarketers-after-signing-up-for-obamacare.html

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    BUDGET DEAL (Drudge report)

    “The House passed the first bipartisan U.S. budget in four years yesterday, clearing the way for final Senate passage next week to ease $63 billion in spending cuts and avert another government shutdown.

    That doesn’t mean lawmakers are excited about it.

    The 332-94 vote in the House, where almost equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats voted for the plan, masked deep reluctance about the $1.01 trillion budget accord.”

    See there, 94 Republicans standing up for us, right??

    Ooops, 32 of those NO votes were Democrats. That leaves 62 Republicans who voted NO. Those from the Party of Fiscal Responsibility.

    This shows just how much MORE WORK we all have to do if we really want the problem fixed.

  43. Just A Citizen says:
  44. Just A Citizen says:

    BUSTED

    The ex FBI agent being held in Iran for the past 7 years was apparently working for the CIA, despite claims he was not.

    But get this. He was apparently working for a “Rogue Group of Analysts” with “No Authority” to conduct covert operations. Let alone operations inside Iran.

    “Rogue Group of Analysts”?? I wonder if Oliver North is back working for the Govt!
    :wink:

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    BUSTED

    For those who regularly engage in arguments with their Democrat friends, I suggest you study and commit to memory many of the facts presented.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/who_the_democrats_really_are.html

  46. http://godfatherpolitics.com/13578/court-orders-removal-veterans-memorial-cross/

    I would like anybody to explain why a cross (or other religious symbol) should not be allowed as part of a memorial on government land. Anybody at all :(

    • I don’t understand why there should be an issue. Then again, how many of those veterans were not Christian?

      If religious monuments are in places like parks or other public grounds, it is more in the interest of celebrating religion among the community.

      However, if it is something like the Ten Commandments posted at a courthouse or school, etc, then it is suggesting the law is representing a specific belief system over others.

      Parks are voluntary and for everyone’s recreation, ..whereas courthouses and schools are directly impacting people’s lives through force or indoctrination…err..umm.. I mean law and education.

      Here is a similar interesting article:

      http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-satan-monument-oklahoma-capitol-20131209,0,4274778.story#axzz2nMUthEB8

      • First, if a local govt wants to have a Christian symbol on the govt property, and the owners of the property (the citizens on the local area) are in favor of it, than it’s OK. That same local govt can also tell other religions, like the Satanists, to piss up a rope. So I don’t understand why its an issue either. Let the voters decide local issues, it’s their home.

        • If a local government tells Satanists to piss up a rope, but decorates their courthouse with the Ten Commandments, then it is clearly a form of religious persecution.

          Further, it is a direct contradiction to the Constitution which prohibits the state endorsement of a particular religion.

          A courthouse by itself says “represents citizens by law”.

          A courthouse that has the Ten Commandments says “represents [Christian] citizens by law”

          A courthouse that has Ten Commandments, Star of David, Pentagram, Star and Crescent, Buddha statue, etc says “represents [Christian,Jewish,Satanic,Muslim, and Buddhists] citizens by law”

          Just keep religion out of it and there are no issues.

          • Further, it is a direct contradiction to the Constitution which prohibits the state endorsement of a particular religion.

            BL, it says no such thing, nor does it even state anything BEYOND the Federal govt. You should read the Amendment, it is quite clear in it’s meaning, and it’s NOT what you state.

            Just keep religion out of it and there are no issues. Yes and no. If a community wants it, then so be it. If a person don’t like it, either ignore it or pack up and move. It should not be a matter in court, as it is not breaking any laws (or the Constitution).

            • Gman,

              The Constipation states that:

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              Since the wording is “Congress shall make no law…” I will have to concede on a technicality.

              HOWEVER, I will stand my position that, by not allowing others to also have a monument, it is indeed respecting the establishment of a religion, as well as prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

              So while congress made no law, Oklahoma simply did it without a law. It is the same difference outside of paper. And it is indeed a form of religious persecution if others cannot equally participate. It is sending a clear message that others are not considered equally, …a noninclusive position of arrogance and self righteousness.

              I read another article where the man tasked with the approving projects for such things, rejected the request immediately. When interviewed, he basically stated that the request was ridiculous because Satanists are crazy(or something like that).

              So, Christians aren’t crazy for their beliefs, but Satanists are? Who is he? God?

              ” If a person don’t like it, either ignore it or pack up and move. ”

              You sound like a typical liberal G. Please tell me you are kidding.

              Do you like the increasing size and scope of the federal government?

              Do I have to say it?
              ;)

              • Our Federal Govt sucks, need I say more. As far as religion and all this stuff going on, I like your mantra, live and let live. Hence, deal with it or move (this still stands for those who want communism, by the way). I can and will play by Liberal rules when dealing with Liberals. They don’t have the copyright on that kind of play. Until we learn to let their rules play against them, they will just keep winning :)

                it is indeed respecting the establishment of a religion, as well as prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. It is not a Congressional law, and it prohibits nothing. How does this prohibit the free exercise of anything?

                So while congress made no law, Oklahoma simply did it without a law.
                Oklahoma, based on the 10th Amendment has that authority (unless it fails their State constitution). The 1st Amendment ONLY covers the Federal govt and their actions. Remember, it’s intended to control the Feds, not the States. A State, in my mind, can make any religion a State religion, within the State. Only the Feds cannot do so, that is clearly written.

              • ” Our Federal Govt sucks, need I say more. As far as religion and all this stuff going on, I like your mantra, live and let live ”

                Live and let live works.

                To be honest, I don’t really care who puts what where or why. But I am rather enjoying indulging in principles of principalities.

                ” How does this prohibit the free exercise of anything? ”

                Because it is not win/win, but win/lose. It is contradictory to mutuality and the fundamental idea of the separation of church and state.

                If it is a mutually exclusive institution such as government, but not mutually exclusive with regard to free expression of religion, if it is one expressing while the other is prohibited, then it is prohibiting free expression of religion by some over others.

                It is state sanctioned territorial symbolic religious conquest.

                What are religious monuments doing at the courthouse anyway? Why the courthouse? Why not a park, in front of a church or in a public square?

                Why is there religion A monument in front of the courthouse, but religion B is denied, as if not taken seriously? Does religion C D or E have a monument they would like to contribute? Will it be taken seriously?

                Is it about celebrating religion or celebrating religion A?

                Is it about celebrating religion or celebrating the influence of religion A into legal practices? State law, or deity A?

              • Life ain’t always fair :wink: The monuments were there long before political correctness was even dreamed of. If a law was being broken, that would be different, but none are. The only win seems to be coming from those who are attacking Christianity. Notice in the original article, the lawsuit WASN”T about the other religious symbols?

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            It the religous display on government property is permanent, ie the ten commandments carved in stone, it should be outlawed per the constitution. It the display is temporary granted by permit during a specific period of time, like Christmas, Ramadan etc, it should be permitted. That shows the people the amount of diversity that is in their community, whether you agree with or follow it or not. It’s temporary like a parade. Exception, the permanent grave markers in a military cemetery. Each faith, if known, is shown on the headstone.

            • it should be outlawed per the constitution

              Pease tell me how this even remotely true?

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
                My opinion, in a courthouse carving in stone the Judeo/Christian religious laws pushes the establishment of religion. I’ll play devils advocate here. Sharia religious law permits honor killings, Morman religious law allows multiple wives just to name two cases where the government, ie Civil Law has prohibited the free exercise of a religion. They’re abridging the freedom of speech by intimidation, NSA spying, Freedom of the press by seizing records, leaked information, peaceful assembly by denying a permit citing safety as the reason for denial

              • I am “mostly” in agreement with you. Our Government today is a mess. Please understand I’m only arguing based on the language of the Constitution. The Government is clearly acting outside of document.

                Now, about the religious/government stuff. Let’s be real here, our country was founded and based on Christianity and the morals of said religion. I’m OK with that. We are also the “melting pot” of the world so to speak, which means we have all kinds of different people and beliefs. It benefits our country to have one set of laws and those laws have a long standing basis, Christianity. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq aren’t going to change their laws to accomodate any other religion besides Islam. That is the way it is there and we have what we have here. It’s simply impossible to have laws that respect all religions and religious practices all wrapped up in one country. See my response to BL. This is what we are as a country. Our laws are based on Christianity. If you want to live under different laws based on a different religion, you are free to pack your bags and move to a place where you can be happy. This country doesn’t, nor shouldn’t, have to change it’s laws because someone from a different way of life moves here. It’s on them to change, period :)

                My opinion, in a courthouse carving in stone the Judeo/Christian religious laws pushes the establishment of religion.

                I agree with your statement, but so what? It’s not illegal or against the Constitution. It’s only a problem for those who want to change things to their way of thinking. Simply put, they are better served by just ignoring it. What’s next, remove crosses from churches and hospitals? They can be seen as well. Or maybe demand we can’t fly the American flag, on our privately owned flagpole, because it offends somebody? Sorry, but that ain’t happening, nor should this countries history of Christianity as the basis of it’s laws and it’s success be changed because of anybody getting offended. Like I said, don’t like it here, pack up and leave!

              • For the record, I’m not what one would consider “religious”, in many peoples minds. Just sayin :)

              • For the record, part 2, LOL. People who want to change hundreds of years of history because they don’t agree with it now, are trying to force their will upon others. Most “OTHERs” have no issue with the statue of the 10 Commandments or a Cross at a monument. Remember, Progressives want power, absolute power. They want to be worshipped, not some God from some religion. There is no fear in a peaceful people, but there is a war brewing with those who want those peaceful people to change their lives to accommodate Progressives. We are on the verge of a Civil War, right now, it’s a Cold Civil War. But it’s brewing.

  47. Now what? http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/radiation-alerts-hit-u-s-cities/

    How would Fukushima be fixed? Hit with a nuke and burn up all the radioactive rods?

  48. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/20131212_Pa__house_passes_bill_authorizing_coyote_bounty.html

    I laughed my ass off at what the opponents had to say, what utter ignorance. :roll:

  49. G,

    What section of the US Constitution are the Ten Commandments?
    ;)

    • You know the answer, LOL. That shouldn’t matter, as having a Christian monument or a plaque with the Ten Commandments doesn’t violate the Constitution. The fact that you and others believed so shows that the perception, based on propaganda, is real. However, it breaks no laws or the Constitution, period.

      My point was in discussing the law, not the religious aspect. It was about a Cross at a Vet Memorial, that’s been there since 1913. No laws are being broken, just because some asshole judges practice judicial activism doesn’t make it LAW either. This can be stopped, by people just saying NO!

    • Where in the Constitution are the words “separation of church and state”?

      Who do you give thanks to on Thanksgiving?

      Declaration of Independence
      Gettysburg Address
      National Anthem
      Coins
      State Constitutions of all 50 states
      Pledge of Allegiance
      Liberty Bell
      Oath of Office…Holy Bible..So help me God

      COURT DECISIONS: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
      *1844: Christianity is part of our common law in “this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public.”

      Need more? ;)

      • Been trying to figure out how to say this so work with me here…

        A person’s religious beliefs dictate how they approach life. How can you expect someone to disregard their beliefs while governing? …or…Let’s say a candidate ran his campaign on an atheist platform…do you really think he would be voted into office? I’m confident the answer is no. Also consider that 80% of the country identifies as Christian. It follows that we would expect our leaders to fall back on their beliefs to guide them in making decisions. I don’t see how you can separate the two.

        • ” A person’s religious beliefs dictate how they approach life. How can you expect someone to disregard their beliefs while governing?”

          I don’t. I argue in favor of equality and tolerance of the beliefs of others.

          Look at our entire conversation. Note how my position has been consistent with equality, while you and Gman are defending Christianity. What does it say?

          ” …or…Let’s say a candidate ran his campaign on an atheist platform…do you really think he would be voted into office? I’m confident the answer is no. ”

          Why not? Why do we live in a society that claims freedom of religion, but has a double standard that you must be Christian to win elections?

          ” Also consider that 80% of the country identifies as Christian.”

          Actually, I think it is more like a 60/40 split. 60% being Christian and 40% other.

          ” It follows that we would expect our leaders to fall back on their beliefs to guide them in making decisions. I don’t see how you can separate the two. ”

          I am arguing from the position that everyone should be allowed to participate.

          Perhaps I am failing too properly articulate my point. I will try an example to demonstrate…

          I went into a Catholic/Christian chat room a few months ago. I entered into the middle of a gay bashing session which was premised upon the Christian god deeming homosexuality as an “Abomination”, thus justifying an anti-gay marriage legal position.

          After a minute or two, I made the point that I agree that gay is unnatural, and then asked what does the gay people’s god say about homosexuality. The response was that god said gays are an “Abomination”.

          I further discerned the difference by asking ” I know YOUR god said they are an abomination, but what does THEIR god say about it? ” The response was that there is one god that says gays are an “Abomination”.

          I further pointed out that it was not about gay, but rather rights, and that everyone has a right to choose which god to believe in and which set of values to live by, …which does not necessarily include Christianity…and that unless gay people are violating them, they have no real argument, and no right to impose/force their values through law.

          I pissed them off and was banned.

          They could not understand the concept of tolerance of another belief system, or recognize the right/free will of others to believe and practice as they choose. They only exhibited a self righteous justification to impose upon others.

          I have had been doing a bit of research and have had many similar such conversations. My research indicates there are tens of millions of people all across the USA that think this way. They vote and fill positions such as teachers and social workers, judges and policemen, etc.

          And their beliefs are guiding them to impose their values upon others, and with no apparent self awareness of it.

          It shows up in things like not only the gay marriage issue, but instances like the Satanists being ridiculed, dismissed and told ‘too bad, …your beliefs are illegitimate”
          …or things like the local Christians in my home town getting into local politics and harassing gentleman’s clubs. …or Sunday liquor laws, etc.

          When I argue in favor of equality tolerance and respect for the other 40% of Americans, I am met with every type of fierce resistance, stubbornness, ridicule, bigotry, insults and defensive self righteousness you can think of.

          Many simply refuse to be reasonable.

          We are supposed to live in a country that celebrates diversity and values tolerance of others, respect for rights and protection thereof.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            BL, remember this was about a judge and a cross at a memorial . My point, the judge had no legal authority to Order it removed, as it was not unlawful, even on govt land. I think my point has been proven. I live the “live and let live” ideology. But that means “don’t tread on me” as well. I fight back. :)

            • ” BL, remember this was about a judge and a cross at a memorial. ”

              …which is one example of a larger issue that I find rather interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.

              ” My point, the judge had no legal authority to Order it removed, as it was not unlawful, even on govt land. I think my point has been proven.”

              I think you also understood mine, which was compatible and in general agreement with yours.

              ” I live the “live and let live” ideology. ”

              Right on. Let people put up their atheist billboards, ten commandments, pentagrams or nothing. No big deal…it’s whatever.

              ” But that means “don’t tread on me” as well. I fight back ”

              Against what? Tolerance? Live and let live? Diversity? Equality?

              I understand that the judge ordering the cross taken down is a move against a Christian monument, but is me arguing a cross should stay up, or that Satanists should have equal right to religious expression, somehow a threat to your beliefs?

              I suppose what I am trying to convey is that I know I am sometimes a little blunt, and don’t want you to feel as if I am attacking yours or anyone’s beliefs.

              For the record …Whatever mention of accusations I make against Christians is not about attack, but rather in the interest of identifying a root issue, and thus a solution.
              Ya know …a hearty discussion about principles of principalities.

              I advocate the right of Christians to celebrate and practice their beliefs as much as anyone else, just not OVER or AGAINST others.

      • Very,Very Well Said. :) :) :) :)

        • Why thank you G. Wanted to agree on some of your posts too but saw my name on the recent comments too much. :)

          Inside work done. My turn to shovel. 3 on the ground already and steady snowing..get the snow shoveled then off to the sledding hills with a pack of teen boys. It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas….

      • COURT DECISIONS: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
        *1844: Christianity is part of our common law in “this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public.”

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

        ” …shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”
        ” Christianity is part of our common law in “this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted… ”

        “…or abridging the freedom of speech,…”
        “…therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against,…”

        Congress didn’t make a law. The Supreme Court set a legal precedent. So it isn’t still the state “respecting the establishment of a religion, ..or abridging the freedom of speech ” ?

        If Christianity is PART of common law, and legally declared a ‘divine truth’, what is that implying about the 40% of US non-Christians? Does this imply their beliefs are illegitimate in the eyes of the judicial branch of the federal government?

        Thank you for sharing Anita. It helps to demonstrate the theocratic nature of the US.

        • Call it what you want brother. But you have moved the goalposts on me. You don’t like the fact that we were founded on Christian principles, so you argue what you think it should be..which totally switches the argument. I have presented my evidence..which you can’t dispute..and in fact blew off. (80% came from wiki btw). The fact that there are so many documents referencing God,and so many founders, judges, and modern day pols reference God, leads me to believe you are overthinking and making it complicated. …and you called G the whiny liberal? I know this sounds harsh but I couldn’t soften the blow any better. No offense intended ;)

          • ” I know this sounds harsh but I couldn’t soften the blow any better. No offense intended ”

            Oh, none taken. By all means, please be frank with me. I very much appreciate forth-righteousness. I think we have had enough discussions to where we are kinda beyond that anyway.

            *hugs to you, Anita*

            ” Call it what you want brother. But you have moved the goalposts on me. ”

            You put it out there, sis. I just broke it down.

            “You don’t like the fact that we were founded on Christian principles, so you argue what you think it should be..which totally switches the argument.”

            Re-read above. I am demonstrating a contradiction between the founding principles in the constitution and SCOTUS ruling regarding Christianity. It sets a legal precedent against the intent of the first amendment by declaring Christianity as a legal truth. It also recognizes via implying with the use of the word ‘part’, that there are other accepted beliefs. If it is part of beliefs, but declared truth, by order of reason, it implies the OTHER PART is not truth, thus suggesting they are not legitimate.

            Are there similar declarations with regard to other religions? The OTHER PARTS?
            Can you find any with the same wording, only different religions?

            ” I have presented my evidence..which you can’t dispute..and in fact blew off.”

            lol

            ” (80% came from wiki btw). ”

            I have found references ranging from 60-80%. It does not shake the premise of my stated position. To quote majority is to suggest justification for disregard of the minority, which is in contrast to the idea of equal protections respects and proclamations of the founding principles of this ‘great’ principality.

            ” The fact that there are so many documents referencing God,and so many founders, judges, and modern day pols reference God, leads me to believe you are overthinking and making it complicated.”

            I think I am wearing you and G out. I also think that if you knew what little I know, you might understand my interest.

            ” …and you called G the whiny liberal? ”

            …in jest. ..and I think it was ‘typical liberal’.
            :)

  50. It’s bigger than the USA BL! Come on..just let it be..you can do it! He offers peace to the world..what’s so bad about that? Everyone can use a huge helping of PEACE ;)

  51. RE: The Atheist billboard in Times Square, NYC.

    I saw the guy who paid for the billboard on TV early this morning. My original thoughts on the billboard were indifferent. Everyone is entitled to believe as they chose. The guy on TV basically made an idiot of himself. He asked why do we have all this Jesus stuff crammed down our throat during the Holiday’s? Apparently, he don’t understand why we have Christmas to begin with so right off he loses credibility. then he went on to say that he don’t care if he offends people. That too is all fine and good, because life works both ways. I did like the end when Hannity wished him a Merry Christmas, that was classic (I don’t care if I offend you either) moment.

    If you don’t believe, don’t celebrate. If you don’t like how others celebrate, tough shit. There ain’t no law saying someone can’t be offended. I refuse to say Happy Holiday’s. It’s MERRY CHRISTMAS, loud and proud :) :) :)

  52. ” Life ain’t always fair. ”

    Of course.

    ” The monuments were there long before political correctness was even dreamed of. ”

    So, it is about whoever gets there first, wins?

    ” If a law was being broken, that would be different, but none are. ”

    Because the law says so, it is right?

    ” Notice in the original article, the lawsuit WASN”T about the other religious symbols?”

    I agree that it was not in the interest of equality. …but ya know what they say…life ain’t always fair.

    ” The only win seems to be coming from those who are attacking Christianity. ”

    If I were the judge of the fate of the memorial in California, I would rule in favor of keeping the cross there, and it isn’t really about law or time. The cross is there in the interest of memorializing, paying respects to fallen soldiers. It is in the proper place, and harming no one. There is nothing pushy or encroaching about it. It is done in good taste and sacred honor. I think whoever is doing the bitching should exhibit tolerance. My only question is if there are people of other faiths who have an equal interest in the memorial who are being snuffed out. If not, what’s the problem?

    It is a little different than if it were atop the courthouse. The Satanists got snuffed in Oklahoma for no legitimate reason.

    I kinda find the whole argument silly in some respects. Consider this:

    Take a look at the Ten Commandments of Christianity, then do the same with the Satanic commandments.

    You will notice that Satanists believe in respecting other people’s homes/property/’lair’. This is IMHO, is very Golden Rule-ish. It is compatible with Christianity. It sounds like something Jesus would agree with.

    Another interesting example is the similarity in the reasoning behind Muslim and Christian culture with regard to marriage. Young women covering up starting when they reach puberty and promoting premarital abstinence, is done for the same fundamental reasons fundamentalist Christians promote premarital abstinence.

    It is all about keeping it about love, respect and honor instead of lust. It is about promotion of a deeper spiritual union between man and woman. It is about focusing and building on the very things that make it work, and not building a relationship upon just lust/sex.

    Such principles make me wonder why people are arguing and competing instead of working towards respecting each other’s way of life, and recognizing that we are not so different, and in fact have compatibility.

    So what’s the problem?

    A: We humans attach our ego to everything and become territorial, including with religion and politics.

    Why?

    A: Because we are hardwired to do so.

    Why?

    A: Because we are sophisticated monkeys.

    How do we manage it?

    A: I dunno. But I think a Live and Let Live/Golden Rule approach/strategy would help.

    • Great conversation. I do agree we are ultimately on the same page. Times are changing and I think we are gonna see more people stand up and say no to this kind of stuff.

      • Indeed, a great conversation.

        I don’t really care about legal institutions, religious monuments, or much of anything. I do enjoy the thought exercise, indulging the disastrous quagmire that inevitably occurs when you mix law, human nature and religion. It raises a lot of interesting questions about how to get along.

        And I agree with your prediction of these types of things becoming more frequent. It may ultimately turn out be a healthy thing as to help define how we manage.

        ..just a thought.

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    The CROSS and the War Memorial

    Sometimes it helps to do some research.

    Seems the Court was well within its “LEGAL AUTHORITY” to demand removal of this Cross.

    Largely because all those involved in its construction have been playing games for decades and they MISSED a chance to have it designated as “historical” in nature many years ago.

    Note, it is primarily the California Constitution and the “voters will” that created the legal basis for its removal.

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

    • Did the cross violate or impose upon anyone?

      Is it somehow an obstruction or in irreparable decay, or somehow a safety hazard?

      What was the most basic premise for its removal?

      It appears because someone[s] wanted it removed on account of the first amendment..which is a distortion of the real intent. The cross was part of a public memorial, not a government legal institution. It was not in context of representing government establishment of religion, but rather the faith of the fallen.

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    The ONLY critical question regarding this cross from a Federal Standpoint is whether the presence of a Cross at a Monument clearly presents the impression or understanding among the PEOPLE that the Govt has sanctioned Christianity as the ONLY ACCEPTABLE religions to the STATE, as in FEDERAL GOVT.

    It obviously does not create such a belief since the Govt does nothing to enforce its “established church/religion”.

    The Constitutional ban applies to Congress, not the States. That is up to their Constitutions.

    Well at least this is the way it SHOULD HAVE BEEN handled.

    • I don’t really see the purpose of these folks who want to get rid of religious symbols to begin with. To me, all it accomplishes is animosity and at some point, hatred. They are blinded by their own hatred to understand this, so we go forward.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Agreed….Why is it allowed for those that are offended by the sight of a religious symbol to be able to impose their views on those that are not offended. That is just as tyrannical as a state mandated religion.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Changing the subject just a little. In Vermont roadside crosses were removed where there had been an accident with death occurring. They were put up by private citizens as a memorial. Courts ordered their removal based on the alleged clause in the constitution of the separation of church and state. In North Carolina, however there is no problem. Actually they are great indicators of hazardous intersections. The more crosses or memorials there are, the more dangerous the road is.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            We have them as well in Pennsylvania and Ohio. I don’t see a problem with them at all, but it does make grass cutting a problem, but the highway workers simply move, mow, and put them back. To my knowledge, they have the choice whether to put them back in place or not. Seems they are good people!

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              How much snow did you get? Here in coastal Carolina it’s 56 and sunny. In the mid 60′s yesterday. Deer hunting here is not worth it. Size of a large dog. Have to drive over to the Appalachian Mountains/Blue Ridge.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We got 6 inches yesterday, with another inch or two today/tonight. Normal weather for us. Our deer are good sized, average adult buck will run about 180 live weight.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The socialist/progressive/communist movement had to destroy the peoples faith in religion to succeed. Religion basically says to, have faith in the here-after, that that it is better in heaven than on earth. In other words, life can suck, things are not always fair but it will be better. The socialist/progressives/communists say forget that religious faith business on the here-after, have faith in us that we’ll create heaven on earth while you live and breath. After the great socialist experiments fail article on the revival of religion
            ….http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/53/53019.pdf

  55. You will see all crosses removed eventually from all cemeteries. You can deny it, blather about it, say it will never happen but in your heart, down deep, you know that it will. It is just a matter of time and a few more law suits. It is called incrementalism. The bad guys will ultimately win because there are no good guys left.

  56. Just A Citizen says:

    Federal judge has struck down PART of the Utah Polygamy laws. The ban on “cohabitation” but not Multiple “legal” marriages.

    I found the story on CNN. There are the expected Oh My God marriage has been destroyed, I told you so, etc, etc. Only a few comments supporting the notion of Freedom to marry multiple partners. But several comments from the “Progressive” types who were appalled. And following is a comment that capture the REASON they are upset that one man could have multiple wives.

    “We need a 2-3 child ‘one child policy’. I hate to say it, but China is way ahead of the game here.

    This thing we have now, where only the dumb people are breeding, and the smart responsible people are holding off on having kids because they can’t afford them…The end result of that process is our country being enslaved like S Africa because we can no longer defend it.

    We also can’t keep letting our women and men have children after the age of 30 or so. The eggs are rotten by that point; it’s a long genetics conversation, but the generational result of that process is the same as the above. We are seeing the effects today in the higher rates of Autism and Retardation.

    We need the government to pay for any young couple who wants to have a small number of children then to mandate they tie their tubes. This would require higher taxes.

    By the way, STOP paying women to leave their men. A woman with a man in the house is eligible for less services, even if he’s unemployed. The logical result is a lot of women who would prefer their children have a father being forced to kick him out so the can eat.”

    OMG………..WE NEED A LAW…………. :evil:

    • I would say that any man that wants more than ONE wife at a time is quite insane :) I do think that multiple marriages will eventually be allow (to coddle Muslims). I don’t have a problem with it personally, let them have at it.

    • # 1. Don’t register your religious marriage. You are therefore “married” in the eyes of your religion but co-habitating for the government’s purpose. Simple!

      # 2 Shut down the immigration for the poor and uneducated. You will not have a problem, with overpopulation and excessive breeding. The first generation of immigrants still thinks they need seven kids to tend the goats and plow the south 40. you will also cut crime and make education better and cheaper.

      #3 After doing # 2, pay people to have kids. The current “benefit” for having kids tax wise is a joke. The smarter folks think long term and look at College costs. You gotta start saving asap so do more to help that.

      #4 In the ’60′s we made it impossible for a man to stay in the house if the family needed welfare. Perhaps the “ground zero” of destruction of minority families and placing blacks back into something tantamount to slavery.

      • Regarding the above, check out this james Earl Jones movie which really gets into the welfare problem of the late ’60′s and ’70′s.

        • Something went wrong there. Try again.

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071334/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_167

          Movie is called “Claudine” and is about a welfare Mom of six or so who meets a Sanitation man who wants to marry her and the insane bureaucratic crap they have to go through. As an aside and to give some of you (unnamed) to snipe at yet another anecdote , my cousin, Bob married a girl on welfare back in the early ’70′s and was advised by the Social Workers NOT to adopt her kids. That way they would still be eligible for benefits. he didn’t pay too much attention to that, married Gloria, adopted the kids and gave them his name.

  57. Can someone please translate this for me?

    If we have a system where the government is going to be the principal provider of health care for the country, we’re done. Because then, you are dependent on the government for your life and your health…When Thatcher ran for prime minister she said — remember this, this is the Iron Lady — she said, ‘The British national health care system is safe in my hands.’ She wasn’t going to take on health care, because she knew once you have people getting free health care from the government, you can’t take it away from them. And the reason is because most people don’t get sick, and so free health care is just that, free health care, until you get sick. Then, if you get sick and you don’t get health care, you die and you don’t vote. It’s actually a pretty clever system. Take care of the people who can vote and people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care so they can’t vote against you. That’s how it works.
    -Rick “Do not Google My Last Name” Santorum

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Politicians use health care, like everything else, as a means of buying VOTES. And in this case making sure those votes are around to purchase.

      Public Choice Theory

      Another version: Welfare is ADDICTING. The only means of getting a FIX, once addicted, is to keep sending the same pushers to the office of power.

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    There is something both warming and chilling about this story.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-weve-prevented-148-shootings-attacks-this-year/

    • Sounds like another bullshit excuse to model society after “Nineteen Eighty Four”.

      Another thing it could do is clean up it’s mess from all the secret programs over the last several decades, at least the ones using people as guinea pigs.

      They should probably also investigate the nature and motivation of the crimes better. It’s a bit peculiar how the lone shooter/bomber ‘types’ follow a pattern of circumstances and behavior. For whatever reason, it just looks …induced…patterned, as if part of something larger in scope.

      How many people did that sort of thing a hundred [plus] years ago? Why so frequent in modern time by comparison? Why are they so similar? Why would someone want to go shoot up a bunch of innocent people?

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    Something fun in my inbox this morning, from my Cousin. Its a Swedish Thang, this linkage to Minnesota.

    Minnesota

    Just in case ya didn’t know…

    Minnesota became the 32nd state on May 11, 1858 and was originally settled by a lost tribes of Swedes seeking refuge from the searing heat of Wisconsin ‘s winters.

    Minnesota gets it’s name from the Sioux Indian word “mah-nee-soo-tah,” meaning, “No, really…!!!! They eat fish soaked in lye.”

    The state song of Minnesota is “Someday the Vikings will… Aw, never mind.”

    The Mall of America in Bloomington , Minnesota covers 9.5 million square feet and has enough space to hold 185,000 idiot teenagers yapping away on cell phones.

    Madison, Minnesota is known as “the lutefisk capital of the world.” Avoid this city at all costs.

    “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” was set in Minneapolis , Minnesota , and was Mary’s first real acting job since leaving the “Dick van Dyke Show. The show about a single woman’s struggle to find happiness in the big city was originally titled “Life Without Dick,” but that was changed for some reason.

    Downtown Minneapolis has an enclosed skyway system covering 52 blocks, allowing people to live, work, eat, and sleep without ever going outside. The only downside to this is that a Swede occasionally turns up missing.

    Cartoonist Charles M. Shultz was born in Minneapolis , Minnesota and grew up in St. Paul. He was the only artist to accurately depict the perfectly circular heads of Minnesota natives.

    The Hormel Company of Austin , Minnesota produces 6 million cans of Spam a year, even though no one actually eats it. Spam is a prized food in Japan & Hawaii–Spam sushi!!

    Minnesota license plates are blue & white and contain the phrase “Blizzards on the 4th of July – you get used to it.”

    Frank C. Mars, founder of the Mars Candy Co. was born in Newport, Minnesota . His 3 Musketeers candy bar originally contained three bars in one wrapper, each filled with a different flavor of nougat -chocolate, Spam and lutefisk.

    Tonka trucks continue to be manufactured in Minnetonka, Minnesota, despite the thousands of GI Joe dolls killed by them annually in rollover accidents. No airbags, no seat belts. These things are deathtraps, I tell ya!

    Author Laura Ingalls Wilder was raised at Walnut Grove, Minnesota, and was famous for writing the “Little House” series of books, as well as inventing the “Spam diet” which consists of looking at a plate of Spam until you lose your appetite. Much like the “lutefisk diet”

    The snowmobile was invented in Roseau , Minnesota so as to allow families a means of attending 4th of July picnics

    Minnesotans are almost indistinguishable from Wisconsinites. The only way to tell them apart is to ask if they voted for Mondale in ’84.

    Now… it’s up to you to forward this to all your friends If one of them does not forward it to others, he/she will be given an entrance pin to attend the Eelpout Festival in Walker, MN….in February —

    Cold is a relative thing ya know….

    At 65 degrees, Arizonans turn on the heat. People in Minnesota plant gardens.
    At 50, Californians shiver uncontrollably. People in Minnesota sunbathe.
    At 40, Italian & English cars won’t start. People in Minnesota drive with the windows down.
    At 30, Georgians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats. People in Minnesota throw on a flannel shirt.
    At 25, New York landlords finally turn up the heat. People in Minnesota have the last cookout before it gets cold.
    At 10, People in Miami all die. Minnesotans close their windows.
    At 0, Californians fly away to Mexico . People in Minnesota get out their winter coats.
    At 20 below zero, Hollywood disintegrates. The Girl Scouts in Minnesota are selling cookies door to door.
    At 40 below, Washington DC runs out of hot air. (Ya think? Nah.). People in Minnesota let their dogs sleep indoors.
    At 70 below, Santa Claus abandons the North Pole. Minnesotans get upset because they can’t start the snowmobile.
    At 200 below, ALL atomic motion stops. People in Minnesota start saying…”Cold enough for ya, eh?”
    At 250 below, hell freezes over. Minnesota public schools open 2 hours late.

    • Actually, not too far off. Was 5 degrees yesterday and my daughter and I shopped at an outdoor-type outlet mall. It was packed. Yes, we had “light” coats on, so that we wouldn’t get too warm when we went inside the stores. On our way out, met a man coming in wearing shorts and a hooded sweatshirt (Packer, of course).

    • Arizona turns the heat on at 65? What the hell takes them so long?

  60. Your laugh for the day at the expense of these liberal “elites”:

    http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2013/12/peak-schadenfreude-alert.html

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Yup, sounds like a perfectly good reason to steal and squander the wealth of your citizens. Wonder how many people they can feed with all that “status”??

    “China’s moon probe is a way to exhibit to the world that we have acquired advanced space technology, which is more sophisticated than nuclear technology, and it is also a way to win international recognition as a big power,” said He Qisong, a space expert at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

  62. :) Hi, miss you guys -be back soon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: