Massachusetts… Battleground State Deluxe

I figured as my final article for this week, this topic is the right one to cover. As many of you are now aware, the special election to fill the vacant Senate seat that was once held by Senator Ted Kennedy is being held on Tuesday. It is a pivotal election, as a GOP win would drop the Democrats majority to only 59 in the Senate, meaning that they would be unable to stop a Republican filibuster on health care or any other illegitimate legislation that they are attempting to ram through Congress with 1:00am votes and limited debate allowances. The seat is being held temporarily by Paul Kirk, a Kennedy family friend and former Democratic National Committee Chairman. The Massachusetts legislature allowed Governor Deval Patrick to appoint Kirk as the interim Senator back in September. Kirk’s vote has been a pivotal one over the stretch of time since then.

Some of you may remember that I covered the Massachusetts legislature’s ridiculous hypocrisy back then. It was part of an open mic night that was quite long, but you can read it HERE, it is topic #2. The long and short of it was that the Democrats in the MA legislature voted in 2004 to remove the right of the Governor to appoint a successor to the seat, because they were afraid that then Republican Governor Romney would appoint a Republican successor if something happened. So they quickly moved to pass legislation to block the Governor’s power. Flash forward to 2009, a Democratic Governor Patrick doesn’t have the right to appoint a successor to Kennedy, it must be done by special election (which is held Tuesday). He doesn’t have that power because these same legislaters took it away from the Governor because they feared his choice. Now with a Governor they liked, the quickly passed a new law that allowed the Governor to appoint Kirk. As a result the Democrats had their 60th vote and the ability to silence Republicans from that point forward. Hence the passage of the health care madness. Funny how it all comes together, huh? Defend it if you want, but to me this was a prime example of how politicians manipulate the political process on a whim to serve the federal government, while pretending that their purpose is to serve the people. Liars and Hypocrites, every single one of them.

Moving on to the present day, we have what was once a easy Democratic victory becoming a not so easy victory. A Democrat has not lost a Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. And a mere month ago, the Democratic candidate in this race, Martha Coakley, the State Attorney General, had a commanding lead in polls and looked as though it would be a cakewalk. However, the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, a State Senator, has closed the gap, and in some polls now finds himself in a dead heat for the spot. In my opinion, Brown is still behind, but the state really is a toss up at this point. Polls seem to range from Brown leading by 2 points to Coakley leading by 10 points. I won’t bother going through them all and pretending one is more relevant or accurate than another. They are polls, which means they won’t mean a thing come Tuesday. The point is that Brown has a shot at actually winning the race. And that, in and of itself is unexpected, and for me personally, a great sign of where the country is at this point.

Now, I have to be honest and say up front that I don’t know a lot about either one of these candidates outside of what the media portrays them to be. And we all know how reliable that information is likely to be. Liberal media will paint him as a liar and a thief (which as a politician, is true) while conservative media paints him as the patron saint of do the right thing. Conservative media will paint her as the antichrist while liberal media will paint her as…. well, let’s be honest, the liberal media will simply work to smear Brown, while not covering her at all. After all, that has been the M.O. of the media for a long time (for example, don’t cover the issues the tea party folks bring up, simply paint them as racist rednecks who oppose all government and who want God to control your uterus).

What has been interesting is to watch the madness descend upon the Democratic party as they run up to a Tuesday vote with a candidate that is losing ground quickly. It started with some attacks on Brown claiming that he wasn’t an average guy at all, but an elitist that “owns 5 properties”. The Huffington Post pushed this story, and included a description of the 5 properties to prove that Brown is wealthy, and I guess that means he is also bad. But I read that report. The 5 properties total have a value of roughly 410,000 dollars. One of them is a time share. I know lots of folks who have time shares. I know lots of folks who have homes once valued over $400k. None of those folks are what I would consider rich. They aren’t hurting, but they certainly don’t qualify as the rich elite. And the guy claims to be driving a truck with over 200k miles. Not a elite move. Heck not even a Prius. But in a state where the other Senator is John Kerry, I don’t think anyone should be attempting to point out that being wealthy is a reason to not elect the guy.

Then we had the DNC’s biggest spin guy arriving in MA and immediately attempting to tie Brown to Sarah Palin in some way. Despite the fact that Brown has zero ties to Palin, this spin superstar attempts to paint it that way, in the hopes that the blue voters of the state will link the two in their minds and reject Brown on that basis. The following is from a blog written by Byron York, Chief Political Corresondent for the Washington Examiner:

Frantic over the possibility that a Democrat might lose the race to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, the Democratic National Committee has sent its top spinner, Hari Sevugan, to the aid of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, who appears to be rapidly losing ground to Republican Scott Brown. But what can Sevugan do to shore up Coakley’s struggling campaign? Well, he spent his first day on the job trying to tie Brown to Sarah Palin.

Early Monday afternoon, Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: “Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?” The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that “it’s interesting” that Palin is “nowhere to be found in this race.” TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been “no talk” about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn’t stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin’s supporters “are anxious for her to weigh in.” At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, “Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?”

A couple of hours later, Sevugan was emailing again, with a message entitled, “Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?” What followed was a statement from Sevugan on “the surprising silence from Sarah Palin on Republican Scott Brown’s bid for the U.S. Senate.” Sevugan demanded to know: “Where on earth is Sarah Palin herself? Clearly her supporters are anxious for her to weigh in.”

Not long after that, Sevugan sent out another email to reporters, this one with a link to a post by TPM alumnus Greg Sargent, who now writes a lefty blog for the Washington Post. Sargent’s post featured Sevugan’s question with the headline, “Dems on Palin: ‘Has the Pit Bull Lost Her Bark?'”

Finally, when a Brown spokesman, while not specifically mentioning Palin, said that “Scott is not looking for a lot of outside help” and that the race would not be determined by outsiders, Sevugan sent out yet another email to reporters, this one headlined “Weaselly.” Sevugan directed journalists to his response to the “blatant dodge by the Scott Brown campaign on the issue of whether he is seeking and/or if he would accept an endorsement from Sarah Palin.” Sevugan quoted himself challenging Brown: “That’s a weaselly answer. And the people of Massachusetts deserve more than weaselly answers from their next senator…It’s a yes or no question, Scott Brown — Will you accept Sarah Palin’s endorsement or won’t you?”

Of course, Sevugan never had any evidence at all that Palin was set to endorse Brown and come to Massachusetts to campaign for him, or that Brown was seeking Palin’s endorsement or help. It was just all in a day’s work, trying to breathe life into a faltering campaign. What will Sevugan think of next?

How sad that a fictional link between Sarah Palin and Brown are one of the few tricks that the DNC can attempt to exploit. Perhaps the RNC can attempt to link Coakley to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Then we can call it even.

We also had the Huffington Post attempting to paint Brown as a liar on whether he was affiliated with the Tea Party movement. Brown attended a fundraiser held by the Tea Party group in Boston. When he was interviewed the interviewer attempted to paint Brown as sympathetic to a national group attempting to overthrow the federal government. Brown wouldn’t bite and said “I don’t know what you mean”, which I took to mean I don’t know what you mean that the group is this or that. However the HuffPo article headline and text made it sound like he denied knowing what the Tea party movement was at all. Misdirection and lies my friends. Here is the text of the interview exchange. The link to the article will be below.

QUESTION: “Scott, what do you think about the Tea Party movement and what they are trying to do?”

BROWN: “I am not quite sure what you are talking about, what are they trying to do?”

QUESTION: “The anti-smaller government, sort of anti-establishment organization that is trying to take over the country.”

BROWN: “Taking over the country. I think that is a little bit of an exaggeration.”

QUESTION: “Well, they are all over the place and they are trying to take down moderate Republicans. . .”

BROWN: “All I know is that. . . “

QUESTION: “Are you completely unaware of that organization?”

BROWN: “I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. But let me just say that this is a big tent campaign…”

It seemed to me that Brown was simply being smart enough to not fall for the leading questions that the reporter was trying to lob at him. His first response was to ask what the reporter claims they are trying to do. The second was saying taking over the country is an exaggeration. The third got cut off and the fourth says I don’t know about the moderate republican takedown is that you are referring to but we have a campaign where lots are accepted. Doesn’t seem to me at all to be a situation where he actually denied knowing what the tea party movement was or any of that. Shame on the Huffington Post for attempting to portray it that way. Not to mention shame on the Boston Globe reporter for attempting to play a game of “gotcha”.

Add in a healthy dose of the Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, throwing the “teabagger” comment around. Classy from a United States Senator. I have to say that I have pretty much had it with this phrase being thrown around. I expect such lack of class from Keith Olberman and the tramp Jeanine Garofalo or the Huffington Post’s resident idiot child Bob Cesca or even a lowly blogger such as I, but I would hope we would hold our United States Senators to a higher standard than this. Let’s not pretend that the term is not a euphemism for a sexual act that is fairly lewd. That  is what it is. MSNBC started the teabagger stuff with a bunch of juvenile frat boy style jokes and comments. It is disrespectful and childish. Schumer knows exactly what he was saying and I would like to see someone like the President, who claimed we would be past all these childish games in the Obama administration, come out and reprimand Schumer for behaving like a college frat boy. Someone in a position of authority has to step forward and begin holding members of Congress to a standard of civility.

Members of the insurance lobby held a fundraiser for Coakley the other day, showing us exactly how much they want to make sure that the health care reform BS gets passed. Kennedy’s widow put out a passionate plea for campaign contributions that resulted in $400k in one hour. John Kerry also went to work calling on Democrats to rally money and support for Coakley. Bill Clinton will appear on Friday in Massachusetts to rally support for her. The SEIU is spending $685k on ads attacking Brown. Moveon.org is rallying money and support for Coakley as well. And finally today we had the President himself make a video in support of Coakley, reminding voters that a loss in this race would doom health care in America (but it is the Republicans who are the fearmongers, right?). The Democratic political machine is in full swing and pulling out all the stops to ensure that the Senate remains in a situation where Republicans cannot stop anything at all. After all, they have a lot of BS to attempt to ram through Congress before the 2010 elections come around, where they know they are in trouble. You can see that video from Obama below:

As for Brown, he has simply warned the President to “Stay Away” from Massachusetts. He can see the machine going to work, and he knows how potent that machine is. After all, it is the machine that wins races whenever the party realizes that their candidate cannot beat the opponent on their own. Both sides do it. Brown, in this case, seems to have shunned help from the RNC and major political players in the Republican party. He said it is a local race, and should remain that way. It is clear at this point that this is a futile dream. Brown has tried to tap into unease about the economy and the Democratic agenda. He states that Obama’s stimulus plan failed and wants instead to enact across-the-board tax cuts to spur job growth. He’s also vowing to be the “41st vote” against the Democratic health insurance reform bill in the Senate, which he claims would hurt medical-device makers, a big part of the state’s economy.

So he wants Obama and the rest of the machine to stay away. Good advice for Obama given how his last foray into Massachusetts issues.

At this point, win or lose, this is a win for the Republican party. Massachusetts is one of the bluest states in the country and that a race there could even be competitive is a big statement on how dissatisfied many folks are with the way the Democrats are performing in Congress. Democrats rode a hatred for President Bush into control of Congress and the Presidency. Republicans may very well ride a similar hatred of the Democrats in Congress and a lack of Obama living up to his campaign promises into a return to power in the Senate and a narrowing of the gap in the House.

It is going to be a fun weekend in Massachusetts. And people are already bitter because my Ravens put an asswhippin on the Patriots. After Saturday night, Indianapolis may also fall into a state of anarchy…..

.

Democrats Fight to Keep Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts – WSJ.com

Desperate Dems try to Palinize Massachusetts Senate race | Washington Examiner

FOXNews.com – Schumer Pulls ‘Tea-Bagger’ Card on GOP Candidate Brown

Scott Brown Held Tea Party Fundraiser Before Professing To Be Unfamiliar With Tea Party

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning !

    Posting for comments.

    G!

    • To the Citizens in Mass. we your brothers and sisters, lend you our support and send you our hope that at the end of the day, Brown will be the new senator. We outside of the boarders have sent financial support and many have volunteered to make calls on his behalf, but more importantly on your behalf.

      Make the calls, send the emails reach out to your neighbors you may find the great community organizer lives on Main street, not Pennsylvania Avenue.

  2. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I lived in Massachusetts for about 30 years. I doubt Brown has a chance. But if he does win, and nothing changes by November, we will see the biggest landside in American history. Almost everything will be Red over Blue.

  3. Excellent article USW! This story and the history behind it shows how corrupt government has become, especially the liberal, criminal, fascist, socialist, progressive democratic party. Mitt Romney is governor and they change the law so he cannot appoint a Senator. Then they change it again when they have a democratic governor in place. Then they threaten to not seat the Republican until after the healthcare vote should the Republican win. The end justifies the means. Any reasonable person should see how unfair this process is.

    I don’t think the Republican will win but the fact that he is a contender shows how upset the state population is over the liberal, criminal, fascist, socialist, progressive agenda.

    We are all against violence but there will be a point when there is a last straw. I try not to let things like this get me upset. I expect it so I’m not upset when I see things like this happen. I expected the Unions to be exempt from taxes for their cadillac plans so I’m not surprised or very upset when they get it. Cronyism (spelling) at work to the extreme degree.

    • Birdman
      If there is any doubt that “the end justifies the means” see Al Franken and the Minnesota election. If Massachusetts is close expect a repeat, all the key players that certify the election are the same.

    • Hi Bridman,

      I lke your description of the Ds. Personally, I’ve come to think of the as the Commucrats.

      🙂

    • Hi Birdman,

      I like your description of the Ds. Personally, I’ve come to think of them as the Commucrats.

      🙂

    • “government has become…”

      Birdman.

      Government has always been that way.

      You’ve just started noticing it, that’s all, because it has become bigger at it.

      But government, no matter its size and power, is always criminal, fascist and socialist.

      • Black Flag:

        I know that now, thanks to this site and discussions with you and others. As I’ve said before, I am beginning to believe that government can never be controlled and will grow no matter what. I’m slowly heading toward or am now a believer in the anarchist view.

  4. A Puritan Descendant says:
  5. I can only HOPE this will happen to CHANGE the direction of the country. The dems have complete control of everything and that is extremely dangerous. For the record, I don’t believe that having the reps in charge of everything is a good thing either. There needs to be some balance in Washington…if that even matters. I believe Americans are awakening to what this administration is doing…I only hope it is not too late.

  6. Buck The Wala says:

    Hey LOI, wanted to make sure I got back to you with my views of the Plyler case and ‘persons’ vs. ‘citizens’.

    You were exactly right about there being a distinction, but from my understanding that isn’t the precise reason for the holding in the case. As simply put as possible, ‘persons’ means all people in the US regardless of how or why. The reason for the distinction is, in a loose sense, natural vs. civil rights. All persons are entitled to natural rights.

    Its the text of the 14th Amendment that makes this an issue here though as the Amendment grants all persons the right to equal protection under the laws. This means the government cannot make a law that classifies people; the government cannot favor one over another. The Texas law clearly made such a classification – children of citizens (citizens themselves) can go to public school whereas citizens of illegal immigrants (who incidentally, if born in the US, may well be citizens of the US – actually I dont’ believe there’s ever been a case deciding that! But that’s an issue for another day – be curious to hear your thoughts on it though if you get around to it) cannot go to public school.

    Needless to say, upon making such a classification, the government has the burden to prove that the classification is necessary in that the law serves substantial government interests and such law is tailored to serve those interests. This is where the government failed in Plyler. Even if there was a substantial interest, the law does not promote that interest as it needlessly punishes children for the crimes of their parents. Moreover, by denying education to children of illegal immigrants, the state is only exacerbating other problems — increased illiteracy among children of illegals, increased crime, etc. etc. etc.

    Hope this helps clear up a few issues!

    Have a great one,
    Buck

    • Buck,

      Thanks, its now as clear as muddy water, or some other, not very transparent substance, like an Obama speech.

      (‘persons’ means all people in the US regardless of how or why. )
      OK, the question is will health care cover illegal immigrants? Even if they put in language that states they will not be covered, illegal immigrants are “people”.

      (The reason for the distinction is, in a loose sense, natural vs. civil rights. All persons are entitled to natural rights.)

      Who was that Democratic senator that stated health care has now been made a “right”? And if this passes, is he correct?

      My thoughts, we will not know the answer until this passes, and the ACLU files a lawsuit that eventually will end at SCOFTUS. I also think the politicians have been dishonest in denying this is an issue, Obama is supposed to be an expert on Constitutional law. And the media, with all their legal experts should at least be reporting this, even FOX has given it minimal coverage. We are wondering how to pay for an additional 36 million, if the real number is 47 million, is that not newsworthy?

      But my thanks for your giving it a looksee.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        As far as all of this impacts health care, the answer is: “Beats me!” I agree with you that we’ll need a case to sort things out.

    • Buck:

      And this is how the wicked wormed their way into our lives.

      “in that the law serves substantial government interests and such law is tailored to serve those interests.”

      This was not always the criteria by which we judged the govt, nor should it be the test. For it is the govt that is then authorized to establish it’s own interest.

      It is the modern criteria but it SHOULD be:

      “in that the law comports with the authority given to government and such law is tailored to accomplish that authority.”

      Note, I am not arguing against what the modern criteria is, only that it is antithetical to the concept of democratic republic supported by individual liberty.

      Best wishes
      JAC

  7. I am afraid that even if he wins….he will lose. I fear that the election will be contested and ballots “found”. That is the Chicago way…..even in Mass.

  8. Wow, 5 properties at $410,000. I like the comparison to John Kerry, and since I know how to look up real estate assesments in Pennsylvania, the Heinz-Kerry property outside of Pittsburgh consists of three parcels with a total “assessed” value of $3,752,500. But I guess rich republicans are evil and rich democrats are not.

    • That is one of the double standards that the dems use…not to say the reps don’t have some double standards as well…

      • Name one or two or three republican double standards. The level of double standards, hypocrisy by repubs is MINUSCULE compared to what the dems do! Why? Because EVERY time the repubs are even slightly THINKING hypocritical, the media gets all over them ! LOL

  9. Found this Quote and thought I would share.

    “BTW, on this, like on so many other points see Mises’s discussion in HA (Scholar’s edition) 675-676 and emphasize the line that it is the task of economics to stress the point that socialism is not a viable alternative to capitalism “as it is the task of biology and chemistry to teach that potassium cyanide is not a nutriment but a deadly poison.”

    Good morning to all
    JAC

  10. This has been a fun race to follow in that we’ve seen all elements of scum come out. This Coakley woman is nuts and would fit right in, in Washington. I’ve made my donation to Brown’s campaign as I’m no longer giving to a party but to individual candidates and he, if at least not his cause, seems worthy.

    • Kathy I can’t vote for him so I sent him some money also. I will support anyone that tries to slow those fools in Washington down. He better be more than just talk.

    • I just mailed him my beer can collection. I hope its not too much $$.
      I have heard you can get into serious trouble for giving more that what’s legally allowed.

      • TSK TSK…..LOI….you can only get in trouble if you are a repub…..dems can have money in freezers, not pay their taxes, etc. Shame on you.

  11. I’m heading to Chicago for the weekend so signing off shortly, but was wondering, BF, if you’ve heard anything from your friend in Haiti?

  12. v. Holland says:

    Can’t the house democrats just pass the Senate version of the bill making it law, making another vote in the senate unnessasary.

    • No, the bill is in committee, and a version will be come up with that combines the two versions. Then both groups have to pass the combined version.

      • v. Holland says:

        Very glad to hear that. 🙂

        • It may not matter…

          The state may not confirm the vote for a couple of months to give the dems time to pass health care.

          Talk about corruption…

      • really? I thought if the house could pass an identical bill that the senate passed, it would be done, with Obama’s Signature, or course. am I wrong? I Don’t think the house can muster the votes to pass the senate Bill, so that is why they are in Committee, to try to get something both Chambers can agree on.

        • v. Holland says:

          I’m not convinced they wouldn’t pass it so I hope USW is right -although I’m not sure that some of the moderate dems aren’t secretly hoping that Brown wins so they won’t be subject to so much personal scrutiny if they happen to disagree.

        • No, Pat…it still takes another vote on a combined bill in both houses.

          • v. Holland says:

            I’m not sure who’s right-this article says they can pass the bill without another senate vote.

            Swallow It Whole! How Democrats Could Pass Health Care Without Coakley’s Vote
            Brian Beutler | January 12, 2010, 9:30AM

            It’s become conventional wisdom at this point that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t accept any major changes the House might make to his health care bill, because he needs to retain the support of all 60 of his members. But what happens if Martha Coakley loses her Senate race, and that number drops to 59–one shy of the threshold needed to stop a filibuster? There may be an out. Technically.

            For a bill to become law, the House and Senate have to pass identical versions of the same legislation. Because the Senate already passed a health care bill, if the House just adopted it word for word, the President could sign it, and health care reform would be done.

            http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/swallow-it-whole-how-democrats-could-pass-health-care-without-coakleys-vote.php

            • Yes, if there are no changes and it is adopted, then it does not need another Senate vote.

              • v. Holland says:

                And a filibuster will only slow them down not necessarily stop them.

              • Tax bills must originate in the House they cannot start in the Senate. This bill contains new taxes. So did the Senate start with the House bill and amend it or did they write their own? Or is this another clause that is ignored?

              • v. Holland says:

                You think maybe one of the biggest problems in our country-just might be that everything has been made just too damn complicated.

              • I think things are made complicated on purpose. All the better to keep us riffraff out of it.

  13. Ellen Spalding says:

    I have also disliked when either party sends in there top guys to win a state that helps the party. Its like a large machine that comes rolling into town. Has nothing to do with the people actually running for the office. We end up not hearing anything about them and what they are about. Just about the two big bad parties. Sad,but a true sign of the political times we are in.

    ON another note, a friend of mine in New Mexico sent me this article for a laugh. Thought I would pass it along to everyone. Have a great Friday!
    http://www.sfreeper.com/2010/01/06/theres-no-app-for-that-electrosensitive-activist-sues-to-stop-neighbors-iphone-use/
    Ellen

  14. Sorta related.

    keep an eye on the Texas Gov’s race this year. Nine year Rick Perry, Senator Kay Hutchinson, and newcomer Debra Medina. Very interesting. Perry represents some of the good old boy heirarchy but in the last two years has changed significantly towards the conservative side. Senator Hutchinson who is part of the Washington Elite and, therefore, contaminated. Debra Medina who was invited to be part of the debates last night as a candidate. As expected, Hutchinson and Perry…the two heavy hitters squared off against each other almost leaving Medina out of it. But when Medina did speak, she garnered a lot of attention….she is pure States rights and anti federalist.

    The polls are saying she won the debate flat out even though the heavy hitters garnered the bulk of attention. Perry and Hutchinson went after each other and disregarded Medina. Medina scored big..according to most.

    All of a sudden the news media is taking stock in her because she is getting a lot of support. She will not win the primary but I am betting she will take 20-25% of the vote. Her platform seems to be picking up some steam. Definitely states rights…Washington Butt out.

    • D13:

      I saw a summary of Hutchinson’s response to the Roe v Wade question. My God, is she that stupid?

      They climb in the mud then wallow around trying to explain why they are really not in the mud.

      How about this simple answer. As Governor of the great Republic of Texas I would have ABSOLUTELY no authority to change this law. My responsibility is to carry out the laws of Texas and the United States. Not to impose my own personal opinions upon the people. That makes your question not only irrelevant but ignorant of our political system. I am running to work for the people to remove corruption from government. I am not running for the position of King or Queen.

      But then that would have been my response. I am not as polished as these folks.
      Just sayin.

      Best to you and yours Colonel
      JAC

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Hey JAC,

        You happen to have a link to the response you’re talking about?

        Give you credit for your answer to that question – as truthful as they come. Not like there’s any politician out there who would ever give such an answer though.

        Best!

        • Buck

          Here is the link. I ignored the commentary and focused on the transcription included.

          http://www.redstate.com/hogan/2010/01/14/hutchison-reaffirms-support-for-roe-v-wade-in-texas-debates/

          Good day and live free
          JAC

          • Not so fast! Think I’m sleeping here? Thought you didn’t do RedState 🙂

            • Anita

              You are very awake aren’t you.

              Never have gone there without prompting, until last night.

              Everbody here had gone to bed and I was scrolling through the websites listed on my drop down menu. It was fourth due to the connection of the other day.

              It is now on my list of sometimes visit to make sure I know what everybody is up to.

              So what was, is no longer.

              However, I still think the sites sponsor is left of center….LOL

              Hope you are well this morning my dear.
              Get the house work done?
              Mine is today.

              Best to you
              JAC

              • My house is sparkling. Just in time for the pre-teens to mess it up this weekend. Now I have time to investigate Agenda 21. Did you notice HuffPo has an entire section on Sustainability? The link is at the extreme top of the page. I suggest you get your housework done fast. There’s a lot to read there

              • Oh boy JAC….I think I and the chemistry have rubbed off on you….

                Hope you are well, my friend. Texas politics is pretty cool.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Thanks JAC!

            Agreed her answer was a bit ridiculous, but the question itself is a bad question. The question wasn’t how she would act as governor in the face of Roe. Rather the question was her personal views on whether or not Roe should be overturned.

            • Buck

              Exactly. Thus MY answer. Personal views shouldn’t matter except on meta-ethics or values. And to me that meta value is the concept that my personal views on sensitive issues are irrelevant to governance. In a democratic republic my job should be to make sure the rights of the citizens are protected and that includes their right to determine what they think is the right answer on that question.

              Either that or tell the damn truth on how You Feel, and then explain it. She failed here to because she wanted to explain first and never give a direct answer. And that is because of the next point.

              Problem with the second approach is that the media would only report the first part. The “Yes” or “No” and never provide the explanation. Of course the opposing campaign would do the same and nobody would be the wiser.

              The Sheep are to stupid and distracted to handle a 2 minute explanation, so just give them the 5 second sound bite. Sheep yell baaaaa baaaaaaaaa, and gobble up what is given……as truth.

              The one great thing I have seen come from the tea party thing so far is an increased effort by regular citizens to start educating themselves as to what is going on. Small meeting groups and hundreds of web sites/blogs popping up everywhere. Perhaps there is hope for the sheep.

              I think we are just at the beginning of a new paradigm, potentially. And no, it won’t focus on 2010 or 2012. If it does there will be no change.

              That is my biggest concern. The masses are lulled back to sleep just when they are starting to wake.

              JAC

              • Buck The Wala says:

                You’ve almost got it as far as I’m concerned. Personal views can matter greatly given our form of government. Since we live in a republic, we are electing someone to speak on our behalf. But who we elect is not only speaking on my behalf, but on all of their constituent’s behalf. For that reason, we need to know their personal views on certain topics to get an idea of how they will vote.

              • For that reason we all need to vote principle over party. Right JAC?

              • Anita,

                …but that means your vote is single issue.

                But that is not what happens.

                Look at Bush’s last campaign.

                Campaigned on the economy – and won – and then claimed it was a mandate for his war plans.

                Voting changes nothing – but simply confirms that the government can rule over you.

              • Well can we just pretend then that if we get the right people in there that we’ll live happily ever after

              • Fansies over matters of life and death are dangerous, anita.

              • Anita

                YES. Not inconsistant here.

                The meta value I mentioned, if adhered to would prevent the other conflicts from occurring.

                At the core, don’t vote for some statist with an R on his chest and then NOT vote for a true libertarian D because he has a D on his chest.

                The libertarian D gets my vote, if he can show me he’ll hold to his libertarian values.

                Are we still together on this?
                JAC

              • Absolutely.

                BF- Its the damn weekend. Let me pretend for the weekend please?

              • v. Holland says:

                JAC-didn’t really fully understand the meta value-could you go over that again?

              • The Universe does not take weekends off, anita.

                It is as likely to kill you as on any other day of the week.

              • Dammit . You are mean. You just aren’t buying it are you 🙂

              • V.Holland

                Meta values are the higher values or core values.

                There is a theory for example, that despite most of our bickering in this country that the vast majority of Americans share certain values or principles. In that context they are the Meta values of our society.

                In my example, the value of representation is a foundation, or core, value from which a person operates.

                Another way to think about these is a tree with many strong branches and branches on branches.

                Each of us must decide whether we will only agree to those things contained by the maintrunk (primary values I would call them, or core values) and shared by all, or which trunk you are willing to go along and how far.

                If you go all the way to the end you wind up “out on a limb” with most of everyone else. Out there everyone looks different with large numbers of conflicting values/views etc.

                Hows that for an explanation?

                Hope you are well today.
                JAC

              • v. Holland says:

                Thank you-think I’ve got it now

      • Actually, you are much more elegant than I would have been. Hutchinson is a Washington Elite….what the hell do you expect? She was great until she got up there and then caught the fever. She is not stupid but is Washington. Oh, did I say the same thing? 🙂

        I think that Medina throws it into a runoff….that would be cool because the States rights issue is gaining speed.

        Check out the Tuesday open mic…I gave you and BF a challenge.

  15. v. Holland says:

    This is off subject-so I’m just gonna post the link-interesting reading though-another freedom runs into a road block.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/?page=1

    • V,

      Here we go again. Didn’t we already decide this with the COPS tv show. People were complaining about invasion of privacy. COPS is still on…?????

      • v. Holland says:

        Don’t know much about the cop show controversy but when it comes to the above controversy-I know if I was gonna tape a police officer who I felt was breaking the law, my instinct would be to do it in secret for my own safety unless I thought someone was really being hurt.

  16. Off Topic
    RE: Clay Barham

    Saw his post here yesterday and went to his site. That guy knows his stuff. Very interesting reading from a simple to understand angle. ClayBarham.com

    • Page doesn’t work

      • OOPS

        Claysamerica.com

      • BF:

        I’ve been busting bubbles all week.

        This one is your turn. Just checked out this guys site so you shouldn’t be challenged to much.

        Hope your staying warm
        JAC

        • Alright JAC and BF. Lets just get to the point. Thumbs up or down. At least we’ll have some perspective 🙂

          • A big site – will investigate further.

          • Anita:

            For me its a thumbs down. Although there are many good thoughts and ideas mixed up. But given our mission is to find TRUTH, then I vote as I did.

            There is some good stuff but alot of inaccurate historical conclusions which seem to be based on POPULIST (i.e,. patriotic, church centric, and we are the greatest) interpretations.

            Don’t have time for more right now. I hope the guy hangs around and discusses his views here with others. He has much to offer and to gain, in my humblest of opinions.

            Hope your afternoon is mellow.
            JAC

            • Thanks JAC. You guys have brought me a long way around here. I appreciate every minute you take with me.

              Judge Napalitano now- whoa just got done watching him. He’s the man. Have his book. Gonna give it a better chance this time. Didn’t get too far into it a couple years ago.

  17. On February 5, 2009, Coakley led an 18 state coalition, as well as the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York and the City Solicitor of Baltimore,[13] urging the Environmental Protection Agency to take action in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

    Though the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the Agency had yet to make an official decision on whether it believes that greenhouse gas emissions pose dangers to public health or welfare.[14]

    Coakley inherited litigation of the fatal 2006 Big Dig ceiling collapse from outgoing Attorney General Tom Reilly in 2007. On March 26, 2009 she settled the final lawsuit pertaining to the incident.[15] Through eight lawsuits attached to the incident, Coakley’s office recovered $610.625 million on behalf of the State of Massachusetts.[16]

    On July 8, 2009, Coakley filed a suit,[17] challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The suit claims that Congress “overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”[18] Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the legislation.

    In 2009, Coakley won settlements of $60 million from Goldman Sachs [19] and $10 million from Fremont Investment & Loan [20] for their abuse of subprime loans and lending.[21]

    Controversies

    Coakley has refused to investigate Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, and his office for allegedly violating laws in regards to destruction of public e-mail records. Coakley denies all accusations of misconduct.[22]

    She also declined to reprimand the state’s District Attorneys in relation to false statements they allegedly made regarding the effects of the state’s voter approved Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative in an attempt to defeat the ballot question, as well as allegations the District Attorneys misused state resources (website) and failed to file as designated ballot committee in a timely manner while receiving contributions as required by law while challenging the initiative.[23].

    The statements by the District Attorneys included allegedly inaccurate and misleading warnings in an effort to defeat the law, such as that if the law passed “any person may carry and use marijuana at any time.” When declining to pursue the case Coakley’s office responded with “nothing in the proposed law explicitly forbids public use of the drug”. This basically ignores the fact that the law still levies a $100 fine and confiscation for adults, as well as additional mandatory community service for minors for the act of possession, and in order to use the drug you would need to possess the drug, as well as the fact the law as passed allows cities to pass its own ordinances to further fine public consumption if needed.[24]

    Coakley’s actions as District Attorney in the sexual abuse case of a 23-month old girl in 2005 have drawn sharp criticism. [25] Coakley, who oversaw the Grand Jury for the case, did not indict the individual, a Somerville Police Officer. Later, after a criminal complaint was filed by the parents of the victim, she requested that he be released without cash bail. The DA succeeding Coakley subsequently secured a conviction awarding two life sentences for the crime. Coakley has defended her actions in this case [26] , saying she acted appropriately given the evidence that was available at the time.

    Coakley received sharp criticism from major newspapers in Massachusetts for failure to recommend commutation for Gerald Amirault who is widely cited as a falsely accused party in Day care sex abuse hysteria. Despite releasing two women from the family from custody, Amirault was denied commutation, which critics cite as an example of a double standard.[27]

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

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Great editorial in the WSJ about a case that we may have all forgotten about, and how Martha Coakley became involved:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn

    • v. Holland says:

      Wow, I remember at the time feeling like all the charges for child abuse was starting to resemble the witch trials. Woman seemed to state her legal case based on her personal psychological evaluation instead of the evidence. Although I would want to talk to those adult children-seems strange they would all still be telling the same story.

    • Kristian Stout says:

      I finally had an opportunity today to read that article. That woman is off her rocker! I don’t remember that case as I was a stupid teenager in the 80’s and paid no attention to the news. As a victim of that kind of abuse myself I can tell you that there would have been scars or some kind of physical evidence, that none were produced in evidence during this trial tells me that it was indeed a witch hunt of the worst kind. There is nothing worse that being accused of something that you haven’t done and being convicted in a court of public opinion.

      It does make you wonder if Mr. Brown’s camp will bring this up during the campaign or do they plan to run a clean campaign?

  19. I wonder how long it’s been since Massachusetts has had an important race like this to the point where they actually see the full political roadshow in action.

    • Hopefully it will show the true Democratic Party to the rest of the nation, I hope it gets dirty and nasty to the point where there’s a slip up and it exposes their true intentions.

      Hope you are well today DK!

      Peace and Live Free! 🙂

      D!

  20. SUFA

    Some time ago I shared the progressive’s view of how we need to be managed into dense cities with agriculture surrounding. Their view of Utopia supported by lord only knows.

    Yesterday someone asked about Agenda 21 and the sustainable development initiatives.

    Well here is an example of both. The idea has been around and is part of the Agenda 21 Sustainable Communities projects. The brazen statement of the authors desired outcome should give you all the chills.

    This is not pipe dream thinking to these folks. They don’t post that stuff in public just to put out Utopian concepts that can’t be implemented. That would be my department. Anyway I am hearing this and other agendas mentioned in various meetings and forums where they don’t know me.

    Please read the entire article carefully.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/the-farm-bureau-denying-c_b_421437.html

    If your looking at this on Sat morning I would get coffee first. If tonight I suggest bourben.

    JAC

    • G-Mans rule # 69 – City folk need to stay out of country folk business, or get shot. 👿

      G!

      • GMan

        Sounds like my rule #1

        Stay out of my business.

        Rule #10

        Violations of above rules could result in being skun and havin yer hide hung on the fence.

        Peace and freedom my friend.

        JAC

        P.S. The town/city I live next to is RUN by these types of folks. It is freakin scary when they get control of the local govt power. You see the same behavior locally you see in D.C. If they oppose us we will just destroy them.

        Thats why I need a couple hundred thousand folks to move to Montana. A CLEANSING is overdue.
        OTFLMAO

        Heres one to you G
        JAC

    • “Land is a resource for the common good” these people are absolutely crazy about everything they said in this article. Farming today yields 10 times the amount of produce per acre than what was raised on small farms. One sure way to bring about total world starvation is to do what this author suggests. So much bulldooky was said in this article one does not know where to start ones rebuttal.

    • JAC,
      I’m a little surprised by your reaction to this. I’ve seen comments here about the problems of large industrial farming, and how small family farms produce better quality food and are better for the local community.

      I understand some of her comments like “climate change-denying AFBF” won’t sit well, but I didn’t get the impression she was promoting “dense cities with agriculture surrounding”. Quite the opposite – she’s promoting strong rural communities and sustainable farming practices.

      Your thoughts???

      • Todd:

        Think bigger. Why are family farms disappearing in favor of the large corporates? What ever that reason how can it simply be overturned by Govt fiat?

        I am very aware of issues tied to the conversion from small to big, that includes the massive benefits which are always ignored in these discussions. That is because those pushing the ideas are Central Planner types.

        They actually believe that some entity, Govt/them, can plan and execute a specific agenda and get better results than the combined action of free people. It is a rationalization to use FORCE to what THEY want regardless of what anyone else wants, and irresprective of reality. In this case the economic reality.

        As for the particular issues you raised. Quality of food is not tied to size of the farm. Look to inflation and other regulations as you underlying cause. Anything that drives up costs puts pressure on increasing productivity. In this case the #/acre produced. That is where chemicals come to play. They increase productivity.

        I have seen not evidence that family farms are any better for small communities. Generally speaking the farms take about the same number of people to work them. The author doesn’t seem to realize that most family farms have expanded in size to the amount of acreage one man/family can efficiently work. Who he works for is of little importance. I would guess the big boys have actually helped stabilize some businesses, such as equipment sales. They can subsidize the combine in Haver, Montana with proceeds from harvest in Grand Forks, S.D..

        While the author talks about the rural communities I can tell you there is more to the agenda as implemented. Note, I said I had personal experience in this area. We are being subjected to it right here in our county. What was not said is that the protection of family farms and rural communities requires the elimination of “rural sprawl”. Homes scattered in the country are not allowed. They take up valuable farm ground and eliminate wild life corridors.

        Again Todd, there are some real issues in all of this. You know by now I am opposed to the whole concept that the solutions should be dictated by a powerful central govt. The solutions are in education and local decision making. While I absolutely detest and scoff at the efforts in our county I support the fact it is a local solution.

        My only problem with it is that it is being imposed by a minority, although large, because most folks don’t understand what is going on and vote accordingly. The adjoining County has rejected these concepts and actually moved the other direction, towards more freedom.

        I live here because of work. A personal choice made freely. But very soon I will move to the other County. If the author of the article, and those who are running this movement succeed there will be no place for people like me to move to. AND THAT IS THE KEY POINT AND I MIGHT ADD, A HINT FOR THE SOLUTION.

        That is what the whole concept of State’s Rights or sovereignty was about. To give citizens of a large Nation a place to go where folks shared their views. I personally don’t need the USA to be homogonized.

        I hope that helps clarify some. I didn’t get into the strict economics of farming and see T-Ray has addressed some of this. BUT FOR THE RECORD. I HAVE SERIOUS HEART BURN OVER THE TREND IN PRODUCING STERILE SEEDS. BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS BEING DONE UNDER GOVT PROTECTION.

        Best to you and yours
        JAC

        • Let’s get on with the Agenda 21 discussion.

          USW what day is that on the docket?

          • I am thinking possibly next week but not positive yet. I don’t know if I have time for it to be Monday morning topic. Open Mic is Wednesday morning. Thursday morning would be the way to go if I can get it done by then. I have a good guest commentary for Friday morning from G-Man.

            • USW

              If you haven’t found out by now, this won’t be an easy research project.

              You may want to stretch it out a bit.

              I will try to find some stuff to save you time.

              JAC

              • I have found it won’t be an easy topic, which is why I was non-committal on the date. Anything you find would be a help as you were the one who started me down that path in the first place.

                Hope you are well, my friend

                USW

    • What dribble!

      There does not seem to many farmers on this sight. I do not qualify since I have not lived on a farm for 54 yrs but I can calculate.

      Farms in the county I grew up in in N. IL. yield on average 197 bu/acre. Call it 200. Today’s price of corn is $3.71, call it $4/bu. (Note corn was selling for over $2/bu the year I was born.) So an acre produces $800 gross. Out of that one must take the price of fuel for plowing and cultivating and harvesting, seed, fertilizer, drying, shipping, depreciation on equipment (tractors, plows, planters, cultivators, sprayers, combine, and storage), taxes, interest, crop insurance, and mortgage and interest payments on the land. The best cost figure I could find for N. IL was 2006 at about $2.50/bu. I am not sure if this includes the cost of the land, probably not. So the net on one acre is 200*(4-2.5) or $300. When I was growing up most farms were a 1/4 section = 160 acres. Let’s assume 1/2 section or 320 acres of which 200 acres are in corn. So the net for 200 acres of corn is $60,000. If the whole farm minus 5 acres for buildings is in corn, the net is $94,500. To earn that return you have invested in the land well over $1M – $1.5M plus in equipment at least $250K and a similar amount in buildings to shelter the equipment and store the crop. Every year you plant, there is a risk of partial or total loss due to weather, bugs or disease. Prices vary from month to month year to year. A good year can drive prices down. You have to go beg the banker for operating captial (no seed no income). There was no mention of labor in this as your labor is free. This is not profit after you get your wages. Does this sound like a business you would invest in?

      So G-man, you are exactly right, city folk should stay out of the country. I have wondered for sometime how most farmers stay in business.

      • Let me add a few things to what I wrote last night. First that 320 acre farm is surrounded on 3 sides by roads. The land is measured to the center of the road so the tillable acreage is not 320 acres less the build site. Second, no good farmer would plant the entire farm in corn year after year. I have 2 garden plots. When I plant sweet corn, I move it from one plot to the other each year. This is to minimize pests such as corn boar. Corn removes a lot of nutrients from the soil hence it needs recovery time. The traditional method of crop rotation is corn, oats or other cereal grain, alfalfa (legume). Soybeans are often used instead of alfalfa but serve the same purpose. Different crops are planted and harvested at different times so it spreads the labor out. However, corn is the big cash crop so it also reduces the income. Farm income can be supplemented by raising livestock. But this involves another big investement in the breeding stock, shelter and equipment plus lots of labor often daily with no vacations allowed. (You can’t take your bull on vacation.) So the above income figure I gave for a grain farm is probably close to the upper limit. It has been only the recent corn to ethanol push that has moved corn from its traditional $2.50/bu price up to the $4-$6 range.

        I grew up in DeKalb Co., IL which is the heart of corn country. It is the home of DeKalb Ag (early seed corn co.), the farm bureau, and barbed wire. My grandfather produced corn at 80 bu/acre which was exceptional in the 1930’s. To accomplish that required the labor of 2 sons and a hired hand for a 160 acre farm. The also had dairy cattle, beef cattle, hogs and chickens. The same land will now yield over 200 bu/acre and can be run by one man. In fact that man is probably farming 320 acres. The US has led in mechanization of farming since the early 1800’s. It is a true success story.

        If you think cars are expensive, try buying a new tractor. Tractors are cheap compared to combines. The new combines have GPSs and near infrared spectrometers that measure the moisture content, protein, etc. in the grain as function of location in the field. This is sophisticated farming. Typical equipment a farmer needs is a large tractor (horsepower) for plowing, a small tractor for everything else, multi-bottom plow, planter, broadcast seeder, cultivator, spraying equipment, wagons, pickup truck, maybe a grain truck, combine with cereal and picker heads, baler for hay, hay rake, elevator… Also note that much of this equipment is only used for a few days or weeks each year. The rest of the time it is idle. Construction tractors and equipment can be used year around so their investment is much different.

        The article seems to be big on small produce farms, what we called truck farms. These are nice and can provide a very good income for a family. However, they are very labor intensive and could never be more than a small percentage of the total acreage in tillage. Also an over abundance of such farms would saturate the market for their products with a resultant drop in prices. We need them, I certainly frequent the local strawberry fields and such; but to replace the large farms with 10 acre plots is ridiculous. This is socialist utopianism. The article also laments the flight from the small towns of the midwest and plains states. Please note, truck farms work best where population densities are high so they would fail on the plains.

        JAC noted that one of the problems is creaping housing developments. This is very true, farm land is easy to convert to housing since it is already cleared and level. We have lost a lot of good land to housing plus the associated highways. Look at the width of the right of ways for interstates. Do we need that much land on each side and in the middle?

        Government has stuck its nose into farming since the depression. Most of the farmers I knew growing up just wished they would go away and leave them alone. The beneficial roles that the USDA does do is in education and soil conservation. But farming like everthing else has seen creeping regulation and government interference. Much of it by the uninformed utopian buttinskies like the authors of the sited article. Example, we recently had a referendum in CA on the size of chicken coops.

        JAC, I too worry some about the gene splicing in our food chain. There has been some concern over modified corn. Some countries have banned it. Tests of normal corn now are exhibiting the modified genes. People wonder how this could happen if the fields were segregated. It is easy to understand when one knows that corn is wind pollinated. Nature wins everytime. Natural economic laws win too eventually.

        • T-Ray

          Great posts. I’m not a farmer, and appreciate someone with experience sharing.

          A friend of mine farms, had a call from a hand last fall. The GPS stopped working, auto steer, etc, asked his boss what to do? Reply,
          does the steering wheel and everything else work? Yes. Then harvest them damn beans and quit calling me with stupid questions.

    • JAC & T-Ray,
      I’m not suggesting government should determine the size of farms and dictate how they are run, etc.

      I understand the economies of scale and how you need to farm more acres to pay for the large equipment that makes modern farming more productive. Or that modern equipment makes it possible for fewer people to productively work more acres…

      Do you guys remember the first “Green” revolution in the 1960’s? I don’t – too young – but I’ve read a little about it. It had nothing to do with renewable energy, etc. It was about farming and increasing yields around the world thru genetic and bio-engineered seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and large scale irrigation. This was the start of the higher yields that currently feed the world and was a great success – for a time. But the fertilizers are polluting rivers and lakes and causing algae blooms, the pesticides are polluting the environment as a whole, and water tables are dropping making irrigation tougher.

      All of this applies differently to different types of farming. I can understand the large farms in the plains that raise corn, wheat, etc. In Wisconsin, there are a lot of dairy farms. Typical family farms were 50-100 cows. In the past decade or so, they’ve started to expand into huge farms of 1000+ cows. The largest wants to expand from 4000 to 8000 cows.

      Although these large farm are very clean, there are concerns about all the disinfects used. Hormones are used to increase production. What’s the long-term impact on the cows and milk? One outbreak of infection or disease could impact the entire herd. And handling the manure, especially during the winter when everything is frozen. They spread it on frozen fields, and sometimes the manure/snow mix has ‘slid’ off the field into rivers and lakes.

      Last winter/spring there was fish kill of over 80% in a lake/reservoir in Wisconsin. A dry fall caused low water levels and a late winter thaw (global warming!!! 😉 ) caused a large amount of agricultural runoff.

      My concern is is this type of agriculture sustainable for the long term? Can science and agri-business over-come these issues? Do we want more genetic-engineered foods? Hormone-induce higher yields of milk, beef, chicken, pork?

      • If I had to prioritize the USDAs efforts it would be food safety first, sustainable farming second and economics a distant third. I agree with you on some of your concerns. In the ’50s most farms in IL had livestock. On my grandfather’s 80 acres that we share cropped, we had a cow (for family use), feeder pigs (not breeding stock), sheep, chickens and ducks. Dad did carpenter work on the side. We were dirt poor but had lots of food as we had a big garden and canned hundreds of quarts of vegitables each year. Most farms either ran dairy, beef cattle, hogs, or chickens. Thus the densities were low and waste could be handled on the owners land. In fact it was beneficial. One could easily spot the difference between manure fertilized land and unfertilized land.

        This started to change in the late ’60s. Many farms dropped livestock, others embrased it whole hog. Between 1880 and 1930, the midwest farmers built all of those large barns with attached feed lots. Their purpose was to hold the hay and stray and shelter the cattle. Drive through the midwest now and you will see the barns are gone or falling down. The cattle are gone to the large feed lots and round bales make mowed hay a thing of the past. Farmers now specialize with all grain or large livestock operations. This is for economics. Unfortunately, it means the livestock are now concentrated in small areas making waste removal and the potential for disease big issues. It also means that grain farmers do not have the natural fertilizers humous that are so beneficial and must rely on chemical fertilzers. So in this regard, I think farming has taken a step backward.

        What I do not want to see is what we just had here in CA, that is referendums on farming practices where city folk start dictating how farming is done. I do not know your occupation, but I would expect you to object vehemently if I started telling you how to do your job.

        There are new farming practices that are significant improvements. Many farmers are now going to no or low till farming. In the past, a farmer plowed, disced and then dragged the field prior to planting. This left fine dirt particles on the surface that easily washed away and once soaked and then baked in the sun turned into a cement that prevents moisture infiltration and encourages run off. The low till methods leave the surface much rougher and allow water to penetrate thus reducing erosion and runoff. The new GPS and spectrum analyzers on the combines, allow farmers to target poor areas of a field and increase the fertilizer in that area only. This reduces the cost of operations. This is a business, everything goes through a cost benefit analysis.

        The revolution in world wide farming in the ’50s-’80s was based upon matching the correct seeds to local conditions and adding appropriate fertlization. The seeds were all hybrids, genetically modified seeds did not start until the ’90s. Hybrids are seeds produced by cross pollination of naturally occuring plants. The cross is done to improve yield, increase resistance to diseases and pests, adjust the maturation time, etc. For example, Canadians have a short growing season, they cannot use the same seed corn as Texans. They use what is called 90 day corn. It matures much faster. The same has been going on in livestock breeding for hundreds of years.

        The genetically altered crops are designed to eliminate a specific problem or to work with a specific pestiside. Like you I have concerns with this as we are messing with nature. There are always unintended consequences that result. Hence I think we should proceed very slowly.

        To give you a little perspective on this, my granddad selected the best ears of corn and stored them in the attic. During the winter, the kids shelled the corn by hand. This was the seed for the next year. It took years to develop a good seed strain by this method. Hybrid seed corn is now produced by multi-year crosses such as triple cross corn. It takes 3 years to produce the final seed. Six rows of female corn is planted with two rows of male corn. The tassels are removed from the female corn so that pollination is only done by the male plants. After harvesting the female rows, the ears are sorted for uniformity, shelled and planted again with a different male strain. The process is repeated again to produce the final seed.

        One of the big pollution problems in CA is all the chemicals people through on their lawns. In the cities here, many people and businesses have lawn services that excessively treat the lawns to keep them nice and green. Since this a desert 6 months of the year, everthing is irrigated. The result is much wasted water and lots of runoff. My farmer philosphy is anything that does not produce food is a weed and I do not encourage it to grow, so my lawn is naturally brown in the summer. But then I live in the country so noone objects.

        Todd your concerns are real. Our best line of defense is that the family farmers and corporate farms eat the same food we do so should be just as concerned about safety as everyone else. The large agri-business, however, need to be reminded of this frequently. We should constantly be aware of the law of unintended consquences.

  21. I don’t know about the rest of you but I think WE THE PEOPLE should do everything within our power to help save or at least extend the lives of these people.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31528.html

    Of course I am assuming if their boss’ have less power they can chill a little.
    LOL

    JAC Was Here.

    • JAC,
      So now you want to extend the life of Congressmen and their staffer’s? I would have thought you’d want to increase the stress and clean the place out???

      • Todd:

        I don’t want to really kill them personally. Just the TEMPTATION they face everyday.

        So I figure, limit their authority, make it a part time job (say 3 months), restrict meetings to every 2 years, and relocate their offices to Death Valley, where it is very quiet and peaceful.

        Oh, did I mention there is to be no air conditioning or heating in the new buildings. Totally green.

        The desert is a great place to get in touch with one’s inner self. Complete stress reducer.

        Hope you have a good weekend
        JAC

  22. Good Evening Everyone,

    I finally escaped from the boss 😉 Black Flag, I’m glad to see your friend in Haiti is alive and mostly well.

    I received the following in my email. Its an interesting read. I’m not sure how accurate it really is, but it fits with what I already know, for the most part…

    Subject: Fw: Austria in 1938 — Land of “The Sound of Music” Story.

    Could this happen America?

    Subject: Fwd: Austria in 1938 — Land of “The Sound of Music” Story.

    A little bit long but worth the time to read.

    Excellent history lesson few people in this country know… and the author has seen it all first hand.

    If you want to know more about her just google her full name as indicated below.

    —–
    —–
    Subject: Austria in 1938 — Land of “The Sound of Music” Story.

    The author of the following article, Kitty Werthmann, grew up in Austria and lived through the Hitler regime both before and after WWII, and the suppression of human rights and freedom by the Nazi Party. She moved to the USA and became a citizen in 1962. She is 83 years old and lives in Pierre, South Dakota where she has written and spoken extensively about the danger of loosing our freedoms. The following article is one of many that she has written. You can check out this info for yourself on the Internet by going to Google and searching for Kitty Werthmann.
    An interesting read. Please feel free to pass it along.

    America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World.
    Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away!

    By: Kitty Werthmann (An Austrian who witnessed what took place under Hitler)
    What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books.
    I am an eyewitness to history. I can tell you that Hitler did not take Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote. I’ve never read that in any American publications.. Everyone thinks Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.
    In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates. Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.
    The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.
    We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group — Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.
    We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.
    After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.
    Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

    Hitler Targets Education–Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:
    Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang “Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,” and had physical education.
    Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.
    My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

    Equal Rights Hits Home:
    In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.
    Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

    Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:
    When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

    Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:
    Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna .. After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
    As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
    We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.
    We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

    “Mercy Killing” Redefined:
    In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.
    As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

    The Final Steps – Gun Laws:
    Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.
    No more freedom of speech.. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.
    Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly; it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.
    After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn’t destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn’t; paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.
    “It’s true….those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity. America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away.

    “After America, there is No Place else to Go!”
    Count what you have seen taken away in your life time from removing religion from schools to registering guns. Our Country will not be taken away as quickly as Austria was, but so much has already been taken, and since it is usually small steps …….most don’t have an issue with it. Once it is gone it is gone for good. Government involvement/control and or indirect ownership of education, banking, finance, auto, insurance and mortgage industries are justified bailouts we are told, to help the economy survive, but when do these ties end. Nationalizing health care is another step in the wrong direction. When will we wake up. You may get tired of continually receiving emails of those fighting for all these different issues….but the above true story is what happens when enough has been given up, and the right leader gets in control.

    Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they have been resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.
    — Frederick Douglass

    • Wow. And this lady is watching much of the same happening in her lifetime for the second time. This is why Cyndi is so uptight. We are supposed to be living the American Dream. Hot dogs, apple pie,
      and Chevrolet. We started with VDLG and look how big it has become. All under the guise of “we(govt) can make it better”. I’m with Birdman. The longer I hang around SUFA the more I think no govt is the answer. (quit smiling Flag, I’ll still be pretending). It seems like the right answer but it will never happen. But some middle ground has to be reached. Even the lefties here have to see this as the way forward. So why not much, much less govt? Power, greed,laziness has gotten us to this point. Nudge, nudge, nudge. It’s up to us to shrink the govt. The alternative is to end up like Austria. Ms. Werthmann ended up here. In America. Because it IS the best country in the world. Where are YOU going to end up? This is a situation where less is more. I try to live by the “keep it simple” creed. How much do you really need? The only thing “more” gets you is more stress. Then that leads to more attitudes, more anger, and more danger. Time for us to wake from the American Dream and start returning it to where we started from. That is the only answer.

      • Birdman and Anita!

        Hi 🙂

        I’ve been reading many accounts such as these over the past weeks. As we discuss things here at SUFA, I find myself torn between finding a solution before it’s too late and getting ready for what could turn out to be a nasty fight for survival and freedom. I’m running 66% on getting ready for the fight and 33% trying to find solutions to avoid it.

        There are so many things that would seem unbelievable at best, that may not be so untrue at all. I’m walking the middle road on that, I don’t really believe it but I’m not willing to cast it off as someones overstretched imagination either.

        Remember, knowledge is power, learn everything you can for both ends of the spectrum. The worst that may come of it is that we are all much wiser 🙂

        Peace and Live Free Forever!

        G!

      • Anita,

        There will be no government as soon as we say there is no government.

        It is truly that easy.

        One, small, simple step:

        “No man has the right to initiate violence on another man – no exceptions.”

        We are 99% there. We hold this to be true for all individuals – we simply need to see this truth even when individuals wear funny uniforms or funny hats and hold funny titles.

        • BF:

          Sounds so good on paper. I think the SUFA crowd could get along as an anarchy. But to extend that to the whole population is a dream. we just can’t give up the fight.

          Sidenote: I know I’ve given you some grief in my short time here but it’s all in fun. My grief to you is just my way of trying to learn. Thanks BF

          • Still pretending 🙂

          • Anita,

            Why do you think it would be so hard for people = who already see attacking another person as a ‘wrong’ = not be able to see the same thing when the attacker has a funny hat on?

            What do you think is the mental block?

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I would be perfectly happy and content living my life as I see fit, without any interference from any form of government, period.

            • BF: Just got home and saw your test. Have to think about it for a while. I have one Q for you first. I understand that you bleed anarchy. But would you support a VDLG. Your answer will help me prepare for the test. I don’t want to hear a peep about no govt.

              • Anita,

                USWep, JAC, and a few others are still fleshing out VLDG.

                I have a bet with them.

                My bet is, that in the end, they’ll be unsuccessful in avoiding the pitfalls and will finally stand holding a Black Flag.

                They think at the end, they’ll figure it out, answer my complaints and I’ll be a VLDG supporter.

                I’m not discounting that they may be able to do that (wouldn’t want to discourage them from saying “Opps, guys – impossible!”) – but I have 10,000 years of history that says that it has never been done, so it’s probably unlikely.

                But then, no one imagined we’d go to the moon even 100 years ago either.

                So, we’ll see….

                My position is simple:

                It all depends on the core principle

                Government is wholly based on the monopoly of violence.

                That is why no government can ever be a ‘good’ government – its root core is evil.

                Many government forms try to mask, mitigate, entangle, confuse or encumber that violence – but eventually, like water seeking its level – government finds a way to fully express its evil core and create tyranny over mankind.

                So, if VLDG requires the same basics of monopolization of violence – all it ends up becoming is another attempt to burden evil with paperwork.

                If its core premise is different, well, then I’ll have to see.

              • Ok BF: First of all I would like to be invited to the birth of Flagville. What day is it? Do you have a plan for security on that day? You have to have something up your sleeve because the people will freak out when they know the plan.I know my sheep would. My sheep dont even understand that no govt is an option. (I dont either). All they know is someone has their back. No matter what kind of trouble they get in it will all work out. Got money trouble- cash-n-go is on every corner. Gonna lose your house-no problem just walk away from the debt.Everyone alive in America today has been told from day one that govt is the answer. To suddenly pull the rug out from everyone would scare the crap out of everybody. They just need that security blanket of govt. That’s my opinion.

                Now. Play my game. SUFA is the American people. USWeapon is the Prez. JAC and lets say PeterB run Congress. We the people know their views and know their intent. They stay out of the way as much as possible because they in fact dont like govt either. They arent going to overstep the line because that is not their intent. Tell me why that won’t work.

              • BF,
                Someone calls the shots at your house right? Do you think your kids would be able to go down the right path if there was not structure in your home?

              • Below!

            • I know this question is for Anita, but I’d like to try.

              I say the answer is conditioning. People have been conditioned to believe that government violence is acceptable.

      • HI Anita,

        Me, uptight? Girl, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, LOL!

        I too, live by the keep it simple creed. How else can someone keep their sanity on an island this size? Coming here really brought the whole simple-really-is-better into focus for me. The other morning, the group of us that makes up the Breakfast Club, were discussing this very topic. ALL of us, including my Lefty boyfriend, feel the same way about life here vs life in the States, social networking, cell phones, texting, etc. Our lives here are very simple. We’ve relearned to enjoy the simple pleasures in life; the company of a loved one or friend, a sunset or sunrise, an afternoon at the beach, or a bicycle ride alone or with a friend, potluck dinners, and outdoor movies. I’m not looking forward to the day I have to leave this place because its very special. It doesn’t look like much from the air, the buildings are starting to look pretty shabby, and the grocery store resembles Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard, but I wouldn’t trade places with anyone right now.

        • I’m very jealous of you Cyndi. Simple is good. Tropical simple is better. My daughter is livin large & lovin it in Hawaii. She, too, dreads the day she comes back to Michigan. We need to keep spreading the “keep it simple” theme.

        • Cyndi P:

          When you say your boyfriend is a lefty you mean he is left handed, correct?

          • Left handed? I wish. Nope, he’s a Libtard, or at least possesses the veneer of one. He spouts he’s Leftist indoctrination when he’s not caught off guard. The strange thing is that he lives his life according to conservative principles, and sometimes says things that are conservative in thinking/nature. I tease him about being a closet conservative, and that he should just come out. I think he’s afraid his friends won’t like him anymore if he does that, LOL! His living according to conservative principles is what makes it possible for us to be together. He’d have to completely ditch the Leftist indoctrination for me to marry him, assuming, of course, he’d be crazy enough to ask! 🙂

            • Closet Conservative! LMOA ! Cyndi I think you have figured it out! I think there are tons of them around they just won’t admit it.

              • You’re right, they won’t admit it. That’s the problem. So now what?

                I’m signing off. Not to make you jealous(er), but were going sailing. We’re meeting friends at the marina in aobut 15 minues….I’ll catch up with ya later!

                🙂

              • Anita:

                You are in fact a fast learner. I have returned from play time to see you fencing with the big boys and doing more than hold your own.

                I offer you, and Cyndi P, this little idea.

                Conservative you wish NOT to be.
                A Radical Right Wing Liberal is the key.

                Live free and be happy
                JAC

              • JAC:

                OMG! you are going to make me lose my mind. I’ve been going back over the discussions. Just making sure I’m not totally tripping over myself. Then I see your mumbo jumbo. I could’nt even comprehend it for a second. I was thinking the bourbon took over on you!

                Yes I find it amazing also that I’m up against some very heads up people here. I am honored that all of you even bother. My friends refuse to accept any kind of this talk. My kids put up with me about it and have even started asking very valid questions.

                Oh well! I don’t know how you do it every day. Must be your passion. Keep teaching me JAC!
                I’m burned out for now. Have a good night.

              • Okay JAC,

                I think I know what you mean with Radical Right Wing Liberal, but I’m not too sure. Do you mean Liberal as in someone who believes that men are born free and don’t belong to a king or government, and can decide for themselves how to live? Is it something along those lines?

                BTW, the sailing was wonderful but exhausting. I did think about ya’ll while we were out there…..not. I do feel a smidgeon guilty about that.

                😉

              • Cyndi P

                Yes my dear. Jefferson was a LIBERAL

                Now how about the rest of the title?

                glad you got to do something you love today.
                JAC

              • The rest of the title, eh? I’d say that most of those on the Right Wing, still favor large government, in the form of a republic as opposed to a collectivist one. So I’m guessing that the Radical Right Wing Liberal would go for SMALL government in the form of a republic, where people are free to live their life as each individual sees fit so long as the natural laws are not violated. Am I close, or did I get too much sun today?

              • I couldn’t resist. I’m listening too

              • I was thinking he’s just pestering us. Trying to see if we would jump to a different line of thinking. I’m not buying it

              • Cyndi P and Anita:

                You are hitting the ball square.

                The idea is much serious and part fun.

                Go to the bottom to see the explanation.

                JAC

  23. Judy Sabatini says:

    By Neil Cavuto: Managing Editor & Anchor
    FOXBusiness

    Missed Friday’s Cavuto? Catch “The Deal” right here on FOXBusiness.com

    They say if you ever saw how hot dogs were made, you’d never eat hot dogs.

    Not me. As a kid, I actually did see how hot dogs were made.

    And save a day or two of discomfort…Or was it an hour or two??….I was right back to slewing down those chili dog specials, as if I had never seen just how many beasts and other creatures had gone into ’em.

    It’s like I knew the process was ugly.

    But man, that dog was good!

    Here’s the deal.

    Focus on the weenie.

    Not the weenies making the weenie.

    That’s pretty much it.

    Don’t get all lathered up over the questionable cooks in the kitchen.

    Wait patiently for what you hope and trust will be a lovely meal.

    Spare yourself the details of what they’re putting in the pot. Or even who’s paying for that pot…

    Focus instead the final product will be delicious.

    That’s health-care reform right now.

    The weenies in the kitchen throwing all sorts of wonders in the pot, safely shielded behind doors decidedly closed to the dining room.

    …where “we” sit and wait…While they stumble and stew.

    God knows what they’re doing back there. The deals they’re cooking up back there. The concessions to find substitutions for vital ingredients they’re coming up with back there.

    They’re there.

    We’re here.

    Never mind they’re throwing in rodent droppings and pig’s feet…

    We’ll forget it all when they lift the cover off that plate and say, ‘bon appétit’!

  24. Judy Sabatini says:

    You mean, a final frantic run to continue to take over our lives.

    Final Frantic Run for Health Care

    AP

    Democrats — led by Obama himself — are deploying this weekend to salvage an unpredictable Senate race in Massachusetts, while senior White House and congressional staffers in Washington hurry to finish work on cost and coverage options at the heart of the sweeping legislation.

    Dec. 15: President Obama, flanked by Senate Democrats, makes a statement on health care reform. (AP)

    WASHINGTON – Like a roller-coaster ride on its last twisting turns, President Barack Obama’s campaign to remake health care is barreling into final days of breathless suspense and headlong momentum.

    Democrats — led by Obama himself — are deploying this weekend to salvage an unpredictable Senate race in Massachusetts, while senior White House and congressional staffers in Washington hurry to finish work on cost and coverage options at the heart of the sweeping legislation.

    A Republican victory in the race to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat would deprive Democrats of the 60-vote majority needed to pass the bill in the Senate. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders would have a political window of perhaps days only to try to ram the bill through — at considerable risk of incurring public wrath.

    Democrats put on a bold public face Friday, while working behind the scenes with grim determination.

    Negotiators are “pretty close,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said at the end of a week of marathon negotiations to reconcile House- and Senate-passed versions.

    A White House statement said there are “no final agreements and no overall package.” But no further meetings were scheduled, and Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking House Democrat, said, “Something should be going to CBO very soon,” indicating that aides were drafting the decisions made around the table in the White House Cabinet Room. The Congressional Budget Office is the official arbiter of the cost and extent of coverage that any legislation would provide.

    No details were immediately available, and congressional aides stressed the decisions made at the White House had not yet been fully shared with the Democratic rank and file.

    One key obstacle appeared on its way to a resolution when Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., requested the elimination of an intensely controversial, one-of-a-kind federal subsidy to cover the entire cost of a Medicaid expansion in his home state.

    That provision in the Senate-passed measure has drawn criticism from governors and others in both political parties from the moment it was disclosed, and even former President Bill Clinton urged that it be jettisoned.

    In its place, officials said Obama and lawmakers decided to increase federal money for Medicaid in all 50 states, although it was not clear if there would be enough to cover the expansion completely.

    The increase in the Medicaid program is a key element in the bill’s overall goal of expanding health coverage to millions who lack it. The bill also envisions creation of new insurance exchanges, federally regulated marketplaces where consumers can shop for coverage. Individuals and families at lower incomes would receive federal subsidies to defray the cost.

    The legislation would curb insurance industry practices such as denial of coverage because of medical problems and charging higher premiums to people in poor health.

    At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs was unequivocal that Obama’s effort would prove successful. “As you heard the president say yesterday, we’re going to get health care done,” he said.

    Not everyone was quite so certain, particularly given poll results from Massachusetts that showed Republican Scott Brown within reach of an upset over Democrat Martha Coakley in a three-way race.

    “If Scott Brown wins, it’ll kill the health bill,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, reflecting that the Republican would provide opponents of the health care bill a decisive 41st vote to uphold a filibuster and block passage in the Senate. Frank predicted Coakley would ultimately prevail and thus preserve the essential 60-vote Senate majority. Obama hurriedly scheduled a weekend campaign trip to the state.

    Even so, Frank’s remark sent shudders through the ranks of Democrats.

    The president called on Congress in his inaugural address a year ago to send him legislation that would remake the health care system, including expansion of coverage, new regulations on industry and unprecedented measures to slow the rise in health care costs generally.

    Obama has made an unusual commitment in time and energy to the negotiations at the White House, essentially serving as a referee on key issues that the House and Senate leaders could not resolve.

    Beyond that, he was willing to reopen issues where the two bills were identical. One example involved the patent protection that drugmakers would receive for their biotech drugs from generic competitors. The president wants to give generic makers quicker entry into the marketplace, and the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist, former Rep. W.J. Tauzin, sent an e-mail threatening to oppose the legislation if that happened.

    Even with an agreement on cost and coverage issues, Obama and congressional Democrats would have to resolve controversy over abortion, coverage of immigrants and other issues before sealing a final compromise.

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    That government is best which governs least”

    An aphorism sometimes attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, “That government is best which governs least”, actually was first found in this essay.[4] Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: “The best government is that which governs least.”[5]
    [edit] Summary

    Thoreau asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice. The judgement of an individual’s conscience is not necessarily or even likely inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so “[i]t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”[6]

    Indeed, he points out, you serve your country poorly if you do so by suppressing your conscience in favor of the law because your country needs consciences more than it needs conscienceless robots.

    Thoreau says that it is disgraceful to be associated with the United States government in particular: “I cannot for an instant recognize as my government [that] which is the slave’s government also.”[7]

    The government, according to Thoreau, is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it’s “not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.”[8]

    Political philosophers have counseled caution about revolution because the upheaval of revolution typically causes a lot of expense and suffering. However, Thoreau says that such a cost/benefit analysis isn’t appropriate when the government is actively facilitating an injustice like slavery. Such a thing is fundamentally immoral and even if it would be difficult and expensive to stop it, it must be stopped because it is wrong. “This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.”[9]

    Thoreau tells his audience that they cannot blame this problem solely on pro-slavery Southern politicians, but must put the blame on those in, for instance, Massachusetts, “who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.… There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them.”[10] (See also: Thoreau’s Slavery in Massachusetts which also advances this argument.)

    He exhorts people not to just wait passively for an opportunity to vote for justice, because voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support.

    Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate in injustice. People who proclaim that the war in Mexico is wrong and that it is wrong to enforce slavery contradict themselves if they fund both things by paying taxes. Thoreau points out that the same people who applaud soldiers for refusing to fight an unjust war are not themselves willing to refuse to fund the government that started the war.

    In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then Thoreau says the law deserves no respect and it should be broken. In the case of the United States, the Constitution itself enshrines the institution of slavery, and therefore falls under this condemnation. Abolitionists, in Thoreau’s opinion, should completely withdraw their support of the government and stop paying taxes, even if this means courting imprisonment.

    Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.… where the State places those who are not with her, but against her,– the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.… Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.[11]

    Because the government will retaliate, Thoreau says he prefers living simply because he therefore has less to lose. “I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts…. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.”[12]

    He was briefly imprisoned for refusing to pay the poll tax, but even in jail felt freer than the people outside. He considered it an interesting experience and came out of it with a new perspective on his relationship to the government and its citizens. (He was released the next day when “someone interfered, and paid that tax.”)[13]

    Thoreau said he was willing to pay the highway tax, which went to pay for something of benefit to his neighbors, but that he was opposed to taxes that went to support the government itself—even if he could not tell if his particular contribution would eventually be spent on an unjust project or a beneficial one. “I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually.”[14]

    Because government is man-made, not an element of nature or an act of God, Thoreau hoped that its makers could be reasoned with. As governments go, he felt, the U.S. government, with all its faults, was not the worst and even had some admirable qualities. But he felt we could and should insist on better. “The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.… Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.”[15]
    [edit]

    • Thoreau is brilliant – one of my historical mentors.

      Quite a story too.

      He was once arrested for not paying his taxes. He didn’t think he had to submit to extortion.

      His friends were aghast and paid his taxes for him.

      He was a little annoyed – not because they paid his tax per-say, but because he was getting so much of his writing work done in jail away from distractions, and they ruined that! (Sounds like USWep could use some jail time for SUFA catch-up 😉 )

      His essay on “Civil Disobedience” came out that experience.

  26. http://freedomfliesblackflag.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/stable-money/

    For those that have an interest in economics and money theory, JAC and I dialogue on “Stable Money/Free Market Money” over on my blog.

    Weigh in if you’d like.

    I’m planning to use my blog as a platform for more in depth discussions that may arise from SUFA. John has his own agenda with SUFA and often I feel like I’m diluting his message with my own hijacks.

    I know he is most gracious with his space, but I also don’t want to be the friend that overstayed the visit!

    • I doubt that you will ever overstay your visit. I appreciate your viewpoint on things. That being said I look forward to participating over on your site as well.

      USW

  27. Anita!

    You answered your own question:

    Anita said: They just need that security blanket of govt.

    Unfortunately, government is not a security blanket as many people mistakenly believe. You have been duped into believing this. It is a complete and utter lie!

    Dig deep, you will see that they are very harmful to you realizing your true potential and wealth. Government is control. You are an adult, and don’t need their help. To believe you do, puts you in danger.

    Hope you can understand! 🙂

    G!

    • I’m totally with you G-Man. I do understand. I just dont think that no govt could happen at this point. It would probably take a couple generations to make any progress at all. Which is why I feel we have to take baby steps right now. Ok you answer the Q too. Would your kids go down the right path if you didnt put your foot down? There has to be some kind of structure.

      • Your confusing the family structure with government. They are two totally different things. Family structure has been around since the cavemen. Government is the ideals of those who would choose to be in control. Parents teach, love and nurture. Governments steal, threaten and kill. See the difference?

        G!

        • Right G-Man but you cant tell me the leap from here to where you wanna be would be smooth or fast. It took us 200+ yrs to get where we’re at. Furthermore, the founding fathers came with the intent of little govt not no govt. It was fine then and everyone keeps yelling about get back that point. Why is it suddenly different. Sounds like you are pulling the bait & switch. I’m not yelling 🙂

          • 😆

            I know your not yelling. First, it will not be easy, actually quite the opposite. Fast, that will be determined by events of the day, months and years to come.

            Your right, it took us 234 years to get where we are at. Do you like where we are at? Remember, we are here because our ancestors wanted to escape exactly waht we are dealing with today, and for the hundred or so years before 1776, everyone seemed to do just fine without a government here. They were still pushed by the British government and taxed, until the revolution.

            If you study the history of the Freemasons, which many of our founders were a part of, you will see much better why we are where we are, and why we don’t need government.

            Now, this is a test. Name any government of any country that you consider non-currupt, don’t threaten violence, and don’t forcibly take what they did not earn.

            I respectfully, smiling, pass the ball to you my friend.

            Peace and Live Free!

            G!

            • Alright. Pick me pick me. I do know that answer. No govt is free from corruption. Fine. And that is exactly what you want to hear.
              But, we are held to a higher standard. We are (were) the envy of the world because we had our shit together and made it work. Why else would so many want to come here. We made it work even with govt in the way. Somewhere we ran into a roadblock. now we need to find the backdoor back in.

              • Sorry G, hope you catch this one. I have no idea about the freemasons. I basically have only heard the name and only bits of hearsay more. If I knew more my ideas might be different

              • Just a small note. The average life span of a Democracy is 200 years. We’ve exceeded that so far, but as you can see, things are not looking good. The history Channel is a good place to learn about the Freemasons. It’s stale and boring, but sheds some light on how we came to be.

                We are much alike, we desire to learn, and if need be, change the error of our ways. Keep that wonderful mind open, because there is always a better way!

                G!

      • Anita,

        Earlier you asked Flag about security on Flagvill Day. Give that some thought. If you are standing between G! and me, yes, we would not let anyone harm you. But we are not responsible for you, nor is Flag.

        Going to his event means you accept responsibility for yourself. And this is something to look at as you go thru your life, if a bad guy grabs you coming out of a bakery or the school, the police and government are not responsible. Its has gone before the Supreme Court, even if you call 911 and they make a donut run, you cannot sue them.

        Take it further,
        Gas & electric can be held accountable, private companies
        Water, city municipality, no accountability.
        Police, fire, exempt.
        Hospitals, you can sue for bad parking, until the government takes over.

        Can you hold the school accountable for failing to educate your children? Sure, its been done. But its not easy, I think most have been class action, an individual failing has no bearing, as they are acting for the greater good.

        And as to that damned Flag and VDLG, I can’t see myself ever joining him in NDG (No Damn Government).
        Man learned fire thousands of years ago, they even appointed a special person to be keeper of the flame.
        I see government as being like that, let it grow too large and it consumes all, keep it at a small, manageable size, and its so useful, you don’t think you could live without it.

        We have over 100 years of damage to our system of government to mend, or to use as a lesson, why did the checks and balances fail.
        What is the smallest level of government we can live with? Can our standing army be dis-banded and retain only a National Guard?
        I think yes. What are your thoughts?

        • Strange that you weighed in. I almost made you and JAC in charge. Could have been any number of people here. Even Ray came to mind. My dad ,on votes for city council, would always vote for some opposition to be on council just to keep everyone on their toes.

          You’re very right about inauguration day in Flagville. It is my responsibility to watch my own back. I get it. And I guess if Flag won that kind of stuff would already have been addressed. I think it would be a very hard sell though.

          Myself, I would never hold a school accountable for my child failing. It is my job to teach my kids. My kids hate me for always siding with the teachers when trouble pops up.

          I love your analogy of the keeper of the flame. You’re right. FTR: I am the keeper of the flame at my firepit 🙂

          National defense. That’s tough. National Gaurd for domestic emergencies, border patrol, stuff like that. But when Iran sends a nuke over I sure want every single service man or woman scramblin to go kick some ass! I think that’s seperate from the Gaurd.

          Did I do good?

          • Anita,

            I think you are doing great, but that has little meaning. How do you think you are doing. You must be your own judge. Yours is the only opinion about you that matters.

            Are you a good parent? What the school or a neighbor thinks should not guide you.

            JAC and Flag talk about core principles. Flag is an anarchists
            who believes it is wrong for anyone to initate violence against another. He argues for a world without government, complete freedom. No police or army, unless you elect to hire someone for that job yourself. And I can go with Flag right up to the army. I think in today’s world we need national defense. I could see keeping an EPA and CDC as long as they had no enforcement powers, only reporting and advising. In Flags world, they would exist only if private people started such a group, and were self-funded, by selling their services or voluntary donations.

            As to surprising you, Flag has a power like the force, my principals require me to act in such situations, and not allow you to be drawn in. Choose that path if you like, but it needs to be for your reasons.

            Flag says don’t vote. Pelosi and Franks can be counted on to vote for themselves. So not voting ensures their legal retention of power. Change has to come from within the system, awaken the sheeple.

            As for the National Guard replacing our standing army, I admit that ideal is out there a bit, but they have kicked some serious butt in the last few years. Maybe USW and D13 will have thoughts to share.

            May our torch of freedom be an Eternal Flame.

            • Mornin’ LOI

              I knew I wanted to be your neighbor. You have convinced me even further. Thinking things through further I realize I didn’t do good earlier. Maybe a C. I didn’t completely answer your questions.

              I wouldn’t vote for Black Flag. Not for any personal reason. He is a nice and smart enough guy. But the reason to vote is to gather everyone on the same page. Don’t know if that’s how I want to say it. Why be a part of something if there is no reason. Flag would be elected then bail out cuz ther is nothing to hang around about. I think thats his premise. (Flag put me in check if needed)
              Can you imagine his pledge ” I pledge allegiance to the black flag of the united states of Flagville. And for the people, anything goes, have at us cuz we won’t fight, one nation, under God (I hope), with no laws for anyone.” I don’t think it would fly. There is nothing to stand for. People need something to believe in. Hope I didn’t dig myself in too deep.

              I really didn’t answer how much govt is necessary. I had never even considered EPA and CDC. I like those ideas. I guess I dont have a good answer. How bout if we start with a clean slate and all the people can decide what the rules are going to be. I gave USW an idea on just this concept. We’ll see if it comes up. I could very easily live in Illusionville.

              • Anita:

                I am afraid you have misunderstood what Flagville is all about. That includes the Pirate himself.

                He would not take the office because he has no desire to impose upon others. But that is because he assumes that govt of anykind results, no eventually requires, those with the power of govt to use it to further “their” beliefs.

                He misses one key point here. A govt run by those who “believe” in no imposition could not impose, it would violate there basic principle. So the real issue is the corrupting power of govt. No man/woman can resist the power of the “One Ring” and thus is eventually destroyed by the power of the ring.

                You will never find anywhere that Black Flag has proposed that “anything goes” or that “we won’t fight”. He simply doesn’t believe a Govt Army is needed to defend us. Thus State Guards acting in cooperation to defend National boundaries would be closer but not reach Flagvilles system.

                There you would find organized citizens cooperating to defend their borders.

                So in Flagville there is MUCH to stand for. It is called Liberty.

                In the village of VDLG we believe a more organized and centralized defensive strategy is needed. But then we think we can lock the “ring” in a box where it can not affect us. What we are trying to do now is find the materials, tools and techniques to build that box.

                Since I was snooping in I figured I would answer. Presumptuos of me to answer for the Flagster but figured I might as well. He might be occupied this morning for all we know.

                Happy thoughts
                JAC

              • Hi JAC

                I can hear BlackFlag’s keyboard from here. I think I can even smell circuits burning.

                I hearby lie in wait anticipating his response 🙂

                You, sir, continue to give me headaches. At the moment my brain is on overload.

                I have revised my mental picture of you. It is somewhere between Ernie Harwell and Bob Barker.
                FYI: Harwell is the former voice of the Detroit Tigers. Am I close?

              • Anita,

                Flag would be elected then bail out cuz ther is nothing to hang around about. I think thats his premise. (Flag put me in check if needed)

                Close.

                So go one more step: why would I bother placing my name on any ballot?

                So you never have to worry about voting or not for me – you’d never see my name on a ballot to cause the question in the first place.

                HOWEVER, I am a firm believer in the power of MORAL INFLUENCE. I like leaders not a rulers.

                Like Geronimo was with the Apache….

                They followed him because they thought him wise and moral.

                But he didn’t ‘order’ or ‘demand’ – he simply did for himself what he thought was right. The other Apache would say “if Geronimo thinks this is what we should do, then we should do it”

                So when he was heartbroken over the treatment of the US government on his people, he picked up his rifle and said “I am going to fight the US government” – and left his village.

                He did not ask or order anyone else to join him. But they did, anyway, because “if this is what Geronimo thinks we need to do, we should do it”

                Can you imagine his pledge ”

                That isn’t the pledge. It would be more like this:

                “I pledge never to impose my life upon another man, nor accept another man imposing upon my life”

                There is nothing to stand for.

                How about freedom?

                It was THE foundational belief of these United States, remember?

                How bout if we start with a clean slate and all the people can decide what the rules are going to be.

                Anita, how do you know the rule you make is a good rule to make?

              • Good Day BF,

                I love your analogy of your being Geronimo. I can totally live with that.

                I guess we are starting from two different points. You start with nothing and only bring freedom into it.

                I start from the idea of us being a commonwealth. A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and likned with common objectives and interests. That right there says to me that there is some structure already in place. So how much goes in is up to everyone. The rules should be few and simple, and non discriminating. Shouldn’t be a problem since we start with a common objective.

                You’re probably gonna throw the last sentence back at me. The common objective being freedom.

                How’s that. I will be hiding under the desk 🙂

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          You are responsible for your own actions, whether they be bad or good. You are responsible for your children’s actions, whether they be bad or good. Your are responsible for your children until they become an adult at 18, and if they take the wrong path in life, then they are the only ones responsible and have to pay the piper.

          You are responsible to make sure your kids get an education, it’s your responsibility to make sure they go to school, and if they don,t then you pay the piper.

          What ever decision you make in life, is your responsibility and no ones else’s. It is your responsibility to see that you put food on the table for your kids, buy their clothes, their shoes, what ever else your kids need or require, no ones else’s

          It is your responsibility to teach them right from wrong, no one else’s. It’s not up to the schools if your kids learn or not, they are only there to teach your kids, if they do not, then it’s your responsibility to find out why.

          It was your parents that was responsible for you when you were growing up, but once you turned 18 and became an adult, then that responsibility became yours and no one else’s.

          It’s not the governments responsibility that somebody has done wrong, it’s not the governments responsibility to go to their rescue. It’s not the governments responsibility to tell you where to work, where to live, how to raise your family, although they sure are working on it now.

          Government has become way to meddlesome now, and the sooner we can get them out of our lives, the better we will be. Yes, I am for VDLG and I hope that we can get there, because right now, I have very little use for them, they haven’t done anything for me, why should I do anything for them? No, I don’t expect anything from them either. I say disband the government.

  28. Anita and LOI!

    I send this song to you!

  29. Cyndi P and Anita, and those who have not seen this before.

    (Was originally posted last summer but has been edited for clarity)

    I AM A RADICAL RIGHT WING LIBERAL. I am looking for those who wish to join me.

    RADICAL = “Fundamental, Extreme, Thoroughgoing; a person who favors rapid and sweeping changes in laws and methods of government” of course it is also “the indicated root of a mathematical expression”. I am not as set on “rapid” as I am on the rest. I like the implication that the mathematical term indicates the “root” of the expression, as in we RADICALS are the root of the solution.

    RIGHT = “Just, Proper; conforming to truth or fact: Correct; something that is correct, just, proper, or honorable; just action or decision; the casuse of justice; and (one of my faves) to relieve from wrong”.

    WING = Obviously means one of two positions or sides (WINGS). So, I sit on the opposite side or the “right as in correct and just” side of the political scale, opposite the left. The Left Wing, being the opposite is therefore by use of logic, not correct and not just.

    LIBERAL = From Latin liberalis or “suitable for a freeman, generous”, from the root liber or “free”; “not narrow in opinion or judgment: tolerant also not orthodox”. The “not orthodox” is certainly me, according to my spousal unit leader.

    Now I must reveal, per the fair advertising rules of the land, that most dictionaris and political pundits use “conservative” as a synonym or at least a word associated with “right” and thus “right wing”. But then they define “liberal” as simply “not conservative”. This of course creates a contradiction for those of us who wish to be correct, just, proper and conforming to truth while at the same time supporting the concept of “freeman” and being “free”. So the whole conundrum is resolved by the first term. After all, everyone knows that we “Radicals” are not good at conforming to illogical arguments.

    And of course all Radical Right Wing Liberals will receive automatic membership in the VDLG coalition. For those who missed it: VDLG = Very Damn Little Government.

    Be Happy Today…….All Day
    JAC

  30. Cyndi P, Anita, et al.

    The modern Conservatives, as they call themselves, are in my view on the Left.

    Many of them wish to impose upon me their VALUES which are based on their religious dogma. Here I use the term “religious” not in the worshiping of God sense but in the dogma created by men to control other men. Many call it Church Doctrine.

    Some time ago I posted a comment that very early in my life I realized what “churches” had become so I separated God from organized religion.

    It was that separation that then allowed me to search for answers to the other issues, social/economic/political/spiritual, in a more logical and reasoned manner. It opened up possibilities and eventually led me to my philosophy which I call Modified Objectivism.

    Ayn Rand developed the term Objectivism to describe her system. But it required a wholesale rejection of God, because she linked God to the supernatural beliefs of man and not the religion itself. Having previously split the two I could see how her philosophy did not require a rejection of God proper. It opened the door to the possibility that we had incorrectly interpreted what and who God was. How could this of happened?

    Most of us here have come to realize the inherent corrupting power of Govt. Yet we accept the dogma of our various religions (churches) as an accurate interpretation of God and his rules. Ignoring the fact that the interpretation was developed by MEN who were part of the governmental structure and authority of the time.

    I am not asking nor trying to pursuade anyone here to follow my path. I respect everyone’s religion…as THEIR religion. Thus in a nation of free men, I must be free to follow MY religion. This requires that YOU NOT IMPOSE YOUR’S UPON ME.

    But here is where I differ from those who seem so freaked out about the “separation of church and state”. As a person confident in myself and my beliefs I am not threatened in the least by some govt display of Christ at Christmas or a prayer before a football game. Its called tolerance. I will oppose however the display of such at the EXCLUSION of similar displays of other religions. That is where govt crosses the line. Even if it is a small town where most are of a single faith.

    I didn’t mean to run on in the mouth this morning. This stuff just started coming up so I figured it was a good time to put it out there. It is Sunday after all.

    May God Bless you and you families.
    May you always have an active mind.
    Peace and live free.
    JAC

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Great post JAC. Couldn’t agree with you more, both in your discussion of organized religion and your characterization of separation of church and state.

      Hope the weekend is treating you well.

    • Hi There JAC,

      I’ve always thought of consevatives as your Radical Right Wing Liberals, with Republicans as your description of consevatives. I consider mysef a conservative but NOT a Republican. I agree with you about the churches. I guess that’s why organized religion has never appealed to me. Something didn’t smell right.

      • Cyndi P

        You CANT be a conservative because by Definition a Conservative wishes to maintain the status quo.

        You my dear are a radical right wing liberal. You now just need to come to grips with that and then shout it out from the rafters.

        JAC

        • Might I add that many of us that come here regularly, have a much different view of things, and a much different person that we see in the mirror. the way I thought 18 months ago, is far different than today. I see many posters like CP, VH, and others who are experiencing much of what I experienced in the Springtime.

          They will need patience, as I did! 🙂

          G!

          • Now, now, G-Man. Are you implying that certain of us ladies here are a tad stubborn, or perhaps a bit ornery? I don’t try your patience, do I? If not, then I’ll have to try harder!

            😉

            • CP 🙂

              My patience is quite long, I doubt you could try it with any success. My point was trying to explain what I went through, I was fighting what I had been trained to believe (that government is good) vs. the fact that I had learned it is not good at all. It was an inner battle, that the truth finally one, despite my efforts to hold onto my “training”.

              I beat PTSD by understanding myself. Many people have a hard time letting go of their training, and seeing their real inner self, because they are trained not too!

              Hope that helps. 🙂

              G!

          • v. Holland says:

            I too, have experienced changes in how I think and have had some of my thoughts strengthened. The rest I will listen and evaluate. Makes the world much more exciting to keep learning. But I do have to call you on this one-I truly believe that a committed woman could push your patience.

            • 🙂 I always enjoy the freindship of the committed. However my friend, you can rest assured, my patience is far greater than any other you have or will ever know. It is part of my true person!

              Peace!

              G!

              • v. Holland says:

                Okay, my friend but if a woman wants a response and doesn’t get one be prepared to duck. 🙂

              • 😆

                Ah, the impatience of women, this I would say is not a secret?
                🙂

                G!

              • v. Holland says:

                He HE HE-Depends on the area of contention-in some things I have the patience of a saint -in others-not so much. 🙂

              • Laughing histerically. 🙂

                I thought I figured out a women once, only to have her change her ming 😆

                G

              • Hi V,

                Is that the sound of G-Man throwing his guantlet? I’ll bet that our combined effort would give his patience a run for his money, LOL!!

              • v. Holland says:

                Possibly but I have enough trouble dealing with my own man-think I’ll leave pushing G-Man’s buttons up to whatever woman deems him hers.

              • going below. too squishy

    • v. Holland says:

      I find that I don’t think it is right to paint all organized religion with the same brush-the church’s at least Christian church’s that I have been involved with-have no personal experience with any other churches to base a statement on-do many good things and as far as doctrine-how is one to teach religion if they make no statement of fact related to that religion-The other day BF made this statement and you replied:
      Black Flag said
      “January 12, 2010 at 8:54 am
      The right of association is supreme.
      Those that wish to take freedom away give punishment for making associations.
      They wish to push disassociated groups together – which incites tension and conflict.
      When conflict arises, the Elite step in with more pogroms to ’solve’ it – in actuality, they are simply more prohibitions on all people.
      The Elite then continue to push even harder the dissassociated groups together – attacking language.
      The end – conflict, tension while at the same time total loss of community and close association based on culture, creed, religion history or language. Thus, the individual – tense and in conflict – with no support.

      Just A Citizen said
      January 12, 2010 at 9:20 am
      Excellent observation this morning. We’re on similar tracks I think.
      I was just thinking that the entire issue is mischaracterised. It is tolerance we need to strive for, not blindness.
      To create a mythical existence where people do not see or “think” a color when they see it is illogical and a denial of reality. And thus, it is also a denial of identity.
      One of my best friends in high school once said “for someone to tell me they don’t see black when they talk to me is to deny my existence”.
      The best to you by pirate friend.”

      Obviously you were speaking about racism based on the color of ones skin-but isn’t your statements on organized religion based on the same premise of “ punishment for making associations”

      • V.H.

        I think we have our wires crossed again.

        Please explain where I am proposing pushing groups together or to punish folks for making associations.

        Please note that I did not condemn any particular religion nor single any out for particular scorn. I used Christianity as the example for obvious reasons relative to the USA. The point is that we accept the dogma despite the obvious fact the dogma is developed by Men. Men who were in positions of govt at the time.

        But you see V.H. it doesn’t matter in my village. Because if you wish to believe God actually wrote the law, or gave it to some man, it matters not to me. Not as long as you don’t use it to justify imposing some rule on me that violates our Meta value. That being that you can not initiate force against another. To impose without provocation is a form of force.

        I await your explanation as to how I have erred in my statement. I don’t want there to be any confusion on this matter.

        Best to you, and Vikings rock.
        JAC

        • v. Holland says:

          I realize you didn’t condemn any particular religion-My point is more that your statement seems to condemn all organized religion as bad, hence painting all organized religion as the same. The attitude that organized religion is bad has been used to make religion a thing of ridicule in our current society, hence making people who are a part of organized religion an automatic punching bad for people who do not believe. Just as racism has been used to shut people up, this scorn for religion has been used to shut people up. My being a member of a church does not mean that I want a theocracy-but statements like “I realized what “churches” had become so I separated God from organized religion.” seems to promote punishment or at the very least associating all in a group as the same and bad.

          • V.H.

            Then our wires have been crossed again. Time to straighten.

            “My point is more that your statement seems to condemn all organized religion as bad”

            In fact I made a point to NOT condemn any religion and to note that I am tolerant of all religions. I simply pointed out that religion is a creation of man, not God. There is no escaping that fact. It does not mean you have to reject your religion because it was created by Man. But you must recognize it for what it is. To do anything else would be to ignore reality.

            Yes, these types of statements are used to ridicule and to do worse. It is used against those who hold it to divide them from the rest of us. BUT NOT BY ME. That was in fact my point of why TOLERANCE is critical.

            A shallow study of history is all that is required to see the evil done in the name of and sanctioned by various churches. But that was not the work of God but of men using God as cover. What churches had become, when I was young, is a tool of men, those men who wish to control others. Many of the modern nondenominational churches in fact sprung up in response to this trend in the late 70,s and early 80’s.

            I brought the subject up today because of just the reaction you have shown. It is my sense that the anger against religious folks and the anger against those who ridicule them has created suspicion and mistrust. Notice how quickly you ASSUMED I was saying BAD when I never used that word.

            Nor did I say all folks who attend a church wish to impose their beliefs on me or others. Remember, the discussion was regarding those who call themselves today’s “conservatives”. That is why I classify them as leftists. They do in fact wish to impose their values on me, despite the fact that my values have no direct impact on their lives. Classic example is gay marriage.

            There are other issues the “conservatives” claim that can also put them on the left side. Their desire to see the USA as a globabl power, projecting our military might whereever “they” think it is appropriate. Their stated belief that we are somehow responsible for defending Israel agains all threats. Despite Israels behavior and despite the immorality of asking an American to sacrifice his/her life for another country. Talk about Altruism.

            “but statements like “I realized what “churches” had become so I separated God from organized religion.” seems to promote punishment or at the very least associating all in a group as the same and bad.”

            For the life of me I don’t see how a decision I made relative to MY belief which I HAVE NOT tried to impose upon you, even by argument, can be construed as “promoting punishment”. While I do in fact lump all churches into one category, that is establishments created by MAN, I certainly wouldn’t try that with the members of such churches. Nor is that in any manner “associating all in a group as the same and bad”.

            While they may be the same, in that they all belong to the same church or they all belong to some church, there is no implication they as individuals are bad. Nor that their religions are bad. That’s the beauty of tolerance. I don’t have to worry about what the various churches teach and whether I feel it is good or bad. That is not until they try to use Govt to force their religious based values upon me for no other reason than they are part of their church’s teachings.

            V.H., I was simply trying to share my experience and why I call myself a “modified objectivist”. I reject the atheist requirement imposed by Rand and her followers. I believe most of the rest of her philosophy to be rational and sound on moral principles that support freedom and liberty.

            I also continue to study other’s teachings and hypothesis, just in case I come across a piece that fits better, or even a refutation of my philisophical beliefs. One after all must maintain an active mind.

            I hope this has helped you understand where I am coming from. I encourage more questions if you like. I will answer honestly and pointedly. But I will not ridicule you V.H. nor anyone else who holds their religion of importance to them.

            Best to you and your family.
            May God bless your house.
            JAC

            • v. Holland says:

              He He-have our wires been crossed so many times that the word “again” is necessary 🙂

              I was not accusing you of belittling religion or people of religion -I have read your post enough to know that you are a man who goes out of his way to be fair and balanced and you are right that I heard bad in your comments when you didn’t put it there . Perhaps I am nit picking but I find the continued bashing of religion that goes on in our society irritating and comments that organized religion is bad is sometimes stated and sometimes inferred and we need to be
              careful not to promote that type of blank statement. We are a republic and if laws have been passed they have been passed by the majority, so they are based on societal norms if those norms are sometimes based on religion than the fault does not lie with organized religion but on the majority. My religion has taught me a lot of things, my church has taught me it’s interpretation of the Bible-I am responsible to make up my own mind lead by the Lord(which my church also told me)-my church has never told me how to vote and the Bible has taught me about free will and giving to Ceasar-I have not found my religion to be in conflict with freedom and liberty. If I’m in doubt I go with freedom or at least I try.

  31. Everyone should take time to read this.

    Then try to find all the inaccuracies. Hint: Pragmatism is being misrepresented.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34903289/ns/politics-washington_post/

    • v. Holland says:

      “What we don’t know yet is whether my administration and this next generation of leadership is going to be able to hew to a new, more pragmatic approach that is less interested in whether we have big government or small government; they’re more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government,” he said on that day in December 2008.

      This sentence certainly jumped out at me-smart and effective-lets face it a criminal can be smart and effective. Big government leads to government deciding what is smart and effective. Small government leads to the people deciding what is smart and effective.

      So if we’re gonna be pragmatic-I’d say the first part of his statement has to be answered before the second part can be determined.

      • V.H.

        Excellent. Yes, they are trying to convince us that Mr. Obama was and still is pushing pragmatism and not big govt dogma. To pull off this trick they use “effective and efficient” as a definition of pragmatism.

        But that is not the meaning of that word in political philosophy. It is the belief that there is no specific direction one must go, only that one MUST ACT according to what ever issue arrises. It is a philosophy void of a foundation or principles.

        And of course “effective and efficient” could apply to governments of all sizes. Its a false argument that effective and efficient is the MIDDLE choice between small and large.

        This is how the general public is led to slaughter. The words play to what we perceive as “common sense” and “reasonable”. But the words really don’t fit the philosophical premise under the argument. They are in fact a lie.

        You know, the ladies on this site are starting to become formidable opponents for the Statist mentallity. Great work by all.

        JAC

        • Statists (liberals, fascists, socialists, communists) change the meaning of words until they are almost meaningless. They are all experts at word games.

          F. Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, had an entire chapter on how they change the meaning of words and obfuscate to push their agenda.

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    She’s back. Cindy Sheehan protests the CIA and Dick Cheney’s home.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583199,00.html

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama Ties Passage of Health Insurance Bill to American ‘Decency’

    FOXNews.com

    As Democratic fears increase that health insurance reform could slip away with a crucial vote for a new U.S. senator in Massachusetts, President Obama on Sunday used a church pulpit at a Martin Luther King Day service to say the massive health bill would be a victory for “decency.”

    As Democratic fears increase that health insurance reform could slip away with a crucial vote for a new U.S. senator in Massachusetts, President Obama on Sunday used a church pulpit at a Martin Luther King Day service to say the massive health bill would be a victory for “decency.”

    Speaking to congregants at Vermont Avenue Baptist church in Washington, D.C., before heading north to rally for Attorney General Martha Coakley, Obama said the legislation will help more than 30 million Americans, “men women and children, mothers and fathers” to get insurance.

    “This will be a victory not for Democrats,” Obama said. “It will be a victory for dignity and decency, and for our common humanity. It will be a victory for the United States of America.”

    It was the president’s first visit to a church in Washington, D.C., since Oct. 11, though the White House says Obama attends the Evergreen Chapel in Camp David when he visits the presidential retreat in rural Maryland.

    Democrats are working furiously to reach an agreement on the massive bill as they watch closely the prospect of Coakley losing the seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy to Republican Scott Brown. Brown has pledged to be the 41st vote against health insurance reforms. The election is Tuesday.

    Democrats eyeing the possibility of losing the 60th seat needed to stop a Republican filibuster of the bill have suggested the Senate may try to pass a deal with only 51 votes rather than 60.

    “Reconciliation is an option,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland told Bloomberg Television. Reconciliation is a process that allows the majority to reduce the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts if it means cutting the deficit, which the bill claims to do.

    But liberal Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank say such a plan will kill the deal because it will limit policy changes that aren’t incidental to the deficit cutting. It also requires resubmitting the bill back to the jurisdictional committees for revision.

    On Thursday, Democrats working with President Obama agreed to exempt union workers from the 40 percent tax on high-payout plans that many high-risk workers are provided by employers.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the exemption is aimed at getting more workers into unions.

    “This is just another special deal for a favored constituent,” McConnell told “Fox News Sunday.” “It encourages people, actually, to join unions, presumably, because they would get better treatment from the government on their health care proposal.”

    McConnell noted that only about 7 or 8 percent of the private sector workforce is unionized, which means many workers are left out of the deal-making.

    “What about all the workers who are not in labor unions? Why don’t they get a special deal?” he asked.

    Another negotiation hurdle was cleared last week when Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson told Democratic leaders he no longer wanted the so-called “cornhusker kickback” that would have exempted his state from Medicaid co-payments. A likely replacement plan would bump up the federal money for Medicaid in all states.

    Once a final deal is struck, the bill has to be priced out by the Congressional Budget Office. President Obama has said he wants to keep that under $900 billion over the next 10 years. However, the bill was already pushing that limit before the tax exemptions and increased Medicaid payouts were included.

    But Democratic lawmakers trying to cut a deal are finding the sausage-making is rubbing many Americans the wrong way.

    The latest Fox News poll found that 39 percent of Americans approve of the health care negotiations going on right now while 51 percent approve. That survey of 900 registered voters taken Jan. 12-13 had a margin of error of 3 points.

    A similar Quinnipiac poll taken Jan. 5-12 of 1,767 registered voters found 34 percent mostly approve of the health care deal in the making while 54 percent mostly disapprove.

    Democratic leaders are stressing unity.

    “There are no sticking points. I would say if there’s two words to the — three words toward — finding common ground, that’s what we’re in the process of doing,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday.

    But McConnell, R-Ky., said no matter how the legislation ends up, it will hurt Democrats in November.

    “I think the politics are toxic for the Democrats either way. This arrogant attempt to have the government take over one-sixth of the economy, on the heels of running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student loan business, doubling the national debt in five, tripling it in 10,” McConnell said. “You’ve got … sort of widespread public revulsion to this program.”

    • v. Holland says:

      Funny, democrats talk so much about being fair, a level playing field, more equality for the masses but everything they are doing to pass this bill shows their total disregard for anything even remotely resembling fairness. If they are interested in equality it seems that loyalty is only to their money rich political backers, and when did it become politically advantageous for politicians to demean and criticize the people.

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    President Obama warned Massachusetts voters Sunday from following Republican Scott Brown’s old pickup truck around the state, saying if elected to the U.S. Senate, Brown will drive health care and the rest of the Democratic agenda off track.

    In a quip he repeated several times during a campaign appearance for Democrat Martha Coakley, Obama mocked the man who has been driving a pickup truck around the state, claiming he’s a “lockstep” Republican.

    “Martha’s opponent already is walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans,” Obama said, criticizing Brown for opposing the president’s proposed tax on Wall Street. “She’s got your back, her opponent’s got Wall Street’s back. Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty. Where’s yours?”

    Coakley, whose race against Brown has narrowed to a toss-up as voters zero in on the cost of a massive health insurance bill in Congress, got a boost from the president during a Sunday afternoon rally at Northeastern University in Boston. Democrats are hoping the president’s popularity with young people will reinvigorate the case for Coakley, whose lost her edge to Brown in recent polling.

    Coakley has been criticized for not engaging enough in retail politics and not buying enough advertising. Brown has since moved from riding around the state in his pickup to a tour bus he rides to pancake breakfasts and diners.

    “She let it become a personality contest and that was a mistake,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who has warned that a Coakley loss could kill health insurance reforms Democrats are pushing for in Congress. “Some of us complained about it and we think it’s turned around.”

    But Sunday’s rally was not the typical Obama function. The hall where they gathered was only partly filled, and supporters standing behind the guests of honor appeared caught off guard as an abortion protester and a young boy accompanying him were removed from the building.

    With polling — and momentum — seemingly breaking toward Brown, he has become the target of a scathing attack ad that accuses him of wanting to turn rape victims away from hospitals because as a state senator he supported a conscience clause that would have allowed medical workers to refuse to give “day-after” pills to end pregnancies.

    Another effort by the Democratic National Committee attempts to link Brown to the “birther” movement which claims Obama is not a natural American citizen by noting that during a 2008 conversation about the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol, Brown said he didn’t know whether Obama’s mother was married when he was born.

    “Scott Brown has proven that he shares the values of the fringe right-wing that sprouted birthers and death panels,” said DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse.

    Brown has been gaining ground mainly by discussing the tax implications of the 10-year, $1 trillion health insurance plan congressional Democrats are trying to pass.

    “Regardless of who wins, we have here in effect a referendum on this national health care bill,” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told “Fox News Sunday.” “The American people are telling us, ‘Please don’t pass it'”

    If Brown becomes the 41st Republican in the U.S. Senate, that means Congress may have only a few days to pass a bill that he could effectively stop as the key vote in the filibuster process. However, Republicans have expressed concern that the state’s Democratic leadership could hold up the certification process that would seat Brown in the Senate post held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy for 47 years.

    “The first step is to see what the people of Massachusetts say on Tuesday and then look at the process for seating,” McConnell said. “Whoever it is should be sworn in promptly.”

    The last time a Republican won a Senate seat in the state was in 1972. Special elections are generally lower-turnout races and Democrats are doing what they can to stimulate reliable voters in a state that is about 50 percent unaffiliated.

    Obama is personally popular in the state, but his job approval rating is 48 percent. Only 36 percent of Massachusetts voters approve of the health care bill wending its way through Congress.

    Since taking office a year ago, Obama’s track record for helping other Democrats hasn’t been stellar. He campaigned hard for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine who ran for re-election last year and in Virginia for Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee to replace outgoing Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. Both lost.

    The president was also rebuffed after making a high profile pitch for his home city of Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. After traveling to Copenhagen last fall to personally make the city’s case, the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid on the first ballot.

    Nonetheless, the joint appearance by Obama and Coakley is in many ways marriage of a necessity.

    Coakley is depending on his star power to boost Democratic turnout, particularly among blue collar and minority voters who might not be motivated to vote. And Obama, whose political muscle has weakened amid the still struggling economy and his push for a controversial health care package, will see much of his legislative agenda threatened if Coakley loses.

    “Understand what’s at stake here Massachusetts. It’s whether we’re going forward or going backwards,” the president said, the urgency clear in his voice as he tried to energize his dispirited base in this Democratic stronghold. “If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election.”

    During Obama’s appearance, Brown campaigned in Worcester, a blue collar city in central Massachusetts. He too made light of his personal vehicle.

    “Friends and fellow citizens, I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, I drive a truck and I’m asking for your vote,” he said.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Black Flag said
    January 17, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Anita,

    Flag would be elected then bail out cuz ther is nothing to hang around about. I think thats his premise. (Flag put me in check if needed)

    Close.

    So go one more step: why would I bother placing my name on any ballot?

    So you never have to worry about voting or not for me – you’d never see my name on a ballot to cause the question in the first place.

    HOWEVER, I am a firm believer in the power of MORAL INFLUENCE. I like leaders not a rulers.

    Like Geronimo was with the Apache….

    They followed him because they thought him wise and moral.

    But he didn’t ‘order’ or ‘demand’ – he simply did for himself what he thought was right. The other Apache would say “if Geronimo thinks this is what we should do, then we should do it”

    So when he was heartbroken over the treatment of the US government on his people, he picked up his rifle and said “I am going to fight the US government” – and left his village.

    He did not ask or order anyone else to join him. But they did, anyway, because “if this is what Geronimo thinks we need to do, we should do it”

    Can you imagine his pledge ”

    That isn’t the pledge. It would be more like this:

    “I pledge never to impose my life upon another man, nor accept another man imposing upon my life”

    There is nothing to stand for.

    How about freedom?

    It was THE foundational belief of these United States, remember?

    How bout if we start with a clean slate and all the people can decide what the rules are going to be.

    Anita, how do you know the rule you make is a good rule to make?
    _________________________________________________________________

    I like your analogy Flag, especially the part about Geronimo, he did what he felt he had to do. Who wouldn’t be heart broken the way the government took away their land, and put them on reservations, and then promised to give it back to them, but didn’t.

    Sounds like the government and what they’re doing now. They are slowly taking away our rights, and freedom, telling us where we should live, how much we’re going to get paid, what kind of car we will be driving, and so on and so on, it will never end. They are taking our responsibilities away from us on how we should raise our children, where they should go to school, what they can and can’t eat.

    We have a moral responsibility to ourselves and our family without the interference of the government. When they took the land away from the Native Americans, they knew from the beginning they were not going to give their land back, or let them go back where they were living before and they had planned all along to put them on those reservations without letting them be free.

    My grandfather, My father’s father, married a woman from the Sioux Nations from the Dakotas and Hearing and reading about what happened to the Native Americans and how the government treated them always makes my heart ache. I feel that is what’s happening to us now in the way the government treats the people of the U.S.

  36. Judy Sabatini says:

    Paul Revere and the Raiders Cherokee Nation

  37. Judy Sabatini says:

    — What Is A —

    STATIST?

    Here’s a more detailed explanation of what

    it means to score in the “statist” category.

    Statists tend to favor a great deal of government control over individual behavior and over the economy. That’s why WordIQ.com defines “statism” as “any social or political system in which state intervention plays a major role.” The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as a “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government.”

    This belief in government power doesn’t necessarily make statists undemocratic. Many statists believe government represents the collective will of the people, and they usually argue that a powerful government is necessary to build a better society. As WordIQ.com noted, “supporters of statism argue that [government power] ultimately benefits the individual himself, since the public good involves the personal good of the maximum number of individuals.”

    Statists support far less individual liberty than any other political ideology. Statists tend to distrust the free market, advocate centralized planning of the economy (including high taxes, strict regulation of business, and even government ownership or control of major industries), oppose “alternative” lifestyles that go against the beliefs of a majority of citizens, and downplay the importance of civil liberties. In short, statists consistently doubt that economic liberty and individual freedom are necessary, practical, or workable in today’s world.

    Some statists call their political beliefs populism, socialism, or communitarianism. At the extreme, undemocratic end of the statist spectrum, statism also encompasses communism, fascism, and other forms of totalitarianism.

  38. TexasChem says:
  39. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All

    Before I leave for the night, I would like to say something here. When I first came here, I didn’t know what to expect, but the more I came, the more I liked what I was reading, and the more involved I became.

    I have learned so much here from everybody, and I was one of those who thought that the government was a good thing, and they were suppose to look out for us, and do right for us and by us. But I have learned how wrong was I was. Of course, it had to do with the upbringing I had too, just like with learning to take responsibility for one self. Oh, I know, I’m still naive on certain things, and that’s where you all came in at. You have helped me to grow, and to understand a lot about what you say and you have also helped me understand by putting things in simple layman’s terms where I can. I know I have my stubborn streak about things and about certain issues, and again , that’s where you people have helped me.

    There are those certain ones that I would like to mention by name who have really helped me along the way. They are G-Man, Black Flag, USWeapon, JAC, Peter, Bottom Line, Birdman, D13, Life of Illusion and so many others. But, I feel you have worked with me to help me understand the way government works and why they way work the way they do. You have given me your patients and I’m sure at times frustrations, and visa versa may I add.

    With that being said, I would also like to take this opportunity to say thank you to USWeapon for having this site, and for letting us all speak out about our thoughts, feelings, agreements and disagreements. I believe, you sir, are really a God send to us all.

    Thank you all for listening to me for what I felt I had to and wanted to say.

    God Bless you all.

    Always and Forever.

    Judy

  40. Birdman,
    New post on Money over at my blog in response to the article.

  41. VH and CP! 😆 I love a challenge! Bring it on!

    I must say that is close to sleep time. So I won’t be awake for much longer.

    G!

%d bloggers like this: