Open Thread for December 28, 2009

As I figured might be the case with my son home for the holidays, I have been spending all my free time hanging out with him. Tonight consisted of a long discussion on liberty and what things the government can do that thwarts liberty from both ends of the political spectrum. It is interesting to help him learn the world of politics. It is also difficult, because I am trying to teach him to think on the issues, find what he really believes, and let him make up his own mind and come to his own conclusions. A difficult task for someone as opinionated as I am. But these are important discussions to have. A generation of dependent citizens may be raised by today’s public education system, but my son will not be one of them. As promised, on the nights that I don’t write, I am offering a simple open thread so that whatever discussions people may like to have can be done without simply adding to whatever the last thread is.

As an interesting conversation starter, I offer the following:

Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says

Extending federal benefits to same-sex couples will cost taxpayers $898 million over the next nine years, according to an analysis of “domestic partnership” legislation released last by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO said in its Dec. 17 report that the House version of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act — H.R. 2517 — would cost $596 million in direct spending and $302 million in discretionary spending through 2019.

The independent nonpartisan agency found that “providing additional health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program” — for active and retired gay federal workers with spouses — “causes the largest increase in both mandatory and discretionary spending — $590 million and $266 million, respectively.”

The analysis notes, however, that enacting the legislation “would not have any direct impact on federal revenues.”

A 2004 analysis by CBO projected that federal outlays for domestic partners receiving federal benefits would cost about $100 million per year in 2010-2014 if the federal government approved same-sex marriage. Of the total, coverage for same-sex spouses of retired enrollees in the FEHB program would cost the government less than $50 million a year through 2014.

The 2004 report was written at the request of then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, an opponent of same sex marriage.

This year’s legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., an openly gay lawmaker, and with 138 cosponsors, would allow for homosexual partners of federal employees to receive the same benefits as married spouses, which include health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries and travel and relocation benefits.

President Obama has indicated his support for the measure, which is still awaiting a vote in both the House and Senate. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee voted Dec. 16 to forward the legislation on to the full Senate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved it in November.

Find the original article on Fox News:  FOXNews.com – Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says

I found this interesting mostly because of the headline that shows up on the Fox News Main page. It doesn’t say a number, it simply reads “Benefits for Same-Sex Couples Costly for Taxpayers”.  Then you click on that and this article shows up. In my opinion, that is a bit misleading, as when I hear “costly” and “taxpayers” in the same sentence, I am thinking billions of dollars, possibly trillions. And I think that was the point. For those that don’t click the link, they walk away with some really high number in their head.

898 million dollars. And they have the audacity to call that “Costly”? I understand that it is a chunk of money, but that really is chump change. I mean the Fannie and Freddie execs got over 200 million in bonuses for last year. Pelosi got 300 million plus for birth control in San Francisco in the agenda spending (oops, I mean stimulus) bill. So 898 million over 9 years to give equal benefits to gay couples doesn’t seem like it is even worth reporting as a large expense. I mean compared to 900 Billion for the latest health reform bull, this is nothing. Seems to me the headline on the main page is meant to sway people’s opinion over what is essentially a non-issue (and before you say I have simply become to conditioned and now accept outrageous sums, I do understand the idea of a billion dollars being large). When put into perspective with the other madness coming out of Washington DC, this seems like a no brainer.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning! I’m just posting for comments this morning, have several inches of fresh snow to move before I embark for work.

    Anything under a billion with this Congress seems like a bargain these days. I also think midnight on the 31st will be more of a relief rather than a celebration, 2009 really stunk, let’s hope for a better 1010.

    G!

    • I saw this article and like most media if you have time to read the whole thing the main tag line can be misleading.

      I back to the government should not be involved in the marriage business at all. If you want to be seen as a couple in your church that is between you and them.

      Hope the new year is better and brighter for everyone!

    • for comments also

  2. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-likely-to-speak-about-flight-253.html

    “White House sources tell ABC News the President will “likely” speak publicly about the alleged attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253 in the next few days. The President is on vacation in his native state of Hawaii…”

    No change at all.

    • Damn I hate it when they pull me off the golf course to deal with this crap. Where’s Joe when I need him? If JaNo would’ve put a better spin on her first speech than, “The System Worked” I would have been left alone. Have to talk to her about using more creative ways of working the MSM; they’ll eat up just about anything we tell them, you just have to be a little smoother with it….and she could have just blamed Bush for goodness sakes. That always works. Well, back to the links. Maybe this will go away before I really have to say anything.

    • This interview with Peter King this morning is very telling as well. Very scary.

      http://video.foxnews.com/12898810/the-system-works?category_id=a9594f0389e4ea58938175cbd26195fbedd640ad

  3. I think the biggest problem with gay marriage is the health benefits and tax breaks. If this country is about equality for all, a tax break just for being married is punishing those that are not married. In most places you have to pay for your health care not sure how this works for unions and government but if you add a domestic relationship or a dependent you would pay more than for just one person. I can’t think of anymore monetary things that benefit marriage.

    I am in support of the government declaring that they do not recognize marriage and they will now only look at dependants and household income when looking at taxes. If one spouse does not work, that is a dependant, if a member of the house doesn’t work or is less than 18, that is a dependant. The biggest outcry will be because people don’t get their tax break anymore and not about gay marriage at all.

    • Why not a flat tax for all with no deductions….personal or business? Let everyone pay their own way…then it does not matter.

      • but with a flat tax no one will get confused and then the IRS will not have to audit people and then most of them wouldn’t have jobs. Sounds like a good crisis to me.

      • Flat tax??

        Everyone the same percentage or same amount?

        Why one and not the other?

        Do you honestly believe taxes is required for revenue?

        • BF asks: Do you honestly believe taxes is required for revenue?

          D13 says: Yessir and here is why. IF and that is a BIG IF everyone voluntarily paid,as you surmise they would, then I would say no taxes. But the reality is that everyone will not support any system at all. Neighbors will NOT come to your aid, not in this day and time…everyone will not support a road system. Everyone will not drill a well because everyone will not pay for a water system….things like this.

          In a perfect world…a one world…then all would support. If there were no government at all ( and I would love to see it but, alas, it will never happen ) then there would be chaos because there would be no collective good ( and I do not mean this is a socialist bend )or people pitching in. This is reality.

          Taxes (and remember I hate them like a pariah) is the only way EVERYONE will support any system. So….my recommendation would be very damned little government but enough to prevent chaos. (if that is possible because I feel a little government grows into a big government). Or make it a fee based system….period. If you do not pay for it…it is not there. That includes all services, food, medical, police, fire, etc. But there must be the rule of law for without any laws there will be open warfare because elements will not band together and if they do, that, then becomes a government for there will be rules among the bands.

          Sorry for the rabbit trail but that is why I believe in a fee based system first, then a flat tax system. EVERYONE should pay. Rich, poor, disabled….everyone.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Please compare the amount of money SPENT by our “government” to the amount that they actually take in in taxes.

            Taxation is NOT USED TO FUND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS ARE FUNDED BY SELLING DEBT.

            Since government operations are funded by selling debt, taxation must serve some other purpose rather than funding government operations.

            Since taxations serves some other purpose, and does not serve the purpose of funding government operations, what do you think that purpose might be?

            • Peter…I never said that government was responsible and you are correct that the money collected is not spent in a balanced budget. Debt should not be allowed unless in the constraints of what is taken in….just like you. If you take on debt, you better have the cash flow to cover it, correct?

              The only way that I can see it happen where it is as legitimate as you can get would something like the Texas model. Our government cannot deficit spend and cannot take on debt unless it is in the budget. It is in our State Constitution. Consequently, if we do not have enough in the till, it is not paid or not funded and that includes all State services. Our governor was smart enough to not take stimulus money that required continuation of programs after the fed money ran out.

              So, I think it is possible to do with fiscal responsibility. However, the good governor of California recently made a statement that any state government that does not deficit spend is not taking care of its citizens….but what would you expect from a, ummm, governator that thinks Europe is a good model.

            • D13,

              You complete missed Peter’s point.

              It is not an argument about the benefit or detriment of debt financing.

              It is an argument that taxation has absolutely nothing to do with financing the government. “Financing government” is a total facade.

              In fact, D13, the government explicitly admits this as a fact

              “..the tax code is frequently used for public policy reasons i.e., to achieve social, economic, and political goals.”

              Of the last budget, income tax accounts for only 1/3 of the expenditures of government. The rest is composed of some sort of borrowing – primarily the creation of Treasury Bills sold to the FED (ie: a 3-card Monte game of printing money)

              You base your theory of flat-tax on a need of revenue. Such a need does not exist – hence, your theory of flat tax cannot exist either.

              D13, allow me to be direct – the odds that a flat tax will exist is significantly lower than the odds of eliminating taxation all together.

              • I will agree with your statement that a flat tax will never exist and neither will the elimination of taxes…but I did miss Peter’s point.

      • All for a flat tax, even like the sound of only paying taxes on what you buy even better although I haven’t studied the ideas enough to know the draw backs-don’t see where this would solve all the problems related to the inequalities of civil unions and marriage rights though.

        • Well, V…you are correct. It will not address this issue at all…EXCEPT…there would be no need for laws or regulations to even address civil unions…therefore no need for tax loopholes or reasons to even protest civil unions. Civil unions would be no big deal except for the extreme right or left. Most civil union issues are for taxes and health…nothing more.

        • V I also do not have a problem with a VAT if it is the only tax there is.

    • Nathan

      Which makes you ask the question how many people would not get married if it didnt come with tax breaks etc?

      • Actually Ellen….define the word marriage without the government or church definition. Standing at a alter or in front of witnesses or in front of a horse doctor does not make the decision of being with someone any greater….only legal.

        If your heart says your intended other is the right one…and your intended other is the same..you have a marriage….in my opinion.

        • D13

          You right on that one. That is why I dont really pay much attention to the gay marriage issue. I dont need anyone to make my relantionship valid.

          Hope you are well!

          Ellen

  4. There are many rights attached to marriage.-would be extremely complicated to get government completely out of marriage. I don’t see where simply changing the tax code would solve the inequalities and I do believe that a lot of the rights or benefits listed below should be given.

    “Marriage Rights and Benefits
    Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.

    Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there’s no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits — both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
    Tax Benefits

    * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
    * Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

    Estate Planning Benefits

    * Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
    * Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    * Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse — that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

    Government Benefits

    * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    * Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    * Receiving public assistance benefits.

    Employment Benefits

    * Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
    * Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    * Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    * Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

    Medical Benefits

    * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
    * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

    Death Benefits

    * Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
    * Making burial or other final arrangements.

    Family Benefits

    * Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
    * Applying for joint foster care rights.
    * Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
    * Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

    Housing Benefits

    * Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
    * Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

    Consumer Benefits

    * Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance.
    * Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
    * Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

    Other Legal Benefits and Protections

    * Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    * Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
    * Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
    * Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
    * Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
    * Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

    Note that if you are in a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, many of the benefits of marriage won’t apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file jointly. And other federal benefits, such as COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.

    To learn more about the rights and benefits available to same-sex couples, consult a lawyer with expertise in this area and see Making It Legal:A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage, Domestic Partnerships & Civil Unions, by Frederick Hertz with Emily Doskow (Nolo).”

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html

    • Very true, V. Holland.

      Government has made marriage complex.

      But all it takes is exactly 5 words to fix it.

      “Get out of my life”

    • V…as previously noted, I do not agree with BF or most of h is philosophies; however, here is where he and I agree. Government does not belong in marriage…under any circumstance. All of those issues that you raised could easily be solved with an enforceable agreement between you and your spouse and it does not take a government to do that.

      • I guess the answer lies in your use of the word enforceable-seems that couples who have civil unions have had a lot of problems enforcing their contracts because the government doesn’t really acknowledge them or people ignore them. I suppose if government didn’t acknowledge any specific relationship it would, with time work. Although the marriage laws do promote the family unit which seems like a good idea for society as a whole.

        • V. Holland,

          What contract cannot be enforceable between two people?

          I always have a problem with this blanket statement that somehow civil unions cannot enforce contracts.

          I write contracts between entities almost every week for the most mundane to the most complicated scenarios.

          Are you trying to tell me two people cannot accomplish this – once???

          • I’m not saying they aren’t enforceable in a court of law-I am saying from what I have read-that people have a hard time having them followed in emergency situations like hospital visitation because the hospital doesn’t always acknowledge civil unions just on the persons word and by the time they prove it with their contract, it is too late to matter and that there can be a lot of problems related to children if one persons family questions the contract-where if two people are legally married the law is weighted in their favor.

            • So, the real complaint you have is that these people were wholly unprepared for the circumstances they were in.

              Indeed, even if you are married, you may run into the same issues. Just because you are a husband or wife does not AUTOMATICALLY make you the legal guardian of your spouse.

              In more words, your complaint, IMO, is unsubstantiated.

              Proper legal planning – regardless of same or hetro based relationships, is very important.

              Simple legal documents will create, by your design, the environment you wish.

              • I’m not saying that the people weren’t prepared, they could have the contract in hand but it would still take time to have it read and enforced-where marriage is legally backed by the government and our laws to the point that most people simply don’t question it -and if someone does question a parents rights the law is overwhelmingly on the side of the spouse.

              • V. Holland,

                The hospital is not in the business of getting in the way of family choice.

                There exists – already – an array of family documents under the names of “Living Wills” or “Declarations of Intent” etc. that are already accepted as norm.

                These are available to anyone for use by anyone.

                Heck, you can put my name on your document!

                So why can’t these be available to same-sex couples? Well, they ARE!!

                If you actually investigate these ‘complaints’ you will find:

                (1) the same issues occur to hetro-couples as well due to incompentence in the medical system. This means, it is not discriminatory – but simple negligence and incompetence of a wrecked system.

                (2) the people were wholly ignorant or unprepared. This happens to hetro-couples too!
                I know of quite a few spouses who lost medical control of their partners to the medical system – and left them high and dry and out of control. It’s sad – but again, it happens to anyone who is unprepared.

                I find it annoying (can you tell? 🙂 ) when people excuse their ignorance or laziness by raising the fog of discrimination.

              • v. Holland says:

                Perhaps things have already changed more than I realize, will think about your comments and try to learn more. I really didn’t notice you were annoyed by the excuses but you didn’t use bold print so I assume you aren’t really annoyed with me, maybe just a little. 🙂

              • with you, Not at al

                It is simply an observation of society – blame one’s own incompentence on anothers discrimination.

              • Are there no moral baselines anymore?

              • Whose moral baseline, Anoninnc? Mine, yours, D13, Judy, USWep??

          • I think my main point is -is it better to give gay couples the protections of the laws that married people have or to take away all those protections that are created and very enforceable because of the governments support of the family unit and replace them with just contracts.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hi V

              Sorry to butt in here, but in my opinion, I think gay couples should have the same rights and protections as any other married couple. What difference does it make who is married to who? No, I don’t mean people marrying animals, or their cars or whatever either.

              I feel and think it’s discrimination against gay couples who want to get married, live together, have families just like the rest of us. Put everything in writing and have it notarized just to make sure that there is no problems if they should face any hospitalization, surgeries, or any other legalities, that their significant other needs to be taken care of.

              Hope you’re doing well today.

            • I cannot disagree more.

              Every single protection of law already exists for these couples.

              Burdening society with more law will not solve the problem – if there are already laws there, why do you want more laws to do what the current laws already do? All that creates is wholesale confusion in a system already confused.

              Simply apply the laws that are already in place.

              How simple is that?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I didn’t say anything about having more laws Flag. Granted, if they are already there, then fine, don’t change them, I was just merely stating that I see that gay couples have more trouble or problems in the legal sense, than straight couples, especially when it comes to, say adopting children for instance.

                Why should they be denied in adopting or having the same as any married couple?

                I noticed that if you’re not a rich celebrity and can pay up front, then it seems to me that there is no problem. But if gays want to adopt, then it seems to me, their life style comes into question and it makes it harder for them too. Who is it that says gay couples can’t be good parents or even better than a man and woman? I think it’s judgmental for those who think otherwise.

                But, like I said, this is just my opinion on it too.

  5. http://www.econlib.com/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html

    An interesting article regarding “Public Choice” – the economics of politics.

    It’s long but interesting read – but for those that rather receive just the basics and the conclusion, I’ll “Reader Digest” it for you.

    The fundamental unit of economics is the individual – his personal choices, for his own needs and wants, drives the optimum economic strategy for all of society.

    However, “Public Choice” in politics transfers this same individual actor, with the same motives, into the realm of Public Force.

    The actor remains the same – makes choices for his own needs or wants – but the tool is far more broad.

    Thus, he can force his desires upon others who do not share that desire.

    For example, if he needs a dam to prevent water from flooding his property, he can via Public Choice, in concert with other, force people who are not at risk from water to also pay for his dam.

    Thus, in the politics – the desires of the individual is now skewed, not into the optimum of strategies for society – but its worst possible strategy and create a threat of destruction.

    The consequence of this musical chair of politics – that is, he who sits in “that chair” forces all others to his desire and wants – causes a move to an average – a public policy that is centralist, wholly ineffective, ill-motived, banal, and dangerously incompetent.

    From the article:

    The Lessons of Public Choice

    One key conclusion of public choice is that changing the identities of the people who hold public office will not produce major changes in policy outcomes. Electing better people will not, by itself, lead to much better government.

    [ Again, much of my argument against voting – it makes no difference whatsoever – BF]

    Adopting the assumption that all individuals, be they voters, politicians, or bureaucrats, are motivated more by self-interest than by public interest evokes a Madisonian perspective on the problems of democratic governance.

    Like that founding father of the American constitutional republic, public choice recognizes that men are not angels and focuses on the importance of the institutional rules under which people pursue their own objectives.

    “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself” (Federalist, no. 51).

    Institutional problems demand institutional solutions.

    If, for example, democratic governments institutionally are incapable of balancing the public budget, a constitutional rule that limits increases in spending and taxes to no more than the private sector’s rate of growth will be more effective in curbing profligacy than “throwing the rascals out.”

    Given the problems endemic to majority-rule voting, public choice also suggests that care must be exercised in establishing the domains of private and collective choice; that it is not necessarily desirable to use the same voting rule for all collective decisions; and that the public’s interest can be best protected if exit options are preserved by making collective choices at the lowest feasible level of political authority.

    ———

    The last sentence begs this question – the Constitution was created, essentially, to maximally limit government in its tasks, based on the prescribed theory – collective choices are, at best, the worst possible method of decision making over a broad population.

    So, for those such as Buck and Matt, to suggest that certain clauses extend government power into inarticulated areas of human affairs is a gross contradiction in the intent of limited government.

    For me, it is simply more proof that government – even in its best theory – cannot be contained from growing into massive tyranny.

    The musical chair game – regardless of the rules of constraints on its power – cannot contain a power that is self-described.

    Government makes its own rules for itself, decides which rules it chooses to enforce and when, and will ignore any rule on its own desire at anytime it finds itself necessary to do so.

    What constraint do the People have against that?

    Exactly one: refusing the existence of such an entity entirely.

  6. Mental competency testing, drug testing and now breathalyzers should be mandatory. Wow!

    Intoxicated Baucus discusses health care on Senate floor.

  7. Judy

    I was just merely stating that I see that gay couples have more trouble or problems in the legal sense, than straight couples, especially when it comes to, say adopting children for instance.

    Perhaps they do.

    But I see a confusion of causes here.

    You seem to believe that it is a law (or lack of) that prevents them from adopting.

    Let me tell you, there exists no such law that prevents them and there is no law that can be created to grant them superior adoption rights than anyone else (because that is what would need to happen).

    Adoption is determined by the person or the societal entity offering the adoption. Whatever rules they wish to operate under are theirs to chose.

    If you wish to pervert their choices in decisions over their guardianship of those children, you will risk guardianship over your own children.

    There are no free lunches – taking rights away from someone else, and hoping you are immune to the same taking.

    Why should they be denied in adopting or having the same as any married couple?

    Because the people who are offering the adoption do not want to have them adopt their kids.

    I noticed that if you’re not a rich celebrity and can pay up front, then it seems to me that there is no problem.

    If you were a guardian of an isolated child-soul, and some billionaire wanted to give that soul a magnificent life, wouldn’t you leap at such a chance to give that to that child?

    …or would you pussy-foot around and debate….??

    But if gays want to adopt, then it seems to me, their life style comes into question and it makes it harder for them too.

    Maybe it does. You can say the same thing about a drunk, too.

    “Why should the drunk’s life style determine adoption! That’s unfair!!!”

    Whatever criteria the guardian creates or uses is the guardians choice. That is what being a guardian means.

    Who is it that says gay couples can’t be good parents or even better than a man and woman? I think it’s judgmental for those who think otherwise.

    I agree – it is a judgment.

    And I am very comfortable in leaving that judgment to the person or persons whose duty is to guardian orphaned or severely disadvantaged children. Those guardians are doing what neither you or I are doing right now – protecting kids that are not their own with the same duty they would have protected their own flesh and blood.

    My opinion holds no weight whatsoever upon them.

    But, like I said, this is just my opinion on it too.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      If you wish to pervert their choices in decisions over their guardianship of those children, you will risk guardianship over your own children.

      There are no free lunches – taking rights away from someone else, and hoping you are immune to the same taking.
      _______________________________________________________________

      What do you meant by that?
      ________________________________________________________________

      If you were a guardian of an isolated child-soul, and some billionaire wanted to give that soul a magnificent life, wouldn’t you leap at such a chance to give that to that child?
      ______________________________________________________________

      Of course I would, no question about it. And, No, I wouldn’t pussy-foot around it or debate it. If there was a chance for that child to have a better life, then of course. But, what does it matter if that person or person’s were gay or straight? Seems that money does come into play here.Maybe it does.
      _____________________________________________________________

      You can say the same thing about a drunk too.

      “Why should the drunk’s life style determine adoption! That’s unfair!!!”
      _____________________________________________________________

      I think the drunk’s life style does determine adoption, because that would be endangering the child. It does not I think endanger a child’s life to let gays adopt.

      Who’s to say that even a billionaire wouldn’t endanger a child’s life? Just because a person is rich, poor, gay or straight, doesn’t necessarily mean that the child in question will have a better life. How do you know that, that billionaire isn’t a drunk themselves, and just put on a good show when it came time to adoption? You don’t know any more than I do.

      • There are no free lunches – taking rights away from someone else, and hoping you are immune to the same taking.
        _______________________________________________________________

        What do you meant by that?

        I mean that if you support activism that destroys he right of choice of guardians, you will destroy your guardianship over your own chidren too.

        Many people believe they can enact a law to fix ‘some problem’ other people have, yet keep themselves immune from that same ‘fixing’.

        They then are surprised when the government drops by and takes their kids away too. They fail to see that they supported that very law – but they just wanted other people to suffer the law, but not themselves.

        By supporting new laws that overrule the choices of guardians in an attempt to placate gay couples’ adoption desires will create laws that overrule YOUR choices for your own children too.

        But, what does it matter if that person or person’s were gay or straight? Seems that money does come into play here.Maybe it does.

        It obviously must matter to those that are offering the adoption. It is wholly up to them to set the criteria they wish to place on adopting parents.

        If they demand that the adopting parents require two left feet, then that is what their rule is.

        It is their guardianship that matters – whatever criteria – no matter what – is theirs to make.

        If you demand the use of force to overrule them, you will have give rights to others to use force over you too in regard to seizing your children.

        I think the drunk’s life style does determine adoption, because that would be endangering the child.

        Prove it.

        There are millions of drunk parents raising kids just fine.

        It does not I think endanger a child’s life to let gays adopt.

        Prove it. There are thousands of gay criminals.

        Who’s to say that even a billionaire wouldn’t endanger a child’s life? Just because a person is rich, poor, gay or straight, doesn’t necessarily mean that the child in question will have a better life. How do you know that, that billionaire isn’t a drunk themselves, and just put on a good show when it came time to adoption? You don’t know any more than I do.

        Exactly, Judy.

        So by what right do you declare to overrule the decisions and choices guardians make in their decision?

        You are not the guardian. You have no stake – good or bad – in the decision.

        Yet, you believe you can meddle in that decision so to support some pseudo-right of a bunch of strangers who you don’t know either?

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          I’m not arguing with you Flag, Was just putting down what comes into my thoughts and some of those questions with those thoughts, that’s all.

          Yes, you do bring up some very valid points, and I didn’t mean to imply that I was meddling in someone else’s business, again, just stating what goes on in my head sometimes and putting them down and questioning things.

          I’ve learned not to argue with you, so please, don’t think I was, okay.

          • It’s an important topic – more than merely a gay issue.

            Law is violence.

            Until people wake up to that realization, they end up – literally – blowing off their own arms and legs.

            Declaring the use of violence on people because some other people believe they are being ‘discriminated’ against is so very dangerous.

            It is using violence to override the rightful and non-violent decisions of other people.

            It doesn’t matter what you think of those people. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with their decision. It does matter that by the use of law, violence has been used against them for no other reason than some one else is disappointed by their rightful decision.

            People seem to have this fog about the use of law. “Make law against THOSE people, but leave me alone”

            But the People never seem to understand – they are “THOSE people” – and now they’ve just agreed to hang themselves.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Who said anything about violence? I didn’t even mention anything about that.

              I didn’t say anything about the laws or leaving me alone either. But I don’t understand when you say law is violence, how do you come to that conclusion? You don’t believe that there should any laws whatsoever?

              There has to be some sort of law and order, otherwise I think there would be more violence against each other, would there not? There has been laws and rules to live by ever since the beginning of time, as far as I’m concerned, has there not?

              Just my opinion Flag.

  8. Across the Desk of Black Flag

    Where the Jobs Are

    The jobs are in Texas. Texas is growing fast.

    The Brookings Institution, The New York Times, and Bloomberg all covered the news that Texas added more people than any other state between July of 2008 and this past July, 479,000 according to the Census Bureau. . . .

    The census data show that Michigan, Rhode Island, and Maine were the only states to lose people over the year that ended in July. Michigan and Rhode Island lead the list of states with the highest unemployment rates, so people are clearly leaving to find jobs. . . .

    The increase in population in Texas was followed by California with 381,000 new residents, North Carolina with 134,000 and Georgia, which added 131,000 people. Fewer people may be going to the Sun Belt but the population is aging fast enough that the temptation to move out of the Snow Belt will never be entirely extinguished.

    The census claims that California remained the most populous state with a July 1, 2009 with 37 million residents. The rest of the top five states were Texas (24.8 million), New York (19.5 million), Florida (18.5 million) and Illinois (12.9 million).

    Bloomberg may have the best argument about why the population of Texas is growing. It reports that “the state added more jobs than any other in November and October, on a month-over-month basis.” The total for the two months was 70,000.

    http://247wallst.com/2009/12/24/the-whole-world-moves-to-texas

    For opportunities in business, Texas is by far the best. Real estate is cheap. Lifestyle is good.

    For someone looking for a place to make money, Texas is the place to be.

    There is no state income tax in Texas.

    East Texas is green. Dallas is booming. Ft. Worth has cheaper housing. West Texas is ugly and empty, but the people are tough.

    The hill country is nice, and the climate is less humid.

    Houston: cheap, humid, hot, and has no zoning.

    With a large and growing population, there are people to sell to in Texas. The division of labor is growing.

    For residential real estate investing, Texas is the state to live in: low prices today, with an influx of buyers.

    Most people will not move unless there is a big opportunity elsewhere. But if you are thinking that where you are has major limitations, go to Texas

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      The numbers I saw on Yahoo.com conflict with yours, although they might have chosen different starting and ending dates for their “year”. According to the article on Yahoo, California lost population, as well as Michigan, New York, Illinois and Ohio. Those were the top 5 population losers for the year.

      All VERY “liberal” states (Ohio not as bad as the other 4) and all have high tax rates, along with many other problems.

      Texas is pretty freedom-loving and has almost non-existent taxes by comparison. I wonder why people are moving there and why it has a growing economy?

      http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/108478/biggest-losers-where-americans-are-not-moving

    • And it still leaves out the possibility of succession, gun laws, etal

      I was in east Texas one spring and it was like Vermont – only 10 times the size !! But then people laughed at me and said by summer it is horrendously hot and humid, when Vermont is beautiful !

    • “West Texas is ugly and empty, but the people are tough.”

      And “smelly”; you forgot “smelly”. Not the people- the feedlots. Well, some of the people. Me, on some days. Of course, it all depends on which “West Texas” you are talking about. If I go 4 block east, I am no longer in Texas, but in New Mexico. I am on the “Llano Estacado” in the panhandle, which is called “West Texas”, but “West Texas” can also mean (and more logically, I would say) the “El Paso wing”.

    • Been trying to tell you ya’ll. Be careful though….do not move down here and tell us how great it was in the state you just left…we WILL send you back…the same road that brought you here works both ways. Be prepared to wave at people you do not know and smile. Learn to eat Jalepenos and drink Margueritas….we do not drink fancy panty beers like Fosters and things…we drink real beer with real 6% alcohol…sometimes referred to as cactus juice. Do not disdain the pickup truck….everybody has one..or an SUV. Learn what Dr Pepper is an be prepared to eat mayo on your American fries (no french fries in texas). If you douse your fries with ketchup, you give yourself away. There are no french wines… only Texas wines ( 2nd largest producer in the States ). Steak sauce is for marinade prior to cooking….do NOT…repeat…do NOT put steak sauce on your steaks here…Do not drive for prolonged periods of time in the left lanes on the highways you will stack up traffic at the posted limits…which we consider to be minimum. There are no “cowboy” hats here…they are Stetsons. Forty fives are not a breasts size nor beer name…it holds a clip or is a 6 round short gun. Ya’ll is plural, singular, or “hey you”….youse guys will get you beat up. The Alamo is sacred…live with it. The Texas flag is Sacred…live with it. Barbed wire means..”don’t go in there”. It is not a “sticky” fence to be crossed unless you like to live dangerously. All Texans are born great shooters….we develop our skills from there. Rattlesnake is good eating and the sunsets are burnt orange and not Crimson. Texas and Texas A&M are rivalries…until out of state and then they are friends. Do not throw trash on the highways…it is VERY costly. We have low taxes but we make up for it if you trash our state. These are but a few of the rules of the State….Welcome to Texas…there are passports available.

  9. I am posting a link to a very long article on democracy. I read the entire article and it made alot of sense to me. Robert Higgs, the author, shows how we are captive to our elected officials and there is little we can do about it. Higgs states, “It comes closer to the truth to say that the people are completely at the mercy of the officials they have elected.”

    With the health care bill now passed by both the house and senate, even though a majority of the public are opposed to it, there is nothing we can do about it until the next election cycle. We have no power to hold our elected officials to their word other than to vote them out and it may be too late and the damage already done.

    http://mises.org/daily/3849

    • Just remember you heard it from me first.

      • Black Flag:

        I give you credit! I heard it from you first!

        I don’t know if you noticed it but I’m leaning more toward no government and your views. It’s been a slow evolution for me. However, there is no turning back once you realize how evil government really is.

        • It is a journey of walking into enlightenment, not running blindly toward the light.

        • Wlk slowly into enlightenment, Birdman…..but keep your M-60, .45, and K bar handy….the reality will get you if your guard is down.

          • D13

            I would like to purchase an M-60 if you have one for sale and the price is right!

            I am always on guard. I learned alot in the concealed weapons class that I took.

            • Hey Birdman…come to Texas. They are not illegal here.

              • D13:

                I’ve been trying to get to Texas. I had a telephone interview for North of Amarillo (spelling) at a nuclear weapons storage facility. I may hear something back after the holidays are over.

                I didn’t know M-60’s were legal but it’s good to know.

              • Funny thing about some weapons, mainly chain guns, are legal to own in most states, read this about a year ago on Time.com. There’s a new “minigun” as its called, 8 barrels, about 2 feet long and shoots 4k an minute. I have a video on disc about it. Too bad they cost around 30K for a working one!!

                G!

              • G-Man,

                Did you read the article that I posted a link to? I think you will like it.

              • My apologies, I have not, fighting an inch of snow an hour at times, and trying to keep things clear enough to go to work tommorrow LOL,

              • The law says that automatic weapons are illegal…unless you own a firearms permit…In Texas you can get a firearms government permit to own an automatic weapon.

  10. USW ,

    $600 million no big deal !! WHAT – I bet you would hear a different story if there was $600 mil for FireArm training stimulus [FATS] !

    (since my father never hunted so we didnt, so I would like to have that training)

  11. I don’t have anything particularly relevant, but I am very excited that my childrens’ book is now available (to be followed by my book for the grown-ups in a couple of weeks).

    For anyone interested, here is the link: Indy-Pindy

  12. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

    Ah, 9/11 again….

    …this time its the Pentagon plane.

    Here’s the rub.

    The NTSB released the flight recorder data from Flight 77. It was put into the simulator (the site has the video).

    Problem: the flight recorder data has the plane 400 feet too high to hit the Pentagon.

    Problem: the flight recorder data has the plane on the wrong path to the Pentagon.

    So, here’s the scenarios.

    Either the light poles were not knocked down, the eye-witnesses were wrong, the damage to the taxi being hit by a fallen light pole was faked and reality was altered by a localized black hole

    OR

    something is up at the NTSB. Either the theory that the flight recorder data is accurate is wrong (meaning decades of accident reconstruction is all suspect and probably wrong too) OR ….

    …this isn’t the Flight 77 black box.

    The site’s sponsors tried to get some questions answered. NTSB refuses to answer and pushes them off to the FBI. The FBI refuses to answer and pushes them back to NTSB – bureaucratic loop.

    See for yourself at the site link above.

    • Bottom Line says:

      There are so many holes and contridictions in the 911 story.

      Something is afoul.

    • Okay, mister conspiracy theorist!

      Is what you are trying to say here is that the Pentagon was never hit by an airplane? That this whole 9/11/2001 thing that I watched on live television on the west coast was just a GWB plot to take over the world?

      In plain English – Please tell me what you are trying to say here.

      I fly. I have flown in the F-4B Phantom (a military fighter bomber now retired).

      Flight recorder data is transmitted to the box at one second intervals – it is NOT recorded in real time, there is always a delay of up to three seconds. NOTHING is perfect and – drum roll, please – hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. Believe it or not, after so many years of scrutiny, there are still those who believe the shooters on the grassy knoll theory of the JFK assassination.

      Here are the facts. It happened. It was not an illusion. It was not a GWB conspiracy to take over the world.

      Got it?

      Now, take a deep breath and let it out slowly and let’s all get on with our lives.

      Have a safe and happy new year!

      • Sorry Papa Dawg..the Pentagon plane was manned by isolated extremists….and not terrorists….ask Obama….he just said so on TV.

      • PapaDawg,

        Okay, mister conspiracy theorist!

        It is no longer a theory.

        The evidence is:
        (1) a flight recorder that does not match the reality of fact.
        (2) the agency involved in analyzing the recorder refuses to answer, deny, rectify, or explain the problem.
        (3) the agency involved in investigating the crime refuses to answer, deny, rectify or explain the problem.

        The problem is in plain sight. No one is bothering to explain it.

        Go ahead and see for yourself.

        Is what you are trying to say here is that the Pentagon was never hit by an airplane?

        It was hit by something – that is a fact.

        What is also a fact is that the flight recorder said to be from Flight 77 completely contradicts reality.

        What do you think that means?

        That this whole 9/11/2001 thing that I watched on live television on the west coast was just a GWB plot to take over the world?

        I do not assign motives and personalities inside those motives (….yet).

        But what is obvious.

        That which is being told to the People is not the truth.

        Until the truth is known, finding the personalities and the motives will be difficult.

        In plain English – Please tell me what you are trying to say here.

        The Flight Recorder data that the NTSB and the FBI state is from Flight 77 – in legal documentation, subject to strict criminal penalties for falsifying – cannot be the flight recorder from Flight 77

        I fly. I have flown in the F-4B Phantom (a military fighter bomber now retired).

        Flight recorder data is transmitted to the box at one second intervals – it is NOT recorded in real time, there is always a delay of up to three seconds.

        As the documentation shows, even with the massive grace you give it ….

        … the altitude is wrong by 400 feet.

        …. the path is completely wrong based on reality.

        Your claim is that which I addressed – the black boxes – designed to recover the last moments of air crashes – cannot be trusted to do what they were designed to do.

        So you are saying that the thousands of air crash studies are all wrong and faulty and cannot be trusted to display what was really happening….

        … and you call me a conspiracy theorist.

        NOTHING is perfect and – drum roll, please – hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. Believe it or not, after so many years of scrutiny, there are still those who believe the shooters on the grassy knoll theory of the JFK assassination.

        That has ZERO to do with the facts of this case.

        The Flight Data is there for your own apprasial. The FBI and NTSB have given it to you.

        You can do the work yourself. Review the facts and then review their data.

        Tell me your conclusion.

        Here are the facts. It happened. It was not an illusion. It was not a GWB conspiracy to take over the world.

        Got it?

        Here is the fact.

        The data does not represent the reality.
        Why not?

        If this is the box from Flight 77, why does it contradict reality?

        Therefore, there is only one conclusion.

        This is not the flight recorder data from Flight 77.

        Therefore, more questions:

        What flight is this data from?
        Where is the real flight data from Flight 77?
        Why was this erroneous flight data given in place of the real one – thereby breaking the law of FOIA?

        What is the government hiding?

        Now, take a deep breath and let it out slowly and let’s all get on with our lives.

        Indeed, pull the wool over your eyes, Papa. Your government is your friend. It would never do this to you….

        The ditches along the road to tyranny is filled with people trying to pretend tyranny doesn’t exist.

    • I’ve read up on some of this stuff; you’ve obviously done a lot more research BF. What theories are you most inclined to believe?

      • Let’s go over some undeniable facts.

        The towers and WTC 7 are very arguably the result of a manufactured demolition. Chemical evidence provides conclusive evidence. Video evidence confirms this argument. Survivor witness reports further confirm this argument. The statements of Gulliani, and the leaser of the WTC confirm this argument.

        The Pentagon Flight 77 data recorder offered by the NTSB and FBI cannot be from that flight.

        The air force fighters were in a continental stand-down.

        The air force had three ECB in the air during the entire morning of 9/11 – two were filmed; one over New York following the second strike and one over the Pentagon following that strike. These planes were airborne under the guise of a ‘war game scenario’ addressing…(wait for it)…multiple air line hijackings over the continental USA. Their appearance directly post-strike of the the two actual ‘hits’ is more than a coincidence, in fact, so great odds against this, as to be completely inconceivably lucky. The US government has never addressed these planes being there – even though they have been documented on film.

        It takes very little Command structure to organize this. But it does take a Command structure of very high authority.

        • ECB = E4B

        • According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were
          participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian.

          The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness
          of the US military’s command and control procedures involved in waging
          thermonuclear war.

          • FOIA request with the
            Secret Service for all relevant information, including radar data, and was
            told the Secret Service has “no records or documents of any kind relating to
            any aircraft whatsoever flying near or circling above the White House on
            9/11 in the 9:30-10 AM time frame.

            So, multiple FILMED sitings of the E4B over Washington during the attack on the Pentagon and the government, blatantly, claims it wasn’t there.

          • Hi BF!

            This theory may coincide with the “create a crisis” that’s been written about numerous times, and is being way overused lately. I don’t recall any President in my lifetime that has not had a “crisis” to deal with. This should be a flag to anyone that we much bigger problems than an out of control government, but could be something far larger. HMM, Interesting.

            G!

      • So, I’ll step out on a limb.

        1993 – WTC first terrorist attack bombing.

        The bomb almost toppled the tower – the grace of one car in the way prevented it. A toppled tower would have been a huge disaster – not only for the occupants, but the dozens of other buildings down the fall-path.

        Wholly conjecture: the Ports Authority and FEMA reviewed the risk of these towers (and others throughout the USA) and decided that to prevent a total catastrophe, the towers would be brought down under a ‘controlled’ fashion then allowed to topple.

        Factual evidence: Thermate can be applied as a paint. The application of this primary tool could have been painted on right under the noses of the people in the building. Evidence of Thermate has been found in the dust of the towers.

        Conjecture: Telling the general public that every major tower building has been wired by FEMA would probably result in massive vacancies.

        Fact: WTC7 is the center for FEMA and the New York Emergency facilities. It would be here that the decision, and (conjecture) the ability to demolish the towers would be made. The documentation would be here also.

        Before 2001:
        (Conjecture) A plan is hatched by anti-American idealists in Palestine to attack the continental USA. The plan is forwarded to Bin Laden, who refuses to fund it as he understands that (1) it is outside his area of operation (2) attacks civilian targets which is not his MO (3) will actually infuriate the USA into deeper, not less, involvement in the affairs of the Middle East.

        The plan is stalled, but via deep infiltrators within the radical Palestinian movement by Mossad, the plan lands on the desk of a hawkish Mossad commander. Understanding the same logic as Bin Laden regarding the enraged America, he organizes his infiltrators to proceed with the plan by offering funding and resources. Resources in Germany, finances – organized via Pakistan – are committed to the plan. Fake Saudi passports – so to deflect the investigation toward Bin Laden – are given to Palestinian operatives.

        Mossad infiltrators within the US military begin the systemic organization of resources, misdirection, war games and personal to blind American intelligence, stagnate anti-terrorist investigations of the FBI of the operators within the USA and stall American reaction to the execution. This takes patience, lots of money and years of careful work – well within the capability of Mossad.

        Weeks before: (Conjecture) A leak. The Vice President is personally informed of the operation and its source. (Conjecture) Sensing an opportunity, (Fact) the Administration puts into place executive changes to the operation of air force intercepts and processes – inserting never-before-required bureaucratic control – ensuring a snarl of cross-authority that will, in fact, delay any response to air borne threats towards the USA. (Fact) Air travel for top politicians and military is canceled for Sept. 11 across the board – including midnight phone calls to governors.

        9/11:
        (Conjecture)President puts on his best acting display – trying not to show he knows, but ends up showing he knows. He is a bad liar.

        Events play out, but someone forgot to tell the head of the FAA.(Fact) He breaks out of the confusion first, and orders all planes to land. This is not the plan. (Conjecture)All other attacks are aborted and the Flight 75 is shot down, ending the day.

        The towers didn’t fall. They are brought down on orders. WTC7 with all its documentation cannot stand. It is brought down on orders.

        The players underestimated the power of the internet. (Fact)Bizarre discoveries of passports and licenses from flaming planes (but few if any of the hundreds of other passengers) and cars and plans and Korans – all conveniently of the hijackers are found – such finds raise eyebrows of ‘plants’.

        The story begins to unglue. WTC 7, thermate findings, the rush to bury the evidence in the steel, Flight 77 flight recorder mistakes….

        But the People have been put to sleep by the long wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overhanging gloom of economic disaster…too tired to find the truth…
        ….
        There’s a lot more conjecture and fact, of course, but its a rough outline of a good book, don’t you think?

        • So, when are you writing it? It does sound like a good book. Question, I have not done the research that you have, the cell phone calls from Flight 11 (the one that crashed in Pa), did any of them ever say that the hijackers were Muslim? I don’t recall ever hearing this. Getting old maybe, but did watch the movie.

          G!

          • Here’s a problem with the cell phone stuff.

            Cell phones really do not work in jet planes.

            They fly too fast for the cell towers to keep up with the switching.

            Try it one day yourself (secretly lest you be labeled a cell-phone terrorist)

            So, in-flight phone calls. Ok, try to get a copy of the recording. Oops, only 4 minutes was recorded out of the 23 minutes she allegedly spoke.

            Although Ong talked for 23 minutes, the recording is only 4-1/2 minutes long. The head of the Commission, Thomas Kean, said: “We’ll hear the entire four and a half minutes that was recorded on that call.” Thus, though Ong talked for 23 minutes, we’re told that only one-quarter of the call was recorded.

            Want to know the conversations between the pilots and ATC? Whooops, destroyed.

            FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape
            Recording Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes

            By Sara Kehaulani Goo
            Washington Post Staff Writer
            Thursday, May 6, 2004; 6:16 PM

            Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

            It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

            The report concluded that the FAA generally cooperated with the independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks by providing documents about its activities on Sept. 11, but the actions of two FAA managers “did not, in our view, serve the interests of the FAA, the Department or the public.”

            The report was conducted at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) after the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, complained that the FAA had been less than forthcoming in turning over documents and issued a subpoena to the agency for more information.
            ————–
            To answer your question directly, G ….
            no.

            BETTY ONG: Number 3 in the back. The cockpit’s not answering. Somebody’s stabbed in business class and . . . I think there’s mace . . . that we can’t breathe. I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.

            MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on?

            BETTY ONG: Flight 12.

            OPERATOR: And what seat are you in? . . . Ma’am, are you there? . . .

            BETTY ONG: Yes.

            MALE VOICE: What seat are you in?

            FEMALE VOICE: Ma’am, what seat are you in?

            BETTY ONG: We’re . . . just left Boston, we’re up in the air.

            FEMALE VOICE: I know, what . . .

            BETTY ONG: We’re supposed to go to LA and the cockpit’s not answering their phone.

            FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat?

            BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now.

            FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

            BETTY ONG: At 3R.

            FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

            MALE VOICE: Okay, you’re the flight attendant? I’m sorry, did you say you’re the flight attendant?

            BETTY ONG: Hello?

            FEMALE VOICE: Yes, hello.

            MALE VOICE: What is your name?

            BETTY ONG: Hi, you’re going to have to speak up, I can’t hear you.

            MALE VOICE: Sure. What is your name?

            BETTY ONG: Okay, my name is Betty Ong. I’m number 3 on Flight 11.

            MALE VOICE: Okay.

            BETTY ONG: And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there’s somebody stabbed in business class. And there’s . . . we can’t breathe in business class. Somebody’s got mace or something.

            MALE VOICE: Can you describe the person that you said — someone is what in business class?

            BETTY ONG: I’m sitting in the back. Somebody’s coming back from business. If you can hold on for one second, they’re coming back.

            BETTY ONG: Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can’t even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is . . .

            MALE VOICE: Okay, and do we . . .

            BETTY ONG: and our number 5 — our first class passengers are — galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open. Hello?

            MALE VOICE: Yeah, I’m taking it down. All the information. We’re also, you know, of course, recording this. At this point . . .

            FEMALE VOICE: This is Operations. What flight number are we talking about?

            MALE VOICE: Flight 12.

            FEMALE VOICE: Flight 12? Okay. I’m getting . . .

            BETTY ONG: No. We’re on Flight 11 right now. This is Flight 11.

            MALE VOICE: It’s Flight 11, I’m sorry Nydia.

            BETTY ONG: Boston to Los Angeles.

            MALE VOICE: Yes.

            BETTY ONG: Our number 1 has been stabbed and our 5 has been stabbed. Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Can anybody get up to the cockpit? Okay. We can’t even get into the cockpit. We don’t know who’s up there.

            MALE VOICE: Well, if they were shrewd they would keep the door closed and —

            BETTY ONG: I’m sorry?

            MALE VOICE: Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?

            BETTY ONG: I think the guys are up there. They might have gone there — jammed the way up there, or something. Nobody can call the cockpit. We can’t even get inside. Is anybody still there?

            MALE VOICE: Yes, we’re still here.

            FEMALE VOICE: Okay.

            BETTY ONG: I’m staying on the line as well.

            MALE VOICE: Okay.

            NYDIA GONZALEZ: Hi, who is calling reservations? Is this one of the flight attendants, or who? Who are you, hun?

            MALE VOICE: She gave her name as Betty Ong.

            BETTY ONG: Yeah, I’m number 3. I’m number 3 on this flight – And we’re the first . . .

            NYDIA GONZALEZ: You’re number 3 on this flight?

            BETTY ONG: Yes and I have. . .

            NYDIA GONZALEZ: And this is Flight 11? From where to where?

            BETTY ONG: Flight 11.

            NYDIA GONZALEZ: Have you guys called anyone else?

            BETTY ONG: No. Somebody’s calling medical and we can’t get a doc — .

            • From an online ABC report:
              Sweeney (Flight attendant on Flight 11) to Woodward, a flight services manager at Logan Airport, and Ong to the airline’s reservations line.

              Woodward said Sweeney spoke “very, very calmly… in a way which was quick but calm.” She gave him the seat numbers for four of the five hijackers, allowing airline staff to pull up their names, phone numbers, addresses — and even credit card numbers — on the reservations computer. One of the names that came up was Mohamed Atta, the man the FBI would later identify as the leader of all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

              Sweeney told Woodward the hijackers seemed to be of Middle Eastern descent and said they had gone into the cockpit with a bomb with yellow wires attached.

              She said they had stabbed the two first-class flight attendants, Barbara Arestegui and Karen Martin, whose station at the front of the plane likely made them the first crew members to confront the hijackers. She said they had also slashed the throat of a business class passenger, who was bleeding severely.

              The flight attendants gave the injured people oxygen, and made an announcement over the PA system asking if there was a doctor or nurse on board. Sweeney told Woodward the passengers in the coach section were calm and that they believed there was some type of medical emergency at the front of the plane.

              Notes to above:
              The call was not recorded. It comes from the memory and rough notes taken by Woodward.

          • Flight 175, the second tower:

            There were reportedly two calls from passengers, and one from an unnamed flight attendant on Flight 175. Around 8:43 the father of passenger Peter Burton Hanson received a call from a man claiming to be his son and saying “Oh, my God! They just stabbed the airline hostess. I think the airline is being hijacked.” 9 At 8:58 passenger Brian Sweeney is said to have left a message for his wife “We’ve been hijacked, and it doesn’t look too good” and talked to his mother.

            Lots of Sweeney’s flying that day….two for two on the towers….just an observation…

            These are ‘reported’ conversations. No tape or documentation of source is directly available or known.

          • Flight 77

            There were two reported phone calls from Flight 77: a cell phone call from flight attendant Renee May to her mother; and a cell phone call from passenger Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson.

            Neither were recorded.

          • MSNBC News:

            United Flight 93 was late. After pushing off from the gate at 8:01 a.m., the Boeing 757 made its way slowly through the runway traffic at Newark International, finally taking off at 8:41 a.m., 40 minutes behind schedule. In the first-class cabin, Mark Bingham, a San Francisco publicist, had settled into his seat. Next to him was Tom Burnett, an executive for a health-care company in the Bay Area. It was a routine flight for both men. Bingham shuttled regularly between New York and San Francisco, working with technology companies; Burnett was on his way home from a business trip.

            FURTHER BACK in the business-class cabin, Jeremy Glick, a 31-year-old sales manager for an Internet company, was in Row 11. Behind him sat Lou Nacke, a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. In the main cabin was Todd Beamer, 32, a manager for software giant Oracle, headed from his home in New Jersey to the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters.

            There was, in airline parlance, a “light load” that morning. Only 37 of the plane’s 182 seats were occupied. Some of the passengers had never planned to be on the flight. Nacke had booked his seat only the night before. Out to dinner with his family, he had a received a phone call from one of his customers who needed help with an inventory problem. Nacke rarely traveled, but, reluctant to let his client down, he planned to make a one-day trip to California, returning on the red-eye late Tuesday night.

            Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport. It was his first business trip in months. Since the birth of his daughter, Emmy, three months ago, he had been reluctant to leave home. But there was a conference in San Francisco, and his wife had urged him to get back to work and stop worrying about the baby. Another passenger, Lauren Grandcolas was on her way home to Marin County, north of San Francisco, after attending her grandmother’s funeral in New Jersey. Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. “I can’t wait to see you,” she told her husband Jack in a message she left on the couple’s answering machine before dawn in California, telling him she would be home a few hours early.

            At 8:45 a.m., four minutes after takeoff, Flight 93 was still climbing to cruising altitude, moving west across Pennsylvania, when, in New York, American Airlines Flight 11 plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At that same instant, hijackers were already in control of other aircraft. United Flight 175, which had taken off from Boston a minute earlier than Flight 11, was making a sharp turn over northern New Jersey, bearing down on the South Tower. American Airlines Flight 77, which had taken off for Los Angeles from Dulles at 8:10 a.m., had made its own U-turn in the skies over Kentucky, and was headed back toward Washington.

            All three of these aircraft were under the control of the Boston air-traffic control center, which handles airline traffic in New England and New York airspace. While the Boston controllers were trying to deal with the three planes’ abrupt changes in course, bomb threats were being called in to the center. Cleveland, which takes control of flights as they pass into the Midwest, was receiving similar threats. Officials suspect that the bomb threats were intended to add to the chaos, distracting controllers from tracking the hijacked planes.

            By 9:35 a.m., both towers of the World Trade Center are in flames and Flight 77 is bearing down on the Pentagon. At this time, NEWSWEEK has learned, air-traffic controllers at the Cleveland center are listening “over the frequency,” the radio contact between cockpit and control center. They hear screams aboard the flight. Then a gap of 40 seconds with no sound. Then more screams. Then a voice, nearly unintelligible, saying something like “bomb on board.”

            The controllers try to contact the plane, asking the pilot, Capt. Jason Dahl, to verify his altitude. There is no response from the cockpit. Minutes later, at 9:38 am, the plane makes a hairpin turn just south of Cleveland and heads for Washington. Air-traffic controllers hear a man, in thickly accented English saying “This is your captain. There is a bomb on board. We are returning to the airport.”

            It’s possible the passengers never hear the false warning. The hijacker was accidentally speaking into a cockpit microphone that air-traffic controllers could hear, not the public-address system.

            In the passenger cabin, it is bedlam. Three men wearing red bandannas are in control. The passengers had been herded to the back of the plane, near the galley. Burnett calls his wife, Deena, in California, where she is preparing breakfast for the couple’s three young daughters. “We’re being hijacked” he tells her, before giving the flight number and telling her to call authorities. When Tom calls back a few minutes later, Deena has the FBI on the phone. She patches Tom through so he can describe the men directly.

            There are other phone calls. Jeremy Glick calls his wife, Lyz, in New York to say that three “Iranian looking” men, one with a red box strapped to his waist, have taken control of the plane and to call the authorities. He asks if it’s true, as he’s heard from another passenger, that two other planes have crashed into the World Trade Center.

            How to help — information on who to contact
            From the back of the plane, Todd Beamer tries to use his credit card on an Airfone installed in one of the seatbacks, but cannot get authorization. His call is automatically routed to the Verizon customer-service center in Oakbrook, Ill. Although operators are used to crank calls from seatback phones, it is clear to the operator that Beamer’s report of a hijacking is genuine. His call is immediately sent to Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson who alerts the FBI. When Jefferson gets on the line at 9:45 a.m., she immediately begins interviewing Beamer. “What is your flight number? What is the situation? Where are the crew members?”

            Beamer tells Jefferson that one passenger is dead. He doesn’t know about the pilots. One hijacker is in the rear of the plane, claiming to have a bomb strapped to his body. The conversation is urgent, but calm. Then Beamer says, “Oh my God, I think we’re going down.” Then adds, “No, we’re just turning.” At this point, investigators theorize, one of the hijackers was flying erratically. The plane plunges from its assigned altitude and the transponder is turned off.

            The crash site in Shanksville, Penn.
            Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets. “Mom, this is Mark Bingham,” he tells her, so rattled he uses his last name. Bingham describes the situation for his mother, a United Airlines flight attendant. The call lasts about three minutes. Twice during the call, says Alice, “Mark was distracted. There was a five-second pause. I heard people speaking. There was murmuring, nothing loud.” She theorizes that Mark was talking to the other men, and planning to fight back.

            “We’re going to do something. I know I’m not going to get out of this.”

            — TODD BEAMER
            At around the same time, Todd Beamer is telling the operator that the men plan “to jump” the hijacker in the back, claiming to have a bomb. “We’re going to do something,” Beamer tells operator Lisa Jefferson. “I know I’m not going to get out of this.” He asks Jefferson to recite the Lord’s Prayer with him. The last words Jefferson hears are “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.”

            It’s unclear when, in all of the telephony, Glick, Beamer, Bingham, Burnett and Nacke hatched their plot. It is also unclear if they attacked just once, or twice, first taking out the hijacker claiming to have the bomb, then storming the cockpit. Crucial evidence, NEWSWEEK has learned, may come from yet another phone call made by a passenger. Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family. “I have to go,” Wainio says, cutting the call short. “They’re about to storm the cockpit” referring to her fellow passengers.

            Nacke is the only member of the group who is not known to have made a phone call, although his wife, Amy, did have a message on her answering machine that contained only noise and a click. United Airlines later told his family that he was apparently one of the fighters. “If you knew Lou,” says Nacke’s father-in-law, Dr. Robert Weisberg, “he never would have been far from the action.”

            This much we know, they were big guys: Bingham was a 6-foot-4 rugby player; Glick, also a rugby player and judo champion; Beamer was 6 foot 1 and 200 pounds, and Nacke was a 5-foot-9, 200-pound weightlifter with a “Superman” tattoo on his shoulder. Investigators are operating on the theory that the men somehow made their way up 100 feet from the rear of the plane into the cockpit. The last transmission recorded is someone, probably a hijacker, screaming “Get out of here. Get out of here.” Then grunting, screaming and scuffling. Then silence.

            With Mark Hosenball

            © 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

        • BF:

          What’s the source of your facts? Like this: (Fact) Air travel for top politicians and military is canceled for Sept. 11 across the board – including midnight phone calls to governors.

          • Newsweek:
            (Quote)
            Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent – On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.

          • Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel

            Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
            Wednesday, September 12, 2001

            For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security — a full eight hours before yesterday’s string of terrorist attacks — advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.

          • http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-284060,00.html

            London Times (Times Online)

            September 27, 2001

            Bin Laden’s trail

            Rushdie’s air ban
            BY JAMES DORAN
            THE author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks.

            On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures. Mr Rushdie told The Times that the airlines would not upgrade their security.

          • Ananova:
            President’s cousin escaped death thanks to schedule change

            President Bush’s cousin should have been in the World Trade Centre when it was attacked.

            Jim Pierce, managing director of AON Corporations, had arranged a business conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower where its New York offices were based.

            But his group was too large so they decided to move across the street to the Millennium Hotel.

            • WOW, now thats an answer 🙂 Still tough reading about this, but there sure is alot to digest and think on. I keep an open mind, as always. You sure are up on this. If this is a conspiracy by our own government, and it’s proven to the people, glad I’m ready! All hell will break loose.

              Thanks BF

              G!

              • To quote the terminator…

                “I keep detailed files”

                …because the information is disappearing. It is being actively deleted everywhere.

                BBC destroys their tapes.

                FAA destroys their tapes.

                Web info being deleted.

                Fortunately, there are sites that cache everything. The gate keepers underestimated the power of the internet.

              • To answer you more directly, the only links to the hijackers comes from Sweeney and Ong quoting seat numbers.

                That’s it and all of it. 4 1/2 minute recorded call and the memory of Woodward.

                Do I doubt the accuracy; probably not. It corroborates the rest of the published story.

                However, it does not mean that the players were not under alias.

                But we can carry a plausible scenario that these were Middle Eastern men.

              • I save alot to disc when I clean up the memory, probably not what you save, LOL 🙂 But you would enjoy it quite a lot, 🙂

    • But don’t want to get lost in conjecture as yet.

      Right now, the facts are doing just fine sitting on their own.

      Flight 77 Recorder has a very serious problem.

      It directly exposes manipulation and fraud – with the knowledge of some very powerful and high up bureaucrats. You can’t fudge this stuff and get it to go around the 3-letter-agencies while being merely a lackey.

  13. Bottom Line says:

    Gay marriage/civil unions, heterosexual marriage, marriage between a lamp post and a mouse, etc…

    …Should all get the same amount of federal funding, tax breaks, incentives, etc…

    …Which should be $0.00

    Government has no business regulating romantic interpersonal relationships.

    What’s next? Are they gonna start telling people how/how often to have sex?

    Oh wait a minute…They’re already trying that with “Rock the Vote”.

    WTH IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?

    AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Breath, BL, breath.

      Slowly make way into kitchen, grasp copious amounts of cold beer, drink with gusto….trust me, it helps! 😉

      • Bottom Line says:

        Lol.

        One of my gifts for christmas was a White Russian kit. Maybe I’ll go crack open the vodka.

        Cheers!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          How about some Kahlua and cream? NAH! Never mind, guys don’t drink that, do they? Guess only women do. That’s what I drink anyway.

          Hope you’re doing good today BL.

          • Bottom Line says:

            I am, and wish the same to you Judy.

            A White Russian basically IS a Kahlua -n- cream, only it has a kick.

            White Russian = Kahlua + cream + vodka.

            I like them cuz they’re smooth. You can get wrecked in a hurry if you’re not careful, as they are a little TOO smooth.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I never had them with vodka, I’ll have to try that. Only the two.

              And I’m doing just fine for a Monday.

  14. Unbelievable……Janet Napolitano said that the system worked and our President said that the “crotch Bomber” is not a terrorist but an….are you ready for this….isolated extremist. Unbelievable….what a coward. Bin Laden is now an isolated extremist and Major Hassan is an isolated extremist…the 9-11 bombers are isolated extremists….that all happen to be Muslim but not to worry….Unbelievable!!!!

    • Bottom Line says:

      That’s change alright…

      …From fear mongering to denial.

    • Hey Colonel!

      I wonder if this was before or after Al-Qeida took credit? If it was before, they just made a complete ass of him, and further buried his credibility, (and thats getting very deep).

      He is the opitomy of the Democrats, a true jackass 🙂

      G!

      • Actually …..it was after.

        • Does that mean that the Messiah can now change the meaning of words, like “isolated” 🙂

          I’m glad I have a quick trip to isolation!!!

          G!

      • Not only di Al-Queida take credit, they admitted to training the lad in Yemen…But to Obama…it is an isolated extremist incident. Oh, by the way, it was found out that the trainers were Guantanamo releases…according to CNN. You will not hear very much about it since Obama is closing Gitmo….What a joke this man is turning out to be.

  15. Judy,

    All Law is Violence.

    It is violent force to compel a person to obey an edict.

    There is no law in existence that does not use violent force to compel its obedience.

    Thus, whenever someone cries “There ought to be a law…” they are saying “We must use violence to stop that…”

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      But, you didn’t answer my question Flag, What would you do if anything happened to you or your family that required law to step in? I’m sure you wouldn’t take the ” Law ” into your hands would you?

      You once said, that if a person did anything to you or family, that you would let them be dealt with by the law. Are you changing your mind? Now you have me confused.

      No one is saying you have to use violence to enforce the law Flag, if there is, then by all means show me who they are. Not all people are violent.

      • HI Judy!

        I got all your emails and will reply to them soon.

        I’ve been reading along all day today, and think I can help with you and Flags little discussion. First, when you read BF’s words, you must understand that he is sending a message. He uses the word “violence” different that most people could understand at it’s face. Go deeper into his message, and look past his words. I won’t attempt to speak on his behalf, but I do see his message rather clearly, look deeper my friend, it’s right there.

        G!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hi G

          Well, maybe you can help me, because he’s a hard person to read sometimes, and I guess this is one of those times. I’m still waiting for an answer.

          As for those Emails, don’t worry, just when you get the time.

          Hope you’re doing good today.

          • Bottom Line says:

            If you disobey the law, you are fined.

            If you don’t pay the fine, you are jailed.

            If you resist being jailed, you get shot, tazed, or just beaten into submission.

            Law = enforcement = Coercion = violence

            Supporting law is supporting violence.

            Laws apply to everyone.

            Therefore, if you supprt the law, you are supporting coercion and violent acts against yourself.

            Does that help Judy? Like G-man, I don’t like speaking for someone else, but I think that’s what he meant.

            Sorry if I overstepped BF.

          • I’m good Judy!

            Bottom Line has it right. there are so many laws out there right now, that all of us could be charged with something and end up in jail. We should only have to live by our own moral code, not the moral code of another. While most of our moral codes would be the same, some have other ideas that violate that code. They cannot be trusted, they are government.

            G!

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Well, I guess I’m just a bad person then, and that I’m asking for violence against myself, because I do believe we should have laws. What about all those who do violate the law, like your criminals, and please don’t tell me there aren’t any because the law makes them that way. That I can’t swallow.

              If a person violates you in any way, or that of a family member, what do you do? How then can it be taken care of without any law? Or am I still missing something with what you have all said. Maybe I’m still on the wrong side here, I don’t know.

              So, let me see if I have this. There should be no laws of any kind, people can do what they want without fear of getting in trouble no matter what.

              What about those who kill someone just for the heck of it because the supposed victim doesn’t give the so called bad guy what they want? Are they not suppose to go to jail, or perhaps go to prison because of what they do? Are they just suppose to remain free to do it any time they want?

              That’s kind of laws I’m talking about. I still don’t understand the way you guys think and talk about ” Laws “. Sounds to me like there are different kinds for different people. OH, I’m so confused right now. my head is spinning. Guess I have a mental block with the way you all speak of law.

              • You poor thing! Think back to the infancy of our country, we had laws based on a moral code, thall shalt not kill, steal ect. Those are simple, just read the Ten Commandments and ask what other law do you really need? Defend yourself from those that attack you and YOUR moral laws, not those that are made by someone that you did not give permission to speak on your behalf.

                If you disagree with those you voted for in an election, then they violate YOUR moral code and Your laws. We don’t need cops, they only allow for crime, they do not inhibit it.

                G!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I get you G, but who really lives by the 10 commandments now a days? You show me one, and I’ll believe anything you, Flag and anybody else here says about it.

                But, that’s still not answering my question about what I asked.

              • below, too squishy

              • Bottom Line says:

                I wasn’t necessarily arguing with the justification for law.

                I was just trying to break it down to the “Bottom Line”(hehe) and act as an interpreter.

                I think the real issue here is methods of enforcement, rather than the logic and justification behind the concept of law.

                Further,

                Law enforcement rarely prevents crime. They only act as a deterrent to those that fear consequence of prison.

                In other words, law enforcement is pretty useless and detrimental to society.

                Don’t rely on the cops to save you.

                Pack a gun.

      • I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but this is my take on “the law”.

        Things that are really wrong- murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, fraud- don’t require “laws” against them for us to know they are wrong. “Laws” only set up a system to punish those who do those things. Most “laws” try to regulate or control things that are not really wrong, and in some cases they criminalize things that are quite definately right, such as defending yourself from the acts above that are wrong. Especially in cases where those wrong acts are committed by people working for the government in an official capacity. In those instances the wrong acts are called by euphemisms to distinguish them from the exact same acts committed by people who do not work for government. Theft is called “taxation”, kidnapping is called “arrest, murder is called “war” or “collateral damages” or “acting within department guidelines” when committed by a LEO.

        All “laws” are backed up, ultimately, not just by “violence”, but by the threat of death. That is the understanding: “If you don’t obey this law, government employees will (at some point) keep escalating the force used against you until you either comly or die.” No exceptions unless a strong willed FREE individual runs up against a weak-willed government employee who doesn’t follow up.

        If someone attacked one of my family members, how does involving “the law” help them? Does it bring them back to life if they are dead? Does it erase the physical and emotional damage if they were raped?

        This is not to say I would “take the law into my own hands”. The “law” is a filthy thing that I know can’t be handled without contaminating me. However, what I will do is do my best to make sure nothing like that ever happens, and try to make my loved ones take responsibility for their own safety. And if I caught someone attacking them, you had better not bet on me not doing whatever I have to to stop the attack. Dialing 911 is not on the list. There is no situation so horrible that it can’t be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix. (If you don’t believe me, check out the Pro-Libertate blog of Will Grigg. He specializes in reporting the folly of letting government “help”.)

        Revenge is not right, either. If you don’t catch someone in the act, there is always a large risk of punishing the wrong individual. That risk is minimized to the vanishing point when the targeted “victim” is armed and self-responsible. Punishment helps no one; restitution (when possible) should be the goal. If it isn’t possible then the risk of being an attacker needs to be raised to the point that few of the parasites survive more than a small handful of attacks. Government and “laws” help the attackers and thieves more than they hurt or hinder them. Why not? Government depends on them to make people falsely believe they need to be saved by government.

  16. Patent for Human Identification…..

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5878155.PN.&OS=PN/5878155&RS=PN/5878155

    Method for verifying human identity during electronic sale transactions

    Abstract
    A method is presented for facilitating sales transactions by electronic media. A bar code or a design is tattooed on an individual. Before the sales transaction can be consummated, the tattoo is scanned with a scanner. Characteristics about the scanned tattoo are compared to characteristics about other tattoos stored on a computer database in order to verify the identity of the buyer. Once verified, the seller may be authorized to debit the buyer’s electronic bank account in order to consummate the transaction. The seller’s electronic bank account may be similarly updated.

    Global currency courtesy of the UN

    UN to produce bullion coins as world currency

    http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:TtY2TpKXC1QJ:www.examiner.com/x-32916-Vancouver-Humanism-Examiner

    The announcement by the United Nations this week that it will license the minting of silver and gold bullion coins bearing the UN logo may be the button that launches metal prices into orbit.

    In its wide-ranging report this fall, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated that the system of currencies and international banking practices within today’s economies were inadequate, and responsible for the present economic crisis. The report advocates that the present monetary system, wherein the dollar acts as the global reserve currency be re-examined “with urgency”……

    I have a plane to catch. See ya’ll in a week. Bye!

  17. I’m just posting to see if this comment shows up. I have posted 2 or 3 comments today- one very long one on “laws”, and have seen none of them show up. Just trying to see if I’ve been banned.

    • Your still here Kent! I’ve posted one that didn’t come up too, said I was posting to fast, but I type quite slow.

      PEACE!

      G!

  18. BF said: Whose moral baseline, Anoninnc? Mine, yours, D13, Judy, USWep??

    Your question is why I have been mostly quiet of late. And I totally understand the difficulty in finding the answer.

    But, the issue that concerns me, in terms of the future, and future generations of Americans, is that we seem to be willing to toltally bankrupt ourselves morally, simply in the name of “freedom” and “equality.”

    Ellen Degeneres and Kat Kora (an iron chef on the food network, forgive me, I like that channel) are married, and each have two children . . . each by artificial insemination.

    A friend of my wife’s stepson and his male friend are adopting an infant . . . to raise in a two dad household.

    I do not wish to offend Mathius and others, but in accepting the above two examples as “normal” we have moved beyond tolerance and have changed our moral baselines.

    It seems to me that, as we have removed God from our society, we are left in an atmosphere (as is stated here, well adn often) that government has no right in my relationships. I do not disagree with that premise.

    But, what is curious is that, with the absence of God and government, and in a culture that begins to approach hedonistic “anything that is right wiht me is right, and you have no right but to accept it” values, our baselines seem to get lower and lower.

    Which brings me back to my question, are there no moral baselines anymore?

    Even though we may disagree in terms of God, His existence or nonexistence, the premise of relationship with Him, and moral standards, I think the questio is still legitmate . . . and needs to be answered.

    • Anoninnc?,

      Your question is why I have been mostly quiet of late. And I totally understand the difficulty in finding the answer.

      I’ll let you off the hook.

      There is no answer.

      To prove one’s morals as the “Universal Moral” requires this basic assumption: “Yours is the only correct way”.

      But whoa! That is not a proof, but a premise.

      If you can claim that as a premise for you – then anyone can claim the same premise for themselves….and that leaves us exactly where we started.

      So, morals are subjective. Whose is right? Whose is wrong? Prove it, I say!

      So, what can I prove if I can’t use my premise against yours?

      I can only use your premise of morals against you! If you aren’t consistent with your own morals, then I know you are wrong – either your premise or your actions (or claims).

      But, the issue that concerns me, in terms of the future, and future generations of Americans, is that we seem to be willing to toltally bankrupt ourselves morally, simply in the name of “freedom” and “equality.”

      Because morals, freedom and equality are not the same thing, nor provide the same things.

      Nature does not make men equal. Destroying freedom to provide what nature denies simply ensures no freedom and no equality.

      Trying to make them the same thing causes great contradictions.

      Morals are by their definition
      Ellen Degeneres and Kat Kora (an iron chef on the food network, forgive me, I like that channel) are married, and each have two children . . . each by artificial insemination.

      And why does that concern you?

      A friend of my wife’s stepson and his male friend are adopting an infant . . . to raise in a two dad household.

      And why does than concern you?

      I do not wish to offend Mathius and others, but in accepting the above two examples as “normal” we have moved beyond tolerance and have changed our moral baselines.

      But why does it concern you? Are you, somehow, entangled in these relationships?

      If you are not, why does all of this concern you?

      Here is the problem.

      When you concern yourself in others affairs that your not your business – and make it your “right” by claim of ‘morals – will ensure others do the same to you, and I know you will find that wholly disagreeable.

      It seems to me that, as we have removed God from our society, we are left in an atmosphere (as is stated here, well adn often) that government has no right in my relationships. I do not disagree with that premise.

      Pleas to God to give us morals falls on deaf ears.

      God has does not define human right or wrong. God defines the Laws of Nature. He obviously is quite pleased with just that.

      But, what is curious is that, with the absence of God and government, and in a culture that begins to approach hedonistic “anything that is right wiht me is right, and you have no right but to accept it” values,

      You don’t have to accept it. You can ignore it.

      But when one moral premise is forced on someone else, inevitably someone else’s moral premise will be forced on you.

      But because many people disagree with the consequence, they also ignore the cause – the time they forced their morals, all righteous and all – on others.

      What goes around comes around.

      our baselines seem to get lower and lower.

      Which brings me back to my question, are there no moral baselines anymore?

      There is no Universal Moral basis. It is wholly subjective.

      There is only Natural Law.

      Even though we may disagree in terms of God, His existence or nonexistence, the premise of relationship with Him, and moral standards, I think the questio is still legitmate . . . and needs to be answered.

      So, answer it yourself.

      What “moral” do you believe can apply to all men, in all times – future and present – in all cultures – in all circumstance?

      • I’m out on vacation this whole week, but rest assured that I am watching from the shadows. Flag, I trust, has this one well in hand, but I can’t stop myself from this: I am not offended.

        But I do have to reiterate Flag’s questions: By what right do you impose your moral beliefs on others when they do not impact on you? If their actions cause verifiable harm to you, then by all means, intervene. But insofar as the mating habits of homosexuals is concerned, you have no leg to stand on. This is tantamount to a number of other position I find untenable (drug law, prostitution law, etc) – “crimes” whose only “victim” is the perpetrator. Where do you and society get off dictating what I can do?

        I will happily have this debate with you sometime when I am back from vacation… if you survive your encounter with the pirate…

  19. Judy and Anoninnc,

    I see both your points. Judy, most of us live by the Ten Commandments, we don’t kill, steal, covet thy neighbor ect. Most of us (on this site) have a good strong moral base that we live by. Taxes are law, if one does not pay, they take, it doesn’t matter if it’s against your moral code, it’s the law. That’s theft.

    To both, the Ten Commandments are the basis of law and most peoples moral code, we all grew up that way. While many question the existance of God, that moral code is the predominant one in all of our lives.

    I have also witnessed the loss of that moral code in many people, but unless they are a clear and present threat to me or my family, I do not care what they do, as long as is doesn’t effect me or my family. If we would have moral law, and no police, just us, there would be no crime in short time, the criminals would be destroyed, as they are a clear and present danger.

    Just starting.

    G!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      And just how would the criminals be destroyed G? If you took their life, isn’t that going against your moral code? I grew up with the 10 commandments too, went to church every Sunday, left people alone, don’t bother anybody, let people live as they see fit, but if I see something that would or will hurt somebody, I will do my best to help that person who is being violated, if I can. I too have a moral code, and I hope you realize that.

      Okay, say we get rid of all government and laws, and rules, you mean to tell me that there wouldn’t be more chaos out there, and there wouldn’t be more people killing each other or what have you? I’m trying G, really I am to understand what you are saying. Maybe I need a time out and do some thinking, but get ready for more questions because I have to do some deep thinking here. I’m trying to picture what it would be like without laws and rules and taxes are all the other BS that goes with it. But all I can see is chaos.

      • No it would not be against my moral code. I will not initiate violence, but will act in self defense of myself, family, or someone who cannot defend themselves. I am inhibited from being at the ready at any given moment by the laws that have been put in place. If you are shopping, and get mugged, with your purse now stolen with all your info and money, you call the cops and pray they get it back. If you are mugged and I’m ten feet away in the same store, you keep your info and money, and the thief pays the price, what would be your most liked outcome?

        G!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Well definitely yours, of course. But, then wouldn’t you be in trouble for hurting that person? Thanks for protecting me by the way.

      • “Okay, say we get rid of all government and laws, and rules”

        No one is saying get rid of rules. Laws, government, and rules are not the same thing.

        Killing an attacker or thief (notice: not “criminal”, since “crime” just means doing governmentally prohibited things whether they are wrong or not) may violate your “moral code” if your moral code is not ethical. It is still a perfectly right thing to do.

        • Well put Kent,

          I’m not exactly inhibited by the law, I’ll leave it that, since I don’t really follow it anyway.

          Keep up the good work on your blog!

          G!

  20. Judy Sabatini says:

    Okay G, here is another set of questions I have. How do cops allow for crime? Nobody made the person who does bad things forced them into doing bad things. They acted alone as far as I can see. Nobody told them to rob that bank, or kill that person, or rape that child or woman or stick that gun in your face and try and take all your money. So, if cops just let anybody do that, then that’s okay then, right? I mean, after all, according to you, the law made them do that. What about all those people in prison,should they be set free? Should they be allowed to get out and maybe do it all again?

    Sorry G, I’m just not grasping yours, and Flag’s and BL’s concept here. Am I on the wrong side of town or what? That’s why I keep asking, to try and understand you and Flags, and others way of thinking.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      I asked these before you put your post up. I will answer your in a bit.

    • No Judy, I think your just seeing cops as the means to the solution, rather than whats in the way of stopping crime dead in it’s tracks.

      Cops are not out there to stop crime, they are there to enforce the LAWS, by catching the criminals and letting the judicial determine guilt. Since the crime has already been committed, what have they stopped? There still exists a criminal and a victim. Without the cops to uphold the laws that keep me and you from defending ourselves with the weapon of our choice, this cycle just goes on. More criminals and more victims. Nice!

      No cops and nothing but moral law = freedom from what we know as crime today, because the criminals would have much more to fear (death). Moral law vs. what we have today, no contest, I’ll take moral law all day long.

      G!

    • Judy, you are describing the predicament we suffer from because of original sin.

      But that is probably a discussion for another blog. 🙂

      Our friend BF says that all law is violence; yet the absence of law (and also, in our case, moral code) not only allows violence, but probably encourages it. BF and others propose a society in which there is no law, no central authority (not even a limited one), and then propose that a peaceful utopia will ensue.

      I wish that were true.

      • Anon,

        That is not true what I propose.

        You leaped before you looked.

        All Law is violence

        The next question is:

        When do you have the right to use violence?

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Well, that I can go for, if it were that easy. If you people succeed please let me know, so I can come live there. I am doing my damn dest to understand everything that is being said here.

      • Hardly. There is no Utopia, with or without “law”. Bad people do not behave nicely due to “laws”. Good people don’t become bad with a lack of “laws”. When “laws” are based upon anything other than aggression and theft, then “law” becomes a force for evil. That is where we stand today.

        No one has claimed there are no legitimate rules; only that “laws” are not the answer. There are rules for civilized behavior, such as the Zero Aggression Principle, but it tells me what I must do in order to be good, not what I can get away with or how I am allowed to control others.

        The only authority that ever worked, or ever will, is centralized inside each of us. Nothing external has ever worked and has always become a big part of the problem.

        • Agree – same as guns dont kill – people do !!

          Agree – However deterrence is a factor.

          I dont understand this statement.

          Sounds like heaven !

          from what little I know or perceive, in the beginning the strongest got the food, woman and made the rules or laws.

          Then came different value systems / religions which made the laws, morphing into kings and queens law .. Someone with better skills could surely wax poetic in this vein.

          The stability and confidence that we have here in the US is based on the fact that we have laws that are obeyed which allows freedom, innovation, capitalism to succeed. And until now with the example of GM – disregarding the laws protecting investments (bond holders) is why we can fund our debt with fluff (BF) – So why hasnt there been more of an uproar aboiut GM ?? What dont I know?

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    Okay, brain overload, need a break. But please all, be gentle with me, I’m so going to start rethinking here about things, and I really can’t take being beat up by everyone. I’m trying so hard, but I think I can do it.

    Catch you guys later.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Nobody is trying to beat you up, but rather enlightn you to the false logic behind law enforcement.

      We still love ya Judy.

      E-hugs and goodnight.

    • Judy…solve the problem….Sam Colt did. You can.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    Question. If law enforcement is false logic, then why do we have it?

    • You have your moral code! The single most important thing anyone can have. Dig deep, understand what it is to you, and live it. The rest will take care of itself.

      G!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Okay, another question.

        About this guy who tried to blow up the airplane, and if there was no laws, then how are we protected or who protects us then?

        • Apparently, noone protected us, except a brave citizen. Think about that and apply it to everything that has been said. The cops failed, the people won, noone died, go figure! 🙂

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Okay, scenario. The same thing happens again, but this time people died because there were more than one this time and the citizens couldn’t do a damn thing, now what?

            Now because of what happened, what should be done about security at th airports?

            • Under your scenario, how did law help anyone. You are assuming that everyone follows the current laws, under my law, everyone is packing, terrorists stand no chance and few are killed. The LAW prevents my scenario from happening, but allows the terrorists to kill, which do you prefer?

              G!

            • We should do what the Israelis do. They cant be that much smarter than us! Or probably they are ! Or they have people who are smart, trained to look and evaluate possible terrorists from peoples attitude, answers, body language etc.

              • When all the idiots in this country realize that being politically correct is a death sentence, then we’ll be fine.

              • My initial reaction, was another example of closing the barn door .. .. was going to happen so now political dead wood like Neapolitano will pronounce some great plan blah blah blah – and we;ll give the sacrificing TSA workers better health care and maybe a better union so that they can fight bla\h blah .. watch it .. ..

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                What does that have to do with security?

                But I see your point as well.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I live by the code of treating people with respect, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I do not go out of my way to cause anyone trouble, and I would expect the same of them. I live my life peacefully as I would hope others do the same. I will help those who are in need of my help, but will not force it upon them if it is not wanted, as I hope they would do the same for me.

        I do not want to be judged on my life or how I live it, as I do not judge others by the way they live theirs. If I see someone in trouble, I will try and help if I am able too.

        That is how I live. I want to be left alone with no interference by others, and that includes government and anyone else who tries to tell me how I should live my life or the way they think it should be lived.

    • The answer lies in the difference between idealism and reality.

      Idealism overlooks the fact that, in imperfect humanity, even determining who exactly is the “defender” and who is the “offender” requires the acceptance of some fair and knowledgable third party . . . and of some sort of baseline moral code . . . democracy assumes and demands that the third party not be a despot . . . but, again, our imperfections cause us to drift . . . which is at least one causative of the things debated here.

      Again, in the absence of God and/or godly government, our moral baselines continue to descend.

      And our children/grandchildren may reap the negative lawless benefit of that continuing decline.

      • The answer lies in the difference between idealism and reality.

        That is merely saying:

        “My principles can be corrupted by pragmatism”

        Idealism overlooks the fact that, in imperfect humanity, even determining who exactly is the “defender” and who is the “offender” requires the acceptance of some fair and knowledgable third party

        You state ‘requires’ as if it was true.

        But your statement is not true.

        I most certainly can determine who is attacking me, and that I am the defender without someone else telling me so.

        I am also pretty sure you can do the same.

        Why do you believe you are so unable -as a human being- to tell the difference, but so willing to abdicate such determination to another human being who you believe can determine this? Did the finger of God touch his forehead with some special knowledge you do not have??

        . . . and of some sort of baseline moral code . . . democracy assumes and demands that the third party not be a despot

        Earlier, I offered a post to why the Pubic Choice cannot be successful.

        . . . but, again, our imperfections cause us to drift . . . which is at least one causative of the things debated here.

        Our imperfections do not exist as you think they do.

        We are perfect quantum engines as designed by the Universe (or God, if you prefer). How possibly can a Perfect Entity create a flawed product??

        The Universe is chaos – a series of infinite probabilities waiting for reality to create itself.

        Because we cannot know precisely the complete extent of the consequences our actions does not make us imperfect.

        Our only “imperfection” or act of evil is when we contradict ourselves.

        Again, in the absence of God and/or godly government, our moral baselines continue to descend.

        God cannot be absent from himself.

        And our children/grandchildren may reap the negative lawless benefit of that continuing decline.

        What Law is worth keeping?

        • Yes, I certainly can decide when I am the “defender” . . . the problem comes when both the attacker and the defender both claim to be acting in self defense . . . we both can’t be right even though we both will claim to be.

          Baseline morality is not defined by Public Choice . . . Public Choice is responsible for the continuing decline of baseline morality.

          And, the reason for much of our disagreement (respectfully, yours and mine) lies in the difference in our view of humankind, our differing view of the Created Perfect Quantum Engine, to use your terminology.

          I do not want to misinterpret your view, but I think your view of humankind differs from mine: you view humankind as perfectly created by a Perfect Entity and still in that state, therefore making humankind continually perfect in its performance and decision-making; i.e. man is basically good and will continue to improve.

          I view humankind as perfectly created by a Perfect Entity (created in His Image as a matter of fact), but that original creation has fallen because the creation wanted to be equal to the Creator . . . and out from under His authority.

          In its fallen state, the created humankind is far from perfect, and, as the declining morality indicates, will prove its fallen state through its self-seeking and eventually destructive activities . . . making necessary the third party intervention I mentioned earlier. Remember, you and I will both on occassion to be the defender, even though one of us is the attacker. And that condition is an example of why some limited government is necessary. (By the way, I believe the Perfect Entity also created human government . . . human fallenness corrupts even the government the Entity created . . .which again explains why diligence is continually neceessary.)

          (All of this describes and proves the need for a Redeemer, but you and I agreed to disagree on that premise months ago.)

          And, yes, there is a law or two I find worth keeping.

          • Yes, I certainly can decide when I am the “defender” . . . the problem comes when both the attacker and the defender both claim to be acting in self defense . . . we both can’t be right even though we both will claim to be.

            Correct.

            So what is the RIGHTFUL course of action? Ending the violence – and all stop of both sides.

            We guarantee that we’ve stopped the attacker then, haven’t we?

            After that, then both sides can appeal to the rest of society their story and their right to use violence – and society members will judge one or the other to be the wrong doer.

            Baseline morality is not defined by Public Choice . . . Public Choice is responsible for the continuing decline of baseline morality.

            You’ll need to define ‘morality’ and prove why yours is the ‘one’ and not someone elses before I can discern whether there is a decline or not.

            I do not want to misinterpret your view, but I think your view of humankind differs from mine: you view humankind as perfectly created by a Perfect Entity and still in that state, therefore making humankind continually perfect in its performance and decision-making; i.e. man is basically good and will continue to improve.

            My proof stands outside your door.

            If man was dominated by what we call ‘evil’, civilization could not exist.

            It takes years to build what takes mere seconds to destroy.

            Since destruction is easy, and building hard, if evil was dominate – or even a small percentage of man – civilization could not stand.

            Yet, by your own eyes looking outside – it does.

            Therefore, men cannot be dominated by evil, or even by a significant amount. It must be very, very, very small indeed.

            But, because of the damage it causes, it gets front page news.

            Very small numbers, very large effect.

            But…very small numbers….nonetheless.

            I view humankind as perfectly created by a Perfect Entity (created in His Image as a matter of fact), but that original creation has fallen because the creation wanted to be equal to the Creator . . . and out from under His authority.

            How can a Perfect entity create a fallen (flawed) creation?

            How can we not be equal to our creator?

            Do you believe God exists outside of His own Natural Law??

            And that condition is an example of why some limited government is necessary.

            Why do you believe (if as you say you do) that fallen men – and thus must be controlled – organize government of fallen men that are better than the fallen men who occupy those seats of government?

            Thus, you create an entity that you grant with great power, held by the very same fallen men you demand need to be prevented from using great power.

            And you wonder why the world is all a mess?

            And, yes, there is a law or two I find worth keeping.

            Me too, and that is probably the right number of laws too – two or so.

            • The two laws:

              (1) Do not impose upon another man.

              (2) Do anything else you want.

            • The Creation was not flawed; the Creation was created with the power to choose; it is the resulting choices that caused the current fallen state, not the Creator.

              As far as “whose” moral code, you may notice that I have been careful not to list “my” own code, my premise is that the code continues to decline.

              And in regard to the choices society will discern together in terms of who is the “real defender” in our hypothetical; your description is very near what I mean by limited government . . .

              • The Creation was not flawed; the Creation was created with the power to choose; it is the resulting choices that caused the current fallen state, not the Creator.

                Let’s use some basic logic.

                Perfect Creator can only create Perfect Creation

                Thus, any choice such a Perfect Creation makes, must also be perfect from the POV of the Perfect Creator.

                We cannot fall in the eyes of God. (PS: That is what is meant by Perfect Love – we cannot fail in his eyes).

                We only fall in our own eyes.

                All right/wrong, good/evil is human defined – not God defined.

                God does not need our help in maintaining his laws. He maintains them perfectly fine all by Himself. He hasn’t failed yet, over the entire universe, even once.

                As far as “whose” moral code, you may notice that I have been careful not to list “my” own code, my premise is that the code continues to decline.

                Yes, I have noticed.

                And in regard to the choices society will discern together in terms of who is the “real defender” in our hypothetical; your description is very near what I mean by limited government . .

                Because I hold a comprehensive definition of government, you will notice that at no time do I find that government fits anywhere within a moral and civilized society.

                Indeed, government is the exact opposite of civilization.

              • Amazing, I don’t always see things your way BF, but tonight is a rare exception. I’ll keep an open mind on the videos and the 9/11 stuff, cuz anything could happen. Off too nightland. May you and your family be well!

                G!

      • You speak much truth, but do not see the evil that is the cause. Welfare, social benefits, curruption, dependence on government over decades has led to what we are living with. Whens the last time you actually met a stranger that was humble? Thats were we need to rebuild, return to being a humble group of people willing to work together, without the damn government telling us how to live and act. I am so NOT politically correct in my daily life, I think some people have become humble around me, and really like what I’m doing, and I’m talking about blacks, whites, and all other races. It don’t take but the willingness to tell the status quo to go Fu&^ themselves, they will back down!

        Sorry for the rant! 🙂

        G!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Go ahead G, rant away.

        • G,
          Just to clarify, I am in no way defending our current government or its deepening encroachment into personal freedom and personal responsibility . . . and using the tax code to enforce that encroachment. The “Great Society” and all of its current and growing derivitives are anti-democracy. I too long for more humility, more personal responisibiliyt, and less self-centeredness . . . and less government in the process.

          • Maybe we walk the same plank 🙂
            Fear not those are fooled, only respect those that are not, they are your best friends! 🙂

            Peace !

            Time for me too eat and sleep!

            G!

    • Bottom Line says:

      Judy,

      Judy Sabatini said – “Question. If law enforcement is false logic, then why do we have it?”

      The false logic is that it is there to protect you.

      G said it best with – “Cops are not out there to stop crime, they are there to enforce the LAWS, by catching the criminals and letting the judicial determine guilt. Since the crime has already been committed, what have they stopped? There still exists a criminal and a victim.”

      And to answer the question of “why do we have them” is:

      Money/revenue from fines.

      I.E. – Speed Limits

      We’re told that speed limit enforcement is used as a deterrent to speeders in order to create a safer driving environment.

      Sounds logical.

      But the roads aren’t any safer, and people still speed.

      If it were about safety, they would make roads and cars like bumper-cars, or design cars with a speed governor, or something that actually made it safer and virtually idiot proof.

      But they instead, sit back with a radar gun and pick someone out to pay a fine.

      If they made the roads safe, there would be no revenue via traffic fines, so it benefits them to keep plenty of speeders out on the roadways.

      The false logic is that they make the roads safer through deterrence.

  23. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_us/us_airline_attack_passenger_confusion

    The new TSA tactic. We’re so damn confused about what to do, we’ve made it our core strategy!

    Confuse ourselves, the airlines, the passengers and heck, maybe one or two terrorists too!


    Confused? So were scores of passengers who flew Monday on one of the busiest travel days of the year. On some flights, passengers were told to keep their hands visible and not to listen to iPods. Even babies were frisked. But on other planes, security appeared no tighter than usual.

    The Transportation Security Administration did little to explain the rules. And that inconsistency might well have been deliberate: What’s confusing to passengers is also confusing to potential terrorists.

    “It keeps them guessing,” transportation expert Joseph Schwieterman said.

  24. GMAFB !! I flew in & out of Detroit 12/24 and JFK yesterday.

    What little I see about the TSA – its a make work program for dumb out of work losers !!

    Shucks, guess I SHOULD have gotten a job there 8 years ago !!

    I checked thru a bag because one of the gifts was a nice btl of desert wine, so of course they HAD to open rip the wrapping off ! It was a commuter flight of less than 50 passengers. Too many employees – too much time on their hands.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Frank

      And because of that shoe bomber, now we can’t take jack diddley on board anymore. I haven’t flown anywhere since my oldest son graduated from boot camp at Ft Knox Kentucky 6 years ago. Now if we go anywhere we drive, with the exception of my husband leaving this Friday for Hawaii. It will be interesting to see what they have to go through is security.

  25. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/

    This is a great site – an aggregator of free online documentary films.

    If I can recommend one, check this out:

    topdocumentaryfilms.com/loose-change-final-cut/

    • Saved it to view when things are slow, thanks!

      G!

    • Bottom Line says:

      I saw the loose change videos a few years ago.

      The debunking videos put it to shame.

      The guy’s logic is flawed, and he’s focusing on the wrong details, though he does raise some valid questions.

      For example… When he shows the 9 second free fall, he shows it from an angle that doesn’t show the whole building. If you look at it from another angle where you can see the whole tower, you’ll see that it was actually 20 something seconds.

      And when they say the support beams in the towers couldn’t have overheated and warped at the temps produced by jet fuel…

      Bullshit, you can see the footage of the tower buckling around the impacted floors. You can actually see the warpage get worse until the collapse.

      I think the guy that made loose change is connecting too many of the wrong dots.

      Not to say that he’s wrong, just distracted by the wrong dots.

      • Bottom Line,

        What version of video do you believe shows a 20 second fall?

        See this video

        From engineers for 9/11 truth

        • Bottom Line says:

          I’m still having driver issues and cannot hear audio of videos. I sooo wish I could. (AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!)

          Loose Change shows the 9 second fall. The debunking vids show the 20 second fall.

          I’ve done a bit of research on this stuff myself BF. …to include reading the “911 Commission Report” and spending countless hours making a detailed as possible recreation using “Jane’s FA-18” flight simulator.

          I recomend you watch the debunking videos for a little perspective. It’ll help filter out the falsities and narrow it down a bit.

          Ya know…deductive reasoning.

          There are plenty of details to pick the story apart, and there is something that really stinks, but I don’t think Loose Change is the definitive answer as to how.

          • I’ve looked at the debunking videos and they do not show a 20 second fall – unless you’re counting dust particles.

            If ANY part of the building is in freefall, Bottom Line – that means the underlying parts must be of zero resistance. It matters not that another part takes 10 minutes…if ANY component of the building is in freefall, it means that something happened UNDER NEATH prior to the fall.

            So, counting the wobble of one of the columns still viable after the collapse – as part of the collapse – doesn’t count.

            I don’t think it is the definitive either, BL. It cannot be since we do not know the whole truth.

            It,however, highlights many questions that have no answer….yet…

            But the one’s I’m picking on is the Flight Recorder of Flight 77, and the WTC 7.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Yet is right.

              And the flight recorder sounds like a good lead.

              BF – “If ANY part of the building is in freefall, Bottom Line – that means the underlying parts must be of zero resistance. It matters not that another part takes 10 minutes…if ANY component of the building is in freefall, it means that something happened UNDER NEATH prior to the fall.”

              Not necessarily, There are so many uncalculable variables to that equation, that a simple measure of time, speed, distance, gravity cannot accurately say.

              And the same goes for the puffs from charges. They could have been from something else entirely unknowable. How many things were popping and snapping in the few seconds before the collapse?

              Hell, it could have simply been air pressure or debris being forced around.

              …and what about the reported explosions on the ground floor just before the colapse. What happens when an elevator falls 100+ stories and abruptly stops at the lobby?

              I’m just saying that there was total chaos inside those towers …and most visual/recorded video clues, however indicative, are highly subjective, and far from definative.

              • BF – “If ANY part of the building is in freefall, Bottom Line – that means the underlying parts must be of zero resistance. It matters not that another part takes 10 minutes…if ANY component of the building is in freefall, it means that something happened UNDER NEATH prior to the fall.”

                Not necessarily, There are so many uncalculable variables to that equation, that a simple measure of time, speed, distance, gravity cannot accurately say.

                Whoa thar, young cowboy!

                Gravity is a Law of Nature – immutable.

                If said body goes into steady and constant acceleration in a fall – it doesn’t matter a hoot how big, broad, its color, the age, the temperature of the sun, the alignment of the stars, etc.

                It’s in freefall.

                It’s more than right, its the LAW!

                That is why its notice of freefall is so fundamental to the attack of skeptics upon the “official” version of the WTC. The laws of nature do not change simply because the US government says so.

                No scenario presented by the government can explain how a building can ‘collapse’ downward – crushing concrete and steel – blasting thousand ton girders hundreds of feet sideways – while encountering ZERO resistance and in freefall.

                The laws of momentum do not suddenly disappear inside the WTC. If the collapse has caused a transfer of energy that must account for the beams to be blasted horizontally, the energy must come from the collapse – slowing the fall significantly.

                If, however, as we see, the building goes at freefall – no slowing AND we see beams blasted horizontally – we can instantly conclude that SOMETHING ELSE MUST be supplying the energy – it is not in the collapse.

                This is the Law of Physics as the rest of the Universe operates within.

                I would suggest so does the WTC.

                And the same goes for the puffs from charges. They could have been from something else entirely unknowable. How many things were popping and snapping in the few seconds before the collapse?

                Caused by what?

                If you have a cause, let’s here it! What would cause ejections BELOW the collapse line? The plane hit way above, it couldn’t be another plane? I didn’t notice one…

                If it exists by observation – and it cannot be caused by the collapse – what caused it?

                The only valid hypothesis that explains all of it not just a part of it, is purposeful implosion.

                Hell, it could have simply been air pressure or debris being forced around.

                Explain how it can precede the area of collapse?

                Air is pushed out of least resistance – not through its highest.

                The highest resistance is the floors below – and the least is the empty air above.

                A pancake would push air out horizontally – unless you know how air can penetrate solid steel and concrete.

                There is no theory of physics that explains ‘puffs’ 8 to 10 floors below the freefall collapse.

                …and what about the reported explosions on the ground floor just before the colapse. What happens when an elevator falls 100+ stories and abruptly stops at the lobby?

                Elevators do not stop at the lobby. They stop in the basement.

                Further, all elevators have automatic brakes that deploy even if the wire rope fails. They would stop immediately – at whatever floor they happen to pass – as soon as they accelerated beyond a design limit.

                I’m just saying that there was total chaos inside those towers …and most visual/recorded video clues, however indicative, are highly subjective, and far from definative.

                Much is hidden, very true.

                But laws of gravity remain the same, even if we can’t see inside the building.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Okay, I’ll have to re-read this when I’m not so tired, and get back to you after I’ve thought of something intellegent to say.

                lol.

                I’m going to bed bro.

                (See reply below)

      • Check this video @ 2:50 to 2:59 (the slow motion version).

        It points to ejections IN ADVANCE of the falling debris cloud.

        To understand what you are seeing, you need to consider this. The bottom edge of the debris cloud is falling at free-fall. Nothing inside the building can be moving faster than that.

        There is nothing in the building falling faster then free fall that can cause ejections IN FRONT OF the freefall of debris.

        Yet, in advance of the cloud – there is a forceful ejection; a squib explosion.

      • More from the engineers

  26. Judy Sabatini says:

    Well guys, it’s been a lesson here talking with you about things today, but I have got to get off here, getting computer eyes and I’m tired. Hope we can do it again tomorrow.

    G, Flag, BL, D13, Frank and Anoninnc, I love you guys and everybody else as well.

    Have a good night and pleasant dreams to all.

    Judy

  27. Too bad none of you have read the true report. Too bad it is still classified but the conspiracy theories are really cool reading and make great fiction.

    • Yes, I sure this mysterious report answers why the government would offer a Flight Recorder that doesn’t match the real flight.

      • Actually not very mysterious……a last reading it was 1,214 pages..single spaced. It is classified and like the Kennedy Papers…will probably remain classified. However, it is not classified as TS or SSIEO….just classified under the guise of “National Security”. But was required reading at War College. Theories abound and theorists that want to believe that the government initiated this at some global reason to invade for oil or some such will believe it no matter what. Plenty of engineers will write reports for and against same. And those that want to believe the report (which is a DOD report)will do so.

        It ranks right along with the theory that the dikes in New Orleans were intentionally blown during Katrina to flood the area.

        But, BF, you claim to know people with classified status in Washington. Ask them about it and hope they will tell you. it is rather easy for most with classified status to get to it….need to know basis and all that….but obtainable. Perhaps one of your friends could get it and leak it (which I am surprised that it has not been leaked so far)….it is not very headlining though. It is NOT available through the FOIA..at least not yet.

        Think about this….if it was beneficial to the Obama administration, it would be declassified for that is what he does. There is a reason it is not being declassified….perhaps that should be the focus?

        • D13,

          Any access to ‘higher ups’ that I may have had disappeared in a previous life.

          They are either dead, retired, or my adversaries today. 🙂

          I do not see Obama leaking such material – it does him no good whatsoever to destroy the government. He is the government.

          Regardless of its classified nature, the fact remains –

          What was released by the NTSB, under FOIA, for Flight 77 on 9/11/2001, could not possibly be that flight. It is impossible.

          Thus, for some reason, someone or persons purposely fabricated this disclosure.

          • Ok….I can buy this one…..”Thus, for some reason, someone or persons purposely fabricated this disclosure.”

            And I know about the contacts….so far I still have most of them but they are about to retire as well…and I have not seen any other reports on this matter since…..ummmm…about 2006. Who knows what may have changed.

            But…rest assured…. I am not naive enough to believe “everything” the gov tells me or reports on… but I do know some of the people who wrote the reports.

            Hope that you and yours have a wonderful New Year celebration. Not too much on the toddy’s,,,,,have fun tho….but remember it. 🙂

            • D13,
              🙂

              I have a hard time remembering yesterday, even when I’m sober….

              It frustrates my wife to no end.

              I can remember the most obscure details about some part of history or science or something else….

              …but remember what happened a day or two ago…blank.

              Top of the New Year to you and yours!

  28. Bottom Line says:

    BLACK FLAG

    FREEFALL –

    According to the laws of physics…The estimated time for the free fall would be about 9 seconds.

    South Tower – 15.28 seconds
    North Tower – 22.02 seconds

    These times are accurate as they were not only from analyzing the videos, but also used several audio recordings and recordings of the seismic activity to cross reference and double check the video.

    So how do you account for the difference?

    S. Tower – 6 secs.
    N. Tower – 13 secs.

    Resistance/friction maybe? “Pancaking” perhaps?

    Not to say that the timing debunks the theory that charges were placed…

    All the free-fall calculations tell us, is that it would have taken at least 9 seconds to fall.

    Even if there WERE explosive charges/Thermite paint planted…it could have taken longer than 9 seconds.

    Fall time is inconclusive.

    PUFFS FROM ALLEGED CHARGES –

    BF – ” If you have a cause, let’s here it! What would cause ejections BELOW the collapse line? The plane hit way above, it could’t be another plane? I didn’t notice one…

    If it exists by observation – and it cannot be caused by the collapse – what caused it? ”

    Your logic is flawed. (yes, I did just say that to someone of superior intellect)
    To claim “charges” without being able to conclusively rule out all other possibilities, is a grasp at best.

    Existing by observation is inconclusive. So they exist? Doesn’t mean they were from charges. It simply means that they were seen. And so what if they they came from below the collapse line. It could have been anything.

    Imagine being in those towers as the upper floors start to come down. There would be all kinds of things busting throughout the tower. Imagine debris being forced downward under enormous pressure. I can imagine things like pieces of concrete the size of a car being slammed around inside like it was a ping pong ball.

    BL – “Hell, it could have simply been air pressure or debris being forced around.”

    BF – “Explain how it can precede the area of collapse?

    Air is pushed out of least resistance – not through its highest.

    The highest resistance is the floors below – and the least is the empty air above.

    A pancake would push air out horizontally – unless you know how air can penetrate solid steel and concrete.

    There is no theory of physics that explains ‘puffs’ 8 to 10 floors below the free fall collapse.”

    Again, your logic is flawed. You cannot definitively say without eliminating other possibilities.

    Your pancake is actually a ring, with a hole in the middle for utilities and an elevator shaft.
    The pancakes and debris could have easily acted as a diaphragm pushing air downward. The top end was clogged with downward falling debris and the bottom was open to accept air pressure.

    THE ELEVATOR –

    You assume that the elevator breaking mechanism performed properly under the worst-case scenario conditions?

    My point is this…

    Everything we are discussing is inconclusive and mostly speculative.

    What we need is a set of contradictions based on indisputable facts.

    You know…like the flight 77 recorder. It couldn’t have been at two altitudes at once.

    So, what knocked down the lights?

    Rule out the inaccuracy of the “Black Box” and you’re on to something.

    Note Mr. Flag, that I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong, but instead simply trying to play the devil’s advocate in the interest of genuine truth.

    It kinda feels like arguing with myself about illegal immigration. lol.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Correction:

      “What we need is a set of contradictions based on ALLEGED indisputable facts.”

      Facts aren’t disputable.

      lol.

    • Where are you getting this times?

      From NIST’s own documentation
      * Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
      * Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
      * Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

      • Again, if FREE FALL exists – there are no underlying support for the building.

      • Bottom Line says:

        http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

        Watch the second video.

        I still don’t have sound, so I have no idea what was said.

        Their logic is flawed too. (2:42 ‘(which would have caused a free fall speed)’)

        I say “not necessarily”

        I would love to hunt down a few more good ones, but…

        I CAN”T HEAR THEM!!!!

        • So, now you are arguing against NIST???

          What a turn of events!

        • BL:
          Review the Engineer’s video.

          What your site assumes is from the start to the end – must be free fall.

          But that is not what occured.

          As the Engineers in my video list demonstrate – and NIST agrees – was a transition into free fall – note the graph line …flat, then a straight slope line (free fall) until the end.

          Your graph starts their calculation at time zero – expecting a curve. This is was not observed by anyone. So why would they attempt to provide such a faulty description?

          The point of freefall BL, is that if it occurred at any point withing the collapse, the underlying support must have failed in front off the collapse.

          But how is this possible if your theory relies on the energy of the collapse to cause such failure?

        • Also, your video offers an incorrect assumption (the core supports 60%)

          Where did they get that incorrect info?

          The designers that built the building state that the core supports 100% of the weight! The stratus on the outside was there to support the Three Dimensional movement that is, horizontal sway – not the weight – of WTC.

          So now these guys are perverting the very design of WTC to make their point.

    • Even if there WERE explosive charges/Thermite paint planted…it could have taken longer than 9 seconds.

      Why do you say this? You don’t believe explosives can go off faster than that?

      Fall time is inconclusive.

      See below – even NIST disagrees with you.

      PUFFS FROM ALLEGED CHARGES –

      BF – ” If you have a cause, let’s here it! What would cause ejections BELOW the collapse line? The plane hit way above, it could’t be another plane? I didn’t notice one…

      If it exists by observation – and it cannot be caused by the collapse – what caused it? ”<

      Your logic is flawed. (yes, I did just say that to someone of superior intellect)
      To claim “charges” without being able to conclusively rule out all other possibilities, is a grasp at best.

      First, you are assuming “something” other than the obvious must exist – where explosives answer all the questions.

      You cannot offer an explanation other than explosives because the any other explanation simply is absurd.

      Existing by observation is inconclusive. So they exist? Doesn’t mean they were from charges.

      It is the best answer because it answers all the questions.

      You cannot answer because it cannot be (1) air (2) impacts – since it is in advance of the freefall cloud. Unless you come up with an alternative that fits the circumstances – without resorting to ‘magic’ explanations – I’m all ears.

      It simply means that they were seen. And so what if they they came from below the collapse line. It could have been anything.

      That’s the thing. It can’t be “anything” (appeal to magic). All force has a cause – Newton’s Law; a stationary body remains stationary unless a force acts upon it. So, what force?

      Imagine being in those towers as the upper floors start to come down. There would be all kinds of things busting throughout the tower. Imagine debris being forced downward under enormous pressure. I can imagine things like pieces of concrete the size of a car being slammed around inside like it was a ping pong ball.

      Sure, good imagination – but it cannot do so faster than the speed of the debris cloud.

      You are arguing that pieces inside the building are falling faster than free fall – which is only possible if they are accelerated by an external energy source such as explosives.

      Yet, you argue against explosives.

      So pray tell me, how can concrete fall faster than gravity?

      BL – “Hell, it could have simply been air pressure or debris being forced around.”

      BF – “Explain how it can precede the area of collapse?

      Air is pushed out of least resistance – not through its highest.

      The highest resistance is the floors below – and the least is the empty air above.

      A pancake would push air out horizontally – unless you know how air can penetrate solid steel and concrete.

      There is no theory of physics that explains ‘puffs’ 8 to 10 floors below the free fall collapse.”

      Again, your logic is flawed. You cannot definitively say without eliminating other possibilities.

      Actually I can.

      Gravity is the Law.

      And I have other possibilities – explosives.

      You are demanding that I accept magic as a possibility. Unless you can come up with an explanation that does not contradict the laws of Nature – which you can’t – there remains exactly one answer left.

      On top of that, there exists chemical proof of the use of thermate and nano-thermate.

      Your pancake is actually a ring, with a hole in the middle for utilities and an elevator shaft.
      The pancakes and debris could have easily acted as a diaphragm pushing air downward. The top end was clogged with downward falling debris and the bottom was open to accept air pressure.

      Do your physics.

      If I push a steel block at 50mph through air, what is the speed of the air in front of the block? There is NO WAY air can move faster than the pressure behind it. You are demanding it does. That is impossible (<-note the word) unless there is another input of energy other than the falling building

      Where does the air go? Through the least resistance or the greatest?

      Thus, (1)air goes the same velocity as what is pushing it
      (2) air is a compressible state of matter. Thus, a block racing toward another block will compress the air between them – the air will not be pushed out faster, but SLOWER than the speed of the blocks as it compresses. (3)it will go to the least resistance – out the sides, not down through concrete.

      ELEVATOR –

      You assume that the elevator breaking mechanism performed properly under the worst-case scenario conditions?

      It isn’t an assumption.

      They are made that way.

      They have brakes pads that grab the rails – only in Hollywood do elevator cables break and they fall to the basement. (Unless the brakes are removed – which, if that is your claim, you’ve joined the conspiracy theorists 😉 )

      My point is this…

      You are claiming magic as an explanation for everything. That is, you depend on the alterations of physics, mysterious forces (but not explosives), and events that are nearly impossible (elevators not acting like they have been designed to act for the last 150 years).

      Magic, sir, only exists as an illusion.

      Everything we are discussing is inconclusive and mostly speculative.

      We can eliminate many things by understanding physics. We do not have to include magic in our discussions.

      What we need is a set of contradictions based on indisputable facts.

      As provided. Laws of Nature are indisputable.

      Air cannot move faster than its push.

      Air moves towards least, not greatest resistance.

      Concrete blocks accelerated horizontally requires energy – if that energy is not provided by the gravitational collapse from above – and NIST agrees it was not (by recognizing the free fall) then other energy must be introduced to cause that horizontal push.

      Note Mr. Flag, that I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong, but instead simply trying to play the devil’s advocate in the interest of genuine truth.

      I appreciate the devil – it highlights the discussion of what can and cannot be.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I’m not arguing with you, or NIST, or Loose change…I’m simply arguing the logic.
        So many theories are based on inductive reasoning without using facts and deduction to confirm.

        My whole argument is that without eliminating the discrepancies and variables, there is no way to conclusively say what actually happened.

        BL – “Even if there WERE explosive charges/Thermite paint planted…it could have taken longer than 9 seconds.”

        BF – “Why do you say this? You don’t believe explosives can go off faster than that?”

        The only thing that the free fall calculations tell us is that unless it was pushed downward faster than terminal velocity by some outside force(which it wasn’t), it would have taken a minimum of about 9 seconds.

        Even if there were charges, it could have been slowed by resistance.

        What resistance you ask?

        Nobody knows for sure. That’s my whole point.

        Unless we develop a time machine and go back to 9/11/’01, freeze time and inspect the inside of the towers as they fell, then we CANNOT say for sure.

        BF – “First, you are assuming “something” other than the obvious must exist – where explosives answer all the questions.

        You cannot offer an explanation other than explosives because the any other explanation simply is absurd.”

        BL – I’m not assuming anything. I’m trying to make the point that calling it an obvious fact is, itself, an assumption.

        BF – “It is the best answer because it answers all the questions.

        You cannot answer because it cannot be (1) air (2) impacts – since it is in advance of the free-fall cloud. Unless you come up with an alternative that fits the circumstances – without resorting to ‘magic’ explanations – I’m all ears.”

        BL – How do you KNOW that it wasn’t something else?

        BF – “That’s the thing. It can’t be “anything” (appeal to magic). All force has a cause – Newton’s Law; a stationary body remains stationary unless a force acts upon it. So, what force?”

        BL – Drop a piece of concrete onto another piece of concrete. What happens?

        A: The energy is transferred from the falling concrete into the stationary piece, and it chips, cracks, or explodes sending little pieces in all directions.

        Try to calculate and accurately predict whether it will crack, chip, or explode…and what direction those pieces will travel.

        You can’t because there are too many variables.

        Tons of debris transferring it’s weight onto vertical supports could easily cause one or more of them to snap at a lower level weak point(below the cloud), thus sending debris in all directions and originating from that point below the cloud.

        BF – “Do your physics.

        If I push a steel block at 50mph through air, what is the speed of the air in front of the block? There is NO WAY air can move faster than the pressure behind it. You are demanding it does. That is impossible (<-note the word) unless there is another input of energy other than the falling building

        Where does the air go? Through the least resistance or the greatest?

        Thus, (1)air goes the same velocity as what is pushing it
        (2) air is a compressible state of matter. Thus, a block racing toward another block will compress the air between them – the air will not be pushed out faster, but SLOWER than the speed of the blocks as it compresses. (3)it will go to the least resistance – out the sides, not down through concrete."

        BL – So what if there were a hole in the center of the block? Wouldn't that be an almost equal path of least resistance as the sidways route?

        Go open a window and seal it with a piece of newspaper and tape to make a diafram.
        Then go open a door and listen for the newspaper to crackle. It does so almost instantly. The air contained in your house acts like a whole object. Travel time is irrelevant.

        BF – "It isn’t an assumption.

        They are made that way.

        They have brakes pads that grab the rails – only in Hollywood do elevator cables break and they fall to the basement. (Unless the brakes are removed – which, if that is your claim, you’ve joined the conspiracy theorists )"

        BL – Yes they're made that way, but are like everything else, seceptable to failure, especially under such circumstances.
        How do you know that the rail or braking mechanism didn't bust?

        ..And what you're calling "MAJIC" is no more than a list of possibilities that you, nor I, can prove, nor disprove.

        Think about what Hayek says about being unable to calculate all of the variables.

        The same logic applies here.

        We can only figure so much, as our knowledge is "limited".

      • I’m not arguing with you, or NIST, or Loose change…I’m simply arguing the logic.

        ..and I add to that, facts and Laws of Physics.

        One can be very logic, while ignoring Physics, and invent a very logically consistent ‘magic’.

        So many theories are based on inductive reasoning without using facts and deduction to confirm.

        We know gravity, pressure, compressibility of air, and least resistance. These do not change in the real world.

        My whole argument is that without eliminating the discrepancies and variables, there is no way to conclusively say what actually happened.

        “Conclusively” – without knowing the whole truth – no.

        But “reasoned by the preponderance of evidence”, very likely we can.

        Even if there were charges, it could have been slowed by resistance.

        So, regardless of the facts – you still argue free fall didn’t happen.

        Unless we develop a time machine and go back to 9/11/’01, freeze time and inspect the inside of the towers as they fell, then we CANNOT say for sure.

        We do have a time machine. The buildings were filmed and photographed from all angles during the whole event.

        This is how we can see the squibs, the cutter charges on the corner supports, the speed of the fall…

        We can surmise from that evidence many things – including the undisputed fact (except by you and a few others its seems) that freefall occurred.

        There is nothing in physics that can create ‘squibs’ in advance of a freefall. It cannot be done. NIST didn’t do it in any of their models. They, in fact, deny such squibs exist – even though the video evidence shows it.

        They deny there was molten metal in the basement of the towers – even though NASA and photo and witnesses all say there was.

        It was a very strange fire – it continued to burn until after 21 days after the collapse – the longest burning building fire in history.

        With the amount of fire fighting equipment, the fire was unquenchable.

        Do you know what fire cannot be quenched?

        It must burn out completely – it is used under water for this very reason…

        …Thermite/Thermate….

        http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

        BF – “First, you are assuming “something” other than the obvious must exist – where explosives answer all the questions.

        You cannot offer an explanation other than explosives because the any other explanation simply is absurd.”

        BL – I’m not assuming anything. I’m trying to make the point that calling it an obvious fact is, itself, an assumption.

        It is an assumption that fits the observation.

        There are no other assumptions that fit the observations.

        BL – How do you KNOW that it wasn’t something else?

        Because we live in a finite world free of magic.

        As above, because of the Laws of Physics – there MUST be an additional source of energy IN ADVANCE of the collapse.

        What source of energy do you claim can possibly exist capable of doing this – without resorting to magic.

        BL – Drop a piece of concrete onto another piece of concrete. What happens?

        A: The energy is transferred from the falling concrete into the stationary piece, and it chips, cracks, or explodes sending little pieces in all directions.

        Correct. But you forgot this law of physics (described by Newton) – transfer of momentum!

        The top piece no longer accelerates – it is no longer in free fall.

        Yet, free fall exists as a fact.

        Therefore, there is no transfer of momentum

        Try to calculate and accurately predict whether it will crack, chip, or explode…and what direction those pieces will travel.

        You can’t because there are too many variables.

        There are NOT too many variables! There are too many pieces!

        But we know this – as a fact of the Laws of Nature….


        Momentum Conservation and Newton’s Laws

        As we have discussed above, Descartes introduced the concept of momentum, and the general principle of conservation of momentum in collisions, before Newton’s time. However, it turns out that conservation of momentum can be deduced from Newton’s laws. Newton’s laws in principle fully describe all collision-type phenomena, and therefore must contain momentum conservation.

        To understand how this comes about, consider first Newton’s Second Law relating the acceleration a of a body of mass m with an external force F acting on it:

        F = ma, or force = mass x acceleration

        Recall that acceleration is rate of change of velocity, so we can rewrite the Second Law:

        force = mass x rate of change of velocity.

        Now, the momentum is mv, mass x velocity. This means for an object having constant mass (which is almost always the case, of course!)

        rate of change of momentum = mass x rate of change of velocity.

        galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html

        Tons of debris transferring it’s weight onto vertical supports could easily cause one or more of them to snap at a lower level weak point(below the cloud), thus sending debris in all directions and originating from that point below the cloud.

        Sure, but that would also change the momentum. Acceleration would stop (ie: no free fall).

        But that is not what happened Free fall happened.

        Therefore, by Newton’s Laws, what you describe could not happen (except if you believe in magic).

        BL – So what if there were a hole in the center of the block? Wouldn’t that be an almost equal path of least resistance as the sidways route?

        No, there was no hole in the center of the block. There was hundreds of thousands of tons of steel girders.

        For your claim to stand, you must believe that the center piece was hollow. You must believe that you could walk to the center and peer down to the basement with no walls or steel.

        You suppose fantasy to support your theory.

        Go open a window and seal it with a piece of newspaper and tape to make a diafram.
        Then go open a door and listen for the newspaper to crackle. It does so almost instantly. The air contained in your house acts like a whole object. Travel time is irrelevant.

        Calculate the rate of change of that piece of paper’s surface. It will be less than the velocity of the opening of the door – not faster.

        Your theory insists it must be faster.

        BL – Yes they’re made that way, but are like everything else, seceptable to failure, especially under such circumstances.

        How do you know that the rail or braking mechanism didn’t bust?

        I am confident they busted when the building collapsed past them. But not before.

        Think about what Hayek says about being unable to calculate all of the variables.

        The same logic applies here.

        But we know all the variables. This is not an infinitely complex system. Force/momentum/acceleration are all knowable.

        We know the math and the values of gravity. This is not a mystery. We’ve known this for 300 years or longer.

        We can only figure so much, as our knowledge is “limited”.

        But where we do know, it is obvious.

        The scenario as you claim is impossible in this Universe.

        • Another example of free fall.

          Guess what caused it?

          http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/there-she-blows-17337654

        • Bottom Line says:

          When you didn’t reply after a couple of minutes, I thought…”uh oh, he’s organizing and making preparations to destroy me”

          lol.

          I have to go run some errands. I’ll be back in a little while to continue this.

          • Indeed!

            But not to destroy… to discern and discover!

            Let the facts and science fall (pun intended) where they may!

            • Bottom Line says:

              After re-reading above, I realize that I am annoying myself with the role of the devil’s advocate for the sake of argument.

              We were getting rapped around a buncha bullsh*t.

              So, on the notion of discernment, discovery, facts and science – I’d like to shift the conversation to a more analytical and scientific approach.(nice pun by the way)

              I understand free fall – gravity – rate of acceleration – terminal velocity – mass – resistance, etc…

              I get that calculation.

              I understand thermite/thermate and metal fires.
              I understand them as “Class Delta Fire”
              I understand the techniques for fighting them… You don’t, you just contain them.

              I understand demolition and the concept of structural support mechanisms.

              I understand this… (

              BF – “To understand how this comes about, consider first Newton’s Second Law relating the acceleration a of a body of mass m with an external force F acting on it:

              F = ma, or force = mass x acceleration

              Recall that acceleration is rate of change of velocity, so we can rewrite the Second Law:

              force = mass x rate of change of velocity.

              Now, the momentum is mv, mass x velocity. This means for an object having constant mass (which is almost always the case, of course!)

              rate of change of momentum = mass x rate of change of velocity.”

              ) …type of language.

              Here’s what I don’t exactly get in scientific and/or mathematical terms.

              Free fall speed – acceleration rate – distance
              (9 seconds)

              vs.

              South Tower – 15.28 seconds
              North Tower – 22.02 seconds
              (Record)

              vs.

              S. Tower – 6 secs.
              N. Tower – 13 secs.
              (Difference)

              …We need a chalk board.

              • I refer back to this video and information.

                See this video

                From engineers for 9/11 truth.

                Note the flat starting line – then the acceleration slope to the end point.

                The video confirms this. The start of the collapse occurs above the crash line – then the entire building goes free fall.

                It is from the point of time where the graph goes into acceleration that demonstrates the freefall.

              • He shows the timing vs. the aceleration starting at the 0:18 mark of the video.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I watched the video without sound and took noted points into consideration,

                Then smoked a joint and pondered some calculus.

                !EUREKA!

                !BOOOOOOOOOOM!

                !HOLY PHUQ!

                Bottom line: An abrupt increase in rate of acceleration.

                As soon as I can think of the proper way to articulate what I have just ‘discovered’, I will tell the world.

                BF(Brain), You may have just unwittingly initiated a sequence of events leading to your global anarchy.

                Lol.

                Learning is Fun.

                Teaching is a Reward.

                Knowledge is Power.

                Order out of Chaos.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Cheers!

  29. Updated December 29, 2009
    Politicizing Preschool

    By Dan Lips

    – FOXNews.com

    Before we invest $10 billion to fund new programs for preschoolers, let’s get an answer to the $100 billion question: Does Head Start provide lasting benefits?

    * print
    * email
    * share
    * Check recommend (0)

    Decrease Font A A A Increase Font

    Universal health care may top the wish-lists of many liberals this Christmas — but universal preschool isn’t far behind. President Obama is doing his best to play the role of Santa, bringing subsidized pre-kindergarten to a growing number of American families.

    The president has called for $10 billion in new funding for preschool programs, and Congress is working to deliver. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $5 billion for preschool and childcare programs. In September, the House passed a higher education bill that included an $8 billion “Early Learning Challenge Fund” to provide grants to states to expand subsidized preschool. The Senate is expected to follow suit.

    These proposals are based on the belief that “investments” in early childhood education yield significant long-term benefits for children served. As President Obama himself promised, “For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less crime.”

    If the president is right, we should look forward to a safer, healthier, and welfare-free world sometime soon, thanks to our federal “investments” in preschool. In 2009, taxpayers will spend $25 billion on the federal government’s 69 federal preschool and childcare programs.

    Unfortunately, little is known about whether these programs work. One might think that Congress and the administration would be focusing on evaluating these programs’ effectiveness before spending another $8 billion on preschool. Actually, there is reason to believe that they are instead ignoring empirical evidence that undermines the case for a new federal preschool program.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/29/dan-lips-heritage-preschool-head-start-politics/

    Three years have now passed. According to the HHS Web site, this project was supposed to be completed by March 2009. But the findings of the congressionally-mandated evaluation have never been made public.

    One can’t help but wonder: What’s causing the delay? Former HHS officials have told me that they were briefed on the results of the first-grade evaluation in 2008. They report that the evaluation found that, overall, Head Start participants experienced zero lasting benefits compared to their non-Head Start peers by the end of first grade. These officials expressed little surprise that the report’s release had been delayed.

    Is the Department of HHS burying a damaging study? Perhaps there’s a good explanation for the delay. But without raising the question, we won’t know the answer. Before taxpayers “invest” another $8 billion in another preschool program, we deserve to know whether programs like Head Start are, indeed, making a lasting difference.

    President Obama has said that his administration’s only test for deciding what education programs to fund with our “precious tax dollars” will be whether it “works.” It’s time to find out whether he will keep his word — even if it means bad news for one of liberals’ favorite initiatives.

    • LOI,

      Such programs rest on a theory that toddler brains are developed enough to be “stuffed”.

      They aren’t. They are still in the stage where they are discarding brain cells, and are not at the stage where the ability to abstract exists.

      But many of today’s parents are in “hurry up mode” – make a baby and get it out the door and on its own – like a machine.

      • Flag,

        Obama said before that he intends to push for government running pre-K schooling. He has opposed every educational reform that showed any success. He, Pelosi and Reed are intent on expanding their dependent class.

        On toddler brains, I know parents that started teaching them sign language, and stopped when the children were not learning to speak.
        We use “old school” methods for the most part, with a little duct tape.

    • Right !! $5 Billion for a cockamamie program that will only increase control over more aspects of our life, BUT REJECT the DC Voucher system for only $17 MILLION which is proven to work !!

      If I was a bureaucrat or support person in DC – Id be afraid to walk around !! One of these days the folks are going rise up and wise up that its the democrats that like to keep them down so they will vote for the dems !!

    • I took some education classes in college and remember reading one report that said preschool did give first & second graders a leg up but by third grade, their advantage had dissappeared. Now this was many decades ago and was based upon results from the ’50s and ’60s before education was watered down to its present level.

  30. Birdman,

    Assuming, arguendo, that charges were exploded; at what point would the government detonate the charges?

    How would they know when the tower was ready to fall sideways?

    How would they know that the tower would collapse at all?

    Good questions!

    What point would they decide to set them off?

    I don’t know.

    The 1993 bombing, IMHO only, scared the begeezus out of them. If it toppled, the death toll could have conceivably been in the many tens of thousands.

    Did they panic? Maybe. Did they plan it? Maybe. Did they do it? Maybe not.

    Here’s some other info:
    The Port Authority (the owner) calculated that it would take over $1 billion to remove and replace the asbestos in the towers.

    Silverstein, the leaser, took a 99-year lease on the property, took out extra terrorist insurance (which, given 1993, is probably not suspicious) and the terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right to rebuild the structures should they be destroyed but also took on the task of the asbestos problem….

    Silverstein, who just a couple of months before 9/11 paid $14 million to secure the lease – was paid out nearly $14 billion in total.

    The towers – huge money losers and health risk – paid him handsomely.

    • BF:

      Point of order: “and the terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right to rebuild the structures should they be destroyed”

      Such a provision has been included in every commmercial lease I have ever signed. They usually also give the property owner the right to decide NOT to rebuild.

      So the presence of this provision should not create suspicion by itself.

      Now, how did the leasee come to get paid $14 billion? Was this the insurance payoff?

      • Interesting….

        I’ve had a number of leases of buildings, and didn’t have that clause… but I don’t deny others may have.

        …and it doesn’t, on its own, offer suspicion – just as the extra insurance does not either; given any reasoned man (or his advisers) would have remembered 1993 and deduced that the towers would remain a target.

        Yes, he won his cause to claim that the two strikes were two distinct attacks – not one. So, he got paid twice – $7 billion each time. A 1,000,000% return on his investment of 14 million!

        • BF:

          Went back and looked at mine. I had the provision put in where the location was important and I had a long term committment. I didn’t want the landlord pulling the plug in case of fire or destruction of the facility. And I in turn insured the building, with owner as additional insured, so I could replace it if needed.

          So it is actually an “unusual” provision.

          • Whew!

            With all my leases I began thinking I missed somethin’!

            But in all my cases, where I ‘located’ was independent of my business (except for the data center, and that wasn’t going anywhere for the next 200 years!)

            • Black Flag:

              How large is your business?

              How many employees?

              How many customers?

              How did you get started in the computer business?

              Do you have a degree and if so what is the degree in?

              How many buildings do you have?

              • How large is your business?

                Is? Exactly one person – me.

                Previous life? Founder, CEO and Co-President,4 other partners, 350+ employees $100 million gross revenue in our best year.

                How many customers?

                Thousands, globally. My biggest customer (and competitor) was IBM Consulting.

                How did you get started in the computer business?

                Math teacher thought it might be worthwhile for me to know about it.

                Do you have a degree and if so what is the degree in?

                Not technology the industry at all.

                That is why I went into my own business – no one else would hire me without a degree.

                So, as a consultant – they’d hire me. Different criteria – “can you solve the problem or not?”

                How many buildings do you have?

                Zero. I owned no land.

                I, however, built one of the first data centers in Latin America catering to offshore businesses such as gaming and banking.

              • Black Flag:

                Thank you. Sounds like you have (and had) an interesting life. Did you ever get around to telling us about your history and some of your experiences?

  31. In case you all wanted to know what James Carville thinks today !! ;=}
    I got this email so quote:

    Tea bag wing nuts, delusional birthers and all sorts of right-wingers are frothing at the mouth about the President’s agenda for moving America forward and swimming in cash from some of the country’s biggest corporate interests.

    from: Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
    430 South Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003
    (202) 863-1500 – http://www.dccc.org
    Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

    They are looking for money taht will be matched 2 to 1 ! Well if they have that many wealthy libereals why dont they just donate it straight off !!

  32. 9/11 …

    A lot of really smart people have studied this, and conclude something is seriously amiss.

    A lot of other really smart people have also studied this, and conclude something is also seriously amiss.

    Interesting….

    All sides of the argument conclude something is seriously wrong.

    The second group wholly discounts any malfeasance of government authorities straight out of hand. I have an opinion about why they do so, so easily and automatically. However, this is not part of this argument here.

    The second group holds one or more of these arguments:

    (1) massive and pervasive incompetence throughout military defense system and government agencies.

    (2) massive design flaws in every steel building on earth.

    (3) pure, sheer luck in excess of probability theory (deviation greater than 99.999999999999%)

    Other than (3), such a belief should compel the second group into massive, public action to rectify (1) and/or (2).

    Yet, this has not been done. Total and utter silence.

    No effort has been made to test the designs of any steel structure anywhere on earth to see if such a design flaw exists that was, by their theory, absolutely prevalent and devastating – to the loss of thousands of lives – in three buildings on 9-11-2001.

    No effort has been made to root out the massive and pervasive incompetence within the military and government. No one has been identified, criminally charged, nor fired, nor even reprimanded. Many have been promoted, and/or received medals, in fact.

    Total, deafening, silence.

    If one fact that condemns the theory of this second group, it is this utter and total silence.

  33. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is VITALLY important. It is also a MONSTER of a long read. You might want to take it in pieces if possible. However, it is CRITICAL that you attempt to read this. This is a detailed analysis by a PhD physicist of the WHOLE climategate FOIA.zip file.

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

    If anyone still thinks that AGW “science” still bears ANY resemblance to ACTUAL SCIENCE after reading this analysis, then I will be very surprised.

    • Peter,

      Interesting, will try to read all of it later. ” he predicts the weather from solar phenomena” How quaint, to think the sun could affect the weather. LOL

      Phil Jones has apparently become aware of a climate skeptic in the United Kingdom—seemingly the first, from his words:

      Britain seems to have found its Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling / Dick Lindzen (American climate skeptics). Our population is only 25% of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment.

      Robock requires a translation into American English:

      Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.

      We don’t seem to have Jones’s reply, but the translation would be something like “absolute trouble-maker and useless idiot”. Note that Jones is immediately reporting the existence of this first British skeptic to climate scientists on the other side of the Atlantic, taking special note of the “air time” (exposure on television or radio) that the skeptic is apparently receiving. Already, we can start to appreciate that the politics and “spin doctoring” in this field outweighs the scientific issues. Continuing from Jones’s email:

      For his day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts the weather from solar phenomena.

    • French constitutional body rules against carbon tax
      Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:31pm GMT

      PARIS, Dec 29 (Reuters) – France’s planned carbon tax cannot be applied because it includes too many exemptions, a French government body ensuring laws are constitutional ruled on Tuesday, in an embarrassing setback for the government.

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BS1FB20091229

      I expect a lot of governments are hoping that their hairbrained laws will be nicely overturned by their courts on some sort of bizarre inconsistency – and let them all off the hook.

      France is first –

      • Black Flag or JAC:

        Can our SCOTUS overturn the health care bill without any action by another party?

        Can they just pick up the legislation after it is signed into law and declare that it is unconstitutional without an amendment to the constituion?

        • They do not have executive action, only judicial.

          No court case, no ruling.

          • There are several cases being prepared at this moment as to decide whether or not this healthcare bill is constituional or not.

        • Birdman:

          Someone needs standing to file the law suit as well. That requires some sort of direct harm or potential harm.

          I am guessing a State will be first as the States will be the first to feel the actual effect. Except that they added the opt out provision. See why they might do that?

          Keeps the state from having standing as the court would rule, well you could opt out.

          Next in line will be a citizen or class action by a group affected. Perhaps a group of employees.

          As BF said. The court can’t simply issue a ruling without the proper litigation from district court to Circuit court to Supreme court.

          And as I said before, the entire legislation won’t be challenged successfully. The constitutional challenge will fall on only a few provisions, such as mandatory purchase of insurance.

          • JAC:

            The Supreme Court placed a hold on the GM deal and merger earlier this year but then did not take any action. I’m not sure how they did that but the court didn’t do anything.

            Too bad the entire legislation won’t be challenged successfully. That would be a major blow to the facist progressives.

            Maybe Texas will opt out. Then we can all move there.

  34. Is the US and UK responsible for the riots in Iran?

    Is Black Flag attempting to keep our attention off this subject with his 9/11 posts? Remember, USW has said some DC insiders read here daily, and they depend on us to pay attention to issues and think thru all the problems for them.

    And in closing, do I have a strange sense of humor?

    http://www.newsy.com/videos/iran_protests_seen_to_threaten_regime

  35. So, let’s even pull back our observation to even a more broad review.

    Consider Peter’s post directly under mine.

    What does this all mean?

    We have a series of events and circumstances that stand in the face of public view – that are by any measure….

    …. utterly bizarre….

    Building falling down, planes that fly two different paths at the same time; global warming where none exists, expenditures of billions chasing a perversion of science on a global scale; trillions of dollars spent in economically bizarre manner, risk of global economic collapse to favor a few; and so on…

    But why today, and suddenly, all of this?

    I do not believe it is sudden – I believe this manipulation of the public mind has been happening constantly for centuries.

    But today, the gatekeepers have lost control.

    In the past, communication was controlled – purposely limited and held away from the masses.

    It has been only a short few centuries that literacy became common among simple men.

    Written words – with the ability of long-distance and inter-time communication – was held by the clergy and royalty and away from the peasants. It was easy to control the masses when they wholly depended on the words a very few men.

    This was broken by Luther – who proved that the printing press could defeat the elite and their gatekeepers.

    Quickly, the elite took control of that medium.

    Censorship and direct control of the presses. Control of the air waves, and TV…

    But the internet – a toy – caught them by surprise.

    They underestimated it completely. Had they known its power, they would have never let it outside of DARPA.

    The exposure of the contradictions of 9/11 exists almost exclusively due to the power of the Internet. Thousands of people viewing thousands of stored images, sharing insights.

    It is on the internet that the contradictions of WTC 7 and Flight 77 were exposed. The elite have fully retreated into purposeful silence – they dare not speak one word in fear they bring down their whole structure of lies.

    For example, the BBC destroyed their entire library of original tapes on 9/11 – and were shocked to discover that their entire broadcast survived – intact and its entirety – on the internet. They were caught with their pants down.

    Global warming skeptics only outlet of dispute was the internet.

    The MSM completely shut them out.

    Yet, they survived on the internet and even more stunning – the AGW myth was wholly exposed by the internet exclusively.

    This medium of communication caused the single most decisive setback of the New World Order – the exposure of the fraud of AGW.

    We, here on SUFA, are part of this revolution of communication. Ideas have consequences. They change the way we see the world.

    Change is coming. The elite are in disarray and in retreat.

    I can start hearing the faint sounds of the chains of enslavement breaking…

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I hope you are right BF.

      However, as we know from countless historical examples (the most recent of which are Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) quite often, when disinformation and propaganda fail, the elite will resort to extreme and excessive violence in order to attempt to retain control.

      We must be wary of this possibility.

    • v. Holland says:

      I thought you would appreciate this-it comes from Peter’s post about the climategate E-mails.

      “May 6, 1999: email 0926031061

      We don’t have the intervening discussion, but it seems that Phil Jones and Mike Mann have called a truce:

      We’ll differ a bit on a few points, but let’s wipe the slate clean …

      I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that easier than in the United States—but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the United States and it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are doing is important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.

      It might seem remarkable that a senior scientist in 1999 could be dismissive of the World Wide Web; but we must remember that this is not particle physics (where the web originated, in the early 1990s), but rather a sleepy corner of science that was relatively isolated and peaceful before the climate debate grabbed the attention of the world’s population.

      As he dismisses the impact of the web, Jones feels safe that he won’t be hassled by skeptics, as he knows that they have no chance of penetrating the closed club of peer review; recall, the field of his “peers” is so small that he can determine who is anonymously reviewing his papers by a process of elimination.

      I think it is fair to agree with Jones that, as of 1999, the skeptics were, indeed, fighting a losing battle. “

    • Change is coming. The elite are in disarray and in retreat.

      When you feel they are in full retreat, and it’s noticable, I might relax alittle. Till then, I’m in full ready mode.

      I’d like to get into full frontal attack mode, via communication, but I think we need more people 🙂

      Hope your day is well BF!

      G!

      p.s. I think we might have hurt Judy’s feelings alittle yesterday, I hope she is OK.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi G

        No, you guys didn’t hurt my feelings, and I’m doing just fine. Was just getting a little frustrated last night. You guys just spoke what you think, and I just kept asking questions like I always do.

        Kept trying to think like you guys do, but it didn’t work. Guess it was just the way I was raised and all the things you hear throughout your life about the way things are suppose to be and how they’re going to be, and on, and on and on, and I guess last night just go be a little much for me. But I did have a headache after wards in case you’re interested.

        Hoop you’re doing well today G.

        • I’m fine today! Had to move some snow, so now thats done, it’s cold, but the woodburner is kickin and it’s cozy in the house.

          I won’t bring anything about the “law”, you don’t need another headache. 🙂

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            We got about an inch to an inch and a half last night, but that’s melted off, but we still have that damn snow from a couple weeks ago, just won’t go away. More coming in tomorrow for what they said. I’m cold, and I just can’t get warm.

            Well, if you want to being up laws, go ahead, I’ll just stay out of it, don’t want another headache either. I’ll talk about most anything with you guys, but some things,, I’ll just stay in the side lines, thank you.

            Glad you’re doing good today G.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      But BF,

      I got to go to one of those “Liberal Arts Colleges” where they taught me to be a good little socialist! And it only cost me and my folks about $60k back in the late 1980s! Also, the girls there were very hot and very available as were the parties and the drugs!

      Aren’t you all glad I have fully recovered from being the good little socialist that they taught me to be back then?

      (Although hot girls are always still a big bonus, my wife is one :))

      I don’t much go for the hot parties and hot drugs anymore, basically too busy raising my kids to be bothered much with those 2 things 🙂

      Seriously though, college was a blast for 4 years, and I honestly did learn a lot of very valuable things there, both inside and outside of the classroom. Was it worth the time and money? For me personally, probably yes. For others, maybe not so much.

  36. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey everybody, how’s it going with you all today? Hope all is doing well.

    2009 is a weird year, where things are upside down — the opposite of what they should be or usually are. Here’s a list of events that were inverted or backward this year:

    1. An airline pilot became famous for sailing in the Hudson, not over it.

    2. The IRS was led by a man who didn’t pay his taxes.

    3. The president, a community organizer, belittled Tea Partiers for…community organizing.

    4. Instead of buying new cars and destroying them, the federal government bought a new fleet of destroyed cars.

    5. Carrie Prejean, who said, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose” gay marriage, became a rallying point for people opposed to gay marriage.

    6. Wall Street became socialist takers and the Chinese became capitalist lenders.

    7. A man who was arrested got invited to the White House for drinks and a couple who weren’t invited almost got arrested for going.

    8. During a speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama accused the opposition of lying, and Rep. Joe Wilson was sanctioned for calling the president a liar a moment later.

    9. In a failed attempt to become famous, “balloon boy’s” father became famous.

    10. After years of parents and teachers telling kids not to wipe their noses with their sleeves, the government told kids to sneeze into their sleeves to fight H1N1.

    11.Instead of hitting with a golf club, Tiger Woods may have been hit by one.

    12. A Nobel Peace Prize winner sent 30,000 troops to war.

    Year New Happy!

  37. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama’s methods leave Americans unhappy
    Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 12/29/2009 6:30:00

    A public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government has released the findings of its new poll that shows a deep divide between the Obama administration and likely voters on a wide variety of issues.

    Judicial Watch commissioned the nationwide survey that was conducted by SurveyUSA between December 11 and December 14, 2009. It gauged the attitudes of the American people on a variety of subjects, including President Obama’s job performance, political corruption, healthcare, and illegal immigration.

    Tom FittonJudicial Watch President Tom Fitton reports that the American people are not too happy with the president’s decisions.

    “68 percent believe that decisions by the Obama administration are bad for America,” he explains. “A majority, 64 percent, believe that government is too big and that big government leads to more corruption. A majority of voters, 56 percent, say the government is operating in a manner out of line with the U.S. Constitution.”

    Fitton adds that there could be political consequences for the president’s party next year.

    “Politically we’re not in the game of calling elections, but certainly, unless they start moderating themselves, it doesn’t auger well for the political future of the Obama administration or his party,” he predicts.

    The Judicial Watch president believes that Obama and many other politicians ought to rethink their approach to government.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Just how are they going to search pregnant women who fly. They can’t use X-Rays on pregnant women, would do major damage to the baby.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/29/magnetometers-x-rays-airport-security-technology/

  39. Not sure if I copied this correctly.

    • Birdman, This was a good video, very inspiring as too the keep up the fight mentality. I don’t his desired conclusion is where I would like to end up, but the story of Washington’s soldiers was heartwarming.

      G!

      • G-Man:

        I agree with your opinion. I saw this on some other blog and thought it was intersting enough to post. I am not a Newt fan and see him as just another statist. I think many of us have moved past that point and want VDLG or no government at all.

    • Bird:

      I would say Newt has jumped from moderate problem solver mode into “campaign” mode.

      He is smelling blood and the lure of power is strong in the air he breaths.

      Note, he targeted the “secular left” who are not the real problem. It is the “progressive movement” that is the real issue. They, along with the socialists and the other lefty statists like Newt. Yet he focuses on the God issue and “secular left”.

      Talking to the audience perhaps????

  40. http://awesome.good.is/transparency/011/trans011currency.html

    Interesting info regarding the falling dollar

    • I notice that chart is over a year and a half old. I’ll bet it would look much more “interesting” now.

    • Flag, What is your opinion on reports that there may be hundreds of extremists planning attacks against us, and how do think they should be dealt with?

      G!

      • There is no “us”, there are billions of individuals. My suggestion is to be responsible for your own safety (you already are whether you want to accept the responsibility or not) and not worry about “why” someone is attacking. Stay alert always. Don’t make yourself an easy target, and if attacked don’t worry about offending someone or scaring the sheep by fighting back with everything you have. Never, ever allow yourself to be disarmed by anyone for any reason. Only a mortal enemy will do that, no matter what excuse they use, and their intentions are never honorable when they do.

        But, that’s just my recommendation.

      • There are probably more than a few that’d really like to take a swing or two at the USA.

        But they have nearly-zero capability, or else it would have happened long ago.

        I wouldn’t worry about it. The day we get out of their countries, they will still hate the USA – but their energy will be spent in civil war and/or repairing their lives from war. They’ll be too busy to care much about the USA.

        • Interesting, I asked for a reason, as always. Your post #35, could have some serious repercussions in this area. This enemy no longer has to come from a foreign land, as the shootings in Texas has shown. The internet may beat the elite, but may also empower the radicals that live next door or down the block. Something to consider?

          G!

          • I agree.

            The power vacuum will cause an increase in local violence – ‘block’ gangs, etc.

            Thus, my suggestion of ‘get to know your neighbors’. The #1 resistance against localized violence is neighborhood watch. Neighbors taking care of neighbors.

  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    Share your thoughts. Answer our question below, then click “Leave a comment.”

    Should the TSA Mandate Full-Body Scanners?
    Yes. I don’t mind losing privacy if it stops terrorism. 56% (4,065 votes)
    Maybe. But offer a full pat-down as alternative. 13% (949 votes)
    No. If this becomes common, I won’t fly anymore. 29% (2,112 votes)
    I don’t know. 2% (132 votes)
    Total Votes: 7,258

    • 56% of the people are total morons.

      2% couldn’t find the emergency exit if they were led to one.

      13% need help.

      29%… that’s all that’s left that has even a partial brain…(sigh) pitiful.

      • 😆 loudly!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          That’s why I said above, how would they check pregnant women, they can’t X-Ray them because it would do harm to the baby.

          I read in the paper this morning Chicago O’Hare is going to start doing that, if they haven’t already.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        So, you’re saying not a good idea, right. Personally, I think it’s an invasion of privacy.

        • It’s just plain dumb! Why put Grandma Kettle through this, she is certainly not a terrorist. Just blows my mind how people are willing to just continue to be violated, when everyone knows that Grandma Kettle, walker and all, is not the one they are looking for. The ACLU as an organization are idiots!

          G!

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Oh, but G, don’t you know those are the ones they fear the most. The ones you least expect.

            Now, I’m glad I’m not going to Hawaii Friday, in fact I don’t think I’ll fly anywhere anymore if you have to go through all s@#$.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I wonder if going by train anywhere would be that difficult. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

              • If I can’t walk, ride a horse, or take my vehicle, I go nowhere. I use no type of public transportation. I can be in St. Louis in 10 hours by car, NYC in 8 hours, and Atlanta in 11 hours. No need for the BS.

                G!

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Yea, but see I got an invite to go to Maine, maybe in spring, and I’m not about to drive cross country myself.

                It takes about 10 to 11 hours just to go to San Diego from Reno, and I can’t take that long of a car ride, I get too fidgety after about 4 or 5.

      • BF, do you feel that if the TSA mandates it then it is bad, but what if an airline that is a private company mandates it? It is their plane if you want the privilege to fly in it then you have to get a body scan.

        • And that’d be just fine.

          That airline would suffer, directly, the consequences of annoying their customers.

          It would go bankrupt quickly.

          But as it stands now, the airlines can successfully pass the buck – “Hey, its TSA mandate – our hands are tied…”

          The People have to let the airlines know they won’t be fooled by that game.

          Boycott the airlines for a month will send that message.

          • I’ve been boycotting them for years, and will continue to until and unless I am allowed to fly fully armed (they can require only frangible ammo if they are worried about the “explosive decompression” myth- I wouldn’t even mind letting them examine my gun and ammo if they ask nicely).
            A universal boycott would only mean another “government bailout” of a failed industry that refuses to provide what customers want at a price that customers want to pay.

  42. Judy Sabatini says:

    Are Latest TSA Regulations “Too Stupid for America”?

    By Judith Miller

    While the new flight regulations should be mocked and repealed, it would be foolhardy to downplay the threat they were meant to address. Islamic militants and other extremists will not stop trying to kill us.

    If you’re flying overseas soon, or even thinking of flying and don’t have time to watch the late night talk shows, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, visit the TSA Web site for comic relief.
    The TSA, an acronym that appears to stand for “Too Stupid for America” or “Travel Sucks in America,” has compensated for Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano’s initial utter cluelessness about the danger posed by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Northwest Flight 253 by issuing the dumbest, most counterproductive “safety” regulations in aviation history.

    The TSA issued the new regs two days before Secretary Napolitano’s performance on Sunday, when she told ABC that her agency’s alert system had worked well because “once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have.” (Claiming she had been quoted out of context, Ms. Napolitano retracted this cheery assessment today on Fox News.)

    The new regs themselves are almost impossible to find on the TSA’s own inscrutable Web site, of course. So hats off to bloggers like Steven Frischling, AKA “Fish,” for posting Aviation Security Directive 1544-09-06 on his Web site: “Flying with Fish.”

    From now on, all passengers on international flights — well almost all passengers — will be patted down at gates before boarding, “concentrating on upper legs and torso.” And most passengers will have to remain in their seats “beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.” So you may not want to eat, or surely not drink anything more than half-way through your flight. Perhaps flight attendants can distribute to female passengers at the start of international flights those “Depends” incontinence pads that actress June Allyson used to promote. That won’t help male fliers. But perhaps they can think of something clever for them, too. I’m not sure how the TSA will deal with infants and tiny tots, however.

    And, don’t even think about sleeping until shortly before your arrival. The new regs bar you from keeping anything on your lap an hour prior to reaching your destination – including “blankets, pillows, or personal belongings.” So presumably books are out too, unless you read while suspending them in air.

    Nor will you be able to watch live television or work on your computer with Web access. The TSA has ordered all airlines to “disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, Internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and “during all phases of flight.”

    If you want to see the Grand Canyon or the Empire State Building or the Mississippi, better stay glued to the window. The TSA is ordering pilots and crew not to “make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.”

    Of course, these inane regs have exceptions. They may not apply, for instance, to “Heads of State or Heads of Government” or the spouses or children of chiefs of state or to “one other individual chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government.” So presumably Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, whose henchmen were convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259 crew and passengers, most of them Americans, would not be forced to soil himself.

    The new regulations, which are mercifully set to expire after December 30, would be truly side-splitting if they were not intended in their own, botched bureaucratic way, to address a desperately serious threat. Al Qaeda and other like-minded terrorists with long-simmering grievances against the United States or American foreign policy seem intent on blowing up airplanes in yet another terror spectacular. They have failed so far thanks partly to the effort of some 50,000 Americans who work for the TSA, astute passengers and plane crews, and the inconvenience all of us travelers have endured since 9/11.

    Preventing terrorism, however, means, first and foremost, acknowledging it as an enduring threat which must be combated through word and deed – and that means engaging critics and would-be enemies through the outreach that President Obama has championed. But it also means calling terrorism what it is, and not employing such euphemisms for fighting it as “overseas contingency operations.” Ms. Napolitano managed to avoid using the word terrorism during her debut testimony on Capitol Hill. Even President Obama seems to prefer talking about “extremism.”

    Finally, it means putting in place a competent homeland security team. The TSA’s latest imbecilic regulations were issued by Gale Rossides, the agency’s “acting” administrator. In September, President Obama finally appointed Erroll Southers as chief of the agency charged with keeping America’s travelers safe and secure. But Republican stonewalling has blocked the confirmation of Southers and several national security nominees for months. Such partisanship is irresponsible and dangerous in time of war.

    But the administration, too, must make a greater effort to court Republican support when national security is at stake. Rep. Peter King, the ranking New York Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, has frequently complained about the administration’s reluctance to brief Congress on national security threats, including the latest failed terrorist attack.

    So while the new regulations should be mocked and repealed, it would be foolhardy to downplay the threat they were meant to address. Islamic militants and other extremists will not stop trying to kill us. And without luck, smart security measures, and enlightened foreign and national security policies, they are more than likely at some point to succeed.

  43. Judy Sabatini says:

    I tried putting the whole article up, but for some reason, it didn’t, so just the link about full body scans instead.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/29/decide-tsa-mandate-body-scans/

  44. Judy Sabatini says:

    We Will Not Pay To Use Facebook. We Are Gone If This Happens ►► INVITE ALL!

  45. Judy Sabatini says:

    Seems like everybody has gone for the night, so me too.

    Good night all, see you here tomorrow.

    Love everybody.

    Judy

%d bloggers like this: