The Death of Whiners and CryBabies

dem-crying-baby-sealYou know, I am a fairly blunt and straightforward guy. I tell it the way I see it. And while I do a pretty fair job, in my own humble opinion, of being a kinder and gentler USWeapon when discussing things on my blog, sometimes it is tough. You see…. I despise whining and crying and people getting their feelings hurt over something that they should not have any issue with. So while I intend to be ethical and moral in my foundations for a new way forward, I have determined that I will abandon those priciples when it comes to people’s feelings and political correctness. A USWeapon administration will abolish political correctness and move whining and being a crybaby up on the offense scale to the level of treason. Punishable by death. The American mentality shall be reinforced in Americans and the time for weakness is over.

This started for me many years ago. The first time that I was told that I was not permitted to discuss politics with anyone. And that literally means we are not supposed to talk about it to anyone. We don’t want anyone to get their feelings hurt by exposing their fragile ears to points of view that may be different than their own. I accepted that for about a year or two before I started wondering why this was pushed by everyone. Then it struck me… my little aha moment around politics. The politicians were the ones who started that little trend of making it taboo to talk politics. It was a genius move. Let’s look at history. The revolution our founders had spread through word of mouth, organized in pubs, businesses, and social gatherings. They didn’t want the people to be able to do that again. The best way for politicians to remain in power was to ensure that the voting public remained divided.

Party MuggersAs a divided country, one side would always be willing to step forth and defend the politicians from the other side. Without that protection and division, the people would come together and take the parasites in the federal government out of power when they acted inappropriately. So they made it taboo to discuss politics. The sowed the seeds of division. Once divided, the inability to discuss things would make it impossible for the two sides to ever come together and realize that the problem was the folks in Washington, not the every day folks in the other party. And this plan, as I said, was genius. And it has worked flawlessly. Folks from the right blow Chris off as a liberal who has no clue. Folks from the left blow me off as a conservative who has no clue. And nothing ever gets fixed. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

And born from this understanding was Stand Up For America, a web site dedicated to intelligent discourse from both sides without the disrespect that the politicians have created within their parties. A site where a liberal can be told respectfully why their idea of income redistribution is fundamentally wrong. A site where a christian can be told respectfully why their intention to force their beliefs on others is fundamentally wrong. A place where liberals can be told respectfully that the MSM is as biased and dishonest as the day is long. A place where conservatives can be told respectfully that talk radio phenoms like Rush and Savage are as biased and dishonest as the day is long. Each side doesn’t like to hear these truths. Each side rebels against these facts and argues their points. But this is all done respectfully. We are breaking down the walls of political allegiance and looking for real solutions (At least some of us are).

That was a quick digression from the point of this post. The point is that I have grown sick and tired of all the people in America who are whining and bitching and crying that their feelings are hurt. Man up people. Let me give you a few quick examples of what I am talking about….

Crying SantaIn Montgomery County, Maryland, the mayor of Kensington discontinued the long-standing tradition of having Santa arrive on a fire truck to light the Christmas Tree at the community’s annual ceremony. Two families felt “uncomfortable” with Santa being part of the event because they “don’t celebrate Christmas,” so the mayor gave Santa the boot. You don’t like Santa, don’t go to the fracking parade. Will it surprise you that the two families were the only two muslim families living in the town. What was it someone said about giving them special treatment will make them into outcasts? With stories like this throughout the country, is it any wonder christians have trouble accepting muslims into their communities?

Schools across the country have made it a punishable offense to say a prayer to one’s self in school. It makes the other kids in school feel “uncomfortable”. It only takes one complaint from one family in a community to get christmas trees, santa claus, christmas decorations, etc. banned from a school in a heartbeat. However, do you think that a slew of families objecting to a student wearing a muslim head wrap would cause a school to banish this religious display? At the same time, as we have seen, no one seems to care if a large number of people are uncomfortable with certain subjects, such as the LGBT issues, being taught. Praying…. not part of the agenda. LGBT… part of the agenda. Praying…. one child protesting is enough to ban it. LGBT….. half the population protesting is not enough to stop it.

It's OK xMas ButtonThe destruction of the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Need I say more? I don’t think so but I will anyway. How many of you, in your companies, have been forbidden to use this innocuous greeting during the holiday season. I have to admit that several years ago I eliminated the term “happy holidays” from my vocabulary. I give two shits about christmas to be honest. But the idea that someone gets their feelings hurt because I wish them well using words they don’t like boils my blood. You don’t like “Merry Christmas”? The alternative is “Frack Off”. Choose Wisely. To be honest if you are so petty that my saying merry christmas really does ruin your day, then I have to admit that I am fairly pleased that I ruined a petty person’s day. I hope their tomorrow is shitty too.

Man Swatting FlyAnd perhaps the most ridiculous of the ones that I have heard lately. During an interview the President swatted and killed a fly. A common pest that annoys every single one of us when they are around. The President swatted a fly. And the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) came out and made a statement that they are disappointed with the President for doing so. Are you kidding me. It is at this point that PETA has lost their ever loving minds. You are upset because the President swatted a fly. And they wanted, and received, an apology from the White House. I guess apologies come easier to this White House than most, but really? For killing a fly? PETA…. Shut the hell up and worry about real issues like abused dogs and cats, tortured animals, etc. You won’t get another dime from my household so long as you are this fracking stupid.

During the lead up to the Presidential inauguration, a group of atheists petitioned to have the swearing in and invocation banned from the ceremony because they, as atheists are offended at the mention of the word “God”. They attempted this same thing during the lead up to the Bush inauguration. Look jerk-offs, you are not being tied to a chair and forced to watch the inauguration. If the invocation offends you, turn the dang channel. I respect your right to believe (or in this case not believe) whatever you like. But you being offended is petty and shows you to be a weak link. It is my sincere hope that my social darwinism breeds out your weak minded gene from the pool.

Banned FlagI saw a couple of weeks ago that a woman in Texas, who has a daughter in Iraq and who has two sons and a husband who served in the military, put up an American Flag in her office to celebrate memorial day. One person on the staff in her place of employment complained, and she was told by senior management that she had to take down the flag. This one bothers me more than most. I will go on record and say that I would fight to keep my flag up all the way to the Supreme Court. Telling people that they cannot fly their flag is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen. You can be told that you cannot fly the American flag in AMERICA. Can you imagine how quickly the Supreme Court would strike down an order to take down a flag from another country in America?

Before I go away from the flag issue, I really have to say this. You can tell how screwed up the Supreme Court is in America by the fact that they have issued judgement ensuring that you have the right to BURN the flag of this country, but you don’t have the right to fly it. What does that say about how screwed up things have gotten? You have the right to burn a cross or invert it as art in this country, but you do not have the right to have one on your t-shirt when you go to school.

Uncle Sam Stop WhiningI think that you get my point with all of this political correctness and whining. And I have to say, although I know that it will really upset those of the more liberal persuasion on this site, it seems to me that political correctness is a liberal thing. I sat here for nearly an hour trying to find examples of political correctness that come from the conservative side of the aisle, and I couldn’t find even one. I found lots of examples of political correctness that come from neither side of the aisle (such as midget = vertically challenged), but I could not find one of these whiny points that actually came from the conservative point of view. But I am not close minded. Folks on the left, I am well aware that I may be simply looking in the wrong places. Can you provide me with any that come from the “right” point of view?

The point to this whole article is that I have grown tired of the people whining about every single little thing that could possibly offend them. People who don’t like the flag you fly (American flag, gay pride flag, rebel flag, whatever). People who don’t like the cross you wear, the book you are reading, the commercials that you laugh at, ANYTHING. If anything that you do can possibly offend a single other person on this planet, you cannot do it. Look at how quickly companies today have to have their HR departments react to these types of complaints. This lawsuit happy country has forced businesses today to cater to the wacky fringe. And they spend BILLIONS to do so. Just another way that the job creators in America are being forced to waste money by an out of control court system.

So ENOUGH!!! I have had it. I don’t give even a little bit of a shit if you are offended by the things that I display or read or enjoy. If it does not directly infringe on your rights, you are here-to-for invited to kiss my ass. You don’t like my flag. Tough. I don’t like you squeezing your 350 pounds into a women’s size 4 shirt either. But your excess flab hanging out from under your shirt doesn’t infringe on my rights or liberties in any way. I am free to look away. And so are you. You don’t like me saying “Merry Christmas”? Tough. I am not real happy with you dressing up like a Nun drag queen either. The days of whining should be over. It is time to toughen up America. I find lots of things these days offensive. Pants down below the belt-line, 15 year olds dressed like hookers, Gangsta Rap, the New York Yankees… but they don’t infringe on my rights and liberties. So I wouldn’t dream of taking your right to those things away.

So the next time you want to whine about something that you find offensive… stop and think. Does it infringe on your rights or liberties? If so find a resolution with the person displaying or doing it. IF the answer is no…. shut the hell up. It will be good practice for when the USWeapon administration banishes the practice.


  1. Welcome to the United States of the Offended.

    I’ve always disliked political correctness. Personally I think it part of the re-programming/indoctrination of America.

    Change the words people use = Change how people think.

    • USWeapon says:

      Change the words people use = Change how people think.

      Yes this is completely true. It is amazing the subtlety of language and the ways that it can be used to shape the way people think about any given subject. There was some discussion on one of the other topics about NPR and the fact that they do this extremely well. Choosing term A to refer to something sets up one way of thinking while term B does an entirely different thing. The media uses political correctness extremely well in an attempt to hide bias.

      • If that was my comment about NPR, I’m glad you picked it up. Word and tone bias in the media and headlines has been one of my pet peeves and probably the reason I had a heart attack! No whining, It’s my fault that I have to keep getting aggravated LOL.

        Just a few weeks ago I followed some thread and ended up on the NPR web site where they posted an AP article, but something just didn’t sound right. Guess what? In the 1st paragraph, they inserted an “allegedly” which wasn’t in the original AP article (as published two other places).

        Found it:

        It waasn’t alleged but probably..

        Original AP article: “political and religious motives”

        Changed by NPR to: “probably had political and religious motives”

        And we (I) used to laugh at how could those stupid Russians believe those lies……

  2. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi US Weapon,

    Great Article! Is it possible that more #’s in the right of center-leaning population have a character trait called RESPECT…meaning “Respect” for differences and the LIBERTY to express those differences.

    To me, it seems that interest groups left of center-leaning don’t have the same level of respect of liberty in expressing traditional American values.

    Regards to all,

    • USWeapon says:


      It is hard to put a finger on, but I see where you are coming from with the term of respect. I think that many on the left have respect, in fact many of the PC words and phrases are the result of respecting differences enough to try not to offend. The way that these terms are forced upon people does show a lack of the concept of liberty though. And I have to admit that the left certainly whines more than the right does, although the right does their fair share of this as well.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Traditionally speaking conservatives tend not favor differences. I don’t agree with a sensibility that tells me that as someone to the left I will inherently have less respect that someone on the right. I think you may be referring to the extremes of either side.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:


        Sometimes I have a hard time writing what I’m thinking…my original post did come across that I think that those on left are have less respect for others…I did not mean it that way.

        My apologies for inferring that.


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          RS – you do have a point – that is what I am trying to get across. No need for apologies!

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          The PETA example is a perfect one – they are to the extreme – I respect that they have their agenda and stick to it no matter what (in a way they are like conservatives no? Pick your agenda and stick to it, all is black and white with no grays). I just say again – it was a FLY!

          • Yup those wacky Hollywierd lefties but no worries as they’ll be getting theirs soon enough! The “Free The Silicone Implant” movement will make certain silicone implants of all shapes and sizes are broken from the captivity of their under-wired cages. They will be freed and part of the the world will witness, unblinking, that in freeing them we will have done the right and left thing. Freedom of movement is the right of every silicone implant and those who would hold them in captivity are themselves are not only deniers of the freedom that is America but also of gravity.

            Yes Pamela, we’re coming for you.

            Yup it takes all kinds…

  3. Amen, brother. The USW administration has my vote.

  4. Good article USW, I would agree that alot of what been done in the name of “political correctness” is a bunch of bulldookie. I don’t have much use for these whiny a$$ pathetic kind of people. I resect their right to express their views, but thats where it should end. I’ve never been much of a politically correct person, frankly, I like to tell people that they are being jerks. At the same time, there is a huge difference between the debates here and being politically correct. At least here we can disagree about things, but never force any action upon anyone. Personnal views may change, or may grow stronger.

    In closing, and I know it’s alittle early, but “Merry Christmas”!


  5. This only shows the demise of our great country. I have a ‘support our troops’ ribbon on my car (my brother was in Iraq) and I’ve been told at red lights that I should f#%^ off for supporting the WAR. I hate doing this but I responded “Piss off, thats for my brother!” This is just another issue that pisses me off. The ‘support our troops’ ribbon does not mean that we support the war (although I do) but that I pray everyday for those in harm’s way. People need to have respect for those who volunteered to keep their asses safe.

    USW, thank you for standing up for this. It’s about time someone did.

  6. I always wondered when we became so afraid of offending someone. I was thinking about that alot lately. What is wrong with a good solid converstion about things that are happening in this country. Example: My work policy is that during work no conversations about politics, religion etc. But during your breaks is fine. So I dont know how many amazing conversation we have had during lunch with just about every type of person you can think of. Never causes harm to anyone.

    I never understood the Merry Christmas thing. If someone came up to me and said Happy Hanukkah I wouldnt care. Because that is what you believe in. So I would say Merry Christmas and carry on.
    When did we have to reform to not offend everyone? Happy Holidays? Crazy. I know by me that public building no longer put up Christmas displays either. Just a tree. Nothing else. Truly sad.

    My partner has a very samml rainbow sticker on the back of her car. Unless you are looking for it, odds are you wont see it. But once in a while at a light, someone will drive next to her and call her a dyke. She just looks back and smiles, and states ” Yes I am” and waves.

  7. Kristian says:

    It was explained to me by a former office manager that I could not say Merry Christmas because someone who does not celebrate Christmas might overhear me and be offended. Ummmm, if you aren’t listening to conversations that you are not a part of then you aren’t likely to get offended.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I think the best tactic is to isolate that person who is different, who does not celebrate Christmas and ostracize them until they quit. To heck with whether or not they’re a good employee, is they’re not like the rest of us they should find a job elsewhere. (TIC)

      One view made sense when we all dressed, acted and were raised alike. That is no longer the case.

      • USWeapon says:

        Yeah, but Ray…

        We really need to get past this whole thing of being offended by something as well meaning as “Merry Christmas”. I don’t think anyone wants to isolate them and ostracize them. But I would like them to respect my right to say something as simple as this without crying that their feelings are hurt. If they are offended enough that they would quit from hearing those two words, then I submit that they are not good for that workplace anyway.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Are you suggesting you have the right to say whatever you want to in the workplace? I thought your position on that was that you do not have that right? Understand that I do celebrate Christmas but I am empathetic enough to understand that there are well meaning people who do not see that as well meaning. Who the hell am I to tell them what they should and should not be offended by? While I can make the statement “all soldiers who fought in Somalia are babykillers” (or insert any other crazy phrase) – who am I to tell you that you cannot be offended by that?

          • USWeapon says:

            And I support your right to make that statement about soldiers, as well as my right to be offended by it. I do not support the taking away of your right to say it. But taking away the right to say Merry Christmas seems to be OK?

            No I don’t support the right to say anything you want in the workplace. I am submitting that we have gone well past the point of common sense in this regard.

    • Alan F. says:

      Management is beholding unto the corporate entity, its well being and that alone. Any management holding strictly to that enjoys an unassailable position. The corporate line is the only one to be towed, period. Any management stepping outside the corporate entity’s position should be immediately terminated as should any employee acting against the interests of the corporate entity. If “Merry Christmas” was accepted or not by the corporate entity through its directorship, you have your answer. Should the board cave in to some political push rather than what’s best for the corporate entity(they have to go), that then becomes the new corporate position and again you have your answer. In the world of business there is no such thing as “right or wrong”.

      Easy peasy!

  8. Ray Hawkins says:

    Many of the examples you provide would not seem to pass the common sense litmus test. Underlying many of the issues you have written this thread to are constitutional issues that require assessment, analysis and decision. What I do take issue with is this – in using some of those examples you are offering a double standard (on the all whiners are liberal theme). Follow me on this:

    Example – atheism and the swearing in ceremony. Ok – so why are these folks upset? What is the underlying reason or purpose behind the charge? Perhaps they do like to just stir the pot, create trouble, be disruptive and so on. But perhaps also they believed that there is a separation issue at hand – the mere suggestion or notion that the word ‘god’ be used in this context sets off their separation alarms. Would most of us find that irrational? Perhaps. I for one don’t think that including ‘god’ in the swearing in ceremony guarantees that god and state are now inter-twined and forever linked.

    Now – take the same idea here – the mere suggestion of banning or controlling any guns immediately sets off a reaction in any/all 2nd amendment proponents (many of whom post here and post frequently). If I were to suggest that assault weapons be banned I would be slammed mercilessly – those slammers are not seen as whiners and crybabies, they are seen as strong advocates for sticking to the Constitution (in reality, would one not still have ample firepower w/o the assault rifles?) wherein someone that demands an outright and pervasive separation of Church and State is seen as a whiner or crybaby.

    So back around we come – we all know the conservative tent is small, its getting smaller by the day. I’m not sure how someone who is considering subscribing to the politics being set down here does not get that ‘do as I say not as I do’ feeling. I look forward to the responses.

    • Would one not still have ample firepower w/o the assault rifles? Ray, the question you pose is unanswerable, because we can’t predict the future. I don’t own any assualt rifles, but I may wish I had one at some point in the future, depending on what I may have to fight. If two thieves walked in my home, they would die quickly with what I have at my disposal, but if a gang of thieves entered, I would have a much more difficult time sending them to hell.

      With all that said, having an assualt weapon should be an individual choice (within our current laws). Assuming that you would have ample firepower without, could be suicide.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        G – my use of that phrase was an ‘in theory’ retort from a gun control advocate to a someone who is vehemently against any form of gun control.

        Gun Control Advocate to Gun Advocate – “Quit whining about the ban on assault rifles. Even without assault rifles you should already have ample firepower should you need it.”

        Gun Advocate to Gun Control Advocate – “Screw you – am I not guaranteed my right to bear arms? I cannot predict any and all future threats therefore I need to availability of all firepower”

        Hypothetical US Weapon to Atheist – “Quit whining about the use of God in the inauguration ceremony. It is harmless and meaningless. You can always change the channel.”

        Atheist to Hypothetical US Weapon – “Screw you – is Church not to be separate from State? I cannot predict the future and know whether or not the President-elect is a closet evangelical and is waiting to interject God into all matters of public policy and force me to pray to a God I do not believe in.”

        • I see your point Ray, but in those theories, if you look closley at them, the gun advocate and the Hypothetical US Weapon both have one thing in common in presenting their respective argument, and that makes the arguments of both the con control advocate and the athiest moot.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Sorry G – my sleep deprived brain is missing your point. What I have issue with is defining someone who does not agree with the majority herein as a liberal whiner or crybaby – however – when it is an issue such as gun control (am sure there are others) that crybaby becomes a strong advocate for Constitutional principles. I am answering USW’s dilemma that he could not think of a case of right wing/conservative crybabies. (I wish not to refer to them though as crybabies or whiners – you have legit points – its your right to make them and if I am to be fair then I listen and try and understand).

            • USWeapon says:

              You have drastically missed the point of what I was saying in my article Ray. I answered you way down at the bottom, and I think I kill your “hypocrite” claim completely. If not, I am open to continuing the conversation. If I am a hypocrite, I certainly am interested in seeing where. You made some assumptions about what I was saying that were a fatal flaw in your position.

    • Ray,

      “having Santa arrive on a fire truck to light the Christmas Tree at the community’s annual ceremony. Two families felt “uncomfortable” with Santa being part of the event because they “don’t celebrate Christmas,”

      Underlying many of the issues you have written this thread to are constitutional issues that require assessment, analysis and decision.

      So Santa is a constitutional issue?

      “If I were to suggest that assault weapons be banned I would be slammed mercilessly.” Yes, ready? You are side tracking the issue. Gun bans are a different issue, 1st, not 2nd amendment. Focus grasshopper (reference to the TV show Kung Fu).

      FYI, you should look up the definition of “assault rifle” before discussing bans on what is already illegal to all US citizens without a class “C” license.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks LOI – hahahaha – you’re making my point for me. See how passionate you get at mere mention? You’re mincing words for convenience. Replace “assault rifle/weapon with TEC-9 (and not the AB-10).

        As for Santa? Where does the money come from to pay for the firetruck that runs around town with Santa on top? Are you suggesting that those offended by it do not have a say in how their money is used? Isn’t that a point of this whole blog? Or – should that say only be restricted to those that agree with you?

        FTR – my local township, funded locally and by State not only drives Santa in the parade by also through ALL neighborhoods the Saturday before Christmas. I think its a great idea. If we had folks object I would support their right to object. I guess you would not?

        • Ray,
          We are a “judo-christian” society, with a history that go back thousands of years. What “right” do you have to prohibit us from expressing some of the good things that have grown from that? Should you be allowed to speak against Santa riding the fire truck because of your tax dollars? I NEVER said otherwise. Stupid argument though, is the fire truck not going to be in the parade anyway? You think Santa is going to affect the fuel mileage? Or are you going to outlaw the x-mas parade, and then x-mas?

          you’re making my point for me??????
          “You are side tracking the issue.” If I were being passionate here Ray, it would be very evident.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Depends on what you mean by “expression”. I fully acknowledge that I live in a conservative/Republican county outside Philadelphia and that most local municipalities have and likely will for along time run Christmas parades with and w/o firetrucks and w/ and w/o Santa in the parade. It is acceptable practice herein to do so, even in a County that has seen controversy over similar issues (

            When you express good things that come from the Judeo-Christian values are you a whiner/complainer? Does it piss you off if I dismiss your views as whining and complaining?

            • Alan F. says:

              Why does this all read as more “the rights of the one exceed the rights of the many”? As a lefty, you can’t keep jumping up on the “tolerance” soapbox as some kind of moral high ground and not afford the same to others you don’t agree with. Saying “they did it first” also validates nothing. This whole thing is a lose/lose argument.

        • USWeapon says:

          Misdirection Ray.

          As for Santa? Where does the money come from to pay for the firetruck that runs around town with Santa on top? Are you suggesting that those offended by it do not have a say in how their money is used? Isn’t that a point of this whole blog? Or – should that say only be restricted to those that agree with you?

          The problem that those two people raised was not that they had an issue with how their tax money was being spent. If THAT were what they argued, I wouldn’t have had an issue with it. Every citizen has the right to dispute how their tax money is spent. They objected to Santa because they don’t celebrate Christmas and they find the use of Santa in the parade offensive regardless of the fact that the rest of the town wanted it. Their feelings were hurt. That makes them whiners and crybabies.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            The net net USW is that the two may/may not be related eh? Understand that if person A places a big Santa inflatable in the yard and person B is upset by it – that falls under the tough S%@$ bucket. If entities that receive government funding use part of that funding to fuel a firetruck to parade Santa or any other religious symbol around, even if it is a relatively common Holiday, then 1 or 2 or 3 or however many people have every right to protest that action – then there is linkage b/n tax dollars and Con Law. Are there ‘feelings’ hurt? Sure – maybe. Are their Con Law rights being violated/subverted? Perhaps – sure. Let the Courts decide. My call out on hypocrisy is that soooo much of what is written here speaks directly to the “feelings” folks here have that the current Admin and its arms and legs are violating your Con Law rights. Does that make you a whiner?

          • 1. Anyone who truly understands the meaning of Christmas knows that Santa Claus is not a religious figure. If Jesus were on the fire engine, that would be different.

            2. Christmas is a Federal Holiday.

    • With some 20,000 gun laws on the books, why more? How about we lock up the people who illegally use firearms instead? How about we enforce the federal law that PROHIBITS a convicted felon from owning, using or possessing a firearm? How about after the street thug with the long rap sheet is released from the county lock-up, the Feds pick him up and charge him with a firearms/felon violation and put him away for an additional ten?

      I choose to paraphrase Patrick Henry here, “If this be whining, let’s make the most of it!”

      Whatever happened to that old American concept that I grew up with that said the will of the majority shall prevail but the rights of the minority shall be respected. Majority wants Santa on truck, minority gets warning/apology up front telling them that this is the way we do things,no intentional effort to offend. How about minority respecting majority for a change? If everybody respects everybody don’t we all get along better?

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Good points SK – so let me ask – from the perspective of voting majorities – are we fair to say then that those voted for President Obama have prevailed and such that whatever Santas President Obama wants to put on whatever trucks he shall thus do so and the minority will get a warning/apology of said Santas being placed on said trucks. With respect to these Santas the minority (most of the people on this blog) shall respect the majority (President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc).

        Now – I left one very important thing out – “the rights of the minority shall be respected” (your words). I ask you – who decides whether those rights are being respected? The minority? The majority? I am gathering that the sense here is that wherein you read USW’s examples above you feel that is the view of the majority and then it is ok for the majority to decide who should and should not be offended. However, when the roles are reversed do you feel the same way? Should Nancy Pelosi being telling you whether or not you should be offended by the policies and laws her party supports? Do this seem like hypocrisy to you?

        • USWeapon says:

          Do you think that I want to take away Nancy’s ability to worship the Santa of her choice and attend a parade with her Santa, presumably in Drag, on the Fire Truck? I do not.

          Rule of Law Ray. You cannot ban Santa. I don’t care who is offended. That is my story and I am sticking to it. I have already spent too many years on the naughty list.

        • Ray,

          Well, one could argue that Obama did not have a majority of the number of people entitled to vote in the election but that’s silly. Obama has the right, by virtue of winning to do whatever the law allows him as President to do. I’m really not sure if the whole “Executive Order” thing is legal and I suspect it will be tested at some point as was “Executive Privilege”. Having said that I do not know if he has any intentions to issue such an order banning Santa from Fire trucks throughout the land. If he does so I suspect he will precipitate a constitutional crisis. Regarding Obama, Reid and Pelosi. As taught in the Army, I salute the rank, not the person. I respect the rank(offices) but have no use for the current occupants.

          In answer to your second point, of course it is the majority who decides on respect. That majority doing the deciding would include the disaffected minority too. Some would deny Obama the authority he has earned. I don’t like the guy but as a dissenter, I cannot deny him the authority he has earned, therefore, I must “respect” him. It is a complicated question, going back to the founding and involves ideas such as “Don’t tread on me” I also suspect it is unique to the American system. I don’t know who said it a very long time ago, but the phrase I always like to use on such occasions is, “Your rights end where mine begin”. That’s very subjective stuff but trying to legislate it is absolutely, positively, impossible. One hundred people in a room, one hundred opinions.

          As an individual, I have the right to be offended by any damn thing I think offends me. However, in a civil democratic republic, I am not the dictator who defines “offended” for everyone else. If in a town of ten thousand two are offended by Santa and their will prevails through being offended then I no longer live in a Democratic Republic but in a dictatorship imposed on me by PC, the courts or the two assholes themselves.


          Yes, we live or should live under the rule of law established by the Constitution. Those laws however are established by majorities. All these problems we discuss are caused in my humble opinion by minorities failing to respect the rule of law established by the majority. They don’t like it, therefore they feel they do not have to obey it. Comes back to USW’s whole point, spoiled, whining babies not getting their way. And Ray & Chris, I include Conservatives, deists, and Monarchists in this category too. We have established a unique system here, we have to respect it above all.

          • Yes, we do live under laws created by majorities. That is why we’re having problems. Our laws do not currently protect the minorities which they were designed to protect. If laws are based on the Constitution then they cannot have this effect. The Constitution does not guarantee anything to individuals, it only restricts government.

            Minorities respecting the law established by the majority? What if the majority decides to create a law that removes your children form your home for something other than abuse or neglect (in other words the right of the child to life)? Then should the majority law be upheld? No, the rule of law ensures that unjust laws cannot be used to abuse the minority or a weak majority.

            • Black Flag says:

              Michele, how do you discern the difference between a law you should follow and a law you don’t follow?

              • A law you should follow is one based on protecting God given inherent rights of other individuals. Specifically rights to life, liberty,and property.

                However, in order to preserve our own life, liberty, and property we are obliged to follow many other laws under our current government system. But we should work for a system that does not demand that we choose between our morals and the law.

            • Michelle,

              I don’t see you and I disagreeing. Laws are made by men. In this country, most have been just, some are unjust. As members of a free society it is our right, actually our obligation to change the unjust laws. The Constitution can be amended by the will of a super majority. In some ways this is unfortunate. As an example only I point to abortion. Abortion was not based on a law passed by a majority, it was based on the decision of a radical super minority, the courts. Decisions today coming out of the FDA, EPA, Executive Order etc. were things the majority never had a say in. They are fiats handed down by oligarchs. We must work to destroy their power.

              For many years DYFUS (Division of Youth & family Services) here in NJ ran wild on the issue of child protection. They used edicts, not laws to accomplish their goals. Nobody in Trenton, representing me, ever voted on criteria to remove children. That was all left to the oligarchs and they had a fine time doing it. The enabling legislation creating these agencies never intended to give them the power or scope they have. The politicians seem to love it that way, otherwise they would sunset every law they pass which is the only thing that makes any sense.

              • Yes, The minority should not rule either. The law should. The rule of law has broken down, that is the problem. All of the examples you give are instances when the Constitution was ignored or overridden. The majority does have a place, but it’s not in making law. The majority has the obligation of making sure that the Constitution is followed and not overridden. We have failed and we are reaping that failure now.

                We have far too many laws. If all we worked for was repealing laws for the next decade and never passed one new one, we would be on the right track.

                The Constitution was set up to prevent government from interfering too much in the lives of the people. The Bill of Rights deals only with negatives, it says what government cannot do, it does not say what people should, must, ought, or are allowed to do. That is very important. The Constitution sought to create an environment where people are protected in their lives, liberty, and property and that is all. The Constitution does not deal with social mores, which is exactly what the PC movement attacks, society, not law.

        • Alan F. says:

          Ah but the vote analogy has a major flaw. It doesn’t account for those who were sold one thing and received another. Obama pitched himself to be a closet centrist. It was clear as a bell during the Democratic runoff and then again throughout the general election. Unlike a VISA or Mastercard purchase, there’s no getting your vote back because what you bought and what you got are two different things.

          You might think he’s exactly what he pitched but were he so the right would have no ammo at all. He was a center left, they’d have been unable to recoup any portion of the actual center who gave Obama his victory. Most polls out there show some measure of gain made by the right and its nothing they themselves have done to warrant such. Its all Obama’s own doing and in that I think he either has taken bad advice or is certain himself that there will be no second chance.

      • SK,

        Its funny that Bill Clinton bragged about how many criminals the instant background check system prevented from purchasing firearms.
        When they attempted to purchase those firearms they committed a felony that should have resulted in 3-5 yrs in the pen.

      • SK,

        I have to differ with you in one point. A republic is based on the rule of law, not the majority or the minority, or the rights of the minority would invariably be trodden on. The law must be based on the Constitution, that’s why we’re having issues, we abandoned the rule of law.

    • Ray,

      In both the instance of the banning of God and the banning of Guns you are talking about banning something just because the few do not like it. It’s the banning that people have a problem with more than the specific issue I think. Neither God nor guns are evil or harmful to others in and of themselves so why ban them at all? If it doesn’t actually harm you in a real sense than how can government punish the use of words that some people don’t like? Government is required to uphold the rights of the people, but there is no fundamental right to not be offended, that is insane. How could you possibly make sure that no one ever got offended?

      The worst of it is that the “right to not be offended” is trumping the right to speech now.

      You claim that some people have real fears and even consider certain forms of speech as unconstitutional. How can speech be unconstitutional? Speaking of God in a public place whether by a public official or a private individual is hardly the establishment of religion that the Constitution forbids. I don’t think we want it to turn into a debate about the seperation of church and state, that is not what USW’s post was about, but you brought it up and I am simply pointing out that the premise that limiting the speech of people who believe in God is not a Constitutional issue and those who claim it is know that very well. They are not concerned with upholding the Constitution, but rather destroying it.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I guess words have no power than eh? My point is that I knew most people that read and write on this blog would readily agree with USW that in the cases provided, those folks are just whiners and crybabies, which insinuates they have no rational reason to oppose the mention of God in an inauguration speech, or to not wish their tax dollars be spent on running Santa around on the local fire truck or to staunchly and unwaveringly support their position, crazy as it may seem, that a fly is an animal and there was a more humane way of removing it from the White House. You see – demeaning speech as such is to marginalize it. We’re not far removed from suppressing it because we think it is whining or crybabyness.

        • USWeapon says:

          I will not suppress the rights of someone to whine, only my propensity to react positively to it. Until I am Supreme Ruler… then whining will be punishable by death. No matter what they whine about. Every law will be subjective with the final authority being….. me.

          Won’t life be grand? 😉

        • Ok, let me restate you point in my words to make sure I understand you. You think that becasue USW labeled this particular speech as “whining” that in itself demeans the speech and removes the real issues from debate.

          I agree with you that the real issues people have about the mention of God in their hearing or other things are protected speech. I agree we should not close off debate . . . ever. It is essential to our form of government.

          So, I think we agree on that. Hooray!

    • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is what is stated about the freedom of religion in the constitution. While it has been ruled to mean seperation of Church and State, by simply reading that statemnet in the constitution I would have to disagree. The constitution places a restriction on congress from making a law for or against the establishment of religion. There is no law saying there must be a religous ceremony at the swearing in that I know of. If a law like that exsist I would strongly oppose it. However I would also strongly oppose a law that banned a religous ceremony during swearing in. My point being any law requiring a religous act is in voilation of the constitution, just as any law banning a religous act is.

      • sorry forgot the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st. Cant be leaving parts out now can I.

    • USWeapon says:


      I think that I see where you are going here. So let me try to talk this out… but I may ramble.

      Let me first say that I am not looking to shut anyone up, but I do want people to understand that you can cry all day and the best you are going to get from me is told to zip it. I don’t care if their “feelings get hurt”. I don’t suggest that all the issues above are “liberal” ones. Some are, others aren’t. My issue is again the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The court upholds the right to burn a flag but not the right to display one. Someone is offended by the American flag? Then they should not be in America. I am certainly offended by it being burned.

      I don’t like whiners… I really don’t care what side of the aisle they come from. I am not real big on worrying about people’s fragile feelings either. But the true issue for me is not the fact that the people in the example above were whining, it is that their whining was listened to and acted on. Santa was banned. The flag was banned. Political conversation was banned. The apology was issued. “Merry Christmas” was banned. Not a single one of these things should have been banned. Not one. And neither should assault weapons. Unless it impacts someone else’s rights, it shouldn’t be banned. I support their right to whine and cry all they like. I also support my right to tell them to shut the hell up.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        See what happens when we have an imperfect Constitution? 🙂

        As much as things change they also remain the same. Does it make sense that a flag can both be burned but not displayed? Well – the flag display was in the workplace – I’m pretty certain, offensive as it may seem, that you don’t have the RIGHT to display the flag any more than you have the right to display bikini shots. Are we too sensitive at times? Sure. What’s the alternative and who decides what that is?

        • USWeapon says:

          If I don’t have the right to display the flag as a part of my 1st Amendment Free Speech rights, then you do not have the right to burn the flag as part of yours (hypothetically speaking of course, I know you don’t burn flags).

          If displaying the flag affects business, then the company has teh right to make that call. However, if the only “business” affected is that another employee is offended, I don’t think that they do.

          What I am suggesting is that the rule should be applied both ways. The courts have upheld the right of people to offend me by burning the flag of my country. I suggest the courtuphold the right of someone to display the flag, no matter how horrible and offensive an act some feel it is.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            I would agree that the Court should uphold the right to display the flag in the workplace.

        • Bama dad says:
        • Cyndi P says:


          You asked what the alternative is. I’ll tell you. Its a workplace or community where people put up emotional walls around themselves. They go about their business in fear because they don’t want to lose their job, get sued, or harrassed. So they keep their mouths shut. They won’t even say good morning, happy birthday, Merry Christmas, Happy New year, Happy 4th of July, whatever. They get fed up with constantly having to defend themselves when they were just trying to be pleasant or polite. So to save themselves the trouble, they don’t even make eye contact when they pass you in the corridor, they ignore you in the breakroom, they don’t share photos of the kids, or what they did over the weekend, etc. They are like the walking dead. But hey, nobody is offended.

          Personally, I’d rather someone wish me happy flying pigs day, even if it isn’t my thing, so long as its coming from a loving place, and they aren’t insisting I observe or recognize flying pigs day. Now if there’s free food on flying pigs day, I just might drop by and have a good time, but that will be my choice. Make sense?

    • TexasChem says:

      The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.The founders intention was to keep government from IMPOSING a state religion NOT to keep people from practicing theirs in public.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

      That is ALL the first amendment says. The whole “Separation of Church and State” thing is an invention.

      The first amendment only states that the Congress cannot establish a “State Religion” and cannot make any laws prohibiting ANYONE from freely exercising their religion. There is NO PROHIBITION from the government acknowledging God. Thomas Jefferson despised all religions as tools to control people and take away their freedoms, yet he freely acknowledged that it was likely that a Creator existed and that our innate freedoms came from the Creator.

  9. A good article US, but its been said before, my favorite line,
    i’d like to find your inner child an’ kick it’s little ass

    I turn on the tube what do i see,
    a whole lot a people cryin’ “don’t blame me”
    they point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
    spend all their time feelin’ sorry for them selves
    victim of this, victim of that
    your momma’s too thin; and your daddy’s too fat

    get over it,
    get over it
    all this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit
    get over it, get over it

    you say ya haven’t been the same since ya had your little crash
    but you might feel better if they gave you some cash
    the more I think about it, ol’ billy was right
    let’s kill all the lawyers- kill ’em tonight
    you don’t wanna work you wanna live like a king
    but the big bad world doesn’t owe you a thing

    get over it
    get over it
    ya don’t want to play then you might as well split
    get over it, get over it

    it’s like going to confession every time i hear you speak
    your makin’ the most of your losin’ streak
    some call it sick, but i call it weak
    yeah yeah yeah

    yeah you drag it around like a ball an’ chain
    you wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
    you wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
    got your mind in the gutter, bringin’ everybody down
    ya bitch about the present and blame it on the past
    i’d like to find your inner child an’ kick it’s little ass

    get over it
    get over it
    all this bitchin’ and moanin’ and pitchin’ a fit
    get over it, get over it, get over it,

    get over it
    it’s gotta stop some time so why don’t you quit
    get over it, get over it

    get over it

    Thanks to Don & the Eagles

    • esomhillgazette says:

      LOI, I am always amazed at your ability to come up with song lyrics appropriate to USW’s posts. Keep ’em coming homeskillet. 🙂

  10. Robert C says:


    Boy did that need to be said. Keep it coming.

  11. Cultural assimilation. The melting pot is an analogy for the way in which heterogeneous societies become more homogeneous, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures, races and religions) are combined so as to develop a multi-ethnic society. The term, which originates from the United States, is often used to describe societies experiencing large scale immigration from many different countries.

    It is interesting that many countries are failing to bring their immigrants into their societies. Muslims especially have resisted adopting the laws and values of their new home. America has been the best example of how to successfully bring multiple cultures together to form a productive society. That seems to be changing, Mexicans immigrants are willing to riot calling for reclaiming their “stolen” lands from America. It seems this “political correctness” is aimed at muzzeling citizens who do not want their country taken away in a war without bullets. Tell me not to shoot a protester, OK, that reasonable, but take away my right to speak? But no, I can speak, there are just many words I will not be allowed to use, a growing list.

  12. It’s about far more than certain people not being offended. For most Americans I think they truly care about whether their neighbors are uncomfortable and they want to be nice so they’ve gone along with the PC stuff. But for some politicians and especially some judges the PC movement is something else entirely. It’s an attempt to change thought, yes, but even more it’s an attempt to remove rights, especially the right of free speech, which is an enemy to Statism in general.

    Look at this You Tube Video on Right Mind to see what I mean:

  13. Great article USW, I love it. When our son was in the Marines, and went to Iraq back in 2004, we had the blue star flag up, along with our other son who is in the Army, and of course the US Flag. Anyway, I’ll be damned if some lady said to me that the flags offended her and it bothered her when ever she drove by our house and if we could possibly take them down. I told her she could kiss my patriotic ass, and if she didn’t like it, then go another way, or if you feel you have to go this way, then don’t look. Needless to say, I was very angry at her for even asking me to remove those flags. I told her also, I’ll remove them over my dead body. Well, she got all huffy, jumped in her car, and sped off. I was so angry, I was shaking. I am so fed up with all this political correctness, I can just scream. Just like about 3 years ago or so, this teacher in one our middle schools, teaches with visual things. Well, this one time when she was teaching history, she had all 50 flags hanging in her classroom, when she was teaching about WWII. She had a German flag hanging up talking about the way they treated the Jewish people, and one teacher who taught on the other side of the school purposely walked all the way over to this other teachers room and started to complain about it. She went to the principles office and demanded that that teacher take down the flag. Guess what, the principle told her that the teacher didn’t have too because of the way she taught her class. After she taught about WWII, she took all flags down.Turned out, the teacher who complained was Jewish and was offended by the German flag. My point is, is that that other teacher who complained didn’t have to make the special trip all the way across the school to look at the flag, then complained about it. That event even made our local news broadcast. It’s just like with kids sports now too. No team loses, everybody wins, what’s up with that? How are kids going to learn about winning and losing if neither side loses and they all get little trophies just for participating? I’m sorry, but I think kids need to learn the difference between winning and losing. If not, then they’re going to grow up to be wimpy and expect things to be given to them. When our son’s were growing up and into sports, the didn’t have this nobody loses, everybody wins, they played to win.

    • Judy:

      My mom had the same problem. She put up a navy flag in her front window of her house when I was in service. She had three people come up to her and tell her to take it down because it offended them. Like you, she proceed to tell them that was never going to happen, and to move on. One actually called the mayor to complain. Amazing to me.

      I have family that are teachers and I hear of the crazy things that they have to deal with.

      • Ellen, Like you, it just amazes me how people can be offended by the US flag, and by the service flag we hang that shows the branch of service a family member by serving in. Kind of shows you their patriotism for this country when they have to complain about our flag or military flags we hang in our own front yard. My car looks like a motto mobile as my son’s call it because of the magnets I have on it. Support our Troops, The U.S. Marines, and the Army, plus some others I have on it. I’m a firm believer of showing my patriotism and my support for our military.

  14. Wow, I’m impressed, a site which actually has an exchange of ideas instead of just a bunch of HA.

  15. richmondspitfire says:

    From Wiki (Toleration):

    Tolerating the intolerant

    Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance; illustrating that there are limits to tolerance.
    Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to this problem; whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant. He also addresses the related issue of whether or not the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated, within their society.

    Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this conclusion by insisting, like Popper, that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions


    I’ve decided that I’m not intolerant of things such as Gun Control…I simply have an allergy to Gun Control – causes my eyes to bug out which makes them water – which in turns make some people think that I’m a crybaby!


  16. Another thing here about this correctness stuff. During Christmas time at our local Wal Mart, the clerks were not suppose to say Merry Christmas to their customers, and when I asked why, she said because it might be offensive to some people. I asked her then what are you suppose to say, she said Happy Holidays. So, when I went to other stores, and they said Happy Holidays, I would always ask them, which one. There’s Happy Easter, Happy Thanksgiving, pick one, then they would say Christmas, then I would say to them, then why didn’t you just say Merry Christmas. They weren’t allowed to say it. That’s just getting rediculous.

  17. I guess I’ll confess alittle. This subject has been a thorn in my backside for sometime. I go out of my way to “not” be politically correct, especially at work. I have and will continue to wish “Merry Christmas” to the doctors of Muslim faith. Yes, I want to offend them, and I want them to call me out on it, because I will then embarrass them. This is the radical in me, it’s alive and well.

    I’m sure that someone will ask if I would be offended if someone wished me a Happy Rammadon (sp). The answer is no, I wouldn’t. I would smile and reply “same to ya” and give them a thumbs up.

    If someone is offended by the flags I fly, to them I say tuff turd. I wouldn’t be near as nice as the words that I write.

    I believe everyone should live the life they choose, as long as I can also live the life I choose, without interference. If my flags, my stickers or signs, my music or anything else that makes up me offends you, I’m not sorry, I’m not apologizing and I really don’t give a rats rearend. Get over it, move on and don’t come back. If you don’t like the freedoms the Americans have, pack your stuff and move the hell out of my country.

    My rant is now over, thanks for listening!


    • USWeapon says:

      I am much the same way G.

      I don’t go out of my way to intentionally be non-PC, but I certainly don’t give a crap if people think that I am PC.

      What a shame that our country has come to this.

      • The look on the face of a Muslim doctor when wishing him/her “Merry Christmas” is priceless. They are completely confused and have no idea how to resond. I find it rather comical!

        • Black Flag says:

          I not sure why – Muslims see the Nazarene as a prophet.

          It’s the Jewish faith that has no recognition of Jesus.

          • Its the girly beard he’s sporting in all those paintings. The Muslims were looking for a more Billy Gibbons type growth.

  18. Black Flag says:

    Again, no one has addressed the root.

    Where does the ‘right’ to tell someone how to act (or not) in some way?

    Who has the right to determine the workplace environment?

    The entire confusing matter of “PC” is rooted in a failure to understand ‘What is a Right?’ and what is not.

    As long as the People remain befuddled – perpetrated largely by the ‘socialists’ (but not exclusively), these strange, nonsensical, matters of PC will increase.

    • BF, I don’t believe anyone has the “Right” to tell others what is/is not the way to act. Correct me if I’m wrong, I feel that not accepting political correctness, I’m telling those that want to push their agenda upon me to go F*&^% themselves. I also see PC as wrong in nature.

      • Black Flag says:

        So was the manager right in determining the work environment – even though it may have insulted others?

        • All, the manager did was prove he/she was a coward, and probably lost the respect of most of the employees, which inturn will make him ineffective and soon to be long gone. I think he/she overstepped their authority, rather than exercise a “Right”.

          • Black Flag says:

            Perhaps the employees opinion of their manager may have suffered.

            But who has the right to determine what is or is not appropriate in that office?

            • I suppose that the leader of said company would establish policies governing actions and language, and if one wants a paycheck from said company, they would have to comply.

              • Black Flag says:

                I agree.

                So the complaint about the flag in the office has no validity.

                I make this point, because many have muddled actual rights into being “PC” and being rude against being against someone’s rights.

                It takes careful dissecting to really understand what is going on here.

                It is purposeful for the power elites to make all non-violent actions a matter of subjective value of offense against someone.

                I’ll expand on this on another comment below.

    • “Who has the right to determine the workplace environment?”

      The owner of the workplace! That’s who!

      If I own a business, I have the right to decide what environment my workers reside in. If they do not like the way they are treated, then they have the right to find work elsewhere. However, it is my responsibility to let potential employees know what kind of work environment I adhere to BEFORE they are hired so that they my choose to work for me or not.

      Sounds fair to me.

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        You know GA…that was my first thought…and I agree…it is the Private Owner’s right to make that determination…

        But what about government workplaces?


        • Black Flag says:

          Government workplace – oxymoron 😆

          • It is not an oxymoron BF. Work gets done, but just not by the Government employees. The work is usually done by the contractors who are busy trying to avoid the inept, immovable, unproductive GS staff. 😛

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Hmmm…In theory, if I worked for the government, then I’m working for myself…so, I could determine the rules….

  19. Bama dad says:

    Good morning all. USW you are correct that too much political correctness is going on in society. Unfortunately our kinder and gentler world extends to our school children. When I was in school we played cops and robbers, soldiers and war, steal the bacon, musical chairs, dodge ball and tag your it. In most schools today all the above are banned. In Austin Texas tag leads to “conflict on the playground” and dodge ball does not “preserve the rights and dignity of students” (never stole my dignity) and “it does not make students feel good about themselves”. Diane Farr, a curriculum specialist in Austin, Texas says “Educators also fear that dodge ball is not only violent, but that it and other games convey `a message of violence.’ `With Columbine and all the violence that we are having, we have to be careful with how we teach our children”. I guess she hasn’t looked at the video games kids play these days. How about this for twisted logic, the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association prohibits keeping score in kids tournament play; the loser’s self-esteem is destroyed.
    I just did not know growing up that dodge ball was dangerous, cops and robbers was violent, musical chairs was exclusive, and tag terrorizes. It’s a wonder I can even function as an adult with all the trauma I experienced on the playground during recess. Before you know it football will be banned as too violent, baseball will be played for 9 innings with no score and soccer outlawed for being too aggressive. Good grief Charlie Brown. :mrgreen:

    • esomhillgazette says:

      And let’s not forget that Bugs Bunny cartoons lead to violence with kids also.

  20. The entire PC thing has gone way overboard. I was working down south and one of the guys in my office gave me this list of blonde jokes. Some of them were just plain dumb but others were hysterical! One of the older, nosey ladies in the office heard me laughing and came over to see what I was laughing about, so she started reading the jokes over my shoulder. She got this look over her face like someone kicked her puppy and declared very loudly that “those jokes are degrading and not funny at all”. I looked her straight in the face and said “I didn’t call you over here to read them, did I? So why don’t you just go back to your desk and mind your own business for a change.” She stomped off and never spoke to me again. It actually made working there alot more enjoyable for me.

    • Kym, Speaking of PC and jokes, how does a wife make her husband happy and mad with one sentence?

      Answer: Honey, your pecker is bigger than ALL your friends!

  21. completely off topic, but good for a belly laugh 😉 c

    it seems that Mr. Geithner is the smartest man in America and the only one able to solve the financial crisis …

  22. OK,

    My position on “Merry Christmas”: I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays and I absolutely do not do it to be in your face if you are not a Christian. I do it because I want to share my joy in the season and its meaning with you. You do not have to acknowledge my religion in any way to understand that I think the season represents a new hope and beginning for mankind. While you may not acknowledge the birth of Christ as anything other than a simple birth, if you have the least knowledge of Christianity and Christians, you know what it should mean to them.

    I have a hard time getting this across to my Orthodox Jewish friends and they by and large cannot bring themselves to repeat anything more than a “you too” if that. I do take the time to explain why I do it and they cannot say that I ignore their Holidays because I always acknowledge them and their meaning. The same holds true to any other religion.

    Several years ago I had the misfortune to attend a Christmas eve Mass where the priest set us up on the whole issue. He played along as if “how could others not want to hear our Merry Christmas?” How could they be offended? Then, of course, he dropped the bombshell that we were a bunch of insensitive louts for continuing to do it. I wrote him a letter and explained what I have written above in greater detail. I actually got an apology from him with the explanation he had not thought about it in that way. Here was a man who was ordained to spread “the Good News” and he was ashamed of it.

    Now, to mimic Andy Rooney, “Didja ever notice how people that you know are Christians, that even attend your own Church wish you Happy Holidays because they have been indoctrinated not to offend?”

    • esomhillgazette says:

      Hmmm SK, we have preachers down here that like to “tickle” the ears of their congregations. Just shows that there are folks everywhere who don’t like hearing the truth. Any preacher who is ashamed to preach the “good news” shouldn’t be a preacher. As a matter of fact I would say that he is NOT a preacher.

      My church does not allow Santa Claus in the church. He is in the town Christmas Parade and that is fine. But my church believes Jesus is the reason for the season, not Santa.

  23. Black Flag says:


    The Telegraph claims that the $135 billion in Bonds were faked.

    “In the event, late last week American officials confirmed that the notes were forgeries. The men, it appeared, were nothing more than ambitious scamsters”

  24. All right already!

    Enough of the PC crap!

    Words have meanings! So say what you mean and mean what you say!

    Be careful, and be very afraid, for the Obamatron thought police will be upon you very soon!

    Can you see my sarcasm? The reason for it is I have been listening and reading about this garbage of political correctness for so long it makes me puke. We have legislation that makes it a more punishable crime for what you are thinking at the time you commit the crime . . . what? Please, gimme a break . . . a crime is a crime and by any other name it is still a crime! I don’t care what you are thinking when you are committing the crime, you are still committing a crime! Furthermore, I don’t care what your childhood was like, whether your mother hated you or your father loved you or your sister used to dress you up in your mothers clothes – if you commit a crime you are a criminal – PERIOD!

    Obama is a Marxist. He stated that fact himself on national television when he told someone from CBS that he aligned himself with all the Marxist professors when he was in college. So please don’t try and say that he is a “progressive leaning president”, or “Socialist leaning” . . . HE IS A MARXIST! You voted for him and you elected him and now we all are paying for it – literally by the trillions! By the time we get him out of office, we will no longer be the United States of America . . . well we might still have the name, but it will be meaningless.

    Okay, enough of my whining.

    You are right. People are complaining too much and putting weird labels on everything from soup to nuts and making everything that is dangerous sound benign. I have only one question for everyone on this board (LOI included) . . . How do we put and end to all this PC garbage?

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Dear GA,

      I think I still have a dry corner on the Hanky of Agreement…I’m happy to share with you…


    • We refuse to play along.

    • Just be yourself.

    • I’ve taken the “refuse to acknowledge” approach, as I have stated previously. And if that don’t work, then I refer them to the middle finger on my right hand.

    • G.A.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

      I do not get how they have stopped people from saying what they want. Prayer in school, if the school is not encouraging or requiring it, but a child in school chooses to pray, making a law forbidding them to pray is clearly ABRIDGING the FREEDOM of SPEECH. Merry Christmas, same thing.

      How to end it? Charlton Heston’s words again,

      But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer’s been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people. You simply … disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don’t. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr.King … who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

      Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in VietNam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

      I wish I had the gift of expressing myself so well.

      • PS,

        Also have a business, do not practice PC here. No racism, sexism, etc..but everything else, speak your mind. Been told I am such an @hole. Yep, damn good at it, you going back to work now or going home?

  25. Black Flag says:


    This concept was embedded in the Soviet Union’s Fundamental Principles of Penal Legislation, which identified the central mission of the state’s law enforcement apparatus (chiefly the Ckeha or secret police, by whatever acronym it was later known) as that of identifying, and removing the threat of, “socially dangerous persons.”

    This notion was encapsulated in Article 58 of the penal code, which served as the legal foundation for the Soviet regime’s perpetual war of terror against dissent.

    The law dealing with “socially dangerous persons,” observes the authoritative Black Book of Communism, dealt with “any activity that, without directly aiming to overthrow or weaken the Soviet regime, was in itself `an attack on the political or economic achievements of the revolutionary proletariat.’ The law thus not only punished intentional transgressions but also proscribed possible or unintentional acts.”

    And the term “socially dangerous persons” itself was based on “extremely elastic categories” that permitted the imprisonment of people in the gulag “even in the absence of guilt.” This is because that the Soviet rulers were pleased to call “the law” specified that incarceration, exile, or execution could be employed as means of “social protection” against “anyone classified as a danger to society, either for a specific crime that has been committed or when, even if exonerated of a particular crime, the person is still reckoned to pose a threat to society.”

    Note carefully here how Soviet “law” discarded entirely with the idea of punishing overt acts, focusing instead on the supposed motivations of those deemed innately threatening to the regime.Note as well how the system was rigged to nullify exculpatory verdicts.

    Of course, the Soviet government punished common criminals, at least those it didn’t recruit into the ranks of its enforcement agencies. But as Paul Gregory points out in his book Lenin’s Brain, most of those imprisoned in the gulag were there not because of what they had done, but because of what the state suspected they could do; they were being isolated from the rest of society “because of actual or suspected opposition to the Soviet state.”


    While there is still a significant degree of separation between mere “PC” behavior and what is described above, it is clearly a linear extension from one to the other.

    It is purposeful for the government and the elite to make “PC” attitudes prevalent everywhere.

    Like Witch Hunts, the mere risk of offending your neighbor has been a deadly mistake in the histories of totalitarianism. Whether is was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, etc. the ability to threaten any citizen with death or punishment by the mere attitude of offense became a very powerful tool of domination upon the people.

    We must take care to recognize the enforcement and respect of someone’s rights even if the offend as equally as enforcing our own rights even if they offend.

    If you do not support freedom for those you despise, you do not understand freedom at all.

    • BF, Your historical posts are always a good read. I’m surprised that PC was not mentioned much in “The Road to Socialism” series. Seems like it’s part of the big picture.

  26. Black Flag says:


    A law you should follow is one based on protecting God given inherent rights of other individuals. Specifically rights to life, liberty,and property.

    However, in order to preserve our own life, liberty, and property we are obliged to follow many other laws under our current government system. But we should work for a system that does not demand that we choose between our morals and the law.

    So, if a law demanded that all citizens must surrender Left-Handed Blond People (LHBP) for imprisonment or execution, would you do it? Why or why not?

    • No, I would not, even at the risk of my own life I would not. (At the risk of my kids lives . . . there it gets sticky, doesn’t it, not because I don’t know what’s right, but because I would have a very hard time doing the right thing.)

      I’m not sure where you’re trying to lead this, BF, you are very good at leading things places people do not intend to go. But, I’ll allow myself to be led.

      Why not? It is morally wrong, based on any ordinary measure of human morality. God’s law trumps human law. God’s law is itself based on an ultimate Truth of the Universe (beyond that depth of fundamental truth I do not know). Government has no right to do anything other than prevent the abridgement of individual rights by other individuals (or to punish the offense of trespasses on individual rights). Morality in this case clearly and resoundingly trumps the law.

      As a further example of the confict between morality and law, I believe morality also trumps laws that forcibly take one person’s property from them and gives to another, but I do not evade my taxes because I wish to protect my own liberty. I do try however, to not use government programs that are run by stolen funds, though I have not always managed or been consistent in that regard.

      • Black Flag says:

        The question leads from a comment you made above regarding which laws you follow, and why.

        My question was well answer!~ Thx

  27. JudyS.NV. says:

    About the Peta people. We have a rodeo going on here in Reno right now, and yep, you guessed it, they come here every year to protest the rodeo, because they claim the animals are being mistreated. These animals are treated better than you can believe. They think that riding the bulls, and broncs, and cattle roping is mistreating the animals. Excuse me, but did they have Peta people back in the cowboy days? I really don’t think so. Rodeos have been going on since, well, you get my meaning. They think that roping a calf is being mean, and it should be left alone. I wonder if these peta people eat meat. Probably not, but if they do, aren’t they being a little contradictory? And about them complaining because Obama smacked that fly, give me a break. So, what are we suppose to do, not squish a spider, or smack that mosquito,I guess that’s animal or insect cruelty now, right. I think these peta people are some of the biggest hypocrites that lived. Probably nothing better for them to do, than protest. Like that Toby Keith’s song goes, Should have been a cowboy, should have learned to rope and ride. Can’t remember the rest.

    • Judy, PETA people are just plain annoying. Unfortunately they have th “right” to express themselves. While I don’t agree at all with them, I simply ignore their rantings since they are useless to me. BTW, I listen to K-Bull from your area on my ‘puter, they play the National Anthem every morning at 9am EST (6am PST), very good station.


      • JudyS.NV. says:

        Hey G-Man

        Like country music huh!. I listen to KOH, where it’s Rush, Hannity, Manders, Lavin, Have no choice really, there are 6 radios here at work, and they are on one station. No matter what part of the lab you go into. Although I don’t mind. I rather like like listening to them. Yea, I know the PETA people have a right to protest, but a rodeo, come on. What do they think a rodeo is? I usually ignore these people too, but sometimes my dander get riled up, and I have to say something.

    • Animal rights activists have been following rodeos around for decades. What they don’t realize is the animals used in them are only worked a few weeks out of the year. All suppliers have several strings they use for rodeos that they rotate all the time. I wish I only had to work a few weeks out of the year for my keep!

      The biggest PETA hypocrites are the ones who berate and protest zoos for the caged animals but applaud the very same zoos that are breeding endangered species.

      Thers no winning with some people.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        All I will say is that it is not like the Flys are on the endangered species list.

        But I feel sorry for the Fly family who lost their family member to Obama’s callous murdering slap.

        Maybe they should put him in prison for cruelty to animals.

    • I M BORG says:

      I wonder how those PETA people get around. Last time I drove anywhere I murdered a windshield full of critters. Not to mention what got squashed by my Goodyear’s. I really did try to miss that cat. The rat was intentional, had to swerve to get that sucker. Don’t plants have the same right to live and let live. If PETA subscribed to anything they try to push my way they would just die off. God protects the stupid. Then again there are warning labels posted on Coke machines for a reason, attempting to ward off someone getting squished again. I wonder how many people got killed or injured to warrant those labels. We are doomed, face it, and accept it. History is repeating itself once again.

  28. As a non-tobacco user, why should I care? Oh yeah, that freedom thing.

    Obama Signs Landmark Anti-Smoking Bill
    The bill would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco. The law allows the regulatory Food and Drug Administration to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such “low tar” and “light.” Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

    “Today … the decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of tobacco has emerged victorious. Today change has come to Washington,” Obama said.

    The law, called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, won’t let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make public their ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

    • esomhillgazette says:

      How hypocritical from a smoker. If he’s not careful, everyone will quit smoking and then who will he get money to fund UHC?

    • Judy S. says:

      It doesn’t matter what they do to make sure kids don’t smoke won’t work. If kids are going to smoke, they’re going to smoke no matter what anybody does to try and prevent them. I was 13 years old when I started to smoke. I used to take few cigarettes from my mom, my sister, and my dad, that way they wouldn’t notice any missing. I never smoked while pregnant though. Anyway, I would go outside behind our house so I wouldn’t get caught, and I didn’t. How I got caught, was a kid yelled at me, while my dad was standing at the front door, was, ” don’t smoke anymore Judy”. Well, my dad’s jaw dropped to the floor with a surprised look on his face, then told me,well, I rather you smoke in front of me than behind my back. I caught my own son’s when they were 14-15 when they thought they were safe. I told them the same thing my dad told me. One still smokes, the other quit. It’s the same with drinking, I think too. If kids are going to drink, they’ll find a way. I think the same way with smoking. I still smoke, but I don’t smoke as much as I did at one time. Heck, even my 87 year old mom still smokes. So, I say again, I don’t think it’ll matter what they do to keep kids from smoking. Not unless they make smoking against the law, which wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I’m sure it’s probably just a matter of time.

      • Bama dad says:

        Judy S said:
        “It doesn’t matter what they do to make sure kids don’t smoke won’t work. If kids are going to smoke, they’re going to smoke no matter what anybody does to try and prevent them. I was 13 years old when I started to smoke. I used to take few cigarettes from my mom, my sister, and my dad”

        The best way to prevent smoking among young people is to not set the wrong example and smoke around them. You don’t make much of an impression on young people when you say do what I say, not as I do. My parents did not smoke neither did their 4 children, I or my wife do not smoke neither do any of our 6 children. Please don’t think I am making a judgment here because I am not. I would suspect that at 13 the reason you started to smoke was because all the adults in your life were doing it and you wanted to emulate them. 🙂

  29. There seems to be a general consensus about political correctness, but I would posit one item. I do not go out of my way not to offend people, but I do try to be polite and accommodate some particular offensive things. For instance, I don’t say that someone is fat to their face. They are fat, but I know they would be offended if I said so. Others are fat and wouldn’t. While I think it’s a load of crap that people are offended by descriptive terms, I try to be respectful. I think it is the least I can do if I want respect myself. That being said, there are times when I refuse to compromise because of someone else’s insecurities. The best examples of those are praying, flying the flag, etc. I have a friend who is offended by the rebel flag. He thinks it represents slavery or some such. I tell him that it is historical and that most people who fly it are not racist. Too many people associate something bad with things like this and refuse to see the actual motives. When I say “Merry Christmas,” I’m not trying to indoctrinate you or insult you or anything, I’m wishing you well…

    And anyway, isn’t Christmas (sadly) more secular than religious nowadays anyway? How many (Christian) people actually attend church on Christmas day? So shouldn’t “Merry Christmas” be a secular greeting?

  30. JudyS.NV. says:

    Our son told us this joke the other night, and I thought I’d pass it along. Mind you now, just a joke, nothing offensive about it. At least I don’t think it is.

    This guy dies and goes to heaven and St Peter meets him at the gates. The guy gets in, and sees all these clocks and asks St Peter about them. St. Peter told him that they are lie clocks, every body has one. See this one here. It’s Mother Theressa’s, and notice the hands hadn’t moved because she never told a lie. That one over there is Abraham Lincoln’s, it only moved twice because he only told a couple lies. The guy asked where Obama’s was, St Peter said, it’s in Jesus’s office, he’s using it as a ceiling fan.

  31. Black Flag says:

    Michelle and SK

    Laws are made by men. In this country, most have been just, some are unjust.

    What makes a law just?

    What makes a law unjust?

    The Constitution can be amended by the will of a super majority.

    I infer that you believe the Constitution fulfills “just” – how so?

    The Constitution was set up to prevent government from interfering too much in the lives of the people.

    How can government – which makes the rules that government and citizens will live by – be prevented from making rules that only favor itself?

    • Oh boy, you did it to me again.

      1. Just law, in my humble opinion is a law designed to further life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not on purpose favor one entity over another and keeps us nasty little beings from killing each other.

      2. The opposite of 1, on purpose or by accident. If enacted by accident, failure to correct it immediately ie: prohibition.

      3. The constitution is the best man has ever come up with. perfect, no but as Michelle said it was an attempt to control the whole concept of government. the weakness is not in the document but in its interpretation by the courts. As I like to point out, what exactly don’t you understand about “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” You, me and Michelle have no problem with understanding that phrase. 85% of the democratic party does as do the NY Times, The Boston Globe, the three major networks and a host of others.

      4. Right, government by its nature will interfere in your life and mine and the guy down the street. The Constitution was an attempt to short circuit that but since the vast majority understand nothing of our history or of the document, its just a matter of time until it will be reduced to a quaint footnote in our history.

  32. esomhillgazette says:

    This is an EMail that my wife sent me the other day. I feel it VERY appropriate for todays post. So here it is.

    Andy Rooney and Prayer
    Andy Rooney says:

    I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I’m not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don’t agree with Darwin , but I didn’t go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.

    Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what’s the big deal? It’s not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They’re just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.

    But it’s a Christian prayer, some will argue.

    Yes, and this is the United States of America ,=a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna?

    If I went to a football game in Jerusalem , I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer…

    If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad , I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

    If I went to a ping pong match in China , I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

    And I wouldn’t be offended. It wouldn’t bother me one bit.
    When in Rome …..

    But what about the atheists? Is another argument.

    What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We’re not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If that’s asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!

    Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations.

    Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing g. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.

    God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.

    The silent majority has been silent too long. It’s time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn’t care what they want. It is time that the majority
    Rules! It’s time we tell them, You don’t have to pray; you don’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don’t have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!

    God bless us one and all … Especially those who denounce Him , God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.

    Let’s make 2009 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions . And our military forces come home from all the wars.

    Keep looking up.

    Yes. This is about prayer. Sure hope it don’t offend anyone. 😀

  33. whitehorn says:

    I wish everyone Merry Christmas like it or not. I write God Bless America on all out going mail. I fly Two flags 24/7 in my yard The American Flag and the POW flag . I am a vet and i thank vets when i can I hunt and i dont need assult guns to get my point across I never take my keys out of my truck because all my neighbors know what will happen if you try to take it I may need to replace windows but ill never be suied by the thief and its time more americans took a stand instead of worring about hurting some non americans feelings Love it or Leave it

  34. Well, I’m out, and it’s been a pleasure chatting with you folks. Do have a good night, and a pleasant tomorrow.

    Regards to you all as always.


  35. Baseball95 says:

    finally USW someone steps up. i am also tired of everyone whining and crying about something they aint got to look at. i say if someone dont like it when i have an american flag they can get over it. this year in my notebook i had a cross on the front. if some teacher dont like my religion they can get over it. plus if our government is stupid enough to listen to someone whine because somebody wants to represent their country then we need to make some changes.

  36. Black Flag says:

    Michele and SK. Trynosky Sr.

    1. Just law, in my humble opinion is a law designed to further life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It does not on purpose favor one entity over another and keeps us nasty little beings from killing each other.

    How would you know a law that I may propose fulfills your requirements?

    3. The constitution is the best man has ever come up with. perfect, no but as Michelle said it was an attempt to control the whole concept of government. the weakness is not in the document but in its interpretation by the courts. As I like to point out, what exactly don’t you understand about “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” You, me and Michelle have no problem with understanding that phrase. 85% of the democratic party does as do the NY Times, The Boston Globe, the three major networks and a host of others.

    So if it is so easy to “interpret” – (a word, by the way, that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution) – why is the document used to destroy the People’s rights, instead of protecting them?

    4. Right, government by its nature will interfere in your life and mine and the guy down the street. The Constitution was an attempt to short circuit that but since the vast majority understand nothing of our history or of the document, its just a matter of time until it will be reduced to a quaint footnote in our history.

    What would be different?

    The Constitution -written by the government, enforced by the government and controlled by the government – how could it be a document “for the People”?

    • 1. No guarantee that I would, much is subjective. By and large it is better not to pass laws. If you must have them, have them on a local level so that you may deal directly with the sponsors. All laws should have a sunset provision which provides one very important benefit. It allows polititicians the cover of doing nothing when something expires.

      3.the interpretation is what is used to destroy peoples rights, not the constitution itself. We would, I believe, do better if we relied on an 18th century dictionary and “the federalist papers” exclusively in any interpretations.

      4. Its not what would be different but rather what should be different. people just can’t resist tinkering with stuff that ain’t broke. It also gives people that sense of power when they start “adding” on. I was in government. Enabling legislation was passed, five years later, you would not recognize how the bills morphed. On a Federal level, when the ADA was passed, a real great feel good bill, sponsored by a really great guy, Sen. Dole, I saw, thanks to the Civil Rights Bills of the 60’s, reasons to oppose it. As usual, my objections were pushed aside by otherwise intellegent people. A few short years later, Drug addiction, Alcoholism and various deviant behavior became “disabilities”. What liquor store do you want your check sent to? I do feel though that most of this stuff is not unintentional. many backers of this type of legislation want the back door, through the courts, approach rather than have to vote up or down and face the voters. That’s one of the reaspons I am so down on the courts. This notion that “We are a nation of laws” is just so much BS。

      You are too cynical on that Constitution thing. Maybe I’m too dumb but based on when it was written, and by who, I still take that “We the People” stuff seriously.

      • Black Flag says:

        SK Trynosky Sr.

        1. No guarantee that I would, much is subjective. By and large it is better not to pass laws. If you must have them, have them on a local level so that you may deal directly with the sponsors. All laws should have a sunset provision which provides one very important benefit. It allows polititicians the cover of doing nothing when something expires.

        If the way one determines “just law” is merely based on subjective measures (ie: emotional), how possibly can anyone prevent tyranny?

        3.the interpretation is what is used to destroy peoples rights, not the constitution itself. We would, I believe, do better if we relied on an 18th century dictionary and “the federalist papers” exclusively in any interpretations.

        Two key questions:

        1) Why does it need interpretation? Is it written in a different language than English?


        2) Who gets to interpret the document? By what right and why?

        4. Its not what would be different but rather what should be different…..

        You are too cynical on that Constitution thing. Maybe I’m too dumb but based on when it was written, and by who, I still take that “We the People” stuff seriously.

        While your awareness of precisely what the problem is – how can it not be such?

        If the government controls the rules by which it rules, how can this not – eventually – lead to totalitarianism and tyranny?

        • 1. I can only point to the pornography comment by our esteemed former SC justice, “I know it when I see it”. That is why there is a Constitution, to provide a brake on the government and why all laws should be sunset.

          3. Exactly! Why should this document need intrepretation? It tends to say what it says in a simple and effective manner. the courts claim the right to interpret which is where all the mischief comes from.

          4. Totally agree, that is where we are headed. Under the guise of “protecting us” or giving us more bogus “freedoms”, they are actually whittling away our rights. Didn’t Jefferson once advocate a revolution every twenty years or so? Unfortunately, if you take one thing away every year for fifty years, by the end of that time, very few, mostly students of history, will be aware of what has transpired. Hence my constant refrain, “Why was it OK for 200 years and not any more?”

          • Black Flag says:

            1. So if others ‘know it when they see it too’, that’ll be alright too then?

            Thus, it will be whoever has the chair of power will determine ‘just’.

            3. It isn’t just the court. Since the Constitution only allowed the government the power to enforce the Constitution – what happened today is unavoidable. This is my complaint against all the “constitutionalists” – they have exactly the consequence – there is no other.

            4. Yes, he did. However, replacing the same with the same will only make the same.

  37. Black Flag, If you’re feeling kindly toward me, I have something I’d like you to look over.

    Mish Shedlock posted an article today (The Big Inflationist Scare)
    debunking another article by Gary North (Pushing on a String links in the first if you want to see it). Mr. North articulated some of the same reasoning that you generously shared last week when I asked about deflation, but his analysis was not as extensive as yours. Mr. Shedlock takes issue with several points.

    MS: Gary’s hypothesis “the Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED”, is just that, a hypothesis, and I believe a very poor one at that.

    The Fed does have the ability, under that aegis of its charter and relationship with the current administration, to force banks to increase lending at exceptionally attractive terms if necessary to entice reluctant borrowers. It has not executed that ability recently.

    MS: Bernanke’s idea to pay interest on reserves will slowly recapitalize banks over time. This is why he desperately wanted to do so. To suggest he is about to charge interest on deposits is silly.

    Slowly, as in geological time? The interest rate is < 1%.

    MS: The key fact now is there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt. Thus, if banks had to pay interest on reserves, rather than causing mass inflation, the Fed would cause mass panic.

    I don't have a good rebuttal for the first part, but I question that panic assertion in the last part. My experience in the back office of local bank tells me that, as a group, bankers don't panic easily, and I suspect that the change of a relatively new (Oct 08) Fed regulation would not send them screaming into the night.

    MS: Indeed, the likely result would be banks scrambling for dollars to repay the Fed as opposed to a mad dash to lend dollars.

    Even if they get the required permissions from the Fed, Treasury, the payback czar and their mamas, TARP has no impact on the regulations requiring reserve deposits, that money remains in the vault or at the Fed.

    MS: Of course those "excess reserves" are a mirage; they don't really exist. Banks need those reserves because of the massive wave of credit card defaults and foreclosures yet to hit the books. Every uptick in unemployment exacerbates credit card losses, foreclosures, losses on home equity loans, etc, something that Gary North ignores.

    A mirage in a number of ways: fiat money; virtual deposits. Credit card defaults are ticking up, led by the taxpayers' old buddy BofA at 12%, with JPMorgan trailing the fivepack at 8.91%, handing us an average of 9.92. The 2005 average was 6%, after the bankruptcylaws changed, the 2007 avg was 4.5. That is significant, but less than 'massive' would imply. And isn't the existence of (and potential for more) huge loss the reason for the 'financial crisis'. Besides you forgot commercial real estate, but points will be awarded for 'unemployment exacerbates'.

    MS: So charging interest on reserves would not bring about inflation, it would cause a systemic deflationary crash.

    Google said to define systemic deflationary crash as a severe reduction in all lending activity – that doesn't contradict my understanding of deflation. I recently read in an article by Mish Shedlock that "there are not enough credit worthy customers for banks to want to lend, or for that matter willing borrowers looking to expand debt".

    What did I miss/turn around? Please be gentle. c

    • USWeapon says:


      Is it OK if I move this to the open mic night when I post it Tuesday night rather than having him answer it here?

      • Black Flag says:


        I’ll post a reply for Tues. night Open Mic

        • SFC Dick says:

          WOW, holy peso batman, it looks like Black Flag actually knows what he’s talking about!

          Didn’t I post a while back, that the level of individual we have on this board rivals or excedes that of some “recognized” experts out in the media now.

          no need to answer, yes I did.

      • US, Tuesday is fine, thanks for asking, and a special thanks for providing this forum, you are doing a fantastic thing and for the record, I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. 😉

  38. USWeapon says:

    Ray Hawkins said on June 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm e
    I didn’t write the blog, I just responded to its own inherent hypocrisy.

    I simply don’t see the hypocrisy that you are claiming exists. I will attempt to answer it as you laid out:

    Follow me on this:
    Example – atheism and the swearing in ceremony. Ok – so why are these folks upset? What is the underlying reason or purpose behind the charge? Perhaps they do like to just stir the pot, create trouble, be disruptive and so on. But perhaps also they believed that there is a separation issue at hand – the mere suggestion or notion that the word ‘god’ be used in this context sets off their separation alarms. Would most of us find that irrational? Perhaps. I for one don’t think that including ‘god’ in the swearing in ceremony guarantees that god and state are now inter-twined and forever linked.

    OK, example #1, I see where you are with this. I agree that these people may see a separation issue. But they are not forced to watch the ceremony, and there is clearly NOT a separation issue. Because a few folks think that your hair is purple and take offense to that does not make it so. However, if their issue is with the Constitutionality of the use of the word God, by all means they are welcome to say so and make their constitutional argument. I have no issue with it what-so-ever. If their issue is that the word God hurts their feelings or offends them (which was the case for the guy who fought it in the inauguration), they are whiners and should shut the hell up.

    Now – take the same idea here – the mere suggestion of banning or controlling any guns immediately sets off a reaction in any/all 2nd amendment proponents (many of whom post here and post frequently). If I were to suggest that assault weapons be banned I would be slammed mercilessly – those slammers are not seen as whiners and crybabies, they are seen as strong advocates for sticking to the Constitution (in reality, would one not still have ample firepower w/o the assault rifles?) wherein someone that demands an outright and pervasive separation of Church and State is seen as a whiner or crybaby.

    Example #2. Again, if those who slam you are doing so because they see an issue with the constitutionality of what you are saying, then I have no issue with it at all. If they are saying that you cannot say assault weapons should be banned because it hurts their feelings, they are whiners and should shut the hell up. I don’t see a single bit of hypocrisy in how I address these two examples you provide. I see that you assumed that I have an issue with all atheists who want to remove God from something. That was your mistake. I have an issue when someone is saying that it hurts their feelings. Because you don’t have the right to not get your feelings hurt. Question the constitutionality of anything you want. I don’t see that as whining or crying. I may see it as stupid depending on the issue, but I didn’t call it whining.

    Go back and read through the issues that I provided again. You will note that every single issue, every one, was presented in terms of people whining because their feelings are hurt or because they are uncomfortable, NEVER because they were challenging the Constitutionality of something.

    So allow me to make it a bit clearer for you so that you don’t make a false assumption again and label me a hypocrite when I am not (at least not in this case):

    If a Christian objects to someone wearing an “I heart Satan” T-shirt because it makes them uncomfortable or hurts their feelings, I say they are whining and should shut the hell up.

    If a White Person complains about the “FUBU” label (stands for “For Us By Us” for Black people) because it hurts their feelings or makes them uncomfortable, I say they are whining and should shut the hell up.

    If a Straight Person complains that a gay couple walks down the street holding hands because it makes them uncomfortable or hurts their feelings, I say they are whining and should shut the hell up.

    But you know what the difference is between these examples and the ones I provided above? The court will back up the Devil Worshiper, the black business, and the gay couple. But they won’t back up the Christian banned from wearing a cross T-shirt, the white businessman who comes out with a White Power line of clothing, or the person who wants to fly the flag. It seems to me that when it comes to being politically correct, it is only the left that has the power to enforce the rights of a few to not be offended over the rights of free speech and expression of others. I asked for examples of where political correctness come from a conservative point of view. I have yet to see you offer any. You made a nice diversion to attempt to paint me a hypocrite, but I am not that easy of a mark my friend. When I am wrong I will say that I am wrong. But in this case, I still don’t see it as being so.

    • SFC Dick says:


      I don’t see it as hurt feelings, it’s not about feelings, it’s about power.

      I have the power to make you take down a nativity scene on the city square, in a mostly Christian nation. WOW! Stalin whishes he could have done that to the US.

      Oh yeah, seperation of church and state BLAH BLAH ….NOT.

      comprehension here…the state shall not establish… a religion.

      “but but….( breathless hyperventilations here)it’s on state property and therefore….”

      save it crack pot, no one is forcing you to observe, worship etc. No one is going to charge you a higher parking fee because you worship a space alien or a tree or the Earth.

      No one is going to keep you out of the premire showing of Micheal Moores newest flick or deny you a McRib sandwich because you hate the baby Jesus.

      It’s all about power. Remeber when the word ##### was obscene? Remember when polite people didn’t swear in public?

      Remember when people said stuff like “respect all men” content of character stuff?

      well, that’s not good enough because that gives no power and takes no power.

      Now, scream ###### while you punch some one in the head for touching your stuff and it just went from simple assualt to felonious hate crime.

      Steal your workers pension, get a golden parachute. Tell a joke about “these three dudes went into a bar, a #####, a ##### and the pope……

      That gets out and the next thing you know you are fired from your PRIVATE SECTOR JOB and have a license revoked.

      I can tell you this, it wasn’t because you hate the baby Jesus, or don’t recognize the supremecy of the vatican etc

      it’s because that little PC, be nice, morphed into what was intended, control.

      Control speech, control society

      Save the breathless “but buts…what abouts…hypocrisy crap.

      see, I don’t see the same limitations on the 1st amendment as some. I see people being held responsible for what actions are taken, but not the profanities that some see.

      Want some real profanity, try this on for size. * years of war in Afghanistan and a continued “we get it now” and continued faliures at the highest levels. That is profane, but today it’s business as usual.

      Folks pray to your tree, earth, alien or baby Jesus that we don’t tangle with a real foe any time soon. We do not have the military leadership. We will make the French debacle of WWII look like the greatest Caesars of all times. We do not have the leadership able to maintain a push to Baghdad against the Iraqi fractured army, and those dudes on the field all got promoted and are running both wars now.

      There is your profanity.

  39. USWeapon says:

    So back around we come – we all know the conservative tent is small, its getting smaller by the day.

    You can keep believing that if you want to, but Obama’s approval rating seems to be slipping a little more with each expansion of government and socialist-like program he implements. Those on the left would do well to not underestimate the number of conservatives who crossed over and voted for a candidate that presented himself as a centrist and then sprinted to the left, laughing all the way. Clinton won an easy victory too. And the left felt invincible after that. Yet George Bush still won the White House after that…. twice. I wouldn’t start feeling all comfortable just yet. The left found themselves a great speaker, but now he has to act, and that isn’t working out to be nearly as flawless as the campaign was. I dislike the Republican party as well, admittedly not as much as the hard left, but they will be back in force. As they always say, the best way to get a Republican to win the White House is to let the nation see what a Democrat does in that position.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Declines in approval rating – not sure how strong that linkage is to the conservative tent – tenuous at best I would think. It would be naive to think his approval rating would not drop somewhat – you cannot make everyone happy all the time. Further, was it not more so moderates and right leaning moderates that crossed-over? I don’t think it was conservatives as much – but perhaps therein lies the problem. I’ll thank my friend Chris for turning me to John Dean’s work, well referenced, that clearly and sanely points out several manifestations of why conservatives simply don’t know who the hell they are anymore (when in doubt, just say no), thus their own deliberate tent shrinkage. That is far more their own doing that any ‘popular’ Democrat President (Clinton or Obama).

  40. Hi all……I had to leave last Friday without posting on Korea until I got back and looky what I ran into…..something that everyone feels strongly about. SO, USW, before I post to the Korea issue, this one comes first……and I do not give a tinkers damn, whom I piss off….but I will be interested in seeing who responds with political correctness…….so here goes.

    I believe USW is correct because (and you will not see me wax philosophical here…no quotes from Dr. King, no Marxist Diatribe, no Thoreau, no Paine…just Danak13)

    PC= Political Correctness = the Cowards Way Out. I say it this way, because it is easier to give in than to stand up for what, I consider tradition, and what has made this country great. Of course, there are those who do not think that this country is great. SO….

    PETA – People who eat tasty animals. They have tried to get on family ranchland to “monitor” our livestock and hunting privileges, etc. As long as they stay off our land, they can say or do whatever. But, on our land, we have strict guidelines on hunting, caring for beef critters, horses, and the like. It is a friggin’ ranch. Animals have seasons and we respect those seasons. PETA is open season. They are hard to clean though. Get over it…if a fly comes around, it gets swatted. If a mosquito lands on me, it dies. If a coyote is seen, it gets shot. ( I guess you want to know why…. They kill new borne calves). If a road runner ventures out it dies. (oh, I bet you want to know why…because roadrunners kill quail and we want a quail population…and who takes up for the quail ?) If I see a fire ant mound, it dies. However, if I see a hawk, it lives. I let snakes go their way, unless they choose to fight. The deer population flourishes but it does not starve…. No, we do not feed them in feeders…they survive on their own and we trim the population so that it does survive. That is the way. The turkeys are majestic and the flock flourishes. Point being, humankind, with few exceptions, will take care of what nature provides. So, I need not be PC.

    Christmas – Sorry, like it or not, it is a Christian day and Santa is a tradition in America. I am not a Christian, per se….but I do understand and believe in tradition. It is the COWARD that takes the tree away to avoid confrontation. It is a COWARD that takes Santa Clause away to avoid confrontation. It is a COWARD that says you cannot wear a cross in school but a Burqa is ok. It is a COWARD that says you cannot have a rebel flag but can fly a black power flag. This is the USA. If you come here, live with it. It is not your “right” to impose your outside traditions and beliefs in my country as it is not right for me to do the same in your country. Live with it for it is not the individual that is offended that is the problem, it is the COWARD that agrees with it. Lawsuits be damned. If city hall wants a manger scene, then it is ok to do that and only that. It is tradition. Do not give me diatribe that because it is a public building, the separation of church and state prevail…. I do not buy it. If the same City Hall were to put up another religious scene, it is I would defend that as well. So I need not be PC.

    I am sure that I will provoke something here….the American Flag – (Come on, you know my background).. It is a symbol. It is, indeed cloth but it represents something more that a country. It represents individualism and freedom. It represents free thoughts and the expression thereof (don’t anticipate here folks)… It represents tradition.
    USW…. I am very familiar with the flag issue at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas. I was part of it. It made the news because of the efforts of the person who owned the flag and the veterans groups that rallied to her cause. The true rendition is thus…. She put the flag on her wall over her desk in her cubicle that was shared by three others. She goes home for Memorial Day weekend to return and find that it had been taken down, not folded, and thrown on the floor next to her desk. The person that it offended did this…. Not the management. The person offended is from another country and is working there. They got into a confrontation and management took the COWARDS way out by being PC and told her to leave it down, thus avoiding conflict. The lady who owned the flag called channel five local news and we picked it up. Within three hours, we, the veterans groups in Fort Worth and Dallas, had descended upon Kindred Hospital with over 1,000 little flags, (there were about 140 of us) and stood outside the hospital and supported the lady. The emails were so inundating, that it shut down their servers in Texas and Kentucky (Corporate HQ) and the phone lines so jammed that they had to hire extra help not only to clear the lines but to catalogue and erase voice mail that had jammed the system. It forced the Management to reconsider their position and the lady now has her flag up and the person that took it down is on voluntary leave of absence because the furor was so great that she was ostracized and embarrassed. ALL BECAUSE SHE WAS OFFENDED IN MY COUNTRY. DFW airport is a short distance away…get on the plane and go home. She has NO RIGHT….yes…NO RIGHT to take anything down. So, we were not PC nor give a damn.

    The same right that gives a person freedom to burn my country’s flag gives me the same right and freedom to take that flag away as my expression of free speech and douse the flames and treat it correctly. I will also not be PC in the display of my Country’s flag. Here, there are, or were, lots of Mexican flags flying on the same height or higher than the US flag. We boycott these establishments, protest them, and I will go onto their property and take their flag down (if it is higher than the US flag ), treat it with respect and fold it and hand it to them. I will not burn it nor destroy it but I will preserve the tradition in the US that MY flag will be dominant and will remain dominant. If, however, they choose to fly only their flag and not the American Flag, then that is their right to do so….. as it is my right to organize boycotts and post publicly those institutions that do so. I will not be PC.

    Anyway, you get the point. Obviously, I could go on and on. Men are from Earth…Women are from Earth….Live with it. If you are from another country… Please, you are welcome…. But leave mine alone. Go home if you do not like it here.

    • Bama Dad says:

      Well said.

    • SFC Dick says:

      Danak13, sir
      Instead of explaining why you kill things, I would have preferred something like

      “I am master of all my lands. If i say “die” it dies, if I say “live” it flourishes. I am created in the image of my God and in such I reign over all that exists around me.

      but that’s just me, a bit of a thesbian, but in a good way.

      BTW, any one touching any of my stuff needs a punch to the head, you might not get a punch to the head but there are not enough people punching heads any longer.

      Punching to the head seemed to maintain a certain social order.

      I imagine all sorts getting all dewy eyed and nostalgic if Ron Howard were to make a movie about some lady, working in a hospital durring WWII, her son is off to fight the Nazis and some German imigrant tears down her flag while she’s away. The next scene would be some all American type guy, who volunteered but couldn’t get in because he’s got scrumboliousis of the gendations device, so he has to stay home and work with the women, but he’s a good man, quite man, strong. He comes in, see’s this ( insert adj here )imigrant tear down the flag and he walks over and punches said dude in the head. Big, formerly quiet guy, slowly and with most respect, picks up the US flag and rehangs it on the wall……and scene!

      Yup, all manner of folks would be all teary eyed on that one. Now….yeh, not so much.

      • Danak13 says:

        OK….here goes…

        “I am master of all my lands. If i say “die” it dies, if I say “live” it flourishes. I am created in the image of my God and in such I reign over all that exists around me.”

        Ahhh…that was empowering…now, can I go kill something? 🙂

  41. SFC Dick says:

    I just got finished posting on another blog where I insulted my two newest 4 star commanders by name, a pretty well read blog that, so my work there is done.

    Ah heck, come to think about it, I just riled the whole Kennedy clan as I tossed in the “retard” line. Nice, a twofer, or threefer, what ever.

    Seeing that I am the first, last, final and correct word on all things, I might ask a simple question.

    What’s up with all this interpret talk anyway. Interpret? When was the last time someone asked, could you interpret that there paragraph and answer these few questions? Was Bob the father or son? How far did Nancy have to travel to publicly humiliate her husband? Why do the democrats have any credibility on anything when they themselves refer to the republicans as being “right” on every issue?

    Or, is that particular drill called a reading comprehension exercise?

    It is a reading comprehension exercise.

    Therefore and in summation of, why doesn’t anyone ask “can you comprehend the constitution”?

    Or maybe a better question is, does the question mark go inside or outside the parenthesis?

    Anyway, no one asks “can you comprehend “ because that infers a certain correct and incorrect.

    A certain reality exists and certain logic follows. There comes a certain “you are a dope” reality that doesn’t set well with some, especially those pushing an agenda.

  42. Proud Soldiers Mom says:

    How many of you have young children? How many young children even know the words to the pledge of allegence? It’s a sad sad day when our children learn how NOT to be proud of their country.

  43. In Indiana says:


  44. sgt Pearce says:

    Your second sentence says: I despise whining and crying and people getting their feelings hurt over something that they should not have any issue with
    Your whole article is about whining.
    And the photo of the baby as being the official seal of dems?
    We won!
    We aren’t crying like this article is!
    If you want to see cry babies, turn on fox
    Get off your ass and volunteer instead of whining all day about how messed up this country is. Whats messed up is the fact that all these people complain about everything on this blog but I bet none of them volunteer. Maybe you should help out the homeless, the poor, the illegals, before you judge them. It sounds racist to me when you talk about illegals. Just admit your racist so we can move on.

  45. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    I volunteer, it’s my 25th year with the Boy Scouts. Even more with my church.

    What is it about the word illegal that you don’t understand. If you are a sgt. of something, no doubt you took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I for one, see a problem with illegals and that word foreign.

    In the North West Bronx, there is a cluster of Irish illegals and guess what? I think they should be rounded up and deported too. Don’t much care where you sneaked in from, just that you snuck in. As a union guy, I watch the illegals depress my wages but I guess you don’t see that, hell, for that matter, neither does my union leadership, Amazing how short sighted some are.

    To call me a racist, well, that comment alone tells me what kind of person you are.

%d bloggers like this: