Tuesday Night Open Mic for March 2, 2010

We reach open mic in what has been an interesting week of discussion thus far. This week we will be discussing, at least in my offerings, the ultra racists Farrakhan and his epiphany that those on the right want to make Obama a one term President. We will also discuss Pelosi and her call to ignore the voice of the people and do what the party says. We will throw in a little gun control discussion and I will re-hash the article that Mathius noted yesterday discussing the supposed link between political affiliation and an individual’s IQ score. I must say that I was a bit disappointed yesterday that no one attempted to find a solution to the problem. The tactic instead seemed to be to attempt to rule my analysis of the offending article as theatrics, as though I was the one calling for Congressional action. As we look forward to the upcoming series, the intent is to attempt to find solutions to the problems that are presented. Solutions that will work. I so often get accused of not often enough having discussions about how to fix the problems. Yet when I do, I find that I am treated like Republicans at a health care summit. My discussion about solutions is ignored and we instead focus on the messenger.


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    ‘White Right’ Wants Obama to Be One-Term President, Farrakhan Says

    Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan claims the “white right” is trying to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

    The 76-year-old says the stalling of health care legislation is proof.

    Farrakhan is addressing followers of the Chicago-based movement that has embraced black nationalism since its founding. Sunday’s keynote speech is before an estimated 20,000 people on the last day of the group’s Saviours Day convention.

    Farrakhan has vigorously supported Obama. Even so, Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan before his election because of Farrakhan’s past statements that were considered anti-Semitic.

    During the hourslong speech, Farrakhan boasted of being bigger than a prophet.

    Article presented in entirety from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/28/white-right-wants-obama-term-president-farrakhan-says/

    I was talking about this with a friend of mine who is black, asking for his thoughts. He shared my disgust over how the left continues to use race as an issue to divide the electorate so that the poor don’t unite and actually hold those in power accountable. Like Dems vs Reps, the goal is to have poor white and poor blacks spend so much time fighting with each other that they don’t ever question the politicians. It also conveniently gives the politicians a convenient scapegoat, the horrible rich white man who oppresses all.

    What made me laugh harder than anything about this article is the fact that Farrakhan, in his infinite wisdom, points out that the “white right” wants to make sure that Obama is a one term President. I have news for you genius, everyone on the right, whether they are white, black, yellow, brown or purple, wants to make sure that Obama is a one term President. See that is how the political system works. Those on the right always want those on the left to lose. I am white. I don’t want him to have a second term. But it has nothing to do with his skin.

    I continue to get frustrated with the constant claims of racism that continue to stream from the left media and leftist leaders. At this point I am extremely frustrated with it, not just a little miffed. Olbermann the other day with his tea party rant, Garofalo with her madness, Reid, Pelosi, hell everyone. It doesn’t matter where you go or who you listen to from the left, it seems that the overwhelming message is that the GOP is a racist party, that the tea party folks are racists, that anyone opposed to a Democratic proposal is a racist.

    I have to ask those of you on the left…. when will this stop? When will those of you who are sane enough to know better begin to hold those you listen to accountable for this horrible claim of racism at every turn? When will you start taking a stand for what is right here? Because this claim is unfounded and it is doing great damage to the country. The left, through the use of this tactic, is setting race relations back by decades. They are convincing uneducated black Americans that most of America is still opposed to them because of the color of their skin, when you know that this is not the case. If it were people who I listened to I would call them out. I have called in and told three different talk radio personalities when they have claimed something that was wrong and detrimental. Why won’t those on the left do the same?

    • Good Morning!

      I have been accused of racism because I dislike Obama’s political views. I found that I can address it very firmly, without angering those who claim racism. I begin by saying that I’m not a racist and can prove it. That gets the “go ahead” response, to which I do the following: I raise all the good points I can think of, good father, good husband, great speaker etc. I then remind the accuser that Obama has a black father and a white mother, so I attribute all his “good” points to his “black half” and then say it’s his “socialist progressive white half” that I can’t stomach. Very effective, and with no option for response by the accuser.

      Peace and Live Free!


    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – I continue to get frustrated that folks like you think idiots like Farrakhan somehow represent the left. He is a fringe element – no more and no less.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Echoing that point exactly. Ray, you beat me to it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        But you must remember that Farrakhan CLAIMS to not only represent the left, but the “Nation of Islam”, and as such he is widely quoted in the MSM fairly often (pretty much anytime an event like this happens).

        As such, I think it is fair game to discuss what he says.

        If the national media give him a pulpit from which to preach, then the people are certainly free to dissect and analyze what he says.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Peter – I don’t disagree with you Peter. I honestly didn’t see much on this in the media but I have been out of sorts for a bit. I wonder if his pulpit is more so to see what stupid things he says – because that my friend – is the news!

      • Perhaps at one time he was, Ray. But we hear so much of this crap from all over that I don’t think it’s OK to just chalk it off as fringe left. Perhaps the formerly fringe is now just the left? The fact that you say you haven’t heard much of this event in the media might mean its no longer a big deal, but now is acceptable?

        • Richmond Spitfire says:

          Posting for emailed comments.

          • My dearest Spitfire.

            emailing a Great Big Hug to you.

            How is your battle with the banking world?

            Safety ON
            Best to you and yours

            • Richmond Spitfire says:

              Hello Dear JAC,

              Trying to recover from a bout of Broncitis and Sinus Infection — haven’t felt well for several weeks now.

              Banking is doing well. In the midst of a huge project.

              Court is upcoming this month! I will be so glad to be past it.

              Many big hugs back to you!


      • USWeapon says:


        I don’t see Farakhan as a real representative of the left. My frustration comes from this just being another example of the race game being played by the left. And it is being played by the left. The Ratigan piece below. Olbermann against the tea party. The intentional cropping of the guy at the rally with the assault rifle. It goes on and on. The left is constantly and consistently playing the game of screaming racist at everyone who disagrees with them. You cannot possibly deny that.

        And the only answer I get from those on the left is that those doing it are the fringe, and don’t represent you. Well they say they represent you. Whether they do or not, why are not the regular (read as non-fringe) folks on the left not calling them on it regularly? Why is it merely met with a shrug and never challenged?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – ratings for MSNBC should count somewhat to showing the breadth of their support. Dylan Ratigan is an asshole and should be fired. KeithO is an entertainer who isn’t very entertaining. LouisF – I’m disappointed anyone is wasting time even covering the garbage that comes out of his mouth.

          • USWeapon says:

            And those are all fair points, similar to the ones I make about Hannity and crew. Except of course the ratings part, since Fox News gets the lion’s share of viewers as the only one offering an alternative to the left leaning corps.

            And we can definitely agree that Dylan Ratigan is an asshole.


            • Ray Hawkins says:

              At what point does anyone say Ratigan is not “Mainstream”?

              • USWeapon says:

                At the point where he no longer has a voice on a major news network. Hannity, Beck, et al, all get a voice on Fox News, making them mainstream when they shouldn’t be. Ratigan and Olbermann have the same deal.

    • SUFA

      For those that think these were just the ranting of some leftwing Loon on the fringe I offer you EXIBIT B:


      PLEASE, make sure you read the various comments on the article and the “lefts” view of teapartiers, republicans, and libertarians.

      Does that sound like FRINGE to you?

      Sorry to bring such an irritating article to the forum. I know everyone seemed to be having such a nice day.

      I’ll make it up to you all later.


      • Cesca is in cohoots with Ratigan. He also needs to SSSShhuuush!

      • Displaced Okie says:

        After reading the article and a lot of the comments I am so glad to be a part of this little web-based community. If USW wrote an article so off base and riddled with such amazingly bizarre leaps of logic he would be “skinned” alive by the readers here. And if any us were to make comments like those the people here -even the ones on the same “side” wouldn’t tolerate it. I would just like to thank everyone here for keeping at least on place where ideas can be debated respectfully alive on internet.

        p.s. how fun would it be to read somebody like BF, JAC, PeterB or Mathius(on an issue he disagree with them on, of course 🙂 ) shred Cesca or any of those commenters’ ideas in a debate here.

        • Okie

          The only problem with your idea is that those folks really aren’t interested in hearing or learning anything from others.

          I tried those other sites for about a month before finding this one. I rarely comment anywhere else. Sometimes, but not that often.

          I do wonder how much of the rest of the country is aligned with those folks. Also wonder the same for those hard core conservatives at places like Red State or Malkin’s site. I am so sick of the term Libtard from those folks I could spit.

          Hows the fight going these days Okie? Hope all is well.

          Keep your back to the wall and yer powder dry.

          • Displaced Okie says:

            Oh, I am quite aware that those folks (both sides)have no interest in actually exploring their principles or debate, but you have to admit it would entertaining.
            I’m like you- this is the only place I post (although, not as much lately due to a busy work schedule). Anyway, the fight is still goin’ well here-still preaching the virtues of libertarianism and the return to more federalist system to any LEO’s that will listen. 🙂 . I think some have actually start to explore their principles( which is all I can or would want to ask for)

            Stay safe and live Free, my friend.
            Displaced Okie

            • USWeapon says:

              And I am honored to find that when you have the time to post, you both choose to do it here. It speaks volumes about the environment that everyone here creates.


        • USWeapon says:

          Interestingly I have challenged Cesca to debate the issues with me several times. He refuses, which is what I expect from someone who knows they are spouting BS. I was honored to have him attack me in his articles in the past. Now I only get to argue with him on Twitter, lol. But at least he responds there, albeit with worthless rhetoric.


      • USWeapon says:

        I couldn’t help myself and had to add some comments of my own. It is scary to see how many lemmings simply accept as fact that the tea party crowd is about nothing other than racism.

        Cesca is about as big a piece of trash as I can imagine. Only eclipsed by Olbermann.

      • JACKSON says:

        I loved how his first “source” for the racist claim is a photo shopped picture.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Pelosi: Lawmakers Should Sacrifice Jobs for Health Care

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

    Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”

    “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

    It took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, she said, “and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.”

    It’s unclear whether Pelosi’s remarks will embolden or chill dozens of moderate House Democrats who face withering criticisms of the health care proposal in visits with constituents and in national polls. Republican lawmaker unanimously oppose the health care proposals, and many GOP strategists believe voters will turn against Democrats in the November elections.

    Pelosi, from San Francisco, is more liberal than scores of her Democratic colleagues. But she generally walks a careful line between urging them to back left-of-center policies and giving them a green light to buck party leaders to improve their re-election hopes

    Her comments to ABC, in the interview released Sunday, seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall — maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.

    “Time is up,” she said. “We really have to go forth.”

    Her comments somewhat echoed those of President Obama, who said at the end of last week’s bipartisan health care summit that Congress should act on the issue and let voters render their verdicts. “That’s what elections are for,” he said.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/28/pelosi-lawmakers-sacrifice-jobs-health-care/

    OK, I have to address this because I believe it points directly to what the party leaders believe, on both sides of the aisle. But in this case it is being said out loud by a leader on the far left.

    What Pelosi is saying, if I interpret it correctly, is this: I know that your constituents may not want this legislation. And because they don’t want it, you may lose your re-election because you went against the will of your constituents. But I don’t care. Do it anyway.

    In essence, we have a blatant example of the Speaker of the House simply coming out and saying that she expects members of her party to vote for what the party wants, regardless of what those member’s constituents want. It is a back door way of saying screw the people, we don’t care what they want. What matters is the party. Ignore your constituents and follow the party directive. Ignoring your constituents is the right thing to do. It is what is expected of you.

    I don’t know of any other way to interpret her message. I am open to listening if there is another point of view. But it is hard to interpret it another way. She knows the people don’t want it. She knows that the Democrats in question will lose their re-election for voting against what the people want. But she expects them to do it anyway. Is there any way around coming to the conclusion that she is blatantly saying “screw your constituents, do what the party says”?

    I don’t pretend that this is not the mindset of party leaders on both sides of the aisle. But I don’t recall hearing it publicly voiced like this in the past. It is always thinly veiled when presented anyway. With the statement usually included that says the people will thank us for doing this later. It further points to the arrogance on Capitol Hill. That belief that Americans aren’t smart enough to think this through themselves, so the politicians in Congress need to save us from ourselves.

    Tell me where I am wrong.

    • This sort of statement is a bad thing veiled in a good point. The good point is that congresspeople should not be so obsessed with reelection that they use their voting as a campaign for themselves. The bad part is that she is telling them to go against their constituents to support the party and therefore the president. Sounds to me like the good point is completely obliterated, because instead of using a vote for their own campaign, they’re using it for the president’s.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I would interpret Pelosi’s statement very differently on this point. Pelosi is recognizing there is opposition to the bill, but as we’ve debated here in the past its unclear where that opposition comes from. There are plenty of polls on both sides — majority opposition to the bill; majority support for the individual propositions within the bill. Some of the opposition to the bill comes from not understanding what is in the bill (due, in part, to political spin). Some of the opposition to the bill comes from those on the left for its failure to include a public option.

      Many of the Dems won election by touting health care reform as a primary goal. Assuming there is at least perceived support for many programs within the bill, and further assuming that the Dems were placed in power at least in part to enact health care reform, then yes, the Dems should proceed. If the people are angry with the Dems over it, they won’t win reelection.

      In other words proceeding on health care reform is not necessarily going against their constituents. It can be perceived as finally standing up to the Repubs and misperceptions thought to be reality by many Americans, and forcing a vote on legislation these same Dems had campaigned on.

      • whitewater911 says:

        I have to disagree. Healthcare reform does not necessarily mean wholesale reorganization. What is wrong with incremental change? The biggest problem with healthcare, by general consensus, is cost. Show me anywhere in the proposed bill that does anything to reduce costs. Just because some of the costs would be assumed by the government or the industry, doesn’t mean we don’t pay for it. Every cost comes back to us, the citizen, in the form of taxes or price increases. If you think I don’t understand something, explain it to me. that is your job as my representative. I vote for a candidate in the hopes that they listen to what I have to say, not what they think is best for me.

      • 🙄 Here we go again. You sure have a lot of reasons for opposition in your own response. Ditto to the amount of (false) assumptions.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Given the assumptions I laid out it would make sense to proceed regardless of a few polls demonstrating opposition to the bill. The majority of Americans do support many of the proposals in the bill according to other polls. So why not proceed?

          Is it a perfect bill, no of course not. But to many, myself included, it is better than what we have now.

          • That deserves this 🙄 🙄

            Fine. If you want to proceed in such a big hurry would you have a problem with a step by step approach instead of full speed ahead. Start by passing the parts that we can all support. Then have all leftover areas televised before voting on them?

            BTW: what is the big hurry?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I would support a step by step approach if done properly; to me, each step within a step by step approach would still have to be relatively comprehensive. The problem with taking a pure piecemeal approach is that it cannot address all of the competing interests and concerns at once – only comprehensive legislative can do that.

              For instance, if we only eliminate pre-existing coverage rules that could easily have the affect of having individuals drop their coverage. After all, they can always obtain coverage later when they actually need it. This could have the further affect of driving up insurance premiums for those that remain on their policies.

              • USWeapon says:

                I don’t think it does have to be comprehensive at each step. That is a mistake in tactic. Each step only has to incrementally improve the system. And they can build off of each other.

                But debate each incremental step on its merits. What is interesting is that if you read the bills, we are so busy arguing over the mainstream stuff, we are completely missing a lot of BS that is being included quietly. THAT is the problem with these giant, complex, “comprehensive” bills. They don’t allow the debate on each topic to be done on merit.


                • Buck The Wala says:

                  My problem with an incremental approach though is what if we make one, or two, incremental changes and then fail to take the next, necessary, step? By doing so we could make the problem worse.

                  • USWeapon says:


                    But I would argue that by taking the wrong approach on a “comprehensive” plan, we could make the problem worse times ten.

                    Little worses are better than comprehensive worses…. and as an added benefit, we would actually be able to understand the smaller bills and debate them on merit.

              • To paraphrase O’Reilly:

                Anytime someone says “comprehensive” anything it means they don’t have a clue what they want. It’s just hot air.

      • Buck

        “and further assuming that the Dems were placed in power at least in part to enact health care reform, then yes, the Dems should proceed. If the people are angry with the Dems over it, they won’t win reelection.”

        Why should they? Oh could it be because they are just sooooo much smarter than those of us they are supposed to represent. Is it because they know whats best for us? Nobody knows exactly what issues played what weight in the election of a politician. Look at Obama. It was all about Hope and Change aka Anti-Bush. Most folks never listened to his actual proposals, no matter how broadly stated. Same goes for Congressmen. I am guessing those that were elected primarily on a promise to reform health care know it and have been voting YES all along. Its the ones who are not sure that pose Pelosi a problem. Saw some nice rhetoric the other day about “cleaning the blue dogs” out of the Dem party because they are “destroying the party”.

        Regardless of the REASON the public opposes the fact is that most do or at best it is a split decision. This is VERY BIG stuff about to be put on us. IF you believe in a representative constitutional republic then this should STOP until there is broad public support.

        It is time to take it to the public and allow them to digest it fully. If they can’t then strip it down until they can. At least enough to gain a much clearer majority. I think a lot of opposition is not the “SPIN” but the DISCONNECT between the cause/effect and proposed cure. No one, and I mean no one, has ever presented a coherent summation of what is causing health care costs to skyrocket. The debate has all been about insurance. Once we know what the cause is, then we can evaluate the proposed “cure” to see if it truly is connected.

        To do anything else is an admission that what we now have is an Oligarchy. We are no longer self governed by controlled by the intellectual and moral elites.

        Those with true courage would be screaming to STOP this madness and move slower. But you see, the goal is to get something before the mid-term elections. Something that can be modified later to get the rest of what is on the wish list. There is NO HONOR among these thieves.

        Best to you this fine mornin’

        • Buck The Wala says:

          JAC, you know that a representative constitutional republic does not require broad public support. It requires simple majority support.

          • whitewater911 says:

            Then ensure you have a majority supporting it before you move hastily forward. I believe the hurry up approach is not the way to go in ANY issue as big as this. No wonder the general populace is confused… There has been alot of double-speak going on in Congress. The Rep’s say that the American people don’t like the comprehensive legislation presented (mostly true), and the Dem’s respond that Americans want healthcare fixed (also mostly true). Two sides of the same coin – Let’s spin it and see who the gullible citizens will believe.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Or forget the spin on both sides and pass the bill already.

              Our check on the system is not that our representatives must vote in accordance with our response to a given poll; our check is the ability to vote them out of office for, among other things, failing to represent us.

              • This is a BS argument. If health care is passed, dems will likely loose a good deal of seats, but there is no way health care reform will be reversed. Once you have people depending on the government for something, you’d be portrayed as a heartless … for removing the program. In that case, we have no check. Voting them out won’t change the things they’ve passed. In order to truly do the will of the people, they cannot have a “mandate,” but must follow the will of their constituents.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  I call BS on that — Of course the bill can be reversed or tweaked or what have you after being passed.

                  You can’t argue that passing the bill is bad because it doesn’t represent the will of the people, but reversing the bill will not occur because it too won’t represent the will of the people.

                  Which one is it — do the people support the bill or not?

                  • Buck

                    Can you think of any major “entitlement” legislation that has been “reversed”?

                    Sorry young fella.

                    The BS Flag is yours to hold. Suggest you have it framed and put with your other trophies. You know, the ones you got for “participating”.

                    Sorry, couldn’t resist. Go ahead, you can flag me for unsportsmanlike conduct. I can take it.



                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      I do enjoy my BS flag hanging behind me in my office!

                      But seriously, just because no entitlement legislation has been repealed does not mean that a subsequent Congress cannot repeal this one — also lets remember that most of the provisions won’t even go into effect for several years which would probably make it even easier to act to repeal the bill next term.

                  • Buck The Wala

                    Hee hee hee. I love it when they crawl into the trap on their own.

                    “But seriously, just because no entitlement legislation has been repealed does not mean that a subsequent Congress cannot repeal this one —”

                    So the fact something has NEVER happened is not justification for ruling out that it can happen. Correct?

                    So, just because an Anarchist form of govt doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it won’t work. Correct?

                    Careful now, don’t step on yourself backing up.

                    Hee, hee, hee.

                    !!SNAP!! That is the sound of your own undoing young friend. Don’t move. Someone will come along and let you FREE.

                    If you struggle you will only hurt yourself more.

                    Kathy, turns out you were right. Was feeling a little fiesty.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Ah JAC, I believe you are confusing me for Mathius in your utter joy! 🙂

                      I dont’ recall having made that argument myself.

                      (As I jump over the completely obvious trap lying on the floor and continue on my merry way…)

                    • Buck

                      Oh yes, DENIAL.

                      The greatest defensive strategy ever devised.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      No denial here. Unless I actually did make that argument. Then, maybe denial.

          • Buck

            I am fully aware of that. But you are pushing something TOTAL bill that does not have majority support.

            Your rationalization is that PARTS of the bill have majority support so go ahead and pass the TOTAL bill.

            NO. Pass only the parts that have majority support. But you see, unless support is “broad” then you will not get consistant majority.

            Your rationale for passing now boggles the mind. I guess that is the typical view of the young modern lefty. You think everything can just be “tweeked” to fix it later.

            There is nothing that requires “comprehensive reform”. That is a rationalization to make the final move towards govt owned and operated health care. That has been the agenda of the Democrat Party ever since FDR backed away from getting it passed.

            When Politicians start screaming for “comprehensive” what they really mean is they all want some cookies attached. Solving one or two issues doesn’t allow for piling on as many cookies and certainly makes it harder to HIDE where you put them.

          • Buck

            On new note. Listened to a speaker last night claim that we now live in under a

            “judicial oligarchy”.

            He accurately pointed out that the Judical branch was not given the authority to make laws by their judgments nor to “interpret” the constitution.

            But of course, he ignored the fact that the constitution pretty much gave Congress the authority to determine what the court’s authorities were.

            He also noted that the SCOTUS and other Federal judges ARE NOT appointed for live but only for a period of good behavior. Which is true by the way. But Congress has ignored its responsibility to monitor “good behavior” in recent decades. Thus the number of judicial “impeachments” has declined.

            The result is that Congress uses the Courts as a shield. Defering to legal rulings and then throwing up their hands saying there is nothing they can do.

            I know first hand this is what has happened in environmental law. But had never thought of it in a broader context.

            Any how, it was a very interesting presentation on what is authorized by the Constitution from another lay scholar. Thought I would share the punchline with you.

            Good day mate.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Judicial oligarchy. Interesting concept, but not in the least.

              Just because Congress does not act to overturn more judicial opinions does not mean that Congress cannot act in this regard.

              It is true that the concept of ‘judicial review’ is not enshrined in the Constitution itself. Its one of those pesky penumbras I spoke about the other day – of course this one came from the Founding Fathers themselves back in 1803.

              “Good behavior” in my mind is for life, unless they start acting ‘badly’ which would allow for their impeachment. Not sure how else that can be defined. What is good behavior though? That’s much more difficult.

              You know who the speaker was? I’d be curious to look him up later on.

              Hope the day is treating you well!

              • Buck

                He was a retired legislator here in Montana. As I said, a lay scholar. Doubt you would find him on the net.

                Remember, not all the founders agreed with the SCOTUS authority to determine Constitutionality. Many of the Anti Federalists expressed dire concerns about the power of the federal courts. They saw great danger. Basically they predicted an eventual situation where the courts says this is the Law and Congress says NO and the court rules that Congress is Wrong, again and again and again. Thus the will of the people are thwarted by the judicial oligarchy.

                I have always had concerns about the judicial branch. It is the single branch with almost final say where the people have little say in the matter. It is the one place we are most vulnerable to the intellect, integrity and view points of those holding office.

                It is a great weak spot in my view, but I have no other solution except to perhaps put limits on terms of office. Something that would overlap the other terms to reduce political manipulations. Of course at the state level I think most states hold judicial elections. I know that is not feasible at the federal level.

                Acting badly was to be determined by Congress. So if judges were acting against Congress’ view of the constitution they could be impeached. A check and balance.

                The big point, which I think is true to a large extent, but not complete YET, is that there really is no check and balance on the judiciary. Because THEY determine what is legal and not legal, and in some cases create law by their ruling. Thus taking the legislative function without penalty. We are closer to the warnings of the anti-federalist today than ever before.

                I agree that the lack of action by Congress is the reason for the existing situation. As I said, that has been my experience in the environmental arena.

                Congress doesn’t have the courage to act or fess up to their true desires so they hide behind ever growing govt power created by judical “interpretations”. Then they can blame the courts. Yet it is they who hold the final say because they can rewrite the law to address the legal fallacies. BUT THEY DON’T.

                Perhaps that is why we should REDUCE the number of Lawyers holding seats in Congress??????

                Day has been great so far. A little chilly today but it is only first of March.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  GASP! The Founding Fathers disagreed on certain points!?? Never saw that coming…

                  I feel you’re still laughing too hard from your ‘trap’ above. 🙂

                  Of course they didn’t all agree – some were completely against this ‘judicial review’ nonsense, others believed it to have been their intent from the start, as clear as day. I fall into the latter camp, you into the former.

                  It is not thwarting the will of the people and establishing a judicial oligarchy though. Remember, the constitution itself spells out a way for the people to override the constitution — the amendment process. It must be left to some other independent body to put a stop to any unconstitutional laws passed by a simple majority.

                  Acting badly is still to be determined by Congress – it is the essence of the impeachment process. Mere disagreement on constitutional interpretation though cannot and should not form a basis for ‘acting badly’ though.

                  • Buck

                    “I fall into the latter camp, you into the former.”

                    Actually I fall into your camp. I agree with the hazards posed by the anti federalists. But I also thought Jefferson’s anger at SCOTUS review was irrational. It seemed almost counter intutitive that a SCOTUS review of laws to determine their constitutionality would eventually come into play.

                    I have often wondered, however, why they were so detailed in the enumerated powers of Congress and the President but seemed to skim over the judicial branch. Everyone seemed more concerned over the courts usurpation of Common Law and imposition on State judiciary than anything else. I wonder if there was a broadly understood and accepted view of what the judiciaries role was and thus it wasn’t worthy of describing in the constitution.

                    I doubt any of them would be happy with where it eventually led to however. While they did not Micro manage via the Constitution this idea that they expected future generations to expand the breadth and powers of govt without AMENDMENT is laughable. You have to ignore the entire context of the Revolution to reach such a conclusion.

                    Where the rub comes (quasi oligarchy) is that SCOTUS now determines the “meaning of the constitution” itself when they rule on the legality of laws passed by a simple majority.

                    Thus it takes 75% of the states to overturn a decision made by 5 people in black robes.

                    If Congress decides that judges are acting outside the Constitution is that not “acting badly”. They took an oath to protect and defend that document. I recognize the hazards of such a view.

                    By the way. Remember my referance to citizen’s grand jury? This was one place it was suggested that the Grand Jury was supposed to function as the last arbiter.

                    Although, disagreement over legal interpretations would not fall under such a remedy in my mind, nor should it. But it would allow removal of a judge who constantly MADE law in the view of the citizens, against the authority granted by the constitution.

                    It could also be used to prosecute and jail Congressmen who violated their oath or broke the law while in office.

                    I will be attending a meeting next month with Mr. Natelson and hope to discuss this grand jury concept with him. Then I will try to develop something for us all to kick around on the idea. I expect him to dismiss it as a figment of the imagination tied to the Militia movement. But alas, I might be surprised.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Interesting points. Based on your comments I took it that you were against the concept of judicial review in its entirety; sorry for that. I didn’t mean to mischaracterize your views.

                      Concerning judicial review, wouldn’t that necessarily involve the ability to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? How else can you declare a law unconstitutional if you can’t also define what is constitutional? The living document theory is a valid interpretation of the Constitution, held by some of the Founding Fathers (just like strict constructionism was also held by some Founding Fathers). I don’t see how taking a valid, widely recognized view of the Constitution could be considered acting outside the scope of the Constitution and ‘acting badly’.

                      You do provide an interesting theory as to why the powers of the judiciary were not nearly as spelled out as the legislature and executive. Not sure if that’s the case, as I haven’t come across that before. Ask Mr. Natelson, maybe he has a response. To me, the judiciary tries cases (the types of cases they can hear are spelled out) and it determines the constitutionality of actions taken by the other branches (judicial review). Makes sense to me.

                      How would you enumerate specific powers of the judiciary?

    • Bottom Line says:

      It’ not about constituency.

      It’s about “Health-Control”.

      It’s worth it to take one for the team(Demopublican Socialist Party) by giving up your seat after only 1 term…as long as you get it passed into law.

      They WILL pass the “Health-Control Reform Bill” …ASAP…damn the consequences.

      mmmm-mmmm-mmmm- Hope and change for AmeriKa!

    • USW….even though I know it is going to hurt and hurt bad, I think it would be a great wake up call for the rest of this country for the Progressives fall on their sword. Let the lemmings run to the sea and drown. I have admitted as to being right of center but way far left of the religious right. I am not a greater good theorist at all…I want people to get off their asses and work and quit complaining about how they are discriminated against and that they are entitled to this and entitled to that…etc etc.

      I believe that the health bill should be scrapped in its entirety and started over, fully televised, point by point and each point voted on and solved before the next one. I don’t care if it takes one year or more but point by point. The Progressive movement has made a large mistake in thinking that Obama got a mandate or that a mandate was sent. There was no mandate for any of this. (But this has been argued before). However….

      I am convinced, as I now work in the health industry, that pushing this health care through like it is, will significantly raise the premiums and there will be less coverage. I am already a member of the Nationalized Health Care with the VA and it sucks. Nine month waits for doctors and physicals, three month waits for blood tests, surgeries scheduled 12 and 24 months in advance (Most of us go to private health care to get major surgeries because of the wait times), paper work that is tripled, and that is in an area where we have a major VA hospital and four clinic locations.

      The doctors and nurses that I have talked to are all against this by a margin of 100 to 1. What will happen, according to the experts that I have talked to, will be the barring of patients from private health care, doctors already not taking medicare and medicaid, other doctors getting ready to drop any coverage that is government controlled, and, according to them, if anything is mandated that they have to take certain patients..they will simply retire.

      My prediction is this….(1) Premiums will rise threefold or more, (2)less personnel in the medical field, (3) private health hospitals becoming more restrictive, (4) doctors running credit checks and refusing to treat anyone that does not pass their requirements, and (5) no one or most no one will take any government insurance such as medicaid or medicare.

      When this happens, then the next thing will be a clamoring from the people on nationalized health care about the private industry discriminating against them and that it is not fair….they will petition the progressives to eliminate private health care.

      As far as raising the taxes to pay for all of this and the rest of their pork…..don’t think for a minute that those of us who have managed to become successful also know how to change things to avoid excessive taxation….the middle and poor class will be hit twice as hard as they are now….and that is a shame…but that is the Progressive way.

      So..follow Pelosi and Reid right into the abyss. That may be what this country needs to get back on sound footing.

      • Don’t forget they want direct access to your bank accounts, all your IRS financial records, and a natiional healthcare database, so they have access to all your medical records. Best practices (statistics) will determine which procedures are paid for or even offered. National ID cards will be issued. These are some of the pesky little details in the fine print that are not being discussed openly. No we hear that Obama want federal review of insurance rates.

        I fear that this will do nothing but drive up cost, reduce quality and drive suppiers (insurance and professionals) our to the business. Young Americans will shun medical school so we will import our doctors. Already India and Thailand have thriving medical facilities catering to westerners at a fraction of the cost of US facilities.

        We should go back and start over on this and concentrate on cost reduction not “insurance reform”. Where are costs coming from and why are they increasing. Find the root cause of the problem. Don’t attack the symptoms, leave that to the doctors.

    • We will hear from The One today on what his next plan is. I think it is very telling that something isn’t right just by the way it’s all a big hurry. The rush to get votes on such a massive undertaking and the unwillingness to even consider piecemeal actions is a red flag.

      Desperate people do desperate things and we are seeing it more and more every day. The awakening of the people is something they didn’t expect and the clock is ticking. Pelosi’s call for the Dems to become kamikaze politicians is just more evidence of this.

    • v. Holland says:

      Obama said he was gonna change how business in Washington was done-if he had gone slow and actually had this be a slow thought out process-his popularity would have increased-of course I personally never believed Congress would allow that but the American people would have been happy with him but I don’t see where he even tried.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Supreme Court Guns Case Preview

    The battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear a case that is a follow-up to their historic ruling in 2008 that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Sunday, Fox’s Shannon Bream spoke with a couple of key figures in the gun rights debate: lawyer Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Gura argued and won D.C. v. Heller two years ago and will appear before the Court Tuesday.

    Even though the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, that historic ruling overturning a Washington D.C. gun ban doesn’t apply to the 50 states. On Tuesday, the justices will be asked to do just that. The legal term is called “incorporation” but all that means is extending the federal protections of the Bill of Rights–including the Second Amendment–to the states. The case challenges Chicago’s restrictive gun law. Dozens of groups have added their voices to the case including the National Rifle Association and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.

    Gura represents Otis McDonald who is challenging the Chicago law. “Virtually the entire Bill of Rights has been applied against states and local governments. The Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights. It protects a meaningful individual right which is very important to people in this country and throughout American history,” Gura said.

    Henigan says the case is Gura’s to lose based on the premise that the same five judges who were part of the Heller majority will join together and carry the day in this case. But Henigan emphasizes another part of the Heller decision where he says “the Court implicitly recognized that there is still broad legislative authority to enact reasonable laws to reduce the risk from that right. And we hope the Court gives similar assurances in this case.”

    Article presented in its entirety from: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/28/supreme-court-guns-case-preview/

    We reach yet another case involving the second amendment. As many of the long time readers here know, I am a supporter of gun rights. In fact, I border on being a radical supporter of gun rights. I believe that people should be able to own any gun they like, automatic, assault, whatever. The penalty should be for using the gun in a way that violates law. If you use an assault weapon to kill someone, you go to jail. Any outlawing of guns simply means the only ones with those guns are those willing to ignore the law. There is no rational argument against the fact that gun laws do nothing but ensure that the only ones with guns are criminals.

    So now we enter into this case, where the basic gist is that since the Heller decision was applied to Washington DC, it obviously set a precedent for how the court interprets the law. Therefore, the court is being asked to rule that all 50 states should be subject to the decision reached in Heller. I have zero issue with incorporation being used in this situation.

    I am open to debate though. Can anyone give me a reason why this should not move forward and be applied to all 50 states?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      The same law should be applied to all fifty states – like it or not the 2nd Amendment is cornerstone – the issues surrounding this will not go away any time soon.

      “There is no rational argument against the fact that gun laws do nothing but ensure that the only ones with guns are criminals.”

      Um – that actually is not a rational argument USW. You’re pre-supposing that all gun laws are the same (they are not) and you are also stating as fact that if in following gun laws I legally obtain and own a gun then I am a criminal (I am not). Sorry – cannot cede the logical high ground you feel us liberals should not step foot on. Just sayin’ 🙂

      • Ray

        I thought you were a self proclaimed “moderate”.

        Good Morning to You

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          JAC – my political views are complicated. On 2nd Amendment I lean fairly far to the left.

      • Top o the morning to ya Ray….look at USW’s issue this way….”If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.

        Ok, I want you to sit down for this one….you won’t be able to handle this from me…BUT……(are you ready)…Texas has one of the most liberal gun procedures ever…and, being a fourth generation Texan…and a gun nut….it is too liberal. We have a waiting period of…..none. You can buy any weapon you want in a gun show or you can resell a weapon here to an individual without any background checks….at a gun show. (And we have one (gun show) every weekend, almost).

        Down here, we can own a stinger missile if we so desire….but the question is…why? I do not fear low flying buzzards. I do not think that owning a stinger missile would have stopped the trade center from being hit…and they are heavy and cumbersome to carry. We can own a howitzer, if we want. Why? (I guess we can put an artillery strike into a heavily populated deer herd). We even have our share of rednecks that want to use an Ak47 assault rifle with a 60 round clip to “hunt” deer. Fully automatic weapons are for the military and for fighting the drug wars. They are not for target practice. Hell, it is not illegal to own land mines, here. (not a bad idea for ranchers and farmers who have poaching problems, tho).

        I do have a fully automatic weapon. It is an AK 47 that sits in a glass gun case for admiration. The only place that it has been fired is in Vietnam. I took it off the young lad that tried to kill me. He missed…it is a registered war trophy.

        Now, do I own guns….yessir…plenty of them. Do I have ammo…yessir, around 5,000 rounds at last estimate. Do I have reloading equipment…yessir and plenty of bullets and powder and casings. Do I carry a weapon…yessir. I have one on my person, one in my car, and one in my office. Will I use it…yessir. I will use it to protect private property, the lives of others, and to stop a crime in progress, if necessary……and before some of you on the left say that I am over stepping my authority…no sir, I am a citizen. I have a……”RIGHT” to protect myself, my property, and the lives of others.

        Now…do I favor laws that restrict firearms. No….not even automatic weapons, nor stinger missiles, nor landmines. One restrictive law will lead to others. Do I think the second amendment gives an individual the right to bear arms…yes. Do I believe that a State should have the right to set and enforce its own gun laws….yes. It should not be a Federal issue.

        So, USW… my brother in arms…I am not that much different but I do believe, like you, that gun ownership is a personal responsibility.

        • D13: I said this before and will say it proudly again YOU ARE MY HERO !

          Would you please ask your wife if you could marry me? Or at least send me your clone.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Greetings D13…..

          First off: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”


          If speeding is outlawed only outlaws will speed

          If assisted suicide is outlawed only outlaws will assist in suicide


          Much of the argument in this comes right down to the simplicity of the following:

          “One restrictive law will lead to others”

          This is common tactic – the “if once than always” or “if one than all” – it is the perversion of absolutism that is (drum roll please) applied relatively or situationally. If one one type of gun is banned than all guns will be banned. If one restriction is allowed then all restrictions will be allowed. It is grounded in irrational fear. If I eat one piece of chicken that makes me ill, will all subsequent pieces of chicken make me ill? If I buy a Toyota and it has an accelerator problem is it reasonable to expect all other Toyotas will have the same problem? If my boss asks me to work overtime tonight should I expect that I will to work overtime every night hereafter? If my State levies a tax on the sale of clothing is it reasonable to expect that all other States will levy the same tax?



          • RAY

            Liberty is an ABSOLUTE concept.

            We have 200 years of our own history to prove that if you let govt’s foot in the door it will soon be parked in your icebox. That my friend is NOT irrational fear. It is sound judgment based on experience.

            Your examples don’t fit. Gun control is a govt power issue. The others are private transactions or expectations.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Then why isn’t 100% of your income confiscated by the government under the legal guide of income tax?

              Its FUD JAC, nothing but FUD.

              • Ray

                Do you forget that it got up to 80% at one time?

                It is only the very vocal and rabid opponents to slow such things. But the migration of govt has been towards greater and greater control.

                It seems you are being obstinate just for the fun of it. The federal income tax started at about 1.5% and opponents warned it was a “slippery slope”. Supporters said hell no, that is FUD. Then it got to 75% before it was finally cut. Of course those cuts were transfered to other tax increases but you get the drift.

                FDR and the Dems promised Soc Sec would be a minor amount taken from your pay, say about 1%. Only the poor old folks would get the benefits. Today it is over 7% and the program is broke due to expanded benefits.

                Federal employment is a constant straight line sloping upwards. All other employment has dips and peaks. The govt budget increases each year and exceeds inflation in most.

                Ray, history is on the side of the slippery slope toward ever expanding govt power and control. You say it won’t happen but you base that not on the long term reality of govt encroachment but on the rate of encroachment.

                What the hell is FUD?

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  JAC – it was stated as “if one than all” not as “if one then all increasing to….(what? 100? All?)”

                  You’re changing the logic, tsk tsk.

                  FUD = fear, uncertainty and doubt

              • Ray –

                It went from 1% to 94% at one point. It may not have reached 100% (yet) but it did get most of the way there.

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  Yes DKII – BUT – what years was this, what was happening at the time and what income was the 94% applied to? Lets not tell part of the story please.

      • USWeapon says:


        You know darn well what I meant by that statement. As did everyone else here. If you outlaw owning a gun, only criminals have those guns. Good, law abiding citizens will follow the law, while those that don’t care about the law will continue to use the guns. You are attempting to play a semantics game here instead of debating on the merits of what is offered. You are too smart for that.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          And USW – you play to this ridiculous fear that one law that limits or places controls around gun ownership will result in a wholesale revocation of gun ownership rights. There is not a shred or iota of fact you can offer to support that – you are using the very thing you claim to detest – emotion – to try and prove a point.

          No one is talking about revocation of ownership rights – only you.

          Please also see my response to D13.

          Stop the FUD.

          • Great Britian



            New York City,


            Morton Grove Ill


            Ray, I cannot believe that you are unaware of these places I have named. In each, moderate laws have ultimately led to the ban of entire classes of firearms for no reason other that it seems to make some politicians feel good.

            The pistol permit purchase process in my state can take six months. Yet, last fall the legislature and governor passed a one gun per month law. Useless, riduculous and designed to do nothing other than fool the uninformed.

            Enough shreds or iotas of fact for you or will you try to obfuscate the facts further to ahem, further your agenda?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              SK – several points I need to address with you….

              1. I have no agenda w/ respect to 2nd amendment and in the grand scheme it is irrelevant what I think – my thoughts on this would require drastic changes to the 2nd amendment which will never ever happen – so…..

              2. Three of the seven places you listed have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment – please stop signing off on merit badges if you think they do

              3. For the other places – please point me to the legislation that you think supports complete revocation of ownership – then help me understand why you think it will actually be signed into law.

              • I thought that your question was general enough to include other English speaking nations that used to have the same “rights” that we enjoyed but were piddled away.

                The current court case re: Chicago is a result of a ban on handguns. there is no court challenge yet but Morton Grove is the same.

                Again, forgive me if I cite Great Britian but the more or less complete ban on all firearms was incremental. It started out with “reasonable” controls. The complete ban on semi-autos in NYC was a direct consequence of the 1966 law on registering rifles and shotguns. The silly one gun per month law in NJ again is a result of passing the pistol purchase permit law many years ago.

                California has done the same with semi-autos.

                In the law passing business, if you can cite Chicago and Washington DC as precedent to ban handguns, under the right circumstances any political subdivision can do the same.

                That, dear sir, is why it is so important to deal with this issue and resolve it for hopefully once and all.

                You might be surprised to find out that I too would actually like to see an attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Several years ago Congressman Major Owens of Brooklyn proposed exactly that. I sent him a congratulatory letter. The mere fact that he had the guts to propose it spoke well of him as a man of committment. It would be interesting to debate the issue around the country and put to rest the pesky words “militia”, “well-regulated” and of course ‘people”.

                • Ray Hawkins says:

                  SK – the lineage of debate was to a very specific topic/statement. My apologies if I was not clear.

                  I will echo what has been said numerous times here – I wish to learn from our brothers/sisters overseas – I do not wish to be them.

                • Sorry but you can get firearms in the UK, a handgun ban was put in place after a guy used a couple of pistols to wipe out a class of 5 year olds. Rifles and shotguns can still be obtained.

                  • and just how easy is it to get the permit. can one own a semi-automatic?

                    For all intents and purposes, it is as easy in Britian to get a rifle or shotgun as it is to get a carry permit for a handgun in New York City. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – to close a loop here – when you introduce metonymy in attempting to substantiate something thematically or factually (and as evidenced by statements such as “you know what I meant”) you are engaging in rhetoric not logic – there is a crucial difference and that renders your conclusion as far more opine that factual. You can’t claim ‘logical high ground’ when you aren’t using logic to begin with.

          • USWeapon says:


            And that would be good, except that everyone who read it knew what I meant except for you, which leads me to believe that you argued that point on semantics simply because you could.


            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @USW – oh man – you’re digging a deeper hole. Do you not understand the difference between logic and rhetoric?


              “everyone who read it knew what I meant except for you”

              That isn’t a statement grounded in logic now is it? It is rhetorical and subjective.

              Don’t insist on using logic and fact and then hide behind opinion and rhetoric because it suites your overall conclusion and enables you to dismiss me as being argumentative.

              • USWeapon says:


                You know better than that. And you know, even though you are refusing to admit it, that I meant that if you outlaw guns, then the law abiding citizens will not have them, but the criminals will. You are taking a small, and mostly insignificant, statement, and attempting to overturn the entire article based on the semantics of things.

                I have explained now what I meant, and as such, I stand by what I meant. I fall not into your trap.

                And stop using big words in your responses. I am a conservative and therefore lack the additional 11 IQ points to be able to comprehend.



    • Bottom Line says:

      Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Amendment II – A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      I’m no legal professional, but it looks like Amendment 2 “prohibits” the states from the power to infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        It all depends on how you define the 2d Amendment. I believe one of the primary reason that the Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the 2d Amendment is due to its peculiar wording as compared to the other Amendments.

        “A well regulated militia…” Kind of throws a corkscrew into it. Overall I believe we probably should have incorporation, but still allow for reasonable restrictions.

        • Bottom Line says:

          It was worded perfectly.

          The right on the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the people are the militia that is necessary to a free state.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            There are four interpretations of the Second Amendment:

            1) The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.

            2) The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.

            3) The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.

            Or 4) The Family Guy interpretation, which holds that everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall without any restriction from government.

            • Bottom Line says:

              I like #4. Very funny. lol

              I’m not sure where you got the other three, but I would definitely call them interpretations.

              I’ll start with #1 of course…

              BTW – “1) The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.”

              An armed citizenry is indeed MOST valid.

              What stops us from being invaded?

              A: Our military, the oceans, and at least 1/3 of our population being well armed freedom lovers.

              First You have to be able to get enough troops here to do anything. They have to be transported across an ocean without being sunk. If you had enough left when our military got done with you, it likely would not be enough to take on 100,000,000 freedom loving gun owners…many of which are trained military veterans. It’s almost impossible circumstances for an invading military. Think of what an insurgency American gun owners could be.

              “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)

              What keeps we the people from being given the same treatment as the people in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia??

              A: Again, …An armed population.

              The founding fathers knew their history and understood the value of an armed population as a deterrent to tyranny. It wasn’t just about defending against an invading army. It was about defending our natural rights and way of life against ALL enemies/threats, …both foreign AND DOMESTIC. There was a difference between the Army, Navy and militia. The militia was made up of “Minutemen” – gun totin’ freedom loving farmers and craftsmen sprinkled all over the land ready to go to war with little notice.

              The second amendment was kinda like the backup plan. If all else fails, you still have a bunch of trained gun totin’ freedom lovers to deal with.

              ~ BTW – “2) The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.”

              Agreed, And to add…

              Guns are a tool with more useful purposes than murder and robbery.

              Guns = meat from hunting
              Guns = livestock safe from predators
              Gun = safe garden
              Guns = safe family and home
              Guns = free/safe to walk around without being robbed/mugged

              ~BTW – “3) The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.”

              ” in some way. ”

              No it isn’t restricted.

              The language is clear. It doesn’t say the right of the military, or the right of the government(state or federal),…

              …It says “…,the right of THE PEOPLE…”.

              IMHO, An armed population is necessary to a free country. And the right of the people to own and carry arms should not be infringed upon.

              …but that’s just my interpretive opinion.

            • Buck,

              You, I and the rest of us males are all the militia. Unfortunately the ladies are not.

              years ago I looked up definitions of “militia” and “regulated” in the 18th and 19th century. It settles the issue. We are all in the militia and regulated means trained. logic would dictate that to be an effective militia, one would ahve to be trained and familiar with the use of firearms hence, our right, that is the “people’s” right cannot be infringed.

              You seem to have a problem with the words militia and regulated. Do you have a problem with the word “people”?

              Somewhere out there in Federal Law or Code there is something called the Militia Act of 1792 which is still on the books. It requires you and I to possess a firearm and ball and powder. It defines organized militia (National Guard type units) and unorganized militia (us).



              • Buck The Wala says:

                I most certainly am not part of any militia. I do not own a gun and no one is here training me to be part of any of this so-called militia you speak of.

                That would seem to lend credence to interpretation #1 above — that times have a-changed; since the militia system is no longer in place, the 2d Amendment is outdated and no longer valid.

                Note that I do not personally subscribe to that interpretation. But by talking about this trained and regulated militia, of which there is none, I could certainly make an argument that there is no longer a 2d Amendment.

                Though on second though, if that law does require us all to possess a firearm and ball and powder, how about we all purchase those, learn how to use them properly and proceed with regulations on modern guns!?

                • Ahh, the ball and powder as well as the bayonet requirement would seem to indicate that the framers were talking about “Military arms”. Logically extended that would give us an AR-15/M-16 clone today.

                  Your declining to belong to the militia does not absolve you of the responsibility to participate as intended by the founders.

                  And yes, you are right, times have changed. I used to drive my anti-2nd amendment friends nuts on the issue. they pointed out the indians are no longer a threat, Britian is unlikely to invade and the mexican war is over. It is doubtful if the Cubans and Russians could pull off a “Red Dawn”. I in turn agreed and pointed out that the founders certainly had no idea about television, radio, the internet, movies etc and therefore a good argument can be made regarding their not falling under 1st Amendment protection.

                  As pointed out above to Ray above, I would weklcome an open attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment instead of letting those judicial oligarchs or judicial pygmies (you choose) kill it with the death of a thousand cuts. I have no doubt how a fair and open debate would come out. We Americans are an unusual people. We are the “tired, the poor, the wretched refuse of their teeming shores”. I infinately prefer being wretched refuse to being a modern European whose parents and grandparents with their sophistication plunged the world into the horrors of the 20th century.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    Hmm…your point doesn’t drive me nuts. In a way its a fair point. The difference though is in the wording and possible interpretations of the two amendments.

                    1st Amendment — no law shall infringe free speech; even though television wasn’t around, the basic concept is the same – people speaking. Also, we have recognized certain reasonable restrictions in this arena.

                    2nd Amendment — well regulated militia being necessary. Unlike with the 1st Amendment and television (just a different medium for speaking), it can be argued now that since there is no militia system in place the 2d Amendment as a whole is unnecessary and outdated.

                    Let me be clear that this is not my position, just saying there is a big difference between the 1st and 2d Amendments and changing times in my view.

                • At the age of 18 did you register for the draft? You are too young to remember the practice of the quaint outdated concept. You live in NYC:
                  ARTICLE XII (9)


                  [Defense; militia]

                  Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

                  Sorry Buck, but you are implictly a memeber ot the militia.

                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    Actually living in NJ now.

                    I’d still say this is an outdated system. There are plenty of laws on the books that have no place and are never enforced.

            • Article XII Militia
              SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
              The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
              residing in the State except those exempted by law.
              (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:


                Hmm..Does Buck’s refusal to acknowledge his membership in the militia equate to draft dodging?

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Yes, I registered for the draft. But I don’t believe that equates to belonging in any militia – based on my registration, if I am ever drafted into the military, I will be given a gun and properly trained.

                  • NJ Article V SECTION III

                    1. Provision for organizing, inducting, training, arming, disciplining and regulating a militia shall be made by law, which shall conform to applicable standards established for the armed forces of the United States.

                    Buck, for NJ you would have to go to the codes to find the wording on who are members of the militia. I’ll wager though there is some catchall phrase such as all able bodied men from 16 to 60 are eligible if not part of the militia.

                    The second amendment is clear to me that gun ownership is a basic right. If I invented a laser weapon, not a fire arm, would it fall under the protection of the second amendment? It certainly was not envisioned by the founders but serves the same purpose.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      But once again you failed to explain to me how the militia system is not outdated.

                      Just because NJ law spells out that I am a member of the state militia does not mean this is still the case.

                      In NJ it is also illegal for a man to knit during fishing season. (www.dumblaws.com)

                    • Buck,

                      Of course he shouldn’t knit during fishing season he should be practicing the manual of arms for his militia duties. Some people just don’t get it.

                      There is only so much time in a year.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

    Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

    Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

    The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.

    The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

    “The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,” said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. “It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people — people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower — are likely to be the ones to do that.”

    Read the rest of this interesting article at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?iref=allsearch

    First a quick thank you to Réfugiée for sending this article to me the other night. I would have completely missed it and it was an interesting read to say the least. I then noticed that Mathius shared it during yesterday’s discussions. But I wanted to address it as well, so here it is.

    I want to put this on a more personal level for me, as it will add another dimension to the discussion. I began being tested for IQ at about the third grade. Because I had a high IQ, I was placed in what was called the “gifted program”. This program was an alternative curriculum program reserved for the top 5% of students, those with an IQ of 130 or above on the scale of 150 being a genius. I stretched well above most of the other gifted kids in terms of my score. For the record, so did Rani, who you all have seen on here. That group of 30 or so of us that were in the gifted program basically stayed together in special classes doing different types of work through the next 6 years or so, until we went into high school, where there was no program.

    I still have contact with some of those folks and second hand contact with most of the rest of them. I know where they are, what they do, and how they fall politically. And you know what, the vast majority of them fall on the conservative side of the scale. So when I read that someone did a “study” and determined that the average score for liberals was 104 while conservatives is in the 90’s, I have to throw the BS flag. Unless of course we want to say that at 104, which is roughly average, qualifies you for being a liberal, but once you get to the gifted range, you evolve past liberalism and the statist mentality.

    Instead of the partisan rhetoric, I would instead offer this: I believe that once you get past a certain point on the IQ scale, you now fall into a completely different third category. You are able to see through the bullshit on both sides. More important, you are able to grasp the concepts that seem beyond the reach of most statists. You can at least fathom the ideas that fall outside of the realm of “government is the solution”. And I submit that my logic here is just as sound as the BS that is floated in the article above.

    Obviously, I take this all tongue in cheek. I don’t believe for a single second that IQ has ANYTHING to do with political affiliation. I know some brilliant people on both sides of the aisle, and I know some brilliant people who don’t believe in the platform of either party. For this kind of garbage to even be accepted as possible truth, in my opinion, would show a low level of intelligence for the person who accepts it. Anyone with a high enough IQ to be labeled as gifted knows that this study is complete bullshit developed by someone with an obvious bias.

    • Hello US,

      I threw the BS flag at evolutionary pshychologist S Kanazawa, right after the opening sentence.

    • Mathius says:

      The fun is in being able to define your own terms. They defined liberal as being concerned for the welfare of non-genetically related people. Whereas they defined conservatives with being concerned more with only themselves. By that right, I would infer that they are correlating intelligence with empathy, not political alignment.

      The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

      “Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.

      As I said, if you give me the time, money and freedom to define terms the way I want, I can prove anything.

      I just thought the article was good for a laugh

      • Mathius says:

        By the way, my study just proved that cigarette smoke* is vital to life in humans.

        *Because particles from cigarette smoke are mixed in minute quantities with all the air we breathe, we tested the effect of depriving air to a random sample humans. Surprisingly, those who were denied the ability to breath cigarette-smoke-containing air died, whereas those who were allowed to breath air lived.

    • Noting Mathius’ point, this article has nothing to do with politics. That being said, I also was in the “gifted” program in elementary school. I consider myself conservative and I am a Christian. I guess one out of three ain’t bad…

      • Mathius says:

        I imagine quite a few denizens of this site can lay claim to IQ’s deep in the triple digits.

        But, I would add, that I am prepared to accept the conclusion that higher levels of empathy are correlated with higher intelligence. I would need to look closer at the way the study was conducted and the questions asked, but that does seem a reasonable conclusion. Even those here who think they have no obligation to help anyone are probably very likely to give to charity when able (I suspect strongly that the object is not to alleviating suffering, but rather to being forced to do so and in a belief that the means being used are ineffective or counterproductive).

        • Mathius says:

          Typo: (I suspect strongly that the objection is not to alleviating suffering, but rather to being forced to do so and in a belief that the means being used are ineffective or counterproductive).

        • Mathius

          I think you have hit on a key premise in this study that deserves further investigation.

          “But, I would add, that I am prepared to accept the conclusion that higher levels of empathy are correlated with higher intelligence.”

          Note that is wasn’t just an increase in empathy but an increase towards “strangers” as opposed to those we “know”.

          I think this is a key difference between the statist liberals and those more libertarian minded. The statistics indicate a correlation but the actual cause/effect is unknown.

          Could be an anomaly with regard to IQ. Or IQ could be an indicator of something else.

          At any rate, there are some interesting investigations to be made.

          I just wish they would have kept all the “conclusions” out of the article. But then it wouldn’t have been newsworthy.

          Tip of the coffee mug to ya Matt.

        • Ahhh Matt…you have been peeking at my IQ score…. 000…three digits..or is zero a digit?

          • It just occurred to me…if zero is NOT a digit….then I am not digitized..omg….

            Sorry…a large DP in the early morning is probably worse than a Red Bull…I have the ramblies…

    • All I know is those with very, very high IQ’s are:

      (1) incredibly handsome
      (2) athletic
      (3) charismatic
      (4) and worthy of idolatry.


      • It really is a shame that a high IQ does not equate to sex appeal. I have known many very intelligent men who cannot attract women, and many very stupid men who have no trouble with it at all. Guess which group is out-breeding the other?

        It does not bode well for evolutionary purposes.

        • Cyndi P says:

          Sounds like the movie “Idiocracy”. If you haven’t seen it, please do. Pretty funny.

        • Mathius,

          Not so fast.

          Yes, women by instinct fall for the brute due to 150,000 years of ‘roughing’ it uncivilized. The brute was likely more able to beat off animals.

          But the last 10,000 has shown the man who can build TOOLS to beat off animals is far more successful.

          So, though it is true that immature women may fall for the stupid brute, the smarter and more mature women for the care of the children, they tend towards those who are smarter.

      • 🙄 🙄 🙄

    • USW/SUFA

      I have one last comment on this article. As it provides an good example of how the same game is played with many articles we deal with.

      Right out of the chute they give us this:

      “The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.”

      So what do we know, if we accept their conclusion?

      1. The averages between the groups are “significant” but “are not stunning; but are on the order of 6 to 11 points, which of course would make most of us think holy cow 11 points? Thats stunning.

      2. Then I love this part.

      “and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.”

      So what does the rest of the paragraph do? It starts making “assumptions about people” based on the results. In fact, the rest of the story is based on the very assumptions they tell us “should not be made” at the very start.

      Gotta Love It

      Best to All

      • USWeapon says:

        In other words, it is absolutely wrong to do what we are about to do for the remainder of this article.


    • As a scientist, I have to ask about the numbers here. A difference of 6 to 11 points is only significant if the standard deviation is less than 11 points. I couldn’t find this data in the article. Is it really true that liberals have an IQ of on average 104 + or – 11? I’m not sure if that is reasonable, but then, without this knowledge, the data is meaningless.

      I could measure the same stick with two different measurements (ruler and laser) and get 2.52 meters with one and 2.73 with the other. It doesn’t meant the stick is longer in one case. If there errors overlap, then the measurement is the same, one is simply more accurate than the other. In the same way, measuring the IQs of two different sets of people may result in a different average, but if the error is + or – 20, then 6 to 11 points difference means the two results are the SAME!

  5. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #5

    Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC shows exactly how the MSM Treats Those with Opposing Views

    I figured I would offer this up with the following thoughts:

    Let me first say that I found this on several different sites, which isn’t unusual. I attempted to post it from a YouTube account that didn’t say the other horrible things that went along with the video. Many of those who posted it added things along the line of “Ratigan kicked off Tea Party Racist”.

    This is exactly the kind of bullshit that I am talking about when I make those comments to those from the left that this racism stuff has got to stop. I felt that Mr. Williams remained calm, attempted to discuss the claims, and even began with the statement that those who want to kill black people are “wingnuts”. Ratigan was looking to be an asshole, and no matter what was said, he simply continued to shout over Williams with claims that Tea Partiers want to kill blacks and jews. When Williams pointed out the anti-sematic comments resulting in a promotion at NBC, Ratigan simply dismissed it and continued to hammer home that the tea party movement accepts racists.

    If I were a black person watching this segment, which aired Tuesday afternoon on MSNBC, I would come to the conclusion that the Tea Party movement is a group of racists, that they accept people who hold up signs that say blacks should be killed. I have to say that I have never seen such signs. And I would also say that is a gross misrepresentation of what the tea party movement is about.

    It is exactly this kind of behavior from nutcases like Ratigan that those on the left should be calling out on a daily basis and then refusing to watch MSNBC whenever Ratigan is on the air. Failure to do so is somewhat akin to consenting to his rants and accepting that he is correct in his portrayal of the tea party movement. At what point do those on the left begin to hold their side accountable. As I mentioned earlier, I have called in to call out three different conservative talk show hosts. I have written to Hannity, Beck, and O’Reilly to scold them for things they have said. They have all become less credible in my eyes when they use bad tactics.

    But MSNBC seems to simply be filled with nothing but this type of far left asshole. Not only do they outright lie every day, their behavior is simply outlandish. I would submit that this is about the 6th or 7th time I have seen a video of Ratigan treating ideological opponents this way. He is the TV version of the bitter and nasty stuff that ends up on the blogs that we fight so hard not to be here at SUFA. And the lies, misrepresentation, outlandish behavior, and general disrespect we see here seems to be the prevailing attitude at MSNBC. Olbermann gives us daily examples. Matthews does the same. In fact, most of MSNBC does. So why is it that they are still on the air?

    • Réfugiée says:

      Bonjour tout le monde!

      1. Sometimes people on one side of an disagreement are willing, even eager, to believe evil of those on the other side.

      Think of a public figure you admire (are there any?) and one you despise.

      Now imagine that some dreadful act is attributed to the admired person. Is your first response, “No, that can’t be true! He/she would never . . . .”

      If the dreadful act is attributed to the despised person, is our first thought, “Well! That’s exactly what I would expect from ____.”

      2. In a truly serious and substantive disagreement, the triumph of the opposing side represents a very real and personal threat. Some people apparently believe that the ends justify the means.

      3. Of course the solution is for everyone in media to display honor and integrity. But do honor and integrity necessarily get ratings/sell books?

      Bonne journée!

    • I think this was hilarious. Anyone who actually believes the spew from Ratigan (isn’t that the villain in “The Great Mouse Detective”) apparently has no desire to hear the facts. I clearly heard the tea party fellow say “we do not embrace racism.” I thought it was funny when Ratigan says to cut off his mic and he says “ok, sure.”

      Honestly, I expect this kind of thing from MSNBC anchors like Ratigan. No, Réfugiée, not because I don’t like them, but because they do it often enough that it’s not a surprise.

    • USW- Wake Up, Wake Up. 5:30 am means time to wake up not go to bed 🙂

      I can’t help myself here so forgive me. All I can say is Ratigan needs to STFU. Where does he and MSNBC think they are going to get with that line of thinking. Can’t they see they only have 6 viewiers left on the face of the planet? And those six are their own mothers. And I agree- why won’t the dems call them out? I’m sure the liberals love it but the dems need to speak up on this one. And the guests need to also just say no thank you I will not be on your show.

      Sorry for the potty mouth.

      • Anita

        I am off to therapy (shoulder) but before I go I think you have earned

        One BIG WARM HUG for speaking strong truth so early in the day.

        I am now feeling chuckles building deep within. Thx.

        • Glad to make your day happy so early JAC. I owe you a few. Been wondering about your shoulder. A hot tub would be handy about now, eh?

          • Anita

            Left the hot tub behind when moved from Idaho to Montana. I sure do miss that tub.

            Shoulder is doing well. Can lift all the way now. Should be swingin a golf club within the month.

            🙂 🙂

          • USWeapon says:

            Our hot tub (Spa actually, has double the jets of a hot tub) is one of the best purchases we have ever made. We got it to help with Mrs. Weapon’s health issues. But it seats 7 and I get in whenever I can!


      • Good morning Anita!

        You ask where does MSNBC think it going with line of thinking. I’d say violence. The verbal violence is a prelude to physical violence. Think of the ratings when American eyeballs are glued to the pictures of massive riots, by ‘racists’. Watch as the military rolls in to restore order. Watch the trials of domestic terrorists. Yep, that should bump up ratings nicely, maybe even get some jorno-awards. Think of the careers saved and the advertising dollars flooding in.

        • Good Morning to you too, you tropical rebel rouser 🙂

          The only way I stay sane anymore is to PRETEND (mornin BF) that all the BS will not lead to violence. Let’s organize a nationwide street protest. No need to go to DC. Just assign a day & time for everone to flood the streets in protest. Make it a huge block party nationwide. Then maybe everyone can finally meet their neighbors for once too.

          • That’s a cool idea, but can you imagine a white non-O supporter in a O-bot’hood standing out in the middle of the street with his or her sign? I recall the old t-shirt with the drawing of the Polish firing squad, LOL!

            If you want to have a giggle, check this out: http://obamatest.com/

            I scored 17! My mom would finally be proud of me!

    • Bottom Line says:

      The video is a prime reason why I watch so little TV. This is just mindless bullshit to fill air-time, distract everyone, and to demonize the people on the other side of the left/right paradigm. Political drama soap opera. Perhaps Jerry Springer should team up with Ratigan.

      ~Ratigan – “Welcome to the show Mr. Williams. Are you and the Tea Party Movement racist?..

      ~Mr. Williams – “um..no were not. They’re wing-nuts, not us. You see,…

      ~Ratigan – “YOU’RE A RACIST!















    • Saw this clip and could not believe there was yet another nob like this on MSNBC.

      My question is the same as above – is the far left fringe now just the left? It is so commonplace that even an entire nework is now “left fringe”.

    • I thought this guy was a financial expert?

      Now he’s a climate expert and a political expert.

      Wonder how that makes folks feel who followed this ASSCLOWN (how’s that girls?) on CNBC.

    • “States rights is racist”


      Can someone help me understand this one?


      • Kathy

        The “spin” goes like this. States rights is “code” for our hidden desire to go back to the good ol slave days. Because we all know “states rights” was the battle cry used by the South against the anti-slavery laws. See “states rights” is code for “slavery” which is of course “racist”. There now, that wasn’t hard, was it?

        Heaven forbid these …………….. (mamma said if you can’t say somethin nice don’t say anthin) should actually try to address the Constitutional issues, instead of hiding behind their one sided view of history.

        I detect you now need BIG HUG to keep from exploding. So………HUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
        Happy afternoon

        • Heaven forbid these…ASSCLOWNS……

          There! That wasn’t hard at all JAC ! Came out pretty easy. I’m not as polite as you but my mama would slap me too!

          Yo mama so po her welcome mat says WELFARE. I can keep going if you like 😆

  6. RWBoveroux says:


    Have a great day everyone!!!

    • USWeapon says:

      Outstanding RWB! I am going to finally go try to get some sleep. Looking forward to the discussions once I awaken from my slumber!


  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    “Check it Right – You Ain’t White”

    Fliers that reach out to Orange County Arab Americans to promote the U.S. census proclaim: “Check it right, you ain’t white!”

    While the message may initially sound shocking – or potentially incendiary – organizers say it was written by Arab Americans as a playful way to get a serious message out to a highly underrepresented community.

    The 2010 U.S. census includes no box that explicitly asks whether a person is of Arab descent – they are counted as “White.”

    But Arab American leaders working with the U.S. Census Bureau are encouraging local Arabs – including those from places such as Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine – to instead check a box that says “Other,” then fill in “Arab” or their specific country of origin.

    “Estimates are that there are more than three times as many Arabs in America as was estimated by the 2000 census,” said Rashad Al-Dabbagh, a U.S. Census Bureau partnership specialist from Anaheim.

    The Arab American community is estimated at 1.2 million, based on 2000 census figures. But the Arab American Institute in Washington, D.C., estimates that the number is closer to 4 million.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the census will let the government see that the Arab American community is growing and help the local community compete for some $400 billion in government funds for community programs, schools, parks and roads.

    Those who indicate on this year’s survey that they are Arab will be counted in with the “white” population, but it also will give the government some idea of the size of the Arab population in the United States, Al-Dabbagh said.

    That’s what led to the Arab Complete Count Committee in Orange County, a group of about 10 Arab community leaders, to design the fliers that say, “Yalla Count! … Check it right, you ain’t white!” (“Yalla” is an Arab language exclamation roughly translated as “Come on”).

    Read the rest of the article here – http://www.ocregister.com/articles/arab-232818-census-community.html

    When I originally saw this I found it interesting as part of understanding what the Census can drive. Part of this effort is so this ‘minority’ can get access to minority-based funding. There is also concern for the potential backlash, safety and security issues that folks here worry with as well (in cases here based on opinion and language rather than ethnicity or race).

    Thoughts anyone?

    • Ray

      The only thing to complete on the census is the number of folks living in your house.

      I am going to report 0 freemen, and 3 slaves.

      I don’t care how many Arabs, Persians, etc there are. All welcome if they adopt the Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All concept.

      But technically, Arabs, Persians etc are part of the European or Caucasian RACE as I understand it.

      It is a RACE box, not a country of origin.

      But of course WHITE is a color not a race.

      Got to run, may offer more later.

      Ta ta

      • JAC…be prepared. I have not received my census yet but I know someone who has and only answered the number in the household and put N/A on all the rest. He is still getting numerous phone calls with the census person wanting to fill out the information for him. He still responds not applicable.

        I like it though…three slaves….cool.

        Have a good one my friend.

        • D13

          How the hell did the Census guy get his phone number?

          When does the spring roundup start in Okie land? Starting to build my social calendar.

          And, Do YOU plan on attending said roundup?

          Good day to you as well.

          • Probably matched his phone number and address out of the phone book, I guess. I really do not know but this is what I was told.

            I still like the slave issue though…. heh heh.

            Spring roundup will be in late March or early April.

            Yes, I will be up there. If you are serious, I will let you know as soon as the date is set but it also depends on cows. 🙂

            • D13

              I am very serious if the days work out on kids schedule. Unless you got somebody who can watch over him or put him to good use.

              Would be a great chance to scheme and plot in person.

              Calving in full swing here. Good thing it was a mild February.

              Let me know as soon as you do. I’ll let USW know its OK to give you my email if you would prefer that mode of communication.

              Have a great evening.

      • Why is there even a question about race? I thought we were all Americans???

        I’m conservative so I must be stupid, that’s why I do’t understand why race is so important….

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – there are actually two questions involving race:

          Q8: Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

          Census explanation: Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

          Q9: What is Person 1’s race?

          Census explanation: Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

          I’m not saying right or wrong or scope compared to the constitutional scope of census – what I would ask is if there is any other way to obtain the same information. I don’t know that there is – but maybe there is? Ideas?

          • My Peruvian mother immigrated to the US before 1970. She, and the rest of her family didn’t require bilingual programs. All of them learned to speak English, and have middle class lives. So far as I can tell, it didn’t harm them in the least to learn English and not be catered to. Same with my dad and his family who came from Italy in the 1920s. My friend from China, earned her Master’s degree in Statics, without requiring bilingual programs. So I say, bilingual programs are not needed. If I go to any other country on the planet, I am expected to learn the language at my own expense or suffer the consequences, thus, Ich spreche ein bisen Deutch, y hablo pocito Espanol.

            As for Q9. I still believe we are all Americans and should be treated the same under the law. Life is not fair, buy the law can be and should be. Get rid of the racial and gender preferences. We don’t need them anymore. They, as with so many, many, other things the government does, have outlived their usefulness. I say, we are all Americans equal under the law.

  8. D13 post: This may not be something new…but to me it is. I was listening to a talk radio show (imagine that) on my way to work this morning and heard an expose’ on whether or not using a credit check as part of hiring an employee is ethical or discriminating….especially where the prospective employee will not be handling money.

    Interesting perspectives from both sides and both sides had an argument.

    One side says that it is none of the employers business about the personal finances of a prospective employee…the other side says..why yes it is.

    I do not think anyone will complain about credit checks where significant amounts of money will be handled. I think that is common sense. After all, I would not hire a bank teller if the IRS was after them or they were in significant financial distress…on the other hand, if the job was a ditch digger…why would a credit check be necessary.

    Some say that a person that is constantly worried about paying his electric bill or food for the table may have his/her attention split…especially if he/she is operating heavy equipment, flying a plane, etc. Some employers may want only responsible people to work for them regardless of the job and credit worthiness may show what type of person they are. On the other hand, a person that has run into hard times and his credit gets destroyed deserves at least a hearing, I guess.

    As a personal note, I would be in a lot of trouble. My credit rating? Well, there isn’t one. I pay cash for everything and use debit cards. I have no mortgage and have not since 1996. I have no car payment. I have no credit cards. I pay my utilities, of course…but they do not report. Since I pay cash for everything and have since 1996…there is no current rating. I guess I would not get hired.

    So, what say you? Discriminatory? Not discriminatory? Or, it is used as a tool along with other items to determine employment. I would at least want an opportunity to explain to a prospective employer my hardship. I could possibly be a very hard working and honest employee. Interesting.

    • Hi D13,

      I just wish I’d run credit checks on my exhusbands BEFORE I married them! 😆 I think its a very good indicator of what type of person you’re dealing with, though not a perfect one. Lucky guy number three, was in the RAF for 16 years and had great credit. Its only when he had the luxury (provided by me) of having a grown up around, that he reverted to adolescence. So I’d say its a tool, but it shouldn’t be a deciding factor, ‘cuz ya just never know for sure…..

    • USWeapon says:


      Great catch. This is an area that is a bit of a pet peeve for me. I work for a major corporation. In my role, I am responsible for hiring entire teams, attempting to train them and then getting performance. During the hiring process I am required to submit their information for a background check, including the credit check.

      I cannot begin to even place a number on how many outstanding candidates I have spent 2 hours interviewing, only to have them unable to be hired because of credit. In every single way, they would be the perfect addition to the team. Yet their credit history, which should be completely irrelevant, becomes the deciding factor. I have even had temp employees, brought in to work for 3 month contracts, denied after proving their worth for three months.

      I am widely considered a valuable asset the company I work for. I have been there for 11 years, won numerous awards, created many processes that were implemented company wide, developed multiple people into leaders (11 current people out of the 130 in that position nationwide were hired, developed, and prepared by me, no one else has added more than 2). When I choose to leave the company, there will be a mini-panic. However, had the credit check process been in place when I was initially hired, I would not have been hired.

      My first wife left me while I was living abroad (South Korea) for 18 months. She had decided to do so after the first two months, but didn’t tell me until month 18, 3 days before I came home). During that time, she paid none of the bills, opened several credit cards in my name which she maxed out, and generally did all she could to hurt me financially, while simultaneously taking every bit of my paycheck every month and spending it on whatever she liked. Heck, she even put my dog down so that I wouldn’t have her when I came home. But the bottom line was that I returned to the states dead broke, making NCO pay, and $29,000 in debt (had none when I left). Being who I am, I did not even consider filing for bankruptcy. I used the next 8 years to pay off the debts. But it ruined my credit. I know I could have done bankruptcy and had everything purged in 7, but I feel better about myself for having paid the creditors that provided the service they were supposed to provide.

      So had the credit check been in place, I would have been refused employment because I had been a stand up enough person to act with honor instead of lying, stealing, or whatever. I am the perfect example of what a company stands to lose by having something like a credit check process in place. Over the last 8 years, I would estimate that approximately 50% of those I decided to hire failed the credit check and were denied employment.

      In today’s America, for the majority of folks the fact is that if you don’t have some dings on your credit, it is because you haven’t done anything. Just about everyone I know has had hard times at some point. Yet they are punished for it long after. The current credit rating system in America is a sham. Those three agencies are nothing more than another arm twisting mechanism that gives the financial institutions some form of retaliation measure against anyone who doesn’t bend over and take the screwing that the institution wants to give them. Your credit rating, in my opinion, rarely says anything about your character, you resolve, your ability, your integrity, or your true worth. So I will say that using it to determine employment eligibility is discriminatory. It sets up that constant situation we see in America. You need a job to fix your credit, or to pay bills. But you can’t get the job to fix your credit BECAUSE of your credit. Kind of like that old thing where you don’t have the experience, but you can’t get the job so that you can gain experience.

      Excellent topic, I may even have to make this an article some day.


      • Ray Hawkins says:

        USW – would be an interesting topic – agreed.

        Most places I have worked do not do credit checks or required the ability to do them but didn’t actually follow through because more checks equals more money (I guess).

        Some also consider them not just a check on whether somewhat may commit financial crime but also a testament to the decision making ability and judgment. In your case, unfortunate as it seems, you would be assessed by some as having poor judgment and therefore an elevated risk as a hire.

      • USW correctly states: “In today’s America, for the majority of folks the fact is that if you don’t have some dings on your credit, it is because you haven’t done anything.”

        D13 proudly responds: I do not know how to respond to those who say I have done nothing. Perhaps I have not done anything except….get debt free, pay my bills with cash, pay for my home with cash, pay for my car with cash, choose not to make banks and financial institutions any richer by not having credit cards, and investing my pittance wisely. I have everything that I need. I have a roof over my head, my guns, food on the table, my guns, transportation, my guns, money in the bank, my guns, a computer and internet to chat with you fine folks, my guns, clothes to wear so I don’t scare the kiddies, my guns, electricity, water, gas, etc., my guns…..what else do I need? I do not own a yacht…don’t want one. Do not have three summer homes, two winter homes, an island….don’t want them. And the reward for not being a drag on society, for not being on welfare, for being a model citizen…..I have no credit rating, and, therefore, am a second class citizen…

        Ok so be it. I also sleep well at night. (Did I mention my guns?)

        • Colonel!

          Yes, I’m laughing 🙂

          I would agree with USW and you on this, I don’t think credit checks should be done, with the exception of whether the employee candidate will be in charge of money. I might be able to understand it under those circumstances.

          Many people have credit issues after a divorce, I know I did, but worked my way out of the debt’s. Like you, I do all cash transactions, no credit cards, loans, car payments etc. I’m paying a mortgage that is not in my name, just to live where I live for the time being. In essence, I have no credit, don’t know what score I would have, don’t care. I have all I need and want.

          I am considering relocating in Pennsylvania this summer, and have a place that is affordable and available, If I can secure a job up there, I’m gone. That’s what I will doing this Spring, hopefully I can get into a nearby hospital.

          IMHO, the whole credit rating issue is a scam, now being used to further the government dependency population. They are putting the fence around the sheep, slowly but surely.

          Hope today finds you and the family healthy and happy!


        • USWeapon says:

          Just so we are clear I meant that if you have no dings on your credit score, you tend to fall into the realm of having “not lived enough”, lol. I certainly wasn’t directing it at you, brother.


          • 🙂 Did not think you were, my friend. I would gladly share my “not lived enough” with those that think that, tho…..I understand completely what you said.

    • There are several valid reasons to check credit before hiring someone, including:

      – Someone with bad credit is more susceptible to ethical violations, such as taking bribes, embezzling money, or committing corporate espionage
      – Someone with bad credit typically has it because of poor decision-making skills
      – Someone with bad credit may have trouble making payments on time, which could indicate a general problem with deadlines that would lead to having trouble completing work assignments on time as well

      I don’t think it should be a litmus test in general but it is definitely a good thing to take into account during the decision-making process.

      A company that relies on a credit check too heavily or exclusively will find itself losing out on quality labor and at a competitive disadvantage that outweighs its cost savings, so the market will find an appropriate balance naturally.

      • DK,

        For the most part I can see your point. But, I’ll add this:

        DK said: – Someone with bad credit typically has it because of poor decision-making skills

        G-man says: Picking a bad mate for marriage, ending in divorce, with the laws that favor mostly women, makes this a tough agreement with me. Things are changing, slowly, as just as many women work as men, but the courts have no caught up just yet. I know many men and women who have had their credit destroyed by divorce. I don’t feel the bad results of a failed relationship should be anyones business, period.

        My only exception, as I said above, those that will deal with money transactions, credit checks might (not should) apply. I’m leaning toward invasion of privacy in most cases.


        • G-Man-

          Your concerns with divorce and credit are primarily due to the intermingling of government-involved marriage and the government-involved credit system. However if you sign a contract that says you’re responsible for the actions of another person (whether that’s a marriage contract or co-signing on a loan) then it’s not really fair to complain about the consequences afterward, is it? I would stipulate that a reasonable employer would probably allow you to explain any negative hits they uncovered and take those explanations into an account (and you likely wouldn’t want to work for a bad employer, would you?).

          Decision-making skills would be more likely to apply to individuals who, for example, took out loans they couldn’t afford and defaulted on them.

          Also it’s obviously not an invasion of privacy because you are not obligated to interview for/take the job – the hiring process is a two-way street. If there are enough people objecting to the idea of a credit check, then companies who do not run credit checks on prospective employees would benefit from that policy, typically in better labor rates/more skilled labor offsetting the costs of letting in the occasional bad apple who might’ve been screened out otherwise.

          Alternatively there are also third-party services that can run the credit/background check independently and then only report a general rating to the employer/landlord rather than all of the juicy details – mitigates the privacy concerns, and use of such a service could become a discriminating factor for recruitment.

          • Cyndi P says:

            I didn’t realize that signing the marriage certificate entitled the other person to tell you what they believe you want to hear, then do the exact opposite. Is that the marriage contract you mean? Thank God for divorce….

            Sorry DKII, but as a woman who’s been royaly screwed in marriage and then again in divorce, your statement “if you sign a contract that says you’re responsible for the actions of another person (whether that’s a marriage contract or co-signing on a loan) then it’s not really fair to complain about the consequences afterward” just rubbed me wrong. If only I’d know that all I needed to do was have some trusting dumbass take me at my BS word, and then I could go party. Somehow, I get the feeling you’ve never married a woman like that.

            • Didn’t mean to rattle you Cyndi, but again, that’s mainly a problem due to government involvement in marriage. If you agree to a government marriage, all the things you listed could occur, and as with any agreement you should be aware of the possible consequences ahead of time. Now it’s perfectly fine to complain about the individual involved, but to rant and say the government or some other entity should step in and make it so you don’t have to live up to what you agreed to by harming innocents (by forbidding private enterprises from using credit score as a factor in employment decisions, for example) isn’t the appropriate course of action here.

              I think there are other remedies for situations like yours (such as rolling back government-sanctioned unions that result in one person being able to ruin another’s credit unwillingly) that don’t negatively impact a neutral third party.

              • I’m all for the government getting out of marriage. But if the government is going to be involved, why should I be held responsible/ financially liable for my spouse who obtained credit cards and other debt and witheld the information from me? If that’s how its going to be everyone should sign a written agreement like with a credit card. Five pages of small print explaining that you might as well be giving the other person general power of attorney over you life.

                When we married, he promised to love, honor, cherish, respect, blah, blah. I never told him it was okay, to drink to excess and go out for a drive, quit his job, spend money on stupid shit and be an all around jackass. All the crap my ex did, he did, not me, so the way I see it, I’m the innocent one who got screwed. Sorry to rant but I was the one who kept the promises only to be left with little or nothing, three EFFING times. Never again.

          • DK,

            There’s much more on this subject that needs to be opened up, it would make for a good debate on it’s own. I know some of how the credit agencies work, but need more info to really provide for a logical discussion. Your points are good, and understandable. This subject would be a good article, as I’m trying to write one on a different subject as I write this, I’ll wait to see if it becomes a point of discussion in the near future. If it don’t, I would like to research and bring it up for discussion. It would be a good learning experience.


  9. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone

    Reading along for now.

    Hope you all are having a good day.


  10. JAC


    I will grant you that the original intent was to create a wall between the owners (shareholders) and liability

    That was the enticement. Of course the concept was expanded to include protection of officers and directors (who were usually the folks who started the company)..



    But that WALL has been significantly eroded over the centuries.

    I disagree. It has been EXPANDED to include employees as well.

    It now has numerous holes to the point that officers, directors and even owners can not escape liability. You say it is mitigated. I say that mitigation today comes primarily from govt regulation of other things, not the corporate veil itself.

    The whole this is “government regulation”, JAC – a corporation does not exist without government enforcement.

    The reason CORPORATIONS require government is to FORCE innocent people to pay for the negative consequences created by CORPORATIONS and to protect those actors inside the CORPORATION from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

    CORPORATION and Government cannot be separated.

    Your timber destruction example is a case in point. The Law allows the destruction so the corporation is not liable, but neither is the individual, partnership or trust.

    Not correct.

    A CORPORATION, when shown to be liable pays out from the assets of the Corporation – but not the assets of those responsible for the action.

    If you were a PARTNERSHIP – darn right there is a difference!

    The actor’s – and all those joined with said actor – are responsible and liable with all their aggregate actions up to and including all their assets!

    I wonder which one will be more careful in action??

    In fact the corporation is more prone to succumbing to political pressure to not destroy the forest, legally, than the individual. Because the Corp is in it for the long haul.


    Do not confuse the existence of the entity with its operation.

    Corporations suffer exactly the same failure as representative government

    This failure is called “caretaker control”.

    The actors who act within the structure cannot carry the assets earned with them once they leave the structure

    The children of the President cannot inherit the gains made by the President -unlike a King, whose conquered lands were inherited by his children.

    The President takes the conquered land, but cannot gain from it. He is paid the same amount of money.

    Same as with corporation. Where as I, in my gains, can pass the ownership and all future income from such ownership to my children, as an OFFICER of the company, those future gains are not passed to my children.

    Caretakers have no stake in the CORPORATION beyond their tenure.

    Thus, this is the dominant attitude they bring to the entity – take what I can NOW for there is nothing for me in the future.

    Caretakers time preference is shortened vs. Owners

    … not from civil action that affects their pocket books.


    Thus, by HUMAN ACTION, they will engage in more actions that is risky, inappropriate, immoral and often, illegal.

    But all of that is moot with respect to the real issue discussed here.

    I completely disagree. It is key.

    If you remove consequences from any action, you distort the civility of society and destroy human rights.

    For you to mitigate consequences of action upon yourself requires you to put these consequences upon innocent people. Consequences are a zero-sum game.

    That is a complete breach of human rights – inflicting undue suffering upon innocents.

    This effect exists within corporate action.

    They can lie, influence and inflame with out risk of NEGATIVE consequence.

    They get all the POSITIVE consequences and are immune to the NEGATIVE.

    They pass the NEGATIVE upon innocent people. The is not a right.

    Therefore, there will be more lies, deceit, fraud, bribe and threat as tools of influence than would be attempted by the same individual who would otherwise risk the consequences of such acts.

    That is the right of the individuals within an organization to form a political message on behalf of that organization.

    Yep – but if it inside an artificial construct whose core existence is to mitigate and deflect the consequences of such acts makes it the wrong.

    That right is not forfeit because the Govt decided to grant certain types of classes of organizations.

    That “right” does not exist without the responsibility of action.


    The moment you remove consequences, the action can no longer be described as a ‘right’ – it is changed to a privilege or a grant.

    A corporation is an entity consisting of people with a vested interest in the mission/goals of that entity. They have the right to speak out in defense of that entity and its goals which they share.

    You bet!

    ….as long as those that sing the tune suffer the consequence of their singing.

    The moment they are immune to such suffering, they have no right to sing.

    If a corporation does not have the privilege to speek then I guess advertising can also be banned. It is after all just another form of speech.

    No more than one can advertise illegal action, or falsehoods, or lies.

    But they do! Because the person who is lying is PROTECTED. The moment that protection does not exist – watch the lying evaporate too!

    In fact, if only individual humans have a right to speak, as you suggested, then all company advertising regardless of the form should be banned. Why should one form of business organization be banned and not the others?

    You miss-understand.

    The problem is not the group, the size, or the message.

    It is the responsibility.

    The moment the speaker(s) are immune to the responsibility, there is no right.

    I understand all the arguments regarding corporate status. I absolutely disagree that the Federal Govt has the authority to impair SPEECH of anyone, regardless of the type of their organization.

    (1)They have no right at all to impair SPEECH of human beings.

    (2)They have no right at all to PREVENT CONSEQUENCES upon actors.

    The moment you agree, however, to #2 – you have also agreed to #1.

    You agree government can act against the rights of humans by agreeing to #2. Therefore you agree to #1 – you have already agreed the government can act against the rights of humans.

    There are no rights without responsibility of action

    The moment your remove responsibility, you remove the right.

    • BF

      You have dived so deep I fear the cold water has slowed your thinking.

      “There are no rights without responsibility of action

      The moment your remove responsibility, you remove the right.”

      So now our UNALIENABLE rights, which exist at our birth and NOT by Govt blessing, no longer exist because Govt has removed the responsibility of our individual actions. Thus destroying them as unalienable rights and making them govt controled rights. And of course which means that not a single American has any rights any longer. As each and every one of us has had the effects of our personal actions mitigated or sheltered by govt laws.

      You know BF you keep telling me I am wrong in my statements, such as the timber corporation example, yet my examples are based on real life experience. That would mean that reality based on my personal expericence is not matching up with your arguments. That is in itself a contradiction that stands against your basic defense of your view. Saying NO ITS NOT over and over doesn’t make my personal experience an illusion.

      You are assigning characteristics to corporatations that may or may not exist depending on the nature of the “humans” who own and run those companies. They are not all the same.

      Your claims that the Corporate Veil has not been pierced substantially simply is not supported by an ever increasing body of legal rulings that do just what you claim does not happen. You claim ALL action by officers, etc are protected or “mitigated”. But then you compare the penalty of illegal action by a private person against the legal, but undesirable, action of a corporate executive or employee (legal forest destruction). Yet we see corporate execs and employees go to jail for “breaking the law”.

      Your not going to convince me that the SCOTUS ruling was flawed. I have reviewed the arguments and the courts ruling itself. As I said, right now TODAY I will take my chances with Corporations having the ability to fund political speech over an already Tyrannical Govt that wants to impose on Speech.

      Congress shall make NO law………… Got it? NONE, NADA, ZILCH. NO LAW affecting…….FREAKIN PERIOD.

      Now is this the way I would like it to be in the long run? NO!

      But my judgment is based on the Constitution we HAVE TODAY.

      TODAY I say the ruling has taken a good chunck out of the Govt’s grab for power. That is a wonderful thing. Does it create risks of abuse? You bet. But now we are all watching more closely aren’t we. So maybe those risks are not as great as they might have been a little while ago.

      By the way. I heard on the radio last night that the military failed the inspection of the nuke missle sites. They didn’t say why but I am thinking that our living in the silos may have affected the inspection results. Just thought I would give you a heads up. They may be coming for your living room furniture soon. 🙂


  11. Another power and wealth grab by Dear Reader and friends…..I read some of the comments and a couple of them call out for armed resistance. People are getting fed up. Happy Hope-N-Change O’Bots!


    DEMINT: White House land grab Rate this story

    You’d think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they’re planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

    A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

    President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

    At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that’s exactly what’s happening.

    The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, “might be good candidates” for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it’s more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

    Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

    The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

    It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states’ rights.

    Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn’t want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

    • Holy crap! What is next?

      • Cyndi P says:

        Political violence,(racists!), political ‘crimes’ of “domestic terrorists” and arrests, total economic crash, martial law……not necessarily in that order. Economic crash could come sooner from what I’ve been reading. I’m sure O and friends would like that. It provides just one more excuse to clamp down.

    • Cyndi P:

      First of all, this has not been that secret as it is being discussed around Montana for several weeks. I think most of us who lived through the Carter and Clinton designations expected it.

      “Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left.”

      The Administration is LIEING. Yes I said you are a bunch of LIARS. These proposals have been around for at least 20 years. If Sen Tester doesn’t get his “Wilderness land mgt bill through I expect Obama will act. Only I also expect the designation will be far greater than many expect.

      “But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states’ rights. ”
      I don’t know who wrote this comment but it is very inaccurate. The “monument” designation applies ONLY to federal lands. The STATES have no authority over these lands, no matter how hard they try.

      I want everyone to notice how long this ACT has been abused and how vocal Senators, Congressmen, Governors etc are in screaming FOUL but the ACT still remains along with all the authority needed to do just what is suggested.

      Oh, and for those who think things can be undone. A President can designate a monument but future Presidents can not undo a “monument” designation.

      Hope you have a great day Cyndi

      • Cyndi P says:

        I figured the enviro-Mentals had been working on this for sometime. I expect a presidential EO. That’s how O will dictate…..

        Its always great in paradise!


        • I wonder if I am out there wandering in the mountains when the order is executed if they will let me OUT?

          Crap, I might become part of the monument “exhibit”. I can see it nowwwwwwwwwww………..

          Looks folks, one of the remnant “free men” who used to occupy this continent is sitting right over there on a rock. Don’t try to touch him or feed him. We wouldn’t want him to become habituated to “modern intellectual man”.

          Now I am sittin here laughing at my own jokes. How very, very sad……..:).

          • Cyndi P says:

            Hey I’m laughing at your jokes too, so you’re not really alone! 🙂

            Cheer up. I know its getting harder and harder to do. Hope-N-Change really sucks the big one….

            • Cyndi

              Oh hell my dear. This stuff don’t bother me in the least.

              I am just so happy I am shickled titless.

              Of course that is what all those guys in history said right before they went berserk. Bwah ha ha !

              Cyndi. Don’t worry about all the conspiracy stuff. Be prepared and then just focus on the good fight. If we loose, we will be ready. If we win then happy days again. But it sure aint worth building ulcers over Mr. Obama and his collection of loony tune friends. Perhaps we should be thankful this collection of Frick and Fracks came along when they did. The old school lefties would have just kept pecking away until we woke up in chains. These dopes tried to slip them on while we were still awake.

              At least some of us anyway……….

              Tipin a cold one to ya this evening my island friend.
              Keep smilin, cause its goin to get even crazier.

              • Cyndi P says:

                I don’t worry, per se, I’m just trying to figure out how its likely to go down so I can plan accordingly. If the worst happens, missteps could end badly. No do-overs.

                Thanks for the good wishes. I’ll tip a cold ice tea to you at lunch today!


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There is absolutely no reason for ANY land to be Federal land.

        If there is something truly monument-worthy and it spans more than one State, let the States handle it.

        Anyone who is not a complete idiot is gonna be able to figure out that tourism in Yellowstone is gonna make you a whole lot more money than logging in Yellowstone or drilling in Yellowstone for natural gas.

        Take a look at the percentage of land already claimed by the federal government. Percentage-wise it SEEMS like a small number, but then look at it in terms of actual square miles of land, and that number don’t look so small anymore, now do it?

        Oh, and by the way, I am NOT providing a link to show the percentage and actual square mile area of land claimed by the federal government. The internet is your friend, go out and look it up for yourself rather than me providing one link for you to see. I am sure you can find multiple sites with the information.

        • Peter

          Come on man, whats wrong with you?

          We Westerners love that Federal land. You guys payin the bills to maintain our big wide open spaces to play in. We love it.

          And of course, because the Feds own over 75% of most states out here, we also get all kinds of free cookies to compensate us for not having an economic base to support ourselves.

          Most Westerners don’t have much good to say about the Indian Reservations out here. Very few realize we are living ON the biggest reservation of all. And yes, we are just as tied to the Federal teat as my poor Indian cousins.

          So, on behalf of all of us out here under the Big Sky. Just wanted to thank you all for giving so generously to our lifestyle. Of course to show our gratitude we’ll leave the porch light on, just in case you would like to come visit sometime.

      • Are there possible shale oil or gas reserves on this land? Intent might be to keep if from being drilled, save the planet and such.

  12. Judy Sabatini says:

    Justices may extend gun owner rights nationwide

    Otis McDonald takes part in a news conference in front of the Supreme Court in AP – Otis McDonald takes part in a news conference in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March …

    By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 2, 9:12 pm ET

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it will strike down U.S. cities’ outright bans on handguns, a ruling that could establish a nationwide ownership right fervently sought by gun advocates. But the justices indicated less severe limits could survive, continuing disputes over the “right to keep and bear arms.”

    Chicago area residents who want handguns for protection in their homes are asking the court to extend its 2008 decision in support of gun rights in Washington, D.C., to state and local laws.

    Such a ruling would firmly establish a right that has been the subject of politically charged and often fierce debate for decades. But it also would ensure years of legal challenges to sort out exactly which restrictions may stand and which must fall.

    Indeed, the outcome of the Washington lawsuit in 2008 already has spawned hundreds of court challenges, including one in Massachusetts over a state law requiring gun owners to lock weapons in their homes.

    Two years ago, the court announced that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home.

    That ruling applied only to federal laws and struck down a ban on handguns and trigger lock requirement for other guns in Washington, a city with unique federal status. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms.

    The court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local laws. Still, “states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was among the majority in the 2008 decision.

    “Why can’t we do the same thing with firearms?” he asked.

    Alan Gura, the lawyer who represents the Chicago challengers, also has filed a new suit against Washington over the city’s prohibition on carrying loaded weapons outside the home.

    The justices themselves acknowledged that only through future lawsuits would the precise contours of the constitutional gun right be established. “We haven’t said anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is beyond what was said in Heller,” Chief Justice John Roberts said, using the name of the Washington resident who challenged the city’s ban.

    Roberts and the four other justices who made up the majority in the Washington case remain on the court, so it would not be a surprise to see them extend the Second Amendment’s reach to the states.

    Still, James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing the city of Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in that city and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years, although they appear to be the last two remaining jurisdictions with outright bans, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    Feldman ran into difficulty with several justices who formed the majority in 2008 — the ruling’s author Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Kennedy and Roberts. Only Thomas asked no questions, as is his custom during argument.

    Even those who were not in the 2008 majority appeared to recognize that some extension, or incorporation as it is called, of the Second Amendment is likely. “Would you be happy if we incorporated it and said reasonable regulation is part of the incorporation?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who only joined the court last year.

    As in earlier cases applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states, the justices suggested they use the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure the rights of newly freed slaves.

    The court has relied on that same clause — “no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” — in cases that established a woman’s right to an abortion and knocked down state laws against interracial marriage and gay sex.

    This is the approach the National Rifle Association favors.

    For years, Scalia has complained about the use of the due process clause. But Tuesday he said, “As much as I think it’s wrong, even I have acquiesced in it.”

    Gura urged the court to employ another part of the 14th amendment, forbidding a state to make or enforce any law “which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

    Breathing new life into the “privileges or immunities” clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, liberal and conservative legal scholars have said.

    But why use that approach, calling for overturning 140 years of law, Scalia said, “unless you’re bucking for a place on some law school faculty?”

    Gura assured the court he was not in search of a job.

    A decision is expected by the end of June.

    The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    In a sudden flashback from my youth, I recall hearing this on the TV or radio or something… Carter signed the “Alaska Lands Bill” in December of 1980 (after he had been defeated, but prior to Reagan’s inauguration). The bill included many other lands designated as “federal lands”, but there was a HUGE uproar in Alaska that he was claiming such a large and significant chunck in that State.

    Also, does it surprise anyone that Carter proposed a “National Health Plan” to the Congress while he was president? Does it surprise anyone that he did so in the midst of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression? (That is how the Economy was characterized at that time).

    Further, we have him to thank for the bureaucracies that are the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

    Don’t know specifically what dredged that all up, musta been the “Federal Lands” discussion 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      As a side note, I know that National Health Care was officially proposed to Congress by:

      Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Jimmy Carter
      Bill Clinton
      Barack Obama

      Does anyone happen to know if any other US Presidents have officially proposed National Health Care?

      • I think you should count Medicare and Medicaid which would expand your list.


        I am thinking that Teddy Roosevelt offered up the idea but can’t find the reference.

      • NASA’s explanation is certainly wrong and grossly oversimplified. However, the counter argument has some flaws as well. It is true that all bodies including gases with a finite temperature radiate energy according to the Plank equation. However, one parameter in the Plank equation is the emissivity. Emissivity is defined as 1 – the reflectivity. Another way of saying it is the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. It has to do with the conservation of energy. For light stiking an object, 100% must be acounted for. It is either absorbed or reflected. Emission and emissivity are just the reverse process of absorption and absorbtivity. Emissivity varies for 0 (pure white objects) to 1 (pure black objects). An object with an emissivity of 1 is called a blackbody.

        Now gases do emit radiation according to Plank’s equation like all other objects. However, they emit light only at wavelengths they absorb at (emissivity = absorptivity). Since by quantum mechanical rules, O2 & N2 do not have infrared spectra (don’t absorb in the IR) they cannot radiate in the IR. The can radiate in the vacuum UV (electronic transistions) and in the microwave (rotational transitions) regions. They can and do transfer energy by collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. (N2 collisional transfer (pumping) is what makes CO2 lasers to efficient.) If the collisions are with IR absorbers (H2O & CO2), then these molecules can and do radiate the energy away.

        It is disappointing to see NASA put out such misleading incorrect material. I know people at NASA and they certainly know better.

        • T-Ray,

          Wow, did you just make my head hurt.:lol:

          “They can and do transfer energy by collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere.” So nitrogen and oxygen, the majority gases in the atmosphere are part of the equation on the earth’s temp.. The question that leads to, how great or small is their effect?

  14. Birdman says:
  15. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    This is for Buck and Matt mostly, but anyone can respond.

    Why do you believe this statement and how will it help anything?

    Obama: ” we want to pass legislation that stop insurance companies for denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions”.

    I ask this to test a theory, not so much to stir the S^&T pile.


    • Buck The Wala says:

      Fair question.

      I believe the statement on its face and because that is what I want myself. There is nothing I am aware of that would prove Obama does not want to pass legislation that stops insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions. It is a completely subjective statement.

      Now why do I want insurance companies to be forced to stop denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions? Because it is wrong. In my opinion, everyone should be able to have access to insurance – virtually no one can pay for health care out of pocket, especially in those instances where they need it the most. Take a look at the out-of-pocket cost for surgery, cancer treatment, etc. Why should someone be stopped from obtaining coverage due to a pre-existing condition that is not their fault to begin with?

      • Fair answer!

        As I’m researching for a future article, I had a theory that I looked into, and then applied a test to it. here’s thet test.

        1. Was the statement repeated quite often?
        2. Does the statement appeal to one’s emotions?
        3. Do both the Senate and House bills state this, basically verbatum?
        4. Did the industry affected raise hell over it?
        5. What’s missiing in the legislation that makes it useless?

        I answered all of these, but what are your answers?


        • Buck The Wala says:

          Sorry G, missed your post last night.

          What’s your theory?

          Brief answers:

          1) yes
          2) yes – though this does not mean there is no logic behind it as well
          3) not necessarily verbatim, but yes
          4) some hell, not much from my recollection
          5) unsure what you’re driving at here

  16. Cyndi P says:

    something else to make the blood of non O-Bots shoot from the eyes…


    How many are still certain there will be free and HONEST elections in the future?

    • Dear Employees:

      As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that
      Barrack Hussein Obama is our President and that our taxes and government
      fees will increase in a BIG way.

      To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by
      about ten (10) %. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due
      to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our
      employees instead.

      This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here,
      and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.

      So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found
      sixty ‘Obama’ bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have decided
      these folks will be the ones to let go. I can’t think of a more fair
      way to approach this problem. They voted for change…… I gave it to

      I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

      THE BOSS

      • Intersting. So do you think this is appropriate LOI?

        And just yesterday USWeapon said this is “a non-issue because it cannot be done”.

        I guess it can…

        PS – I’m sure this is not true, as THE BOSS would no longer be the boss after losing his company in a lawsuit.

        • USWeapon says:

          Exactly Todd. That is why I said yesterday that it is a non-issue, and certainly not an issue that needs congressional action.

          Hope you are having a good night and not feeling like I was trying to pick on you. I wasn’t.

        • Todd,

          appropriate? No, but I am an inappropriate type person, not politically correct. Was meant as humor, you could respond in kind. Know any Bush jokes? I will laugh with ya.:lol:

          If you want to take this as a serious issue, the boss could fire those people and not have to worry about losing a lawsuit. How? Do not state their supporting Obama as the reason. In today’s work environment, you do not always state all the reasons for firing someone. Ex., a thief, several co-workers have seen them carry things out, and things have gone missing where that is the only person who reasonably could have taken it, so fire them for theft?
          No way, can you prove they are a thief in a court of law?
          Is it worth the expense? You write them up for poor job performance and boot them out the door.

          • After numerous rounds of “We don’t even know if Osama is still alive,” Osama himself decided to send George W. Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let the President know he was still in the game.

            Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:


            Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI.

            No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA.

            With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked Britain’s MI-6 for help. Within a minute MI-6 cabled the White House with this reply “Tell the President he’s holding the message upside down

            • Now that’s funny!


            • More, more!

              • Iraq vs. Vietnam
                Q. What’s the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
                A. George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.

            • Ought to Be on T-Shirts

              “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
              -Joseph Stalin

              Don’t Blame Me – I voted for Gore… I Think.


              If God Meant Us to Vote, He Would Have Given Us Candidates

              Jews for Buchanan

              What popular vote?

              I voted – Didn’t matter

              My parents retired to Florida and all I got was this lousy President

              Disney gave us Mickey, Florida gave us Dumbo

              DON’T THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE……..

              Who is this Chad guy and why is he pregnant?

              Bush trusts the people, but not if it involves counting.

              Now do you understand the importance of user-testing?

              To you I’m a drunk driver; to my friends, I’m presidential material!

              One person, one vote (may not apply in certain states)



              The election can’t be broken. We just fixed it.

              Banana Republicans

              George W. Bush: The President Quayle We Never Had

              The last time somebody listened to a Bush, folks wandered in the desert for 40 years

              Campaign spending: $184,000,000.
              Having your little brother rig the election for you: Priceless

  17. Western Europe now so tyrannical that US is offering their citizens asylum:

    Romeike decided to uproot his family in 2008 after he and his wife had accrued about $10,000 in fines for homeschooling their three oldest children and police had turned up at their doorstep and escorted them to school. “My kids were crying, but nobody seemed to care,” Romeike says of the incident. (See pictures of a diverse group of American teens.)

    In 2007, Germany’s Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling – which did not specifically involve the Romeikes – that parents could lose custody of their children if they continued to homeschool them. “We were under constant pressure, and we were scared the German authorities would take our children away,” Romeike says. “So we decided to leave and go to the U.S.”

    Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100302/us_time/09171196809900

    Summary: Germany outlaws homeschooling, so parents apply for asylum to the US to be able to home-school their children.

    Many issues here:

    – US feds appealing the decision of a local judge to approve the asylum application for purely political reasons (wanting to not offend Germany)
    – The idea that the governments in western Europe have gotten so “strong” that individuals must seek asylum elsewhere to exercise certain freedoms (even if on the surface they appear to be more tolerable than the “real” tyrannies)
    – The whole concept of governments outlawing any way of children avoiding the government-mandated curriculum – you’ll learn what we want you to learn!
    – The slight biased tone of the article that homeschooling is bad for children (perhaps just my own interpretation)

    • DK,

      I have been watching that, did not see the appeal, so thanks for posting.
      Seems strange the Germans can’t learn to be tolerant.

    • Homeschooling is under attack everywhere –

      He who controls the mind of the youth controls the adult.

    • http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4328

      Refuse To Shake Hands With A Woman And Get 6,000 Euros
      From the desk of Filip van Laenen on Tue, 2010-02-23 23:33

      Earlier this month, a 28 year old Muslim from Skåne was awarded just over 6,000 euros by a Swedish judge because he had refused to shake hands with a woman. One can wonder whether the woman maybe should praise herself lucky. After all, she wasn’t convicted for racism for the simple fact that she thought she could shake hands with a Muslim man.

      More than four years ago, Alen Malik Crnalic entered a course with the Swedish Public Employment Centre (Arbetsförmedlingen, AF) in order to find a job. In May 2006, he was on an interview in Älmhult for a trainee job as a welder, and during that interview, he refused to shake hands with the CEO of the company. The CEO happened to be a woman, and as an active Muslim, Alen Malik Crnalic says he’s not allowed to touch women outside his own family. Apparently, he also avoided eye-contact with the CEO during the interview, and rather stared to the ground.

      It should probably not come as a surprise that Alen Malik Crnalic didn’t get the job. According to the company and the Public Employment Centre, he wasn’t qualified for the job. Later he also lost his employment benefits. Alen Malik Crnalic didn’t agree with that, and instead appealed the decision to the National Labour Market Board (Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen, AMS). The Board rejected his appeal, but then it was picked up by the Ombudsman for Discrimination (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, DO), and brought to court. There, the judge overruled the National Labour Market Board’s decision, and awarded the man a 6,000 euro compensation. According to the judge, the claim by the man that he cannot shake hands with a woman because of religious reasons is valid. He should therefore have gotten the job even though he refused to greet the company’s CEO, and the Public Employment Centre should not have canceled his unemployment benefits either.

  18. JAC

    You have dived so deep I fear the cold water has slowed your thinking.

    I do not swim, therefore I do not dive into cold water.

    “There are no rights without responsibility of action
    The moment your remove responsibility, you remove the right.”
    So now our UNALIENABLE rights, which exist at our birth and NOT by Govt blessing, no longer exist because Govt has removed the responsibility of our individual actions.


    It is the ACCEPTANCE of the act of government is what destroys said rights

    They can banter all they want in meaningless garble – but they moment you agree, you have destroyed yourself

    You agree that CORPORATIONS can deflect responsibility and you have further agreed that said Government-created bizarre abstraction now has human rights – by THAT AGREEMENT you have lost your rights.

    You know BF you keep telling me I am wrong in my statements, such as the timber corporation example, yet my examples are based on real life experience.

    You have raised examples that – in each – demonstrates that all or part of the consequence was deflected.

    You are assigning characteristics to corporatations that may or may not exist depending on the nature of the “humans” who own and run those companies. They are not all the same.

    In all human action, it is a human who acts regardless of the veil you wish to hide such action behind.

    Your claims that the Corporate Veil has not been pierced substantially simply is not supported by an ever increasing body of legal rulings that do just what you claim does not happen. You claim ALL action by officers, etc are protected or “mitigated”.

    No, I have not made such a claim of “all”.

    My claim is simple.

    The CORPORATION exists to mitigate and deflect consequences away from those who act and upon those who are innocent.

    It does not matter that you can show a case where one time an actor failed to deflect.

    All that matters it that I can show that it happens, and that it happens most regularly – that it is common and not exceptional. Indeed, it is the exception that it does not happen.

    The common man’s attention is brought forward to when escape did not occur and the common man sensibility is not engaged when such escapes occurs!

    To, now, enhance and enforce this evil entities hold on such sensibility to a higher order is an increase in evil, not a deflation.

    Your not going to convince me that the SCOTUS ruling was flawed.

    It’s flaw is core.

    It provides Statists direct example that government determines rights and when and where such rights are applied.

    It undermines the inalienable right theory at its core.

    I have reviewed the arguments and the courts ruling itself. As I said, right now TODAY I will take my chances with Corporations having the ability to fund political speech over an already Tyrannical Govt that wants to impose on Speech.

    Your agreement that a government-created entity has the rights of real people affirms that government can control real rights.

    Congress shall make NO law………… Got it? NONE, NADA, ZILCH. NO LAW affecting…….FREAKIN PERIOD.

    Invocation of dead words on a moot document makes no case with me.

    Now is this the way I would like it to be in the long run? NO!
    But my judgment is based on the Constitution we HAVE TODAY.

    The Constitution holds no weight in arguments against the rights of free men.

    TODAY I say the ruling has taken a good chunck out of the Govt’s grab for power.

    I say, most definitely, that it empowered the State even more.

    From my web site – Patriot Henry:

    They formed a “State permitted Collective”.

    The State owns all such Collectives.

    It decides how much of the Collective’s earnings to take or not to take.

    It decides how often and how such Collectives shall do a great many things, such as having meetings and keeping notes on meetings amongst a wide variety of such State mandated duties.

    The State can and has now again decided which natural rights such Collectives may assume.

    The greater the expansion of rights of “State-permitted Collectives”, the greater the restriction of the natural rights of individuals.

    The “State-permitted Collectives” shall now grow more powerful and influential over the State.

    The solution isn’t to restrict the speech of such Collectives – it’s to eliminate The Collectives entirely.

    Now the State will chose to favor it’s most loved creation over the screams of mere people.

    The Centralization of Money naturally is attracted to the Centralization of Violence.

    Now, it has a voice too.

  19. And the grassroots answer to the Tea Parties is…..

    CNN Omits ‘Coffee Party’ Founder’s Past as Obama Volunteer

    By Matthew Balan
    Wed, 03/03/2010 – 11:44 ET

    John Roberts, CNN Anchor; Kiran Chetry, CNN Anchor; & Annabel Park, Coffee Party USA Founder | NewsBusters.orgJohn Roberts and Kiran Chetry omitted mentioning that Annabel Park, the founder of the so-called Coffee Party, worked as a volunteer for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, during an interview on Wednesday’s American Morning. The anchors also didn’t mention Park’s past work for the liberal New York Times.

    Roberts and Chetry interviewed the Coffee Party USA founder at the bottom of the 8 am Eastern hour. After an initial question about the origin of the name, the two asked about the principles of the nascent movement and if health care “reform” was going to be a major issue for it. In her last question to Park, Chetry did ask if the Coffee Party had any ties to a political party: “[T]he tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?”

    The founder denied that her movement was aligned to any party, and actually criticized the longstanding two-party system in the United States as being “incredibly outdated.” In reality, as William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection blog exposed, Park worked for one of the two parties, as an organizer and operator of the United for Obama video channel on YouTube (NewsBuster P. J. Gladnick blogged about Jacobson’s expose on Tuesday evening). As the United for Obama page admits, “We are a network of Obama volunteers from all across the country and from all backgrounds working together to support Obama’s message of unity and change….Some of us are filmmakers and we created this page to amplify Obama’s message on YouTube…The filmmakers include…Annabel Park…”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/03/03/cnn-omits-coffee-party-founders-past-obama-volunteer#ixzz0h9oC7D9v

    • Cyndi P says:

      More like the Commie Party! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA1

      Make them own it. “Oh look! Its the Commie Party!!!”

  20. from American Thinker

    Here comes the sun(spots)
    Tom Bruner
    February, 2010, was the first month since 2007 with sunspots every day according to Spaceweather.com for February 27. A quick check of February 28 confirms the streak. So far there have been only 2 spot-free days in 2010. By comparison there were 260 spot-free days in 2009, and there have been 772 spot-free days since 2004. What this means is that one of the quietest periods of solar activity in recent history may be coming to an end.

    The relevance of this is that sunspot activity has been proposed by many, such as Geerts and Linacre , as a possible driver of Earth’s climate patterns, including global warming and cooling cycles. As with most climate theory, the science has not been settled on the link between sunspots and Earth’s climate.

    Most, but not all according to some. Global Warming theory is considered so sacred and settled that until recently any scientist who questioned the tenets of its conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of climate change were subject to all but ridicule and censure. Recent events, including the Climategate scandal and a series of years where global temperature has stayed about the same, have tempered this attitude.

    But now the sunspots come back and we, as junior scientists are presented with the opportunity to test the hypothesis. If sunspot activity increases, and other factors such as prevalence of greenhouse gases, volcanic activity, and known cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation continue in their recent patterns and temperature increases, then we may conclude that sunspots do indeed affect Earth’s climate. If not, then we can eliminate sunspots as a significant contributor to climate change.

    We also have the opportunity to make another observation in the realm of the social sciences. If sunspot activity does increase and temperatures increase even when other factors are accounted for, then if there are any individuals with a vested interest in the carbon trading industry it would be expected that these individuals will attribute the rise in temperatures to CO2 levels increasing. If no one makes such claims then we can conclude that everyone is really interested in the facts only and have no vested interest in controlling carbon consumption.

    A scientist would wait for the data to come in. A gambler would lay odds on another round of global warming hysteria if temperatures rise no matter what the real reason.

    Tom Bruner is not a scientist.

  21. SHOCK to our Statist friends!!

    Without official help, Chileans organize to protect themselves as quake collapses social order

    The groups have stepped in as police were overwhelmed by looting and soldiers were slow to restore order after an earthquake and tsunami.

    “We take care of ourselves here,” said 51-year-old Maria Cortes. She stood watch in Poblacion Libertad – “Freedom Community” – a gritty collection of small duplexes along an industrial road in the port town of Talcahuano. About 2,000 people live here around a common area three football fields long.

  22. The Video The USA Army Doesn’t Want You To See

    • Nice piece of propoganda.

      Thats what you get when folks start with a conclusion then try to force various facts into their preconceived box.

      The effect is to destroy the credibility of the facts they use by smearing it with their rhetorical bromides that have been around for decades.

      You would think that folks opposed to US military action around the world would have learned that lesson. Apparently not.

    • BF,

      For some reason I cannot view this on SUFA. Would you plaes e-mail me the link?


    • I contemplated on whether or not this even required a comment. So, here it is. Nice piece of bull shit.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        You were much more gentle in your words than I would have been. I watched it last night, and it really ticked me off. I thought the same thing that JAC said.

      • D13

        Colonel, there is no reason to make such disparaging remarks about bulls or their product of consumption.

        You have done bull shit a great disservice.

        As I watched that I knew where it was going, to I tried to really concentrate on how it affected me emotionally. After all, that is its purpose. I was shocked to find myself more disgusted over the guy tossing the puppy than any of the other images or rhetoric. Perhaps that is because we have become desensitized to the rest. Tossing puppies is just so out of the norm and obviously whacked.

        Don’t know why, but thought I would share.

        Hope you are having a great Pepper day.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          That image was with me all night after seeing that poor puupy being tossed like that. That was just despicable.

          Hope all is having a good day.

        • JAC…please accept my most humble apologies for disparaging the bulls and their by product. What was I thinking….

          Now, everyone, including BF, knows that there are some really stupid and insensitive people out there. In all walks of life, even those with IQ’s that are astronomical, there are some people that are not the norm. The worse thing about the whole clip was the puppy being thrown. Had I been present when that individual, on tape trying to show that he is some sort of brave warrior that has no feelings and trying to impress who the hell knows, picked up any animal and abused it in any manner for any reason, would have met my rifle butt squarely between the eyes. Then I would have convened a court martial and then I would have him thrown out of the Service. I have witnessed exactly two events in the manner that was depicted (all against pets) in all my 40 years of military service. Please remember that I was enlisted when in heavy combat in Vietnam, so I have seen both sides. I have seen and felt the strain of combat many times….but never had the urge to hurt or destroy any animal (except to eat it), rape any woman, shoot uncontrollably without provocation for any reason (except to break ambush), run over children, burn huts without orders, or other wise behave in any manner depicted in that clip. This clip obviously is a hit piece designed to hit the emotional buttons of the anti military. There is no reason for the Army to hide this clip…..if it knew it existed.

          However, since this is obviously an edited piece of, ummm, journalism, (I use that term loosely…very loosely), it should be used to punish the recognizable soldier or soldiers that were in this piece of Martian Crap. There is no room and no excuse for any type of behavior as this. I would be willing to wager that most of us know plenty of civilians that have kicked or abused animals but is that a testimony to all of us?

          Strange things happen in war. Stranger things happen when one stands down (ie: draining rocket fuel from smoke rockets to drink and go blind). There have been some people that break under the strain of combat and go bat shitty….just as men/women break under the strain of civilian leadership and set fires or key the sides of cars or kick the cat. There are dregs of society out there. The military is no different. we handle it.

          What is worse….there are people that will believe this clip and think that is the norm. Sad for them.

      • USWeapon says:

        Amen D13. Amen.

  23. Buck The Wala

    Buck, I hope you see this Thurdsday morning. Mr. Natelson’s take on the Chicago gun case. It turns out the decision may not turn on a simple interpretaton of the second amendment as we all think.

    Make sure you read the comments as there is more opionion offered there.



    • Buck The Wala says:

      Interesting. I’m a bit surprised to learn that the attorney focused much of his attention on the P&I clause, when he could have easily hung his hat on incorporation under due process just like the prior cases on incorporation.

      I still believe that the case will turn largely on the interpreation of the 2d Amendment itself. SCOTUS has already rendered its ruling in Heller when they found the 2d Amendment does confer an individual right. Since this is the case it would be extremely difficult to find against incorporation. In my opinion, if I’m reading prior incorporation holdings correctly, once you have an individual right, it must be incorporated so as to apply to the states and localities.

  24. Man, after a quick search, I think I’m the only one who even mentioned USWeapon’s proposed solution yesterday, and I still get SLAMMED in the opening paragraph!! 😉

    Guess I’m doing something right!! 🙂

    • USWeapon says:

      I don’t think you got slammed. I didn’t even mention your name. What I did was point out that you ignored the examples I gave and simply acted as though I was trying to make a big deal out of nothing. I went with the hypothetical situations and asked what the solution should be based on them.

  25. Richmond Spitfire says:
    • Good morning RS:

      Three cheers for the vet. I bet the homie thug is still seeing stars. Notice no one helped him.

      I do have to step in on your SUFA grammar though. I’m in rehab and working hard to conquer this problem I have about this particular word. The correct word is ASSCLOWN. Sorry, sometimes I fall off the wagon. Thanks, I feel better now 🙂

      Having said that…It’s 8am, a beautiful sunny morning on its way to..34 degrees..Ahhh only 6 more degrees to go to an official opening day of bonfires! Can’t wait..heard its going to 44 Saturday!

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Anita…Thanks for the grammar-check! lol

        Hope your day is wonderful!

  26. Main part of the Presidents 35th public address on healthcare.


    On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

    On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry – whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

    I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients.

    The proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

    Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

    First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California. Those practices would end.

    Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. Because if it’s good enough for Members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance marketplace where insurance companies give better rates and coverage because we give them more customers. This is an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits to do so – tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well-off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. But it’s the middle-class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

    Now, it’s true that all of this will cost money – about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now, a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. With this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go toward making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re also going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance, and make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of Medicare.

    The bottom line is, our proposal is paid for. And all new money generated in this plan would go back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for American families.

    Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions – families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care – ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

    Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades. And those aren’t my numbers – they are the savings determined by the CBO, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress.

    So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

    • “On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.”

      And I agree scrapping our current system is not your intention. I think you are trying to put into place a gradual takeover of private health care by the government. First, the insurance companies will start to fail, and then be taken over by the government. That’s why it is so important to pass some form of this current bill, so the mechanisms placed in it for government assuming control at a later date are included. If we start over, it might not include the path to total government takeover of the health system.

    • “On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry – whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.”

      My understanding is the Repug’s have proposed allowing us to cross state lines to shop for health insurance, as we do for home and auto? So this is a deliberate mischaracterization on your part. Also consider, this is something congress has the legal authority to act on, to regulate, meaning to make regular throughout the states. Mandating all people in the US must have medical insurance is not within the powers detailed in the constitution.

      • LOI,

        On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, including most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry – whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell.

        Insurance is regulated by the states, so you would need to loosen regulations to allow us to cross state lines to shop for health insurance.

        This is not a mischaracterization. It is correct.

        My understanding is the Repug’s have proposed allowing us to cross state lines to shop for health insurance, as we do for home and auto?

        This is a mischaracterization. You cannot cross lines for home or auto insurance. Many insurance companies are licenses to sell insurance in multiple states. But you cannot buy a policy from an insurance company that is licensed in Texas and not licensed in Arkansas.

        I’ve been involved in filings, licensing and approvals with many states. It’s a major pain-in-the-butt.

        • Todd,

          “This is a mischaracterization. You cannot cross lines for home or auto insurance. Many insurance companies are licenses to sell insurance in multiple states. But you cannot buy a policy from an insurance company that is licensed in Texas and not licensed in Arkansas.”

          No, but Allstate, Progressive, etc, have that license in all the states where they want to sell insurance. That is not the case with health insurance, so I say bullfeathers 😆 to your stating I made a mischaracterization on this.

          Obama said they want to,”loosen regulations on the insurance industry” I do not see it that way, they are proposing making health insurance laws the same, state to state. And that is the job the founders empowered congress with, to make laws regular, or the same state to state. My drivers license is honored in all states. When a big enough issue arises, the federal government is supposed to resolve issues between the states. Is health insurance a big deal?

          • LOI,

            No, but Allstate, Progressive, etc, have that license in all the states where they want to sell insurance. That is not the case with health insurance, so I say bullfeathers to your stating I made a mischaracterization on this.

            Yes, Allstate, Progressive, etc, have that license in all the states where they want to sell insurance. And health insurance is exactly the same – all health insurance companies have a license in all states where they want to sell insurance.

            There is absolutely no difference. If a company (in any industry) wants to do business in a state, it has to follow the laws in that state.

            Obama said they want to,”loosen regulations on the insurance industry” I do not see it that way, they are proposing making health insurance laws the same, state to state. And that is the job the founders empowered congress with, to make laws regular, or the same state to state.

            The current laws for coverage, limits, deductibles, co-pays, discounts, rates, reporting and many other factors vary widely from state to state. This might be more of an issue with semantics. You said “I do not see it that way”, but the only way to make health insurance laws the same, state to state, is to reduce these regulations down to a very simple common set.

            I’d send you links to some states’ websites where they have the insurance regulation documents, but you need user-id’s and password’s to log in. You think the health care bill is long, you should read some of this stuff. One state – I don’t remember which one – had an eight page Executive Summary. Uh, hello, you’re kind of missing the point of a SUMMARY!!

            By the way, I see some merit in this. But it all depends on how it is done. I don’t think Obama and the Republicans are really that far a part here…

            My drivers license is honored in all states.

            So is your health insurance. When you travel from state to state, your drivers license and health insurance are both valid in all states.

            But, if you move to a different state, you need to get a new…drivers license…and…new insurance. Again, no real difference here.

            When a big enough issue arises, the federal government is supposed to resolve issues between the states. Is health insurance a big deal?

            Yes it is. That’s why Congress is trying to pass reform. Will you now support it???? 😉

            • Todd,

              Nope and not for a second is this supportable.

              Your goal – if I may assume for a minute – is to provide the highest possible quality health care inexpensively to all people regardless of their medical condition or history for as long as the people live.

              Your plan guarantees that the quality will collapse, the availability will collapse, the costs will overwhelm the nation and that the collapse will occur when any hope of alternatives have been driven out of the market place, leaving nothing to support the people when your plan totally fails.

              Your plan guarantees political upheaval and most probably the dissolution of the United States.

              I do not believe this is your goal, therefore your plan is a great and terrible mistake.

              However, if your goal is to shatter the Nation – you’ve got that in Spades.

            • Todd, a good answer, but..

              “but the only way to make health insurance laws the same, state to state, is to reduce these regulations down to a very simple common set.”

              Not true, common set, yes, simple would be best, but not the only way. With our government what chance is there of a simple law on crossing the street, much less healthcare?

              Next, I agree with Flag on this, giving control of 1/6th of the economy over to the same people who are running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
              is not a good plan. Consider the housing bubble, Bush asked congress to tighten regulations on Freddie/Fannie, and they blew him off. They still control that segment of the economy, so how are they doing?

    • “First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a pre-existing condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California. Those practices would end.”

      The pre-existing argument I have heard, many young, healthy people do not buy full coverage insurance, to save money when getting started in life. If you can wait until you become sick or injured to buy insurance, at a fixed rate, no “insurance” company can operate at even a break-even level.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Which is one of the reasons to mandate coverage.

        • So you lefties really DON’T stand for a persons RIGHT to choose!

          I am getting a more complete picture, thanks.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            JAC, you miss the point.

            But back to the judicial issues we’ve been discussing – which I find much more interesting – I’ve been waiting to hear your list of enumerated powers for the judiciary. Any thoughts?

            • Buck

              I hadn’t read Article III in awhile so spent the morning reading and chasing the associated rabbits.

              Lets review:

              Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-………..” the rest identifies which cases fall under federal jurisdiction.

              As I said yesterday, I think Jefferson’s criticism of the Court’s review of laws regarding their “constitutionality” was wrong.

              I revise my view that the authority was counter intuitive. I would say the power was explicitly described, as shown above.

              Later in Section 2: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

              This one intrigues me in that it specifies “as to Law and Fact”, but not “Equity”, and with such “Exceptions”. As I understand the legal concepts this gives the court the authority to determine whether the Facts of a previous case are legitimate, as well as whether the ruling was consistent with the law. But the broader, general authority in the first paragraph does not specify “Fact”.

              So I read this to mean the court has jurisdiction over all laws…..in Law and Equity but ONLY has authority to determine “Fact” in its role as an appellate court.

              Is that correct, based on your formal teaching?

              It also clearly states that such authority might have limitations or rules of procedure placed on it by Congress. Yet Article I does not include the specific authority for Congress to make such rules, except for lower courts. So I would say this is an obvious and proper role for the Necessary and Proper clause.

              Namely that if the Court’s authority may have exceptions placed by Congress then obviously Congress must have the authority to make laws to carry out such authority.

              My reading into the concepts of Law and Equity as well as Law and Fact, and the underlying principles of common law, natural law, and statutory law, combined with my past readings on the Const. debates leads me to believe that the framers had a very good understanding to the legal concepts and roles of the courts at that time.

              There was intense debate over concerns that the Federal judiciary would become a powerful Oligarchy, and thus threaten generations of “common law” in favor of “statutory laws” passed by congress and the states.

              Next, I will try to find some of the arguments posed during the debates and post them to see if they will shed some more light.

              In summary, a couple of thoughts. First, the guy the other night is seriously mistaken in representing that the Const. does not authorize SCOTUS to review cases based on the Const issues. This issue really is the extent of Const. “revision” that has occurred as a result of exercising that authority.

              This is a slippery slope concept. Namely, to give the authority to make such a review will necessarily run the risk of revising the original meaning as part of the review. Thus the principle of “living document” in the context of “appellate review” renders the purpose of the document moot. The only way to avoid this trap is to firm up the language of the document itself. But of course then you run the danger of prescriptive law.

              Second, the founders/framers were well steeped in the history of law. I get the sense that they paid much deference and respect to the law at that time. Which makes sense given that the “law” had evolved as the primary means of controlling the monarchies of England and assuring some form of justice for the less fortunate. Thus the specific mention of “Equity” in Article III.

              One other thought, I never really noticed before. Again, the Section 2 wording: “the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;”

              Note that the laws of the “United States” shall be made under “their” authority, not under IT’S authority. I found this a few other places.

              It creates an interesting mix in the document, causing one to wonder when they are referring the United States as a collective of states and when they are talking about a Centralized Govt. If you connect it to the writings of the time, and the context of the revolution, I would say they viewed the central govt as minimal and limited but basically as the collective or union of the many states. So when they said the United States would guarantee, they meant all states would guarantee to the other state or states. This may seem obvious but then I notice after the Civil War the amendments seem to start treating the Federal as distinctly separate.

              Otherwise the 14th Amendment wasn’t necessary. The original provided the same protections under Article IV.

              Hows that for some new stuff to chew on?

              Top of the day to ya Buck.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Took a cursory read – very interesting thoughts. Will have to take another look at the relevant language again and give it some hard thought.

                Of course work is slowly picking up again, and am heading into the city for dinner afterwards so may not get back to you until tomorrow.

                How’s life treating ya?

                • Buck

                  Life is good, always. Beats the hell out of the alternative.

                  I just had another thought, related but different.

                  I think Marshall and the court got the Marbury decision WRONG.

                  I do not see where Congress gave the court “original jurisdiction” over writs of mandamus.

                  It seems to me they misinterpreted the Judicial Act itself. Writs are simply orders. Congress said, you have the authority to issue orders to lower courts and public officials. That is not a “jurisdictional” issue by itself.

                  Perhaps the summary I read has the conclusions wrong. As Marbury was a judicial appointment wouldn’t it have been proper to simply rule that the court did not have “original jurisdiction” regarding his appointment as it did not involve an ambassadorship or ministry position?

                  Or was a judicial appt considered a “other public Ministries and Consuls” back in those days?

                  The more I dig into this it looks like Jefferson was absolutely pissed at Adams and determined to undo what he could by any means possible. And perhaps Marshall and the boys were determined to send a message to Jefferson and his buddies.

                  Seems to me the Court was reaching to find the flaw. Also seems funny they ruled on the other key issues before determining they had no jurisdiction.

                  American politics. As I have said before. Not much has changed since 1776.

                  We can tackle this and the above tomorrow or other time. Just toss it up when your ready.

                  Into the City, huh? Me too. Son and I are going to eat out on the far side of the “city”. I should be able to get there in 15 minutes, 10 if I hit the 4 stop lights just right.

                  Or perhaps we could eat at the next big town. Takes about 35 minutes to get there. Its 48 miles away. Of course I’ll have to go slower than normal, deer are all over the highway at night.



                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    From what I remember without doing any research at the moment — it was pretty much a grudge match between Jefferson and Adams.

                    As far as original jurisdiction is concerned, I’ll take a look into that as well, but honestly don’t recall that ever being an issue in this case. From what I remember, jurisdiction was clear. Now you’re just piling on more research for me to do!

                    Good thing about where I work is I can walk across the street, jump on the train and be in the city in 40 minutes flat. Can even read a book as I go. I’ll let the conductor worry about any migrant deer!

                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    Took a very quick look into Marbury. The issue was jurisdiction.

                    The Constitution laid out those types of cases that the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act added writs of mandamus to that list.

                    The issue then was which governed — did the Constitution only establish a floor for original jurisdiction, which Congress could subsequently add to?

                    In answering this question the Supreme Court laid out the basics of judicial review. You had two competing laws — the Constitution and the Judiciary Act. The Supreme Court had to look at both, interpret both, and determine which governed. In doing so, it found the Constitution governed and thus the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.

                    Further research is clearly in order…

                    • Buck

                      I think you need to re read my point about Marbury.

                      Do some more digging and we can chase around when you have more time.

                      Go to the original law and read Section 13 where the “authority for writs” is supposedly given.

                      I don’t think the Congress was doing what the court said it did. But your knowledge of the law may help me resolve this.

                      You can find the original by going to WIKI and looking near the bottom of the article for an enlarge selection.

                • Buck

                  Guess I should have read more of the WIKI reference. Turns out I am NOT alone in the wilderness regarding my view of Marshall’s logic.

                  “At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall’s reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be “placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”[22]

                  A minority of legal scholars have raised questions about the logic Marshall used in determining the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, and hence the legitimacy of judicial review. They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[23] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court’s power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[24] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction “all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls,” and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a “public minister [or] consul.”[25”

                  This was the argument I was trying to convey to you above.

        • Buck,

          Arkansas has ARKids First for children. According to our Sen. Lincoln, 60,000 kids in Arkansas are without health insurance. 40,000 of them qualify for ARKids. So what will big governments solution be to people who could have insurance paid for them, but do not take it? Fine them?
          Many without income, or living totally on government subsidies.

          This will lead to the government imprisoning people for failing to get health insurance. It may be a small number, but is that really the issue? Are you in favor of sending anyone to prison for failing to get insurance?

          Maybe that’s figured into the jobs to be created, building and staffing new prisons?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I don’t know anything about ARKids. No idea of eligibility requirements nor how the program works once enrolled. So my solution could be completely off base.

            I’ll take your numbers at your word. So what to do about 40,000 kids who qualify but do not enroll? Automatic enrollment.

            • Automatic enrollment. How would that work?
              Thru the IRS? So no tax “refund” to anyone who does not have proof of health insurance? Sounds great! I find myself wishing for a more powerful tax collection agency.:roll:

              • LOI-

                That is how it works in MA. With your tax return you have to file an additional form showing proof of insurance (or proof of exemption), or face a fine (I believe of $1000). Easiest method of enforcement really, rather than creating a whole new bureaucracy to deal with it.

                • Guess who is NEVER, EVER, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS, FOREVER AND A DAY,


                  Head is starting to throb.

                  • USWeapon says:

                    JAC… laughing hard at seeing another refer to Mass in that way. My whole family is from there. I grew up splitting my time between PA and MA. I will also never, ever move back to that state.


              • Buck The Wala says:

                Without knowing the eligibility requirements or how the program works I can’t spell out specifics for an automatic enrollment policy.

                But basically, if you are born to a family who makes less than $X (eligibility threshold) then you are automatically enrolled in ARKids and enjoy free health coverage until the age of 18 or 21 or whatever it is.

                Since its a state program you wouldn’t have to involve the IRS at all. Wouldn’t even need to check a box — the state tax department would see your income and number of dependent children on your state form; those dependents would be entered into a database and their parents issued insurance cards for their benefit.

            • Buck

              Intelligence is such an awful thing to see wasted. You my friend are a danger to not only yourself but anyone who cherishes liberty.

              So I have one remaining question on this.

              When they are leading you off to slaughter, do you want any of us to intervene, or should we let them take you quietly?

              You seem nice enough, so I might chance trying to save you if you ask.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                All I know here is that there’s a program in AK established to provide free insurance coverage for children, ostensibly living in households below a certain income level.

                I know nothing about this program. I haven’t read up on this program.

                I’ve been told that out of the 60,000 kids who have are uninsured in the state, 40,000 of them are eligible for this free coverage. Why is that? Not sure. I don’t know any of the specifics. Perhaps some parents don’t know about this program or that their children are eligible. Perhaps some are too lazy to fill out the requisite forms. Perhaps some are against this program for some reason (and to address this concern you can always have an opt-out of automatic enrollment).

                The question was raised how do we get those 40,000 uninsured children free insurance? My answer – enroll them automatically.

                As I initially said, this answer could be completely off base. Just my initial impression given the problem as stated. Don’t see how this solution is a ‘waste of my intelligence’.

                What is your solution — 2/3 of uninsured children are eligible for free insurance. How do you get those children onto this free insurance program?

                • Buck

                  I do absolutely nothing.

                  Its their CHOICE.

                  We had the same thing here in Idaho and Montana with SCHIP.

                  Remember the demagoguery that went on with that little issue by the Dems during the last mid term election?

                  Well most of the money went for wanting clients because the “uninsured” didn’t want no stinkin govt insurance.

                  You said I missed the point earlier. See I didn’t miss it at all. You do not respect a persons Right to Choose.

                  You would impose YOUR choice on me and anyone else to meet what you perceive as moral goals.

                  As with all on the left. Choice means you get to pick what I want you to pick, or what I give you to pick from.

                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    So then why not support an opt-out as opposed to an opt-in?

                    People still have a choice but they start within the program in order to reduce the overall number of uninsured children.

                    I guarantee that by doing so you will have less than 40,000 of those eligible still uninsured.

                • Buck,

                  AR for Arkansas,
                  AK is Alaska, made me shiver thinking about that. My point was if you extend those percentages to the nation.
                  Americans have this delusion that they are free, so you have to be prepared to ENFORCE the government mandate you support. If they refuse to pay your fines, will you send them to prison?

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    Again, without knowing any specifics about the ARkansas program I can’t give much more thought into a solution. I didn’t realize going to jail was on the table for the parents failure to enroll in that program. If so, seems very counterproductive to me.

                    I am ok with fines, but no jail time. I think thats a bit extreme given the ‘crime’.

    • “Now, it’s true that all of this will cost money – about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care. It’s just that right now, a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. With this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go toward making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re also going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies,”

      BIG issue, he’s going to eliminate waste. Why not do that first with our three biggest entitlements? Medicare and Medicaid already are half the cost of the US spending on health care. Fix those, then we could have a real conversation. You can even wait on fixing SS.

      From W.C. Douglas, M.D.
      The little Bolsheviks behind ObamaCare claim one of the ways they’ll pay for their socialist medicine scheme is through cost savings…like eliminating the $60 billion lost each year to Medicare fraud.

      There’s just one problem: We’ve either got the world’s smartest crooks, or the Keystone Kops have been placed in charge of catching them.

      Two years into a major crackdown on Medicare freeloaders, fraudsters and other crooks…and we’ve got practically nothing to show for it. Medicare fraud prosecutions were up just 2 percent last year.

      That’s it — 2 percent.

      Since this crackdown began under President Bush in 2007, it’s proof that failure is truly a bipartisan effort. That’s two different administrations who’ve tried — and failed — to rein in Medicare fraud.

      And as a taxpayer, you’re getting the bill three times over. The first bill is for those $60 billion in fraudulent claims paid each year. The second bill is to pay for all those Kops, investigators and prosecutors who aren’t cracking down on it (I’m sure they’re enjoying those nice offices in Miami, though). And the third bill will come due with ObamaCare — when you’ll be forced to pony up extra bucks because the savings never materialized.

    • “The bottom line is, our proposal is paid for.”

      Aren’t there some details being left out there?

      “Now, it’s true that all of this will cost money – about $100 billion per year.”

      Hold on there, which is it? Is it paid for or will it cost $100 billion?
      And while we’re on it, how many government programs have been done for the proposed budget figure? Ever, can anyone name one?

      Is this a sustainable program? Social Security has not worked out to well.
      What is the projected budget after ten and twenty years? Is this based on the senate proposal where we pay in for four years before we can start using the program?

    • “My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.”

      Final thought, if this is true, can they get this passed on merit alone? No $300 million senators to be paid off for their support?

  27. D13 new post: New Trend? Fort Worth, Texas. TXU…Texas Electric Utilities posted an ad for new hires and set up interviews for individuals for a marketing program designed to bring back old customers that have left TXU for third party providers. Hundreds showed up for the interviews only to find that they would not be employees but would be commissioned and must file their own taxes and provide their own transportation and there would be no benefits. The marketing department that had been handling this has been “downsized” and all “new hires” will be independent contractors. The job, previously handled within their marketing department, requires telecommunications as well as door to door sales.

    Texas utilities is huge here. When contacted, the IRS said that it will review the contracts to determine independent status. Texas Utilities Commission spokesperson has said that this is what is going to happen to a lot of larger companies if forced into more and more costly government programs. They will simply cut the employee force and go to independent contractors.

    What say everyone? New Trend or isolated incident?

    • v. Holland says:

      I suspect they won’t allow it to become a trend. IRS will determine they are not independent contractors even if they have to change the rules.

    • There are IRS rules for independent contractors. When I was independent, I made sure I had at least 3 clients each year. I have heard of comapnies being sued for back benefits for hiring contractors and working them like employees for long periods of time. Other factors that get considered are does the employer supply work space, tools and direct supervision. The benefits thing is probably based on state laws, the IRS gets involved with taxes.

      Going to contractors and temps has been going on since the downturn in the ’80s. Cradle to grave employment stopped and companies not wanting to go through the costs of layoffs moved to using temps as a way to avoid them.

      • Yes, T-Ray…there are very explicit rules. I operate under them with the contractors that are associated with my little company. Print them and write a contract that mirrors the IRS rules and live by it. It is simple. My whole point is that TXU is Statewide….very large and I am sure they have the best legal advice available. I just find it interesting that a company this large is going this route….should prove interesting.

  28. Displaced Okie says:

    To SUFA,
    Ok, I don’t if we’ve hit the health care reform debate from this angle before, but why does this reform have to be implemented on a national level? I mean if this plan is so great why doesn’t a heavily blue state that is for it go ahead and adopt it a state level? If the reforms work and it reduces deficits like the President says, then a state like California should adopt it. If it works there, then maybe the people in Florida would say “hey, this good stuff maybe we should do that too”. Of course, if it crashes and burns miserably then everybody else can feel a bit of relief at the fact we dodged that bullet at a national level.–I mean it seems reasonable to assume that if it works/fails on a state level it would do the same on a national level, right?
    Anyway, I just thought it might be interesting to hear some folks’ thoughts on a state by state level of health care reform Vs. National health care reform.

    Stay Safe and Live Free,
    Displaced Okie

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      Hi Okie,

      Didn’t Massachusett’s try that under Mitt Romney? I believe it was/is a failure…

      Best Regards to you,

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Here’s a tongue-in-cheek video about Wait Times/Costs for Health Care/Insurance between Georgia and Massachusetts (after reform was implemented in MA)…

      • Displaced Okie says:

        I know, just thought I would phrase the question in more of a “bipartisan” fashion. 🙂

        • Buck The Wala says:

          In what way was it a total failure?

          Its not a perfect system, but from my understanding the MA reform went a long way at getting people access to affordable health care. Of course, it is still too early to pass final judgment as I believe it went into full effect only last year (there was a 3-yr implementation process).

          • Displaced Okie says:

            If it is successful, then why aren’t they pushing it a a model for national refom?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              There are flaws in the MA approach – it really only addresses access and does nothing to address cost or other issues. This could have adverse effects going forward. But again, too early to pass final judgment.

              • Displaced Okie says:

                Hey Buck,
                First off, hope your having a great day.
                Secondly, I only bring up this topic because I think this is one of the angles of the health care debate that hasn’t been explored. Above when I said I knew about the Mass. plan, I didn’t mean to imply that I knew it was a failure–honestly I don’t know much about it or Oregon’s(which I’ve heard has a similar system) plan. That said, if you’ve read many of my early posts you’ll know that I am a big fan of state’s anrights-especially when it comes to domestic issues, for two reasons: 1. Things don’t work the same in all of the states or cities i.e. the policies that work best NYC would not be the best policies to implement in my hometown of 1100 people or vice versa.
                2. I think if you have to have laws then why not have the majority of them passed where your “voice” is loudest?
                So after getting myself a little off track with governmental theory, I’ll get back to the point: what is the downside to trying these things on state level verses a federal one?

                Have a good one, amigo,


                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Hey Okie. Things are going well; hope the same with you.

                  I agree that with many issues what works well is one city or state does not necessarily work well in another. That is the essence of federalism and state rights. However, there are certain issues that I feel an emphasis on federalism is misplaced.

                  With health care, to me, we have a national problem. I personally am for univeral coverage. I see health care as a right, not a privilege; a right which we as a nation should be ensuring everyone has equally. For this reason, a state by state approach is insufficient to me.

                  • Buck,

                    There cannot exist a right that imposes upon another free man.

                    Your plan MUST impose upon free and non-violent men.

                    Yours is not a right – it is an act of evil.

                    Doing evil and proclaiming it a ‘good’ will destroy the core of society.

                    A society cannot sustain itself where evil is the norm.

                  • It seems the Commonwealth of Massachusetts felt the same way…


                    People losing coverage, failure to accurately anticipate cost, highest rates in the US.

                    I’m all for revamping the system, but why on earth would we go down a path that has already proven to be unsustainable?

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Actually the jury is out on the success of the program. It really comes down to who you ask and what you mean by success:



                      According to that first article, the MA health care reform failed to address cost in any way. So the fact that costs have risen has nothing to do with the success/failure of the reform measure.

                    • Actually the biggest problem for most people in MA isn’t so much the cost but the extremely long wait times – it can take 6 months just to get in for a half-hour long regular checkup. That’s the most immediately visible side effect of suddenly requiring everyone to get insurance/giving it away when your pool of doctors is already pretty limited.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      I’ll admit thats a major problem, but what would you suggest?

                    • Buck,

                      Without the discipline of the free market, the system cannot correct itself.

                      Therefore, cancel the whole thing and let the free market work!

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Ah BF, always thinking the free market will magically fix everything! 🙂

                    • Freedom has proven to be the answer.

                      However, if we are talking making some people happy at the expense of others, your solution will work very very well – for a short time.

                      If you are talking about sustaining a service for you and your children and your grandchildren your plan will fail.

                    • Buck-

                      From a purely superficial point of view, when there is a shortage you need to either decrease demand or increase supply.

                      Right now increased wait times are the natural balancing mechanism for decreasing demand – people would rather go without a checkup than try to schedule something months in advance and still wait in the office for hours.

                      If you wanted to interfere by way of increasing supply, that would generally require paying doctors more and/or subsidizing their costs in order to encourage more people to enter the field – but that would increase health care costs overall.

                      Finding the optimal point to balance quality of care, wait times, and costs is basically impossible by artificial means. Government typically tries to manipulate the system to produce a politically expedient non-optimal outcome, often with unforeseen negative consequences.

                      Asking for a large supply of skilled doctors working for cheap is pretty much a pipe dream, so what ends up happening is you either sacrifice something (number of doctors/wait times, quality of care, or cost control) or the government takes lots and lots of money from some portion of its citizens in order to artificially lower the cost for others. It’s a pick-your-poison scenario in that case.

                    • DKII,

                      Trying to explain basic economic law to a Statist is pointless.

                      Their core belief is that the Laws of Economic can be refuted by using enough violence.

                      When they have successfully killed off everyone – they’ll be right.

                    • Either way, quality of care is going down and cost of care is going up and all the while the government (whether it be state or fed level) is having to pick up the dime…dimes which they do not have. Again, why would we mirror a state plan that is failing all in the name of providing everyone their “right” to healthcare? I would think everyone, no matter which way they lean, could agree that pursuing a failed model is a horribly bad idea. Or does this healthcare debate really have nothing to do with quality and availibility of care at all and that’s just the spin that this administration/congress have put on it as to somehow draw support?? Believe me, I want everyone to have access just as much as the next guy but I still can’t understand why so many support a plan they know can’t work.

                    • I disagree. If the costs cause the state to go bankrupt or continue to cut people from coverage or continue to cause quality to decrease, can that really be called a success?

    • Okie, et al;

      Finally, doctors starting to talk about the real issue………COSTS.


      As I have said many times. Medical care is a service industry, thus it requires specialized labor in one to one with the purchaser. This means income is limited by the number of hours in a day. It also means costs can only be assigned to the same hours. They can’t be spread across WIDGETS, such as with medications.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        After reading that article the two gears in my head that aren’t stripped got to turning. I had an interesting thought. We have all heard of hospitals and doctors charging insane prices for things such as $50 for a bottle of aspirin. I am wondering how much of this is caused by regulations and health insurance. I am sure that no one here would pay $50 for a bottle for aspirin, but the insurance company is kind of over a barrel because they get the bill after the fact from a doctor they have previously approved so their room for haggling with the price is probably minimal. I think if we knew what we were getting and the price we were paying it. Kind of like buying a car(i.e. the options cost you more), the pricing of health care would change drastically. Mostly due to increased compitition and not having as many middle men getting in on the action. Of course, I could be completly off base here, as I have no real knowledge of the medical field. I know this wasn’t really the point of the article, but it did get me thinking about the actual costs of health care.

        p.s. I think I might have stripped the previously two unstripped gears that were left in my brain while thinking about this, thanks JAC.

        Happy Almost Friday to Everyone,
        Displaced Okie

  29. Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I bring you example 4002 of the great contradictions in modern liberal thinking.


    Can’t wait to see what this might cause to bubble up! 🙂

    Happy reading

    • Scary, just scary. Don’t know what else to say, except these types really give women a bad name.

  30. New Virulent Virus Strain

    Very important information has just been made public that I think is something you should all be aware of:

    Gonorrhea Lectim
    The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease.

    The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It’s pronounced “Gonna re-elect ‘im.”

    The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum.

    Many victims contracted it in 2008 ….. but now most people after having been infected for the past 1-2 years are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is. It’s sad because it is so easily cured with a new procedure just coming on the market called Votemout!

    You take the first dose/step in 2010 and the second dosage in 2012 and simply don’t engage in such behavior again, otherwise it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.

    Several states are already on top of this like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts with many more seeing the writing on the wall.

    Please pass this important message on to all those bright folk you really care about.

  31. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama’s Sledgehammer Strategy

    By Paul Howard

    Token concessions can’t soften the president’s partisan health care bill.


    On Tuesday, President Obama offered Republicans a small bipartisan olive branch. On Wednesday, he hit them with a partisan sledgehammer by vowing Democrats would ram his “new” health care plan (a revised version of the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve) through Congress using a budget tactic known as reconciliation that was never designed for passing legislation revamping one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

    First, the olive branch. The president said that he’s “exploring” four Republican policy suggestions: undercover investigations of waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid; expanding funding ($50 million) for state alternatives to medical malpractice litigation; increasing physician reimbursements under Medicaid; and ensuring that Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible health plans are offered under Democrats’ new insurance exchanges.

    Now, for the hammer. The president’s “new” plan is basically the same as the earlier Senate bill, only more expensive and with more regulations. There is no firm estimate on how much the president’s plan will cost (there’s no legislative language yet), but we know that he wants to increase subsidies to make it closer to the House bill passed in November. The Congressional Budget Office will score the president’s plan in the coming weeks, but The Washington Post recently suggested it could add $200 billion to the price tag for the $871 billion Senate bill.

    Of course, why quibble about a few hundred billion dollars here or there? The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee estimated that the senate bill would cost $2.4 trillion fully implemented; even the CBO forecasts the federal government spending $200 billion in 2019 on its coverage provisions (subsidies, tax credits, and Medicaid expansion), with costs going up about 8% every year after that.

    At his press conference on Wednesday, the president suggested that partisan politics was behind Republican objections to the Democrats’ overhaul. In truth, the president has only himself to blame for its unpopularity.

    After arguing that we spend too much money on health care now, the president proposes to spend trillions more. After declaring current entitlements unaffordable, he wants to create a new one for the middle class. He vilifies insurers for charging too much, and then adds new insurance regulations that will undoubtedly drive up prices.

    The problem with Obamacare isn’t that it’s new and untried. It’s that previous incarnations of it have been tried for decades and failed. In 1960, close to half of all health care spending was out-of-pocket. Today, it’s just 12 cents on the dollar. As more spending shifted from families to third-party payers (like Medicare) costs exploded. Government responded with more subsidies, regulations and price controls. The result is the crisis we have today.

    At the Blair House summit last week, there was a telling exchange between the president and Republicans. The president defended government’s increasing intervention in health care markets by comparing it to the FDA’s prohibiting of unsafe drugs, or unsafe foods. If you think this is ok, he argued, you must be comfortable similar “baseline” regulation of insurance companies. But the analogy is flawed because Obamacare not only limits the types of insurance products that can be sold, it tells consumers what they have to buy.

    The FDA’s regulations are undoubtedly expensive and burdensome – but at least the FDA doesn’t require consumers to only buy certain “safe” foods or drugs, and bar others. Discretion and choice rule the marketplace – not mandates. Or take cars – another highly complex and potentially dangerous product. There are a plethora of different car manufacturers and models to choose from, at a wide range of prices – from sub-compacts to SUVs.

    Volvos may be safer than competing Ford or Toyota models – but the federal government doesn’t require everyone to buy a Volvo by arguing that it would drive down health care costs by reducing accidents. If they did, car prices would sky rocket. (This, by the way, is what has already happened in Massachusetts, which has a version of Obamacare in miniature.) Minimum safety regulations, along with fierce market competition on both price and quality spurs competition that lowers prices, improves safety, and offers a wide range of choices to consumers.

    These consumer-friendly features – like relatively clear prices — are sorely lacking in health care because consumers operate in a paternalistic system that instead of empowering them insists on shuffling them to the sidelines.

    Over the next few weeks, we’ll see if the president’s olive-branch-hammer strategy works. With his nod to reconciliation, his renewed energy and focus on this issue, he is making the legislative equivalent of double-or-nothing.

    But in terms of significantly addressing the woes of American health care — think: 12 cent problem — not much will change whether his gamble proves successful or not.

    Paul Howard is director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Medical Progress and managing editor of

    • Great post Judy. Some humor Buck may like,

      Who Says Lawyers Don’t Have a Sense of Humor?

      A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer three months to track down.

      After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply (actual letter):

      “Upon review of your letter adjoining your client’s loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral proper back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin.”

      Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter):

      “Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the then reigning monarch, Isabella.

      “The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about titles, almost as much as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to fund Columbus’ expedition. Now the Pope, as I’m sure you know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that He also made that part of the world called Louisiana. He, therefore, would be the owner of origin.

      “I hope to hell you find His original claim to be satisfactory.

      Now, may we have our damn loan?”

      They got it.

      • Kentucky Fried Chicken Special

        A Kentucky Fried Chicken location in New York City has a special on what they are calling the “Bucket of Hillary”: two small breasts, two large thighs, and a bunch of left wings.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hi LOI

          Those were good, can’t believe what they wanted about that house, finally taking the word of God I guess fir them to give that loan out.

          Like the joke about the new Hillary chicken too.

          Hope all is well with you.

      • The Navy Cure for Snoring

        By the time the sailor pulled into a little town, every hotel room was taken. “You’ve got to have a room somewhere,” he pleaded. “Or just a bed, I don’t care where.”

        “Well, I do have a double room with one occupant – an Air Force guy,” admitted the manager, “and he might be glad to split the cost. But to tell you the truth, he snores so loudly that people in adjoining rooms have complained in the past. I’m not sure it’d be worth it to you.”

        “No problem,” the tired Navy man assured him. “I’ll take it.”

        The next morning, the sailor came down to breakfast bright-eyed and bushy tailed. “How’d you sleep?” asked the manager.

        “Never better!”

        The manager was impressed. “No problem with the other guy snoring?”

        “Nope. I shut him up in no time,” said the Navy guy.

        “How’d you manage that?” asked the manager.

        “He was already in bed, snoring away, when I came in the room,” the sailor explained. “I went over, gave him a kiss on the cheek, and said, ‘Good night, beautiful,’ and he sat up all night watching me.”

  32. Buck,

    Your reply: What’s your theory?

    Brief answers:

    1) yes
    2) yes – though this does not mean there is no logic behind it as well
    3) not necessarily verbatim, but yes
    4) some hell, not much from my recollection
    5) unsure what you’re driving at here

    Your answers were as mine. My theory is what I call the PBST (pronounced Pabst, as in the beer) Theory.

    If the first two answers are “yes”, then the theory requires further questioning. The fourth question in this case, answered yes, is a red flag. The third question was for factuality rather than opinion, but serves a purpose.

    Here’s is how I tied it all to the answer on #5. Promoting the healthcare bill, when discussing the pre-existing condition subject, was repeated constantly, it was an attempt to affect one’s emotions. Most people that I talked to, when I showed them the language in the bill stating that medical coverage cannot be denied because of a pre-existing condition(s) assumed that the language meant that the ill person would get insurance for the pre-existing conditions. This assumption is based on the continuous emotional appeals that they have been bombarded with.

    The Pabst Theory requires the removal of the emotional thinking, and reading the language with logic. The language disallows the denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. My guess is that you assume as well that this means that treatment for those pre-existing conditions is part of the bill (any of it). That is an emotional assumption with no written lamguage in the bill to support it. Hence, the almost amazing silence of the insurance industry.

    These emotional assumptions led to another (one can forgo buying insurance until they are sick), which opened the door to mandating.

    PBST = Political BullShit Test

    That is where I was going. This whole thing is a well planned ruse, using emotional appeals to lead the people away from the truth. Remove the emotions and the truth is right in front of you!

    Peace !


    • Buck The Wala says:

      A very good point, and one that definitely requires more information. I do fear that those individuals will continue to be denied coverage for treatment stemming from those pre-existing conditions. It definitely needs to be spelled out more for my taste.

      However, a lot of the reason for the lack of outcry from the insurance industry is not necessarily because this provision has no ‘teeth’, but because the bill mandates all to carry insurance coverage. This will have the affect of driving millions of healthy individuals into the arms of the insurance companies. So while these companies may need to pay out additional claims relating to some preexisting conditions, overall they will be making much more money through premiums from healthy individuals.

      As I’ve stated – not even close to a perfect bill, but to me, definitely an improvement to what we have now.

      • For most young healthier folks, it would be cheaper to pay the Fine (tax) of 2.5%. Not to mention that the mandate is will be Costitutionally challenged and may be struck down ( I believe it is totally unConstitutional). I implore you to read this disaster of a bill.

        Your fears are true, there is no language that mandates the insurance companies to pay for the treatment of pre-existing conditions. The Govt can’t enforce what is not written, and they won’t write it, as the VA denies coverage for the same reasons!

        • Buck The Wala says:

          I’ve read much of the bills and there is a lot I don’t like – to me it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

          But once again, I believe its a lot better than what we have now.

          • USWeapon says:

            I disagree, Buck. Because I don’t think the outcome the bill claims to lead to is the outcome that will actually happen. Additionally, I don’t think the stated current situation is at all what the Dems pushing this bill claim that they are.

            It is easy to make a claim that this is better than what we have, but have you been given an accurate picture of what we have, or have you been given an alarmist version of what we have in order to get you to follow the plan?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Are there alarmist versions of the current system floating around? Of course. But there are equally alarmist versions of the horrors of ‘Obamacare’ floating around as well. Both appeal to emotion rather than taking an honest look at what is going on.

              I’ve read up a lot on health care. I’ve spoken to a number of doctors and others in the medical field on these issues. Majority consensus among those I know in the field is overwhelmingly that this bill is better than what we currently have.

              • I’ve spoken to a number of doctors and others in the medical field on these issues. Majority consensus among those I know in the field is overwhelmingly that this bill is better than what we currently have.

                I won’t argue on what you may have heard or by from how many in the medical field. Since I work at a large hospital and discuss this almost daily, the concensus of the a very vast majority are totally against it. Doctors are very vocal of their dislike of it. I’m beginning to think you are having strange voices in your head telling you strange things 😆 Be careful, the shrinks I know don’t like it either.



                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Perhaps that is more of a function of where we live than anything else.

                  I’m in a very liberal part of the country, so the fact that the majority in the health industry here supports the bill is probably no surprise.

                • G-Man and Buck,

                  The questions that needs to be added beyond “Do you support ‘X'” is:

                  (1) What part?
                  (2) Why?

                  My guess is you will get wildly different answers.

                  • I talked with one of the areas leading Cardiologists today who had worked with my father on the DMAT team. Near the end of all the niceties, I asked what he thought of all the healthcare stuff ib D.C. His asnwer was brief “Those assholes couldn’t commit suicide without fu$%#ng it up!” That ended the talk with both of us walking away laughing.

                • So far, I have spoken to two physicians, a dentist, chiropractor and optometrist, none of them favored the proposed bills. I think all were conservative, so it might just be those low IQ doctors that just won’t say Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    Probably not a good idea to go to a doctor with a low IQ


                    • Doctors do not have a significantly higher IQ then the norm.

                      Only pirates have abnormally high IQ’s. If you don’t past the IQ test, yo don’t get the badge.

  33. Statist Statement of the Day (dedicated to Buck)

    Re: Greece Austerity Measures.

    The GSEVEE federation, which represents small businesses and craftsmen, said the measures are “neither fair nor effective

    “The attempt to fix the fiscal crisis underlines clearly the government’s desire to move the cost of its efforts to the real economy,” Nikos Skorinis, the secretary of GSEVEE, said in an e-mailed statement.


    …as if the “unreal” economy actually exists.

  34. Cyndi P says:

    What do you think they do when it comes to the part about the $550 BILLION being pulled out in less than two hours on 17 sept 08? Ignore or gloss over?


    HBO plans TV movie on 2008 financial meltdown

  35. Today there was a coordinated demonstration across the US by students.

    What were they demonstrating about?

    Was it for an end to Corporatism, Fascism, Communism or Imperialism? Was it to end our military interventions around the world or to bring our troops home? Was it about World Peace or stopping the poisoning of our oceans and air?

    NO! They were screaming at the top of their lungs for MORE FREE COOKIES!

    The most spoiled and privileged group of Americans to ever exist and they want MORE FREE COOKIES!


    If this is the attitude of a majority of our young people then…………


    • Good day to you Sir!

      Saw this today, thought to myself, this remind me of a video called birdfeeder. I’m sure you’ve seen it or read it, about how the birds just keep coming for more free food. Then when it’s not there, they chirp and squawk very loudly.

      Unless this entire country removes the free rides from our society, or society is doomed to self-destruction. I’m saddened by this, because I didn’t recognize it 25 years ago when I was smart enough to do so.

      Your right! WE ARE SO SCREWED!

      Peace my Friend!


    • USWeapon says:

      This is what happens when a generation of folks who believe “for the betterment of society, government must provide x” and later find that there is no way to provide funding for x unless we tax more and take away liberties.

      It is only going to get worse from here, my friends.

      • Hey USW

        Went to the grocery store for a few things today. Saw this overweight balck lady, pay for her groceries with her government aid card and head out the door. I waited my turn, payed for my items (with cash) and proceded to the truck.

        Low and behold, there’s this same lady, sitting in a Chrysler 300, just tearing up a bag of nachos. Looked like a cow chewing cud. 🙄 As I drove off, I thought to myself “when the free ride ends, she’s DOA” Then I thought, “shit, I really don’t care if that happens, and wish it would just happen and get over with it.”

        I know I’m desensitized to death and blood, but when I feel that I just don’t care about these lazy, fat freeloaders, I wonder if I’m not just completely discusted and heading toward being an uncaring person who would rather see these types of people just die.

        Don’t worry, the voice in my head is just me talking to myself 😆 What I feel is worse, is that most people don’t have my level of patience and tolerance. I know that I can go to a place and disassociate with this, where most others can’t or won’t. It’s coming to a very dangerous point in our country, where there will be decisions made, on a large scale, that will lead to a bloody end.

        So, when this happens, I’ll be eating venison and sippin on homemade brandy, How about you?


        • USWeapon says:

          I probably be across the table from you with JAC on my right and D13 on my left. lol

          I understand what you are thinking. I am trying really hard to remain compassionate. But the leeches make it harder every day.


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      My son is upset because at the cuts they’re making at his university because they are cutting the ones that do the research, and keeping the ones like liberal arts, theater and dance classes. He thinks those are the ones that should be cut, not the ones that do all the research, like trying to find cures for things, things that will have future needs for.

      Luckily, none of the classes he’s taking are being cut, but the ones they don’t need they keep. He thinks they should also keep the agricultural ones as well. They are cutting about half of the things there, closing quite a bit of the buildings up there, laying off professors. He said also, that this summer, the president of the university is getting with all the department heads there and then making final decisions for what is and what isn’t being cut.

      I told him, he should get together with a group of people there and tell their sides before they make final cuts speak their minds, let these people know where you stand, how you feel, what you think. Even if they have to have a protest there. Making all these cuts, but want to raise tuition, makes no sense to me.

      • Judy

        The other day the President announced they plan to eliminate the ENTIRE College of Agriculture.

        Imagine, no College of Ag at UNR, a Land Grant College.

        I will no longer have an existing college standing behind my diploma.

        They have to do everything. Cuts, raise tuition and fees, layoffs and salary cuts.

        The State of Nev is broke. Entire agencies will cease to exist in another couple of years if things don’t turn around soon.

    • Have to disagree with you this time JAC. You’re shooting the messenger on this one. College tuition is out of control. My parents demanded us 8 kids to pay our own way through college. But even they caved in for my youngest sister and helped her halfway through because it was just so expensive. None of us others even minded because we too understood.

      There are plenty of Q’s I have on this. Why is tuition so much? Why cut ed. funding at a time like this? What other spending could get cut to keep ed funded? Who decides what available money goes where?

      These cuts go right down to the elementary schools. In my city alone we lost 7 mil in funding.

      My daughters first two years of school cost 18K then 22K. She then stayed home and went to a community college for 2 semesters which was 6k. She’s now married and picking up the remainder of the bill on her own but that bill will be another 20k. Personally I got no help because I made to much for financial aid and her dad was also no help. Had I paid the whole 4 yrs I would have been about 80k short. That’s only one kid!

      We have to pay taxes for education and still have to pay a killer amount for tuition.

      These education cuts affect K- whatever. My city alone lost 7 mil last year for school funding.

      I say the demonstrators had good reason this time. Not that it will do any good 😡

      • It’s late. Sorry about the repeat

      • Anita-

        Politicians like to cut things like education, police, and fire because it gets the people all riled up about laying off teachers/cops/firemen and makes them more amenable to tax increases as an alternative. It’s just a ploy to get people to willingly submit to larger government in general.

        • Yeah, I know DK. I understand the game but I want some acountability. I’m just yellin to make myself feel better.

          It’s JACs fault. He got me all fired up. He’s mad cuz their protesting. I’m mad at the problem.

          Calm me down JAC

        • Cyndi P says:

          Well said, DKII.

          BTW, I’m not wound up anymore. I hope I didn’t give you too much grief. I know you’re not the one who did it to me….. 😳

      • Anita

        But they weren’t screaming about the inefficiency of college or the cost.

        They were screaming..You need to spend more on education. In short my education, meaning on me.

        Yes college costs are skyrocketing. They and medical costs have been rising at over 5X the rate of inflation.

        Now what do those two have in common?

        Govt subsidized programs, thus increasing demand with slower growth in supply.

        Subsidies that hold down the cost to the student BUT can not hide the true cost, which goes to higher and higher taxes or DEBT.

        But were they screaming to reduce the federal funding and cheap bank loans to restore the pricing mechanism to sanity? NO! They were asking for more money.

        Remember the discussion the other day by BF about what was going to happen when somebody started suggesting who would have to PAY? Well this is what it looks like.

        NOT ME said the fox, NOT ME said the hen.

        Well, NOT ME said JAC, I’m not your mother.

        My complaint with these “college” kids is the obvious disconnect between their situation and the reality of the State of the Union. They look and sound just like those Greek Govt employees to me. The country is bankrupt but we want more cookies.

        Also, if you look at the pictures scrolling on HuffPo and CNN you will see gray hair pony tails with mega phones leading the chanting in some cases. Students? I don’t think so.

        Sorry Anita for being terse on this but it fits perfectly with what we have all been talking about here. Just because it is education doesn’t mean the problems or the relationships to reality change. College education programs as we knew them are about to pass into dust. If they don’t then the Nation will.

        Again, I’m sorry for stirring things up so late in the day.
        Best to you and yours.

        • Fair enough argument JAC and I agree with most of it. I think the kids did it for a play day so I’ll still give them a pass. But the Q’s are still there and you just gave me another one?

          Are you saying NO to funding education? We have to assume the money will be spent wisely (yeah right).

          • Anita,

            NO to government funding of education.

            Why should I be forced to pay for other kids education?

            When the cost of a good/service is artificially lowered (ie: by government subsidy or other government grant), there will be an every increasing demand on such a resource.

            As this resource is not endless, this will cause exhaustion.

            To forestall exhaustion, the cost of the service will increase and/or the quality of the service will decrease.

            As the costs increase, the subsidy must increase – requiring an ever increasing demand on people who earn to give money to those that did not earn. There comes a time when earners are exhausted and will refuse any more attempts at seizing their money.

            The end:

            Education quality degrades to uselessness. Costs of useless education are astronomical. Social order is risked as earners revolt at further wealth seizure. The wealth consumers revolt as the subsidy is no longer funded.

            Economic collapse and social unrest.

            • Man! I can’t argue because I know better. You’re right. But geez, they spend so effin much on stupid stuff why let education fall. If you want to be an intelligent population why not invest in it! uugghhh! I already know the answers but can’t anything be sane anymore?

              • Anita,

                Please analyze your statement.

                Who should invest in my education?


                I am the sole beneficiary of my own education – not my neighbor.

                By MY education I make a better marketable product called me.

                My neighbor BUYS my service and I am highly demanded because I am learned.

                To ask him to invest in my education is like asking you to invest in IBM for you to then buy a computer from them!

                No, IBM finds its own investors who directly share in the profits and you – the consumer – buy the product.

                • BF I gotta get some sleep, but what about medical research for instance. Who’s gonna fund that, Exxon Mobil or Microsoft? Don’t know if space exploration fits but, you know the big ticket programs. You can’t expect Milton Bradley to want to invest in that. I don’t know. I must be tired if I’m trying to argue with an anarchist! See ya 🙂

                • Anita,

                  The same laws of economics applies to research.

                  Who funded Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Xerox, Apple?

                  Virgin Airlines is funding space travel.

                  Taking money from people’s wallets to fund someone else’s pipe dream is a terrible waste and disaster.

                  It creates the opinion that any yahoo (pun intended) can steal money as long as their ‘dreams are big’.

                  If the dream is that good and that big, people with money will be running over themselves to get a piece of the action.

                  No government stirring required.

  36. Sorry…can’t help it….

    Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and B. H. Obama

    I’m sure most of us have read the so-called comparison of Lincoln and Kennedy, but did you ever consider the relationship between Obama and Lincoln? You may be surprised.
    1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration.
    Obama used the same Bible.

    2. Lincoln came from Illinois.
    Obama comes from Illinois.

    3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature.
    Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.

    4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President.
    Obama had very little experience before becoming President.

    5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
    Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.

    6. Lincoln was a skinny lawyer.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

    7. Lincoln was a staunch Republican.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

    8. Lincoln was highly respected.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

    9. Lincoln was born in the United States.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

    10. Lincoln was honest, so honest that he was called Honest Abe.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

    11. Lincoln saved the United States.
    Obama is a skinny lawyer.

  37. Cyndi P says:

    Thoughts on this….?


    Marina Kalashnikova’s Warning to the West
    by J. R. Nyquist
    Weekly Column Published: 07.17.2009
    Meet Marina Kalashnikova: a Moscow-based historian, researcher and journalist. Last August she criticized foreign “experts” for suggesting that a conflict with Moscow will not happen because Russia’s elite is too closely associated with the West. According to Kalashnikova, “The West does not care to wake from the dream of its wishful thinking, even when Moscow turns to … reanimating Stalin’s cult of personality together with the ideology of the Cheka [i.e., the secret police].”

    I’m afraid that Marina Kalashnikova is right. The West has been dreaming, and the West will suffer the consequences. If the Kremlin likes Stalin, then there will be trouble. If KGB officers have established a sophisticated form of dictatorship in Russia, they have done so for a reason. We should remind our politicians, with their short memories, that Stalin and his secret police did not run a Sunday school. Furthermore, the recent trail of blood and radiation leading back to the Kremlin is like a finger pointing to the greatest danger of our time – nixed from the news media’s prattle of the hour. (A retired KGB officer recently told me that “nobody is easier to buy than a Western journalist.”)

    Russia has built an alliance of dictators, what Kalashnikova calls an “alliance of the most unbridled forces and regimes.” Extremists of all kinds serve the purpose of breaking the peace, damaging Western economies, and setting the stage for a global revolution in which the balance of power shifts from the United States and the West to the Kremlin and its Chinese allies. “Among the ideas that animate general staff analysts in the Kremlin, there is the idea of diffusion,” says Kalashnikova, “It is not that the Kremlin should strive for territorial expansion and the dissemination of its [political] model. The critical thing is power and the fulcrum of an overall strategic context. In that case, even if the Americans appear influential in the post-Soviet countries, Moscow remains in charge. The [Russian] General Staff therefore has successfully expanded Moscow’s position beyond and above the old Soviet position in Africa and Latin America.” What prevails, she says, is Moscow’s “assertiveness and determination without fear of a reaction from the West.”

    In other words, the West has already been outmaneuvered. The KGB and the Russian General Staff have taken our measure, and they are laughing at us. Our leaders do not realize the sophistication of their enemy. They cannot see or understand what is happening. They blink, they turn away, continuing to use concepts gifted to them long ago by Soviet agents of influence. As a nation we are confused and disoriented, believing that the world is beholden to the West’s money power – and therefore, peace can be purchased.

    “The Kremlin has activated a network of extremists in the Third World,” wrote Kalashnikova. “[At the same time] Russia has managed to shake off nearly all international conventions restricting the expansion of its military power.” In this situation, the only counter to Russian power is American power. Yet the American president is preparing to surrender that power in a series of arms control agreements that will leave the United States vulnerable to a first strike. Placing this in context, nuclear weapons are ultimate weapons, so that the West’s superiority in conventional weapons is therefore meaningless. Whoever gains strategic nuclear supremacy will rule the world; and the Russian strategic rocket forces are in place, ready to launch, while America’s nuclear forces are rotting from neglect.

    The Russian historian sees that the West relies on the greed of Russia’s elite to keep the Kremlin in line. But this is a foolish conceit. Mao Zedong said that political power “flows from the barrel of a gun.” Therefore, the Kremlin’s logic is ironclad: Let the West keep its worthless currency. Moscow will have weapons, and in the end Moscow and its allies will control everything. The liberal may believe that protests and appeals to humanity are the ultimate trump cards. The financiers may believe that money makes the world go ‘round. Let them try to stop a salvo of ICBMs with liberal sentiment and cash. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, their favored instruments cannot stop a single missile.

    According to Kalashnikova, “It is clear that the [Kremlin] regime has no restraint and will commit any crime, break any rule, surpass any benchmark in order to consolidate its already illegitimate power….” Even the old KGB chief, Vladimir Kryuchkov, was appalled: “Putin and others have to answer for what they are doing today to the country,” he said. But the West sleeps. The West doesn’t want to hear about the danger that rises in the East – from the Kremlin and its Chinese allies. As Kalashnikova points out, the warnings of Russian observers like Viktor Suvorov and Vladimir Bukovsky have been almost totally ignored. Western chauvinism is deep-rooted, and the Westerner takes his military and economic superiority for granted. He laughs at the idea that “the Russians are coming.” But the joke is on America. The Kremlin’s psychological advantage is vital and immediate, and extends into the political domain. This is significant because the outcome of every war is pre-determined by the political process leading up to the war.

    Kalashnikova laments that Suvorov and Bukovsky remain largely unknown, “and are even hated by the Western establishment … [which] avoids uncomfortable truths about the world and themselves, especially when the truth comes from Russian critics.” Do the Americans have sense? Are they serious people? No, said Suvorov more than two decades ago. No, says Kalashnikova today. The Russian generals are getting ready. They are consolidating their influence because the coming war requires it.

    “The NATO idea of deterrence means absolutely nothing to the Russian generals,” wrote Kalashnikova. “Unlike their Western counterparts, they are not afraid of big military and civilian losses. This was true in the time of Stalin. Losses do not affect the popularity of Kremlin rulers….” The philosopher Nietzsche once wrote that sacrificing people for a state or an idea makes that state or idea all the more precious to those who have made the sacrifice. Such is human psychology, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    “The strategic balance,” warned Kalashnikova, “has by and large never worked.” Standing outside the logic of nuclear deterrence, Kremlin leaders have modernized their nuclear bunkers. They are prepared to survive. “The current Russian military is not weaker than the USSR,” she says, “and in some areas it surpasses the Soviet military.” – This from a writer who has personally interviewed Russian generals, spy chiefs and statesmen. She goes on to say that after 9/11 Russia’s terrorist allies can be realistically assumed to play a key role in the strategic equation. And then she fatefully quotes a NATO functionary who spoke about the role of al Qaeda and Bin Laden as follows: “This [9/11 attack] is beyond their intellectual capabilities.” Insights of this kind have been known to trigger “polonium reactions,” as in the case of former FSB Lt. Col. Alexander Litvinenko – who publicly declared that Vladimir Putin was the master terrorist behind al Qaeda.

    And here is where the plot thickens. When Marina Kalashnikova presented her analysis to Russian and Ukrainian readers on August 26, 2008, she annoyed the regime and made herself a target of the Russian secret police. Her Moscow residence was broken into. Private papers were stolen. Threats were made. And last, but not least, she was forcibly incarcerated in a psychiatric clinic for 35 days. “I am completely healthy,” Kalashnikova told me during a telephone interview on Sunday. “It was absolutely political … and not medical at all.”

    And what excuse did they offer for breaking the door locks and grabbing her? “I was allegedly aggressive,” she explained, “even though I was staying behind the door of my own home.” What she had done, of course, was reveal the hostile intentions of the Russian government toward the United States. “Just yesterday,” she explained, “I got some threats that they would get me back to the clinic because I did not fulfill the agreement of not interfering in political subjects here. I am forbidden to do journalism and politics and interviewing and everything. So I can only arrange everyday life. My endeavors, and my active communication with the West regarding this psychiatric imprisonment [is forbidden]. I feel completely insecure here. It is no joke. It is no exaggeration. The reality is even more awful and criminal. I try not to frighten people. The American people are too comfortable. I have underestimated and under-described the situation. It is very dangerous. The situation needs their urgent sorting out.”

    And what situation is she talking about?

    “I think that Russia has always had America as the enemy,” Kalashnikova told me, “and it remains in such a capacity. I think that all preparations that Russia makes are military preparations, and preparations for war. I talked three times during recent days with … a former politician and party functionary and bright diplomat … and he confirmed that they expect war.”

    I hope that Marina Kalashnikova is safe, and that Americans will appreciate her courage, heed her warnings, and prevent the outbreak of war through care and vigilance. Marina gave me permission to tell her story and relate her words to those who are sleeping in the West. She needs our help, and she deserves it.

    • It is dangerous to go out and seek enemies where they do not exist.

      However, the US is doing exactly that – not directly against Russia – but by excursions and war on her borders.

      To expect Russia to meekly sit by while the US “runs the world” is naive. The wars created Lenin and Stalin and Mao.

      War will create them again if the US continues war.

  38. Cyndi P says:

    Anything here sound familiar?


    The Sequence
    by J. R. Nyquist
    Weekly Column Published: 08.28.2009
    T he military power with the best tanks, aircraft and ships doesn’t always win a battle. Wars may be decided by many factors, including non-military factors. For example, a military confrontation may be decided beforehand when a society gradually turns to recreational drug use; or when the work ethic collapses; or a significant segment of the society unwittingly adopts the enemy’s ideology; or the political elite of the country shows itself to be corrupt and contemptuous of the public.

    The United States has been a great and stable power for many decades. One should never, on that account, assume the invincibility of the U.S. The American superpower has been strategically mismanaged for half a century. During the Cold War the U.S. suffered outright defeats in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. With the end of the Cold War came major Communist advances in South Africa (1994), Congo (1997), Angola (2002), Venezuela (1999), Brazil (2002), Bolivia (2006), and Nicaragua (2006).

    What is not understood, is that the Communist movement in general, being a fifth column instrument of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, became even more effective after the fall of the Soviet Union. As it happens, people react to words like “Communism” in a negative way. Therefore, from the point of view of strategy, it is better to dispense with the word “Communist” and use another word.

    The battle for what used to be called “Communism” is today a battle for so-called “social justice.” The advocates in this battle are “caring individuals,” who claim to represent the poor and the working class. Theirs is an ongoing struggle, and is fought on many fronts, especially inside the United States. The reason for accelerating their campaign within America is important to understand: The United States is the only military power, and the only economic power, strong enough to block the advance of Moscow and Beijing. During the Cold War, the Americans blocked these countries from advancing in many areas, including Africa, Southeast Asia, Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Germany, and Central America. Even the Communist victories in Southeast Asia and Africa were hardfought, and largely won through psychological warfare and propaganda. On the battlefield, America remained dominant.

    Given the obstacle presented, how could the Communist Bloc overcome America’s military power?

    Very simply, when one side in a global contest appears to give up, the psychological impact is enormous. Organize the collapse of Communism from the Kremlin itself and nobody in the West will question it. If the Communists are giving up power, it is all good. But look at Russia and Eastern Europe today. By giving up untenable positions in Germany and the Baltic States, the remainder is yet dominated by agent networks and mafias aligned with Moscow. In Ukraine, for example, there is a pro-NATO president whose power has been undermined by a prime minister who works for Moscow. In Georgia, the Russian troops press in while operations continue to unseat the pro-American president. In Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania old Communist structures dominate business and government. Despite their entry into NATO, some of these countries may be described as nests of spies and infiltrators whose mission has been to sabotage NATO from within. This is not simply conjecture, but the conclusion drawn by the best-informed political activists and researchers in Eastern Europe.

    The supposed Cold War victory of the West opened Europe to infection by Moscow’s clandestine armies. Already the Left formed a fifth column in Western Europe. But these political forces were to be augmented by economic interpenetration, energy dependence, and more.

    Because of its advanced weaponry, the United States cannot be easily defeated in a war. But wars are won or lost before they reach the point of outright military clashes. The order of battle in the next world war is not merely a list of divisions or nuclear rocket regiments. This order of battle chiefly consists in assets that include banks, major corporations, non-government organizations (NGOs), environmentalists, peace activists, drug cartels, organized crime syndicates, and the left wing of the Democratic Party, which the Communists targeted for infiltration more than 30 years ago.

    In advance of any military campaign relying on tank divisions and nuclear rocket regiments, it is necessary to soften the United States through a series of clandestine and subversive moves: first, there was the use of narcotics trafficking as a weapon, which began in 1960. Prior to that, there was the infiltration of organized crime, the penetration of U.S. banks, and the introduction of the Peaceful Coexistence Struggle by Nikita Khrushchev. For those interested in the details of this, please refer to a book titled Red Cocaine, by Joseph D. Douglass. (It is based on the testimony of one of the highest-level Communsit defectors of all time, Jan Sejna.)

    The campaign involves the use of economic weapons, as well as educational weapons. Every civilization nourishes within itself various cults opposed to its values. That is basically what “Communism” represents. The specifics of ideology are unimportant, for what is represented is essentially anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western civilization. It can change its name, it rhetoric, its tactics, but the movement in opposition to civilization remains essentially the same in its determination to destroy what presently exists. Taking this into account, take a good look around and re-examine the former Cold War battlefield. Note the changes around the globe, and the changes in Washington.

    What do you think has been happening over the last 20 years?

    Robert Chandler has written a book titled Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, the Global New Left, and Radical Islam. What is valuable in Chandler’s work relates to his firsthand interactions with Leftist organizers in the United States. According to Chandler, there is a vast network in America that aims to bring down the capitalist system, destroy the U.S. Constitution, and break up the federal system by getting control of the government.

    “The driving forces in this top network,” wrote Chandler, “are the ‘thought leaders’ and other individuals in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndacalists.” He noted that “leadingmembers are the Washington, D.C.-based revolutionary centers — the institute for Policy Studies … as well as the coopted mainstream media and politicians making up the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the ‘Shadow Party’ hiding inside the Democratic Party….”

    According to Chandler, “The radical Left” is engaging in a new form of political warfare in which the Left targeted “open spaces” in the American social structure; namely, schools and universities, government, churches and community organizations. The idea was, wrote Chandler, “to transform society and replace traditional American values and institutions with neo-Marxist values.” At a Marxist conference that Chandler attended, one of the agenda items was openly listed as, “The Strange Pleasures of Destruction in Capitalist America.” He relates that most of the participants “were university professors.” In the course of this conference, purely by accident, he ran into Zapatista Subcommandante Marcos in an underground parking garage. According to Chandler, “Orthodox communsits warned conference participants about the dangers of wandering away from the basics of Marx and Lenin….” He further explained that everyone present at the conference agreed it was necessary to “destroy the state as a part of the coming socialist revolution. There simply was no other way to achieve socialist governance in the United States than to crush the existing capitalist system.”

    Now the sequence should be clear. If the United States is bankrupt, politically divided and internally sabotaged by the radicals of the Left who have everywhere infiltrated the system, will there be a logistical support network for maintaining our tanks, bombers and ICBMS?

    What seems fantastic on first-hearing is actually everyday life for those who are paying attention. Look at the world around you. There are those who have been enriching themselves as they sabotage the economy and poison the culture. They pretend to care about the poor and downtrodden. But they live in mansions, collect enormous sums from government and business, advancing the foreign policy goals of enemy dictators. The organized Left is a business with access to billions of dollars. Its tendency is to serve as a fifth column.

    Now imagine the collapse of the dollar. Imagine the collapse of the U.S. federal system, the Constitution, and America’s domestic tranquility. How will the country defend itself from Russian missiles when our missiles no longer work because they have fallen into disrepair after an economic collapse? Here is asymetrical warfare at its best. Here is the beginning of what I call “the sequence.”

    • Go to bed

    • This author is a redux of the stupidity of the Eisenhower doctrine:

      “You’re with us or you’re against us”.

      The “anti-” US sentiment is artificial and propaganda. He turns every case of indigenous political movements as a resurgent communism. So even those – like Laos and Vietnam who wholly discredited the “if we don’t stop them here, they’ll take over the world”. These countries wanted to be free from colonialism and as long as the American doctrine remains, we make ourselves their enemy, not the other way around

  39. Cyndi,

    Sorry, I shouldnt have jumped in right there. Curiosity got the best of me wondering what BF had cooked up for me so I got back on. Now I do have to hurry up & sleep.

%d bloggers like this: