Tuesday Night Open Mic for May 11, 2010

It is always a fun night for me when I do open mic. I get to do little touches on stories that wouldn’t be nearly big enough for me to devote an entire article to. Additionally, I get to really scour the net and all the different sites out there to find topics, which gets me seeing lots of little interesting articles. I have often contemplated something like having a “bizarre article or website of the week” or “You Tube Video of the Week” where we truly share some of the absolutely bizarre things out there, or the really funny or interesting things. Perhaps some day soon I shall have to go down that path and begin doing something like that. But for tonight we have our regular stuff: politics. We begin with yet another fascist ruling from a public education system that has gone absolutely mad. We touch on the President’s Supreme Court nomination, as well as his comments that information today has become a distraction. Only three topics for me tonight, but I didn’t have as much time as usual. I will try to add one or two throughout the day to whatever all of you post!


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Student Gets Detention for Opening Piece of Candy

    A Texas third-grader came home in tears recently after she was slapped with a week’s worth of detention for possessing a contraband substance.

    The substance in question: a Jolly Rancher.

    A teacher confiscated the unopened piece of candy, and the 10-year-old girl, Leighann Adair, served her detention during lunch and recess last week. She and the friend who gave her the candy were told to write an essay about what they did and why it was wrong.

    “It’s an extreme punishment for something so small,” Michael Brazda, Leighann’s step-father, told FOXNews.com.

    Despite Leighann’s parents’ pleas for leniency for a girl they say “has never been in trouble before,” school officials from Brazos Elementary School are standing by the punishment. They argue that they need strict punishment to effectively enforce their no-gum, no-candy policy, which can cause a mess.

    The superintendent for the Brazos Independent School District also claims the district is simply following state guidelines to limit the amount of junk food in schools.

    “Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,” Superintendent Jack Ellis told KHOU-TV in Houston.

    But state guidelines for punishing students with junk food don’t even exist, Texas Department of Agriculture spokesperson Bryan Black said.

    “Our policy does not prohibit from sharing a Jolly Rancher with a friend,” Black told FOXNews.com. “If a parent wants to pack candy, it’s their decision, not against school policy. A parent needs to decide what a student eats.”

    Officials from the Department of Agriculture sent a letter to school officials, reminding them that state policy doesn’t outline such punishments. Though the state has dietary rules for schools — mandating, for example, that food be baked, not fried — disciplinary action is a local decision, Black told FOXNews.com.

    Leighann’s parents told FOXNews.com that the school is notorious for strict policies, and they are glad that school officials are finally being called out.

    Read the entire article here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/10/student-gets-detention-opening-piece-candy/

    You all know what I think of the public education system in America (in short, if you are new to the site, it sucks, it doesn’t work, and it should be replaced by a private sector version). Here we have another example of how out of control the public education system in the United States has become. It pains me to say that this is from Texas. Then again, it certainly seems as though we are getting an awful lot of public education stories out of Texas, lately. D13…… you have some esplaining to do (just say it like Ricky Ricardo, it makes it so much funnier).

    A week’s worth of detention for having a damn jolly rancher! A piece of hard candy! And this punishment levied on a ten year old. What exactly is it that they are teaching this evil little spawn of satan with the punishment? Surely she must have had it laced with LSD, or at least pure cane sugar. I will tell you what they are teaching her. They are teaching her that no matter how inane or stupid the rule, there are harsh consequences for disobeying authority. How is that for an indoctrination lesson in today’s America? (I can’t help myself, I know that Ray’s head just spun around and Mathius is currently pleading with DPM to attack me for calling public education indoctrination)

    What this article really is, from my perspective, is a perfect example of why public education at the federal, or even the state level, is a horrible idea. We have the school taking what is in my opinion a pretty drastic measure for a relatively inane offense. No crime was committed. She didn’t cheat or lie or act out against anyone. There was no real life lesson she needed to be taught. She was punished for having a piece of candy. That is insane. And how does the school district get away with it? They simply claim that this isn’t their decision, it is the state rules. By having education authority centralized at a higher level, they are able to deflect any and all responsibility. It leaves parents at the local level with no recourse. No one to hold accountable for this ridiculous decision, which the state denies is even a real policy!

    The parent’s only recourse? Remove their child from that public school and spend extra money to send them to a private school. The public schools don’t care, because the money from the federal government doesn’t leave with her. The money stays, the child goes. It is a win/win for the school system. I won’t get up on my soap box yet, because I am working on another piece on public education. Needless to say the stories like this are piling up these days. It seems like there is at least one every single week. Public education is a farce. It is a broken system held to the goal parents have for it. It is working perfectly when held to the standard that government has for it. Keep that in mind. More to come soon.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:


      Public education may be flawed, ineffectual, and an infringement upon our rights (by making me pay for it), but I don’t see indoctrination. The school is being strict and overly harsh – they are trying to enforce obedience to their authority (agreed) – but I don’t see how you extrapolate from there to “public schools being a deliberate and orchestrated platform designed to imbue children with a partisan ideology.” A case could certainly be made, but this isn’t it.

      Hint: Public schools are indoctrinating students by drilling into their heads the flawed concept of “civic duty.”

      • DPM,
        this is NOT about partisanship. I am not claiming that the schools are trying to create democrats. I don’t really care about that crap anyway. That is not nearly as dangerous as what they are actually being indoctrinated in.

        And, on a side note, they are actually pushing partisanship because they refuse to teach anything other than a two-party system, and they ignore most of the important aspects of individual power and authority in civics. Look at the curriculum. Its not about D vs. R, its about dumbing down citizens so that they can be controlled and maintain the status quo. Even the enforcement of obedience you admit to is a form of indoctrination and brainwashing.

    • Mathius says:

      An educated population is in society’s best interest. The schools may be flawed, ineffectual, and poorly managed, but the alternative is an unacceptably uneducated population. Children without eduction have little chance of finding gainful employment and so become a drain on society. Further, an undereducated population cannot compete (the way we want to) in the global economy. Yes, we could find ourselves doing manual labor and such, but if you want America to be America and now Mumbai, we need to ensure that everyone gets an education. Could we be doing a better job? Yup. Should we just pack it in and close all the public schools? Nope.

      And everyone has to pay for it so that the poorest and most vulnerable among us are not relegated to a permanent inescapable underclass (the uneducated parents can’t afford to educate their children so the children grow up poor and so on).

      Now whose head is spinning?

      Adding: I propose a rule change that the fraking school buses on the road between my house and office every morning should have to pull over occasionally and let the hundred cars trapped behind them pass. Now surely this is something we can all agree on.

      • That would be my head spinning.

        The schools may be flawed, ineffectual, and poorly managed, but the alternative is an unacceptably uneducated population.

        Wrong answer. The alternative would be to remove the flaws, make them effective and well managed.

        • With the unions involved, that will most likely not happen. Unions had their time and place…IMHO that time and place has passed.

          • Mathius says:

            Strangely, I don’t disagree with you, Terry. The unions are a major problem.

            The single biggest thing the schools could do to improve is the single most obvious: fire bad teachers.

            • It is not so strange that we agree. With something as glaring as this, I believe most would agree. I have been a union member in the past…I saw first hand how they protect the not so good employees. In fact, when Louisiana passed a right to work law, I was among the first to resign from the union.

        • Mathius says:


          So you’re ok with public education if they’d improve it’s efficacy?

      • Mathius,

        the alternative is an unacceptably uneducated population

        False dichotomy.

        If the State does not educate, everyone will be uneducated.

        I guess you’re surprised to know that Newton, Lock, Jefferson, Plato, etc. were not educated by the State.

        • Mathius says:

          What percentage of the population were literate in Newton’s day? 10% 15% 25%?

          In France, for example, a government-inspired study of historical rates of literacy published in 1880 showed that for the 1686–1690 period, 75 percent of the population could not sign their names. As Carlo M. Cipolla shows in Literacy and Development in the West, literacy rates for Catholic Europe as a whole were roughly in line with these statistics from France. Protestant Europe fared much better, with literacy rates of maybe 35 to 45 percent. In addition, Cipolla makes it clear that within these statistics we can see great variation by class and geography: the urban bourgeoisie had literacy rates of at least 90 percent, as compared pared to a rate of 10 percent for rural peasants.

          Note that the rural peasants were locked into a class system where their illiteracy kept them from joining the bourgeoisie. So the next generation was also poor and illiterate.

          Source: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html (This is pretty interesting)

          **Prophetic vision: Black Flag will respond that the government was responsible for illiteracy, literacy wasn’t necessary, or both.**

          • Mathius,

            You confuse literacy with education.

            Let me ask you this:

            Do you know how to build a mud hut, hitch a plow to an ox, tame a horse, build a bow and arrow from a tree branch?

            No? Then you are an uneducated idiot to a Medieval peasant.

            • Mathius says:

              So the peasants chose not to have a skill which was (apparently) vital to being middle class? There can be no class mobility without it, yet only 10% could sign their own name.

              This is a good situation?

              • Mathius,

                A man who could read, but unable to feed himself is pointless.

                It was not the lack of literacy that prevented ‘class’ mobility, it was the feudal system that prevented class mobility.

                Until the industrial revolution, economic expansion and prosperity for the majority of the people was impossible.

                Prosperity breeds literacy, not the other way around.

                A man must be able to eat and survive before he finds the leisure time to read a book.

                • Mathius says:


                  • Mathius,

                    Not at all.

                    FIRST Prosperity, THEN literacy.

                  • Mathius,

                    The root of “school” is

                    Leisure comes AFTER work.

                    If work requires all your time (lack of prosperity) there cannot be leisure and cannot be “schooling”

                  • Bottom Line says:


                    Eggs don’t just appear.

                    • Mathius says:

                      Eggs. Chickens don’t just appear either.

                    • Eggs came first, they are a mutation of a seed.

                    • TexasChem says:

                      Yeah BF-I suppose all matter in the multiverse just suddenly appeared with a big bang (nothing somehow created something) and all this matter just randomly collided creating stars and planets and then somehow matter began taking on random life all on its own evolving from a mixture of primordial goo? (that science still has not been able to imitate)

                      So what plant did the chicken evolve from BF if the egg is a mutation of a chicken?Is there some way to trace the DNA of a chicken back to a plant?The chicken tree perhaps?I’m curious as to your conclusion on this matter.

                    • Eggs evolved before the chicken, actually before birds, so Egg. Unless you mean the chicken egg, and then it depends on whether you define a chicken egg as an egg containing a chicken or an egg laid by a chicken.

                    • Bottom Line says:

                      Okay, I gave it a little more thought…

                      A reptile laid a mutant egg that developed into a pregnant chicken.

                      The chicken laid eggs and mated with it’s offspring.

                      Now we have chickens.

                      So the answer to…

                      “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”


                      A reptile.

                    • Come on guys…who cares…scrable the eggs and eat the chickens….save the paper for musket wadding.

                    • Bottom Line says:

                      Scramble half of the eggs – Eat a few of the chickens.

                      Take the rest and use them for trading and breeding.

                      Breed lots of chickens and feed an army. Save the paper for musket wadding.

                      “An army marches on it’s stomach.”

                      – Napoleon Bonaparte

                    • A military genius mantra is not made by battle tactics, but by managing the logistics of the battle.

                      Many armies have been successful in battle but defeated by running out of fuel.

          • **Prophetic vision: Black Flag will respond that the government was responsible for illiteracy, literacy wasn’t necessary, or both.**

            Good guess!

        • Chris Devine says:

          Plato was executed for corrupting youth by educating them to question authority. The best teachers I had in public school would have suffered the same fate.

          • I think you meant Socrates…

            Socrates was a fool.

            He took the poison willingly – because he argued the State was supreme and to deny the State its ‘right’ to execute him would harm the State.

      • USWeapon says:


        You provide a false choice. Public education or an undereducated public. That is not the choice at hand. We have shown, again and again, that government is incapable of running an efficient and effective public education system. The alternative is a private education system. That is the solution. Right now the public system is a failure, thus those leaving it are undereducated.

        So the choice is a private market education system or undereducated population. Your misstep is believing that the government is the answer to the education problem in the first place.


        • Mathius says:

          A private education is not accessible to the less wealthy. Your assumption is that, somehow, when children are not mandated to be educated and provided with subsidized schools, poor families will opt to pay a hefty percentage of their income to provide this good.

          What would actually happen is that children of poor families will not get educated. They will not get good jobs. They will grow up and be poor. They will have children. These children will not be educated. They will not get good jobs. They will grow up and be poor.

          Meanwhile, those who can afford education will get education. They will get all the good jobs. They will grow up and be wealthy. They will have children. These children will be educated. They will get all the good jobs. They will grow up and be wealthy.

          And the Eloi shall diverge from the Morlochs.

          • USWeapon says:

            I disagree completely, but I will leave it alone for now as I am working on an article to begin the discussion about privatizing education again. I wrote about it about a year or so ago, but I want to give it another go as we have so many more folks participating these days.


          • Mathius

            poor families will opt to pay a hefty percentage of their income to provide this good

            And that is their right.

            All human life is a matter of trade offs. You cannot be both here and there at the same time.

            You cannot spend the same dollar twice.

            You cannot eat the apple and save the apple.

            All human action is a measure of trade offs. Education is no different.

            If such a family believes another purchase is more important than education, it is NOT MY RIGHT to argue about it.

            Their choice DOES NOT CREATE MY OBLIGATION to repair their consequences of their choice.

            • Mathius says:

              It does create an obligation on your part if you accept Liberal Premise B.

              But I know you do not. So let’s try it this way: forget for the moment that you’re being forced to contribute. Someone shows up at your door asking for a donation for a public school for the community kids. Do you donate?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                If they just call it a school for the community kids and leave out the word “public” then I probably would donate.

                I see education as valuable. However, I see no value in attempting to FORCE SOMEONE ELSE to share my vision that it is valuable.

                The word “public” unfortunately has too many bad connotations now 🙂

              • Mathius,

                Do I know these people or are they complete strangers to me?

          • Why is there no paralell to the Health Care Law? The more kids enrolled in private school, the cheaper it is.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @USW – just to jump in slightly and late – and to clarify – not all public schools are complete disasters – there are, I am sure, many shining examples of successful public school systems or even individual public schools that do a smash up job. I think your point as that being the only path is what leaves things a mess. The good public schools or systems are the exception rather than the rule.

      • The idea of higher and higher education being a necessity is what has pushed our education system up in cost. Everyone wants a degree, now that so many have one, everyone needs a masters, or a doctorate. Where does it stop? You can’t even learn about work and the real world till your like 25 these days. That is a problem.

        Formal education is not the answer to everything, but it has been drummed into society so hard that even employers (at least the big ones) only accept hevily indoctrinated high degree persons who still don’t knoe crap about the real world or business, that is why corporations are so damned screwed up.

        Besides that, your class seperation of wealthy versus poor still exists. The wealthy pay for the better schools and the more expensive the better, and its all who you know and whether you went to Yale or Harvard. Its bullcrap, your dream of equality through education is a farce, unless we are all gonna be equally stupid, and that is not good for any economy. It is a benefit ot have an educated populace, and if we could get rid of all this crappy formal education, maybe we could have one.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Jon – I think constantly uplifting your education is a positive thing. I can see how one can easily become jaded by the process. There is a degree of gamesmanship involved – degrees have become a needed benchmark to sift through piles of resumes – those are the rules in most cases as they have evolved. I also think you get out what you put into it – like anything else in life. I am in the final stages of a PhD program (classes and comps done – now the dissertation) – I worked my ass off to get to this point and put forth tremendous effort – as have many of my classmates. Contrary to your insinuations I do not feel my education has been crappy, I do not feel anything will be “owed” to me upon completion and I realize that my own education does not end upon being handed a piece of paper. I also don’t think I am an exception – there are hundreds/thousands of us that feel that “we” and current/future employees can benefit by deepening our skills, building our critical thinking muscles and constantly challenging ourselves to improve what is between our eyes. Formal education alone is not the answer, but it is a huge part of it.

          I do think practitioner experience should be a required element of any terminal degree, heck even some Master’s programs should include an experience requirement. At one job I grew weary and leery of hiring kids with Master’s degrees that had no experience. Generalizing, they were often my most difficult employees – they didn’t think they needed more training and their expectations were set way too high. Many of my current professors were and are practitioners first and academics/educators second – this has provided an unparalleled benefit that I can not easily obtain on my own or through my own studies (trust me – I try).



          • Ray

            Congrats on the PhD, seriously.

            Not so seriously, to hijack from JAC, PhD = Piled higher n Deeper! 🙂

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Thanks Anita – and yes – I have met more than my share of academics who completely fit the stereotype – sadly many of them know this and embrace it. Pompous asses like this are what make it seem so unseemly.

          • Ray,
            Sorry for the delay in my response, I have been offline for a bit.

            In my harsh criticism of our education system, including higher education and the whole academic culture of our society, I do not mean to belittle yours or any other effort in bettering oneself or continuing on the never ending path of learning.

            My criticsm is most apt for the young who have never done anything in “real life”, something that generally does not apply to persons such as yourself. A college education is, to some extent, whatever you make of it, at least in the sense of how much you learn. The issue I have is with the over-dependence on formal education and the elevation of academia despite their abysmal track record in some walks of life.

            Some things like medicine and engineering frequently have a complexity that requires 6 or 8 years of school or more, just to adequately cover the material. In things like my own industry academia is often well behind the “real world” because of the rapidity of change in my field. In fields like business, anything other than practical application and apprenticeship I think is a mistake. What they are teaching MBAs these days is attrocious and is a major source of our failing economy and the horrible choices being made at the corporate level accross a whole range of large companies. This can only be explained by a poorly educated class of business professionals, despite the fact that most at those levels are very highly educated at top schools.

            I also am critical of the attitude of persons that are educated formally without practical applicaiton. I think that real world experience, as is part of some programs, would help with a lot of this. I have a lot more to say on this issue, but will await a more focussed post as USW assures us that is coming soon.

            Again, however, I do not mean to slam all persons pursuing college education, I would pursue more myself if I had the reources right now. I like to study, and I generally do well. I am sure at least some of my frustration stems from watching people in my field gets positions that I was not considered for because I have a 2 year degree and they have 6, even tho they know less than I do, because they are just out of school and I have been in the field for 10 years. I think, however, that I have a lot of legitimate arguments beyond any emotional feelings I may have.

            Congrats on your academic acomplihments 🙂

    • This is just one more control mechanism. When do we realize that it’s more important to teach our children to be critical thinkers than to police candy? The more ridiculous rules we create for ourselves, the less freedom kids have to reason innovatively. We’ve also allowed the public school system to be run more as a police state than a place for learning – with no common sense on the part of the guards. Agree totally with USW on this – let’s keep telling them it’s useless to resist.

      Indoctrination is the case when we blanket and snuff out the genius in our kids with stifling programs like “No Child Left Behind.” Keep dumbing them down – it’s the only way to make new sheep. Washington is terrified of a truly educated populace – we might realize what we’re doing to ourselves.

      This really pissed me off, too:

      From Reason.com:

      Who You Gonna Call?
      Posted on May 11, 2010, 6:00AM

      In Pennsylvania, Hampton High School student Brady Bendtsen suffers from seizures and his family has an agreement with the school system that he can keep a cell phone with him for medical emergencies. When an assistant principal tried to confiscate the phone, Bendtsen attempted to explain the arrangement to him, but the principal didn’t listen. He had police arrest Bendtsen, who suffered a seizure as he was being taken from campus.

    • USWep,

      I believe Ray home-school’s.

      His head is not spinning regarding the perversity of the public system.

      • I believe Ray’s son is like 1 year old now so hopefully the state doesn’t have him yet.

      • USWeapon says:

        Bf…. I use Ray and Mathius and sometimes Buck because I know they can take a good natured ribbing. Ray’s baby is still too young for school, but I do recall that he is looking at homeschooling as one of his options.

        Usually it is the claim of indoctrination that makes those who lean left spin.


        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Sorry – been away from desk all day. I am strongly considering home schooling as an alternative for my son and future kids – if nothing else there should be some home schooling to balance what happens in the school – ultimately am I going to need to de-programm my kid everyday (I also recognize that public schooling today is not what it was 20 years ago either)?. BF has shared some valuable/excellent insight on this. I do not believe Public Schools to be a complete loss – I think there is a deeper argument if the schools are more ‘locally owned operated’ – almost communistic (little ‘c’ not big ‘C’). I am an advocate of completely dismantling the Dept of Education.

          • I used to be totally against home schooling…..have now changed my mind to the opposite. I think it valuable.

    • Bottom Line says:

      USW – “They are teaching her that no matter how inane or stupid the rule, there are harsh consequences for disobeying authority.”

      USW – “No crime was committed. She didn’t cheat or lie or act out against anyone. There was no real life lesson she needed to be taught. She was punished for having a piece of candy. That is insane.”

      ~Right or wrong, you WILL comply.

      USW – “And how does the school district get away with it? They simply claim that this isn’t their decision, it is the state rules.By having education authority centralized at a higher level, they are able to deflect any and all responsibility. It leaves parents at the local level with no recourse.”

      ~Mommy and Daddy will comply too.

      ~You will comply. Resistance is futile. This is how the world and the system works.

      What a great thing to teach children – blind faith and compliance – irrelevence of parental rights in contrast to the state.

      If I ever have children, they’ll be home-schooled.

    • Hey guys, sorry I am late to the party.

      Like USW, education is a big thing for me, and I will keep my input ehre brief unless pressed, and will await USW’s coming article. For now I will say:

      1) I am a product of homeschooling. I was in the public education system for kidergarten, and in a private school for 1st grade. The rest was at home. My mother has a high school education, my father is an mechanical engineer with a bachelors. My mother was my primary teacher. I am not socially backwards, I have not negative phuysical effects from not being in school sports, and I am smarter than average. If any of your are considering homeschooling or have questions about it, I would love to answer those questions and I highly recommend homeschooling if it is an option for you at all.

      2) The public school system is horrible, and is a control mechanism. It may not be all one big conspiracy, and there are a lot of good people in the system, but there are definately elements that are using the system as a control mechanism and a center for indoctrination.

      3) Step 1 is vouchers. Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Obama: iPad, Xbox Turn Information Into A ‘Distraction’

    President Barack Obama, addressing graduates at historically black Hampton University on Sunday, said that it is the responsibility of all Americans to offer every child the type of education that will make them competitive in an economy in which just a high school diploma is no longer enough.

    Moreover, Obama said, the era of iPads and Xboxes had turned information into a diversion that was imposing new strains on democracy.

    “You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter,” he told the students. “And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

    Read the entire article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/obama-ipad-xbox-turn-info_n_569289.html

    I listened to this speech last night. Overall, I didn’t have a problem with most of the speech. I could rail against the fact that it seemed to me that the majority of the speech focused on creating yet another “right” in America. There was a lot of talk about how a secondary education was not a nice to have, but a necessity in today’s world, and it is government’s role to ensure that education is provided so that everyone has the ability to succeed. I could tell you how much I disagree with government having any role in education, but that would be redundant.

    Instead, where I am focusing is the sentiment that information is bad. I know it borders on paranoia (which doesn’t mean they are not out to get me!), but I really felt that the message that Obama was putting forth was that the internet is a bad thing because of the amount of false information out there. Don’t get me wrong, there is a kernel of truth there. There certainly IS a lot of false information out there. But I do want to say that I think that 90% of what is out there is at least rooted in truth. Death panels, while not an accurate description of the boards proposed, are an extreme conclusion based at least in part in reality. I tend to agree with a lot of the pundits out there who surmised that the real message was a shot at conservative blogs and those who persist in spreading the birther and other such stories.

    What I feel this statement from the President does, is to further divide Americans along political lines. Put yourself in the shoes of those students. Imagine that you are an Obama supporter. What would the message that you took away be? For me it would have been don’t believe all the bad stuff you hear out there about me or my party. It is all noise.

    I would say that the proper message would not have been that there is too much information out there. I would say the message is that we have to focus that education we are promising you towards developing critical thinking skills. Then you would be ready to hear all the information that you can process, and use that critical thinking to discern what is right and what is wrong. At a minimum, I would have thrown in a line that mentioned that discussion is good. He didn’t even do that. He started towards the path of controlling that information by adding that funny little thing to the end of the statement….. “its putting new pressure on our country and our democracy.”

    How’s that for some bullshit. No Mr. President. It is putting pressure on our crooked politicians and their entire political system. And THAT is what you want to immediately begin to alleviate.

    • Our POTUS is concerned that the progressive message is being undermined by correct thinking…I do not believe he sees the damage that his adgenda will cause, but is blinded by his ideology. IMO he firmly believes his way is correct, which I believe makes him naive at best, and dangerous at worst.

      His inexperience has been blinding at times, and has been openly displayed on the world stage. I think that other leaders in the world have grasped this and are growing less and less concerned with what he has to say. We, on the other hand, must listen to what he says and be able to filter the garbage out and see what he truly expouses…Government is the answer to everything. That in my opinion is the dangerous part.

    • Mathius says:

      Wow, that’s not what I read into that at all.

      I see a fairly innocuous statement. The 24/7 media and the internet (with things like twitter and facebook etc) are chopping legitimate news into soundbites prepackaged and manipulated to catch your attention and inflame your sensibilities in order to draw more eyeballs.

      What I read from the President’s speech was that the graduating students have to bear the extra burden of ensuring that they read into the news, that they get the real and complete story and not allow themselves to simply be steered by the news-shills. That is, after all, why we’re all here at SUFA, no?

      • I figured our views would differ here, and yes that is what we on SUFA are here for. To express our differing opinions and discuss…my opinion is simply different on this.

        You have to see that the Progressive message is starting to get the dander of many people up. If you see it, so does the POTUS…hell even if you don’t see it, he has to. This is his attempt to deflect disagreement with his adgenda…in my humble opinion.

      • I might agree with you, if the president didn’t go out of his way to attack and make fun of any organization he personally doesn’t like-He makes snide remarks about the tea party and goes out of his way to point out specific news media he doesn’t like. When I add his recent actions with his words in this speech-they add up to a lot more than his just pointing out the problem.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Exactly how I read into it Mathius — the need for ‘instant gratification’ and 24/7 newsfeeds means a complete bombardment of information, much of which is misinformation. It is extremely difficult, and extremely timeconsuming, to sort through the junk.

        • USWeapon says:

          It is only difficult to sort through the junk because it is the main stream media that is peddling most of it. They were supposed to be the unbiased source of information that allowed us to find the truth. Instead they became the primary false information provider.


          • Buck the Wala says:

            In many cases that’s completely true. But the internet has also made things much better (easy access to more information) and much worse (unverifiable sources, misinformation, etc) depending on how you look at it.

      • Common Man says:


        What the hell have I been thinking these last 40 + years, you guys are right. Obviously NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc promotes and reports only truthful, completely informative and correct information. In addition the NY Times and other respectable newspapers report only facts and all the facts.

        And God knows we absolutely need to regulate any and all infomation distributed throughtout the world today, because we all know that the average Joe or Josephine is way to undereducated to realize what is fact verses fiction.

        Oh, and while we are at it we should establish some kind of government CZAR to regulate information that is being fed to an otherwise idiot society. I mean wa all know that the 1st Amendment is nothing but an outdated right which needs to be changed to empower a governemnt interested only in our well-being and prosperity.

        I hope that some day I too garner the wisdom and knowledge you two are blessed with so I too can obtain wisdom.

        Hang on a minute I have to stir my Kool-aid

        God Bless our leader, our current government and may God grant those elected officials the continued wisdom needed to futher a perfect government

        I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth


        • You are on a role today, CM!

        • Buck the Wala says:


          I don’t believe Obama was talking about the need to further regulate the news media here. I took it as a completely innocuous statement about the reality of our culture. We should all be aware of the problems with 24/7 information bombardment and we should all take (in my opinion) our own personal steps to ensure we are well informed as to opposed to being misinformed.

          • Common Man says:


            Nothing, absolutely nothing that eminates from that man’s mouth is innocuous. As a matter of fact everything (ment to be heard by the public) is calculated and intended to promote an objective or eliminate diagreement. He and those that support him have a plan to “restructure” this country, and from where I stand it is not toward a better way.

            Everything these people and those progressives, Marxist’s, socialist’s and communist’s before and around them, do is designed to collapse our current ideology of capitalisum/free trade, and restructure it as they see fit.


          • You have got to quit looking at everything the man says or does as a separate event that can be evaluated-you really need to look at the total picture.

            • Cyndi P says:

              Amen, sister! Every ‘Believer’ needs to do that. If they did, it might shake their ‘faith’.

          • Even if it was innocuous, like I said ot Matt, he needs to work on his verbage, because he did not say what you guys heard, HE SAID INFORMATION IS A DISTRACTION! So either he is saying nefarious stuff, or he is a complete idiot as a communicator. Take your pick.

      • Mathius, USWep:

        Mathius, not at all. Obama message was pointed and clear.

        He hates that the People are bypassing the “gatekeepers” of information – the MSM. It makes making the “message” and the manipulation of the People far more difficult.

        The Elite still guard the gates, but there are wide open holes in the wall around them.

        They are stymied and do not know what to do ….for now.

      • USWeapon says:


        Funny that he never said in the speech that they need to be more careful with the information they found. He said absolutely nothing about using critical thinking skills to discern truth from fiction. Had he said so, I might be inclined to agree with you. Instead he just threw out there that all this information is bad for the country and the democracy.

        You are allowing yourself to fall into a place where you give the man instant benefit of the doubt instead of questioning what is said. You are falling into the very trap that espoused he was warning about.


        • Mathius says:

          Perhaps. That was just my initial reaction from what you posted. Time has not permitted me to watch the whole thing.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        “The 24/7 media and the internet (with things like twitter and facebook etc) are chopping legitimate news into soundbites prepackaged and manipulated to catch your attention and inflame your sensibilities in order to draw more eyeballs.”

        Ok…first of all:

        DEFINE “legitimate news”.

        Secondly, if what you describe is indeed the problem, would it not be a reasonable solution to teach our kids to critically think, do more research, seek out diverse sources, and come to their own conclusions rather than regulating what is and is not available to them?

        I, for one, don’t want Big Brother deciding ahead of time which information is “legitimate” and which information is not, and then filtering out the “not legitimate” information before I have a chance to see it and judge for myself.

        Allowing Big Brother to be the arbiter of what information is legitimate or not legitimate is a bit too 1984 for me.

      • No Matt,
        He said information was a distraction and was putting pressure on democracy.
        1) Information is a lot of work, one must be able to think and dicern, but information is not bad in any quantity.
        2) Information and the free exchange of it is the only thing that makes a democracy or republic viable. Only those who try to reduce or control information are ever successful with tyranny. Information is good for democracy, if it is putting pressure on it, it is pressure to fix the problems with it.

        Sure, sound bites and misinformation exist. That does not mean it is bad or a distraction, it just means you can’t believe everything without thought. If that is what he meant, he needs to work on his damned communications skills, because that is not even close to what he actually said.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – That there is a cottage industry now devoted full time to showing how much people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, Olbermann, O’Reilly and others lie (you yourself sourced one of those such sites extensively) should tell you that there is a kernel of truth in identifying the avalanche of information that is often shaped and contorted to manipulate the end user/reader/etc – you practice the same thing yourself (manipulation) with many of the graphics and photographs you use in your articles.

      And by the way – enough of the death panel crap. Its like saying I could beat Usain Bolt in the 100m just because I can run to the fridge for a beer. Complete and utter b.s.

      • There is an equal or greater number of US citizens devoted to seeing through the half truths this present administration spouts. There is no need for a “cottage industry”…it is blatant and will result in one term for the current POTUS…

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          So Terry – when those citizens are pulling their information from less-than truthful sources then where does that leave us? Developing an accurate picture requires more work than sitting on your ass in front of Fox “News” or MSNBC for 2-3 hours every night (not you specifically).

          • It leaves us in the same position we are in now. And what you consider a not so truthful source, does not make it so.

          • Hi Ray…do you know of a worthy news source these days? I do not.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        We have already determined that our own government is not a particularly good “source” when it comes to “truthful information”.

        We have also discovered that the mainstream media is not a particularly good “source” when it comes to “truthful information”.

        I certainly don’t want the government to decide FOR ME what is legitimate information and what is not. That is a decision which I reserve FOR MYSELF as a FREE MAN.

        All you are doing if you wish the government to choose for us what is and what is not “truthful and legitimate” is advocating censorship.

    • Common Man says:

      Good Morning to all;

      I am responding to both the Texas School article and obama’s speach about information, since they demonstrait the governments ultimate desire; CONTROL!

      Despite what some will say and/or think it is quite clear that the underlying objective of the government is to control each and every aspect of our lives. They are using whatever means they can muster to do so, from the education system to the media. They are doing this to further their position of power and at the same time minimizing or eliminating any alternative influences.

      If you don’t like the idea of individuals maturing with a sense of independence and free thought, minimize or eliminate the information they are privy too, and structure the information they are given to reinforce established government guidelines.

      -Children are fat because of poor eating habits and parents that are too stupid to realize they are contributing to their child’s continued poor health. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Establish specific rules and regulations for school lunches and at the same time invoke severe punishment for any and all violations.

      -Children need to be taught very specific information relative to math, science, history, and social skills in order to excell within the guidelines established. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Establish specific facts and methodologies relative to what and how students should be taught, and at the same time ensure ALL children follow these specific processes to ensure each child is prepared to contribute to an evolving society; one in which the government dictates a specific code or conduct and tolerance.

      -Children need to understand that everyone is equal and that everyone wins if we all pull together by pooling our efforts and resources toward a common goal of ‘Social Justice”
      GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Eliminate or minimize true competition by instructing children that it is hurtful to the disadvantaged or underprivelaged to segregate “winners verses losers”. Further enforce this mindset by instructing all children that everyone can reach the ;finish line’ at the same time provided those disadvantaged ones are given equalizing treatment and/or handicaps.

      -Everyone needs to be afforded access to the information and programs that ensure we all operate within an established “realm” acceptable to the whole. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Limit the information available to the society and ensure that the information avaialble is supportive of a government guideline. Furthermore, encourage citizens, educational institutions, businesses, social organizations, media and religous establishments to conform to a specific social and moral standard by providing incentatives/compensation for doing so. Reinforce this behaivor by demoralizing or chastizing those who object.

      -Everyone must understand that it is unfair to deny disadvantaged individuals equalizing assistance. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Provide social programs that ensure those disadvantage people recieve certain ‘rights’ otherwise reserved for the fortunate. Educate everyone that those with more should provide for the disadvantaged under the guise they are otherwise bigotted or racist’s.

      I could go on and on with example, and maybe I will author a paper and submit it to USW???

      We are faced with a government determined on redefining acceptable behaivor and ensuring each of us kowtow to an established set of standards; ones that minimize or eliminate defiance. It is a government that is winning the battle, because it uses elements it controls; the education system, entitlement based programs, taxes, monitary elements, the legal system and social systems. If we continue to fight or oppose them on their terms we will loose.

      We must fight the battle at a lower level, the individual/personal level, our children. Each parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, sister, brother needs to educate themselves about the education system. We must understand what and how our children are being taught, the rules those schools enforce, and how those methods will affect our kids. We must then challenge anything that threatens our child’s freedom and liberty.

      If we can alter the influences of a tyrannical government poised to control our minds we may be able to influence those who eventually will recieve the reins of that government.


    • People wouldn’t have minded these comments at all, except Obama was the source of them. They’re factual enough. However, as he’s slammed any media outlet – time and time again – that doesn’t agree with his agenda, one finds it hard to accept these remarks without looking for the true implications.

      The public’s capable of weeding out the truth for themselves, and can also limit time spent on those XBoxes…..if the President can’t take the heat of the 1st Amendment (wasn’t that covered in that swearing-in thing he did twice?), he needs to vacate the big white mansion.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    On the Nomination of Elena Kagan

    Just over a year ago, the Senate considered Elena Kagan’s impressive legal credentials when we confirmed her to be the Solicitor General of the United States. The person filling that vital post is informally referred to as the “tenth Justice,” because the Solicitor General works so closely on the significant cases before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Kagan has argued a broad range of issues, including in defense of Congress’ ability to protect children from pedophiles and our ability to fight against those who provide material support to terrorist organizations.

    With this nomination, Elena Kagan follows in the footsteps of her mentor, Thurgood Marshall, who also was nominated to the Supreme Court from the position of Solicitor General. Ms. Kagan broke the glass ceiling when she was appointed as the first woman to serve as Solicitor General and also previously when she became the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Her historic accomplishments and the way she has conducted herself in these positions has earned her a place at the top of the legal profession.

    Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring to the Supreme Court a diversity of experience missing since Justice O’Connor retired in 2006. I have urged President Obama to look outside the judicial monastery to identify qualified nominees who will bring a diversity of life experience to the Court. Elena Kagan is just such a nominee.

    Read the entire article written by Senator Patrick Leahy here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-patrick-leahy/on-the-nomination-of-elen_b_569986.html

    I will begin by simply stating that I am no different than anyone else when it comes to the President’s pick to be the next Supreme Court Justice. I don’t know much about her. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not. I tend to want to know a lot about a lifetime appointee that will be the ultimate answer on what is Constitutional and what is not. I often think that far too little scrutiny is given to the nominees given the vast power that they wield, and the fact that they can’t be removed.

    I won’t deny her pedigree, although I again have begun to question whether the pedigree that has always been the expectation is any good these days. Ivy League education….. and let me be very clear about this, is VERY OVERRATED. So the fact that she is yet another Harvard grad being appointed to a position of power means that she is a member of the elitist jerks that come out of the Ivy League. Don’t get me wrong, not everyone who comes out of an Ivy League college is a jerk. But goodness gracious, the percentage is certainly a lot higher than other schools. And they are not any smarter or better educated than those that apply themselves in a state school. Remember that.

    She served as solicitor general, which means that she has a grasp on the law, and a solid one. I have no doubt that any person selected as a nominee to the highest court in the land would have that going for them. What it means is that we have very little to judge her on. There are no court decisions that she has rendered. And that means that there is no real concrete evidence as to how she would rule on certain topics. The one topic that I know about her is that she is quite the anti-military person. That makes me wary from the beginning. She has taken actual actions in that realm. There is some hard evidence on her bias against a certain group.

    But I know little else. I look forward to what others may add to my knowledge base about her. I also pose the question as to whether we should have people selected as nominees to be a Justice in the highest court in the entire country when they have never served on the bench before. We wouldn’t let a person who has never served in the military serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We wouldn’t let a let someone who has never been a cop be the police chief. So what makes this different? I look forward to your answers.

    • Morning USW!

      Just posting to get the e-mails. Your question comparing her position to the Joint Chiefs is an interesting comparison, all I can say is that the Joint Chief position must be a military member, while an appointment to SCOTUS is civilian, although, it would be reasonable to asssume that a veteran could hold a SCOTUS seat.



    • I am concerned, just as was with President Obama’s inexperience, that this lady is not experienced enough. She may well be confirmed and be the best Supreme Court Justice there ever was, I just don’t know enough. It concerns me greatly that she seems to hold some sort of displeasure with the military. The same military that gives her rights protection.

      I am also hoping that she, if confirmed, will uphold the Constitution of the US…hoping but not so confident. Only time will tell.

    • Mathius says:

      I have only one question about Elena Kagan: Who the hell is this person?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Clerked for Thurgood Marshall.
        Law professor at University of Chicago and Harvard Law
        Dean at Harvard Law
        Solicitor General of the US
        next supreme court justice??

        There has been a lot of chatter about how she is a blank slate and no one knows where she stands since she has never served as a judge. I would argue that this is hogwash – she is inarguably one of the smartest legal minds in this country. Even when there is a judge with hundreds of opinions, we don’t know where they really stand on all issues, or how they will act once appointed to SCOTUS.

        • Mathius says:

          Thanks, Bunky.. knew I could count on you.

          Also, I hear she’s very short – Jon Stewart told me.

          Adding, if someone were ever stupid enough to give me a lifetime appointment, I would promptly move to Hawaii and laugh at their inability to fire me. But that’s just me.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Yes, only 5’3″

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Emilius is only 5’2.. Robyn The Wala is even shorter, I think.. I guess neither of them will be nominated for the Supreme Court..

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mrs. Wala is 5’2 as well. Sadly, exactly 1″ too short to ride the Supreme Court rollercoaster.

                • Mathius says:

                  “You must be this tall to be nominated.”

                  But I think you only have to be 4’11 for the 4th circuit.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Buck – I have worked for some folks with impressive resumes in terms of positions held and where they held them – that does not inherently qualify one as having one of the smartest legal minds (or in my experience “business minds”) out there. I believe that once one has opened that door into Senior Leadership type positions, regardless of how legitimately they opened that door, then they are usually good for life. A failed senior leader in one company is oddly rarely out of work for very long and they are never ‘shown the door’.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            That is a good point, though I am not basing my statement that she is ‘one of the smartest legal minds’ on purely her resume. I am basing it on her scholarly writings and others’ interactions with her.

            Am I a bit concerned about not knowing precisely where she stands on certain issues? Yes, a bit. But look at Souter as an example – pretty much eveyrone knew where he stood on the issues and how he would act; then he became a Supreme Court Justice.

            I am more concerned with Kagan because I don’t know how able she will be to serve as a counterweight to Scalia then anything else.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Thanks Buck – am looking up some of her writings today.

            • Bottom Line says:

              BTW – “I am more concerned with Kagan because I don’t know how able she will be to serve as a counterweight to Scalia then anything else.”

              Your choice of words is an interesting insight to how you see the SCOTUS.

              “a counterweight to Scalia”

              Is it about left/right, or is it about the constitution?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Rereading the statement, it sounds much worse than how I meant it.

                Scalia is undoubtedly a legal genius. That being said, I completely disagree with his approach to constitutional interpretation. The problem: he is a genius. It is very difficult to argue with him.

                I agree to a large extent with the ‘liberal’ approach to constitutional interpretation. This approach also has its share of geniuses. However, I don’t think any can match wits with Scalia.

                I would love to see a liberal judge who can break things down and explain them as well as Scalia does.

                • Bottom Line says:

                  BTW – “I would love to see a liberal judge who can break things down and explain them as well as Scalia does.”

                  Understand how the meaning of your statement changes by removing one little word…

                  “I would love to see a judge who can break things down and explain them as well as Scalia does.”

                  Now, Change the statement again to include several political ideologies…

                  “I would love to see a liberal,conservative,independent, libertarian, communist, fascist, communist, socialist, or anarchist judge who can break things down and explain them as well as Scalia does.”

                  So, is it really about intellectual capacity and the ability to interpret, represent, and uphold the law/constitution?

                  …or is it about Liberal vs. Conservative?

                  Not that I’m saying your wrong for thinking this way…This is America and you can think whatever you like.

                  I’m not sure there’s really much of a point to this other than me just sharing an observation.

                  Just sayin’.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    I see your point, but I feel you are missing my point. This is not completely about left vs. right nor even about constitutional interpretation.

                    There are a myriad of extremely bright liberal constitutional scholars. Take the brightest and put them in a room with Scalia. I do not hesitate to think that Scalia will be able to outshine all of them. This does not make him correct in his approach. But I would love to see someone with a similar approach to constitutional interpretation as my own who can explain their judicial opinions as well and effectively as Scalia.

                    Obama is a liberal so it is pretty obvious that he would appoint a more liberal justice to the Court. I honestly don’t know if there is a liberal out there that can be the ‘liberal Scalia’ (or even another conservative to take Scalia’s place down the road). But if there is, I would love to see that person nominated!

                    • Bottom Line says:

                      Okay, so it’s just as much about a balance of intellectual prowace as it is about a balance of idealism.

                      Balance being the key function.

                      So how is political idealism relevent to the ability to anylize and interpret words of law?

                      Does a liberal interpret English differently than a conservative?

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Short answer = YES. Go no further than the debates here at SUFA to see that liberals and conservatives often use different terminology and wind up talking past each other.

                      As for SCOTUS, I completely agree – balance is very much the key.

                    • Bottom Line says:


                      What does “The dog barked.” mean?

                      No matter who reads it or what their idealism is, It means what it says.

                      We can argue whether the dog should have barked, has the right to bark, and/or how loud, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence.

                      SCOTUS’s job is to interpret and rule on the law, not write it.

                      Should idealism be relevent?

                      If congress tells SCOTUS that “The bark dogged.”, It is SCOTUS’s job to correct it to “The dog barked.”, not to argue about WHY it barked.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      That just isnt’ how our judicial system works.

                      Much of everything is based on prior case law. The Constitution says X; this has been interpreted to mean Y; now how does that apply to situation Z. It is necessarily about explanation.

                      Like any judge Scalia applies his own theory of constitutional interpretation to define the constitution and apply that meaning to a particular situation. But Scalia isn’t any judge – he is a master at this skill. I know of many liberally minded judges who are extremely well regarded and intelligent constitutional scholars, all of whom are able to read, analyze and interpret the constitution and apply it to a given set of facts in a lucid, coherent manner, but none of whom can match Scalia’s skills in this regard.

                    • Bottom Line says:


                      …so my example was a bit oversimplified.

                      Here’s what I guess I am trying to say…

                      (I’ll use the first amendment since it’s a bit more relevent)

                      It isn’t SCOTUS’s job to decide whether congress shall make or not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

                      …It is SCOTUS’s job to determine whether a law respects an establishment of religion, or prohibits the free exercise thereof; or abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and/or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and rule on it’s constitutionality, implementation, and legal feasability.

                      Whether their idealism supports the first amendment or not, it still says…

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

                  • Buck,

                    Thats how we get into trouble by getting away from the constitution.

                    You said: The Constitution says X

                    Stop there and we’re OK

                    You said: This has been interpreted to mean Y

                    Why does it have to be interpreted?
                    Who says the interpretation is correct?
                    Which Founding Father interpreted it to mean any different than what it was written as.

                    You’re making up the rules as you go

                    That’s not how its supposed to work.

                    Your sentence should have been:

                    The Constitution says X Now how does that apply to Z.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Any time you take a sentence (X) and apply it to a given situation (Z), you need to first determine what that sentence means (Y).

                      Even Scalia in his strict constructionist approach has to define the terms and then apply that meaning/interpretation. Even taking the 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Ok fine. Seems perfectly clear. But what is speech? Not so clear anymore.

                    • What is the meaning of is? 😦

                      You get to parse words way to much which gets us further & further away from the actual written word.

                      What is the point of even having a constitution in the first place if you’re just going to dance around it til you make it fit the result you want?

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      The difference here is I honestly don’t see this as dancing around. I see this as lively debate over what the Constitution means.

                      Going back to the 1st Amendment example — no law abridging the freedom of speech – To you, what is speech? What does this clause mean? What does it strive to protect?

              • Displaced Okie says:

                By the way, I met Scalia once, He was also very short–So maybe there is a “you must be under this height to be nominated” requirement
                –I wanted to put this above in the height discussion but I was too squishy.. 🙂

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Interesting: SCOTUS, only accepting the brightest minds so long as accompanied by bodies between the heights of 5’3″ and 5’x”

                  I like it!

        • “she is inarguably one of the smartest legal minds in this country”

          How do you know this Buck?

        • To be honest, the whole “never been a judge” thing does not bother me in the least. What does is that Obama nominated her, and I do not trust his administration or any of his associates. This is based on the fact that they have done or supported some really bad stuff, not on the fact that he is a democrat or black or talks funny or has weird ears or whatever.

          I hope she is a positive surprise. I expect her to be a complete disaster for our constitution, and to assist with ushering in subserviance to international law.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      One of the only things I have heard so far is that there is an almost pathological lack of a record on her / from her that can be used to demonstrate stance or even thought process on issues. This concerns me – someone with that many years of experience should, imho, have a little bit more of a body work by which to judge her – it does not sound as though that exists. For me – she has a long way to go to demonstrate why she should be judge.

    • Actually, a judge can be impeached, see Samuel Chase. Granted, he was acquitted. In today’s age, I could not imagine the political backwash if a group of legislators tried to impeach a justice today.

    • Her lack of paper trail concerns me, however, I believe it was Rehnquist that also had not served as judge prior to his SCOTUS role, so it has happened before in recent history.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Yes, Rehnquist also had no prior judicial experience and a lack of a paper trail. Were you as upset by his nomination as you are now of Kagan’s nomination?

        • Ummm, yeah, remember going to a quarry party and having a raving fit about it.

        • USWeapon says:

          No… He was confirmed a couple of months after my first birthday. So I didn’t do a lot of protesting. I did not start that until the following year. Those early years were boycotts of trading card companies. I didn’t feel that they put enough of the cards I wanted into the wax packs. I needed more of Fred Lynn, Reggie Jackson, etc. I kept getting players from the Royals and the Indians. I truly believe there was a conspiracy there.

          By the time I was 16 I was on to car companies, specifically Porsche. I still fail to understand why they priced the 911 Turbo well out of what I could afford on my wages. It was discrimination against the poor working class. Why should only those who had lots of money have access to that car. I deserved to have it as a tool to get chicks too. Finally, I moved on to politics, and the rest is history.


          • Buck the Wala says:

            Clearly it is discrimination against the poor. There’s just no other explanation – We should all be given Porsches to drive around in!

            I never did get the good baseball cards either. And when I finally did, my stupid sister ruined it.

    • Chris Devine says:

      I went to a state school and most of the grad students and professors I studied under were from either Ivy League institutions or Oxbridge. It was a mixed bag of egomaniacs and highly brilliant individuals (including some highly brilliant egomaniacs). Some places like Princeton want nothing but the finest undergrads and will make sure that those who can’t afford it personally are still welcome and supported. However, many other places are more than willing to accept undeserving candidates based upon their ancestry alone (it’s called legacy admissions).

      One last thing, if you graduate from Harvard with a C-minus average it means that you were a failure but they didn’t want to give back the endowment donation.

    • Heres all I needed to know about Ms. Kagan…

      ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’… Anything about Shariah Law

      By Alan Foster

      Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General of The United States and former Dean of the Harvard Law School, exemplifies selective outrage. She knows a lot about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it comes to ROTC on the Harvard Campus, but wears official blinders when it comes to Islamic treatment of homosexuals.

      When Professor Kagan ascended to the position of Dean of the Law School, Harvard was in a quandary over military recruitment. Long opposed to the military’s policy towards openly gay men and women but ever solicitous of the greenbacks offered by the federal government, the school tried to hedge its bets on the Solomon Amendment, passed in 1994, which required the Secretary of Defense to deny federal grants to institutions of higher learning that prohibited or prevented ROTC or military recruitment on campus. And who better to circumvent the law’s intent than the serried ranks of lawyers in Cambridge, Massachusetts? They argued that Washington money should still flow because even though the college placement office was barred to recruiters, ROTC courses could be offered by the Harvard Law School Veterans’ Association.

      Training on campus was still verboten for Harvard ROTC candidates, and they were forced to travel down the road to MIT to fulfill their training obligations. Too clever by half? Some congressmen thought so, and they responded by fortifying the act in 2001 by passing an amendment that denied all funding — not just to law schools, but to the entire institution that prohibited or prevented recruiting. Although Dean Kagan did not sign a petition along with many of Harvard’s Law School faculty opposing the Solomon Amendment, she did join two amicus briefs in that regard, one submitted to the Supreme Court.

      In 2006, The Supreme Court upheld the law, and only two schools refused to comply, thus forfeiting federal largesse. Now, these facts are widely known to the legal community and to many in the country at large. What is not so well-known is Dean Kagan’s contemporaneous approval of and promotion of a little-known but richly endowed Harvard Law School program called The Islamic Legal Studies Program. What does all this have to do with Elena Kagan and her principled stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?” It has a lot to do with honesty, integrity, and Harvard’s vaunted advocacy for human rights.

      The Harvard Islamic Legal Studies Program was made part of Harvard Law School in 1991 with significant funding from distinctly undemocratic sources, mainly from the Gulf States. The program purports to be a research program “that seeks to advance knowledge and understanding of Islamic law.” The program works closely with the Harvard Islamic Finance Project, which became an official part of the Law School in 2003, the same year Professor Kagan was awarded the title of Dean.

      But is it strictly a “research program”? A few times a year, the directors of the Finance Program take groups of promising Law School and Harvard Business School students to the Middle East on junkets to learn the intricate and arcane practices of Sharia Compliant Finance. Many of these promising students go on to work for such banks and investment firms as the Kuwait Finance House, HSBC Amanah Bank, and the Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. The intertwined programs, it would seem, go far beyond mere “research” projects. Shariah Finance, it should be noted, is the Islamic approach to investing, mortgage lending, and a host of other money-related practices. Along with its prohibitions on interest accrual and trading in commodities such as pork, alcohol, and gambling is an overarching negative view of homosexuality. Negative, that is, to the point of advocating violence against gays.

      Whatever dim views one may hold on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. Military, the policy pales in comparison to the outright calls to violence enunciated by some of the Islamic world’s most prestigious and powerful Shariah advisors.

      Case in point: Meet Sheikh Muhammed Taqi Usmani, former appellate court judge in Pakistan, a Deobandi (one of the most extreme Pakistani schools of Islam, associated with the Pakistani Taliban)-trained jurist and chief Shariah advisor to the HSBC Amanah Bank, one of the world’s largest and richest banks and one of the sponsors of Harvard’s Islamic Finance Project. Among other delightful quotes from Sheikh Usmani:

      For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism)
      Also from Usmani’s book: “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered.”

      Apparently, these kinds of medieval barbarities did not rise to the level of immorality embodied in the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. At any rate, Dean Kagan never objected to the underlying principles of the program at her law school. Perhaps topics from the program like “Recent Trends and Innovations in Islamic Debt Securities” distracted her from the fundamental discriminatory underpinnings of Sharia Law.

      The idea that Harvard Law School would abide such opinions emanating from less well-heeled spokesmen is not even worthy of consideration. Imagine the nation’s preeminent law school hosting a program on “white supremacist law and finance.” It’s all about the money, of course. In addition to the funding of the Islamic Legal Studies Program, other Muslim plutocrats like Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who dropped twenty million dollars into Harvard’s coffers a few years ago, have had a tremendous influence on the university and its culture.

      If Sheikh Usmani’s views on jihad were not repellent enough, keep in mind that homosexuality has been a crime under Shariah Law in his native Pakistan since 1860. According to that country’s penal code, enforced by Judge Usmani, Article 377 states:

      Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

      And here, the chief Shariah Adviser to the sponsors of Harvard’s program writes:

      It is the same modernity that has engulfed the whole world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an excuse for fornication, and moreso it has led under thunderclaps to the passage of a bill in the British House of Commons to legalize homosexuality (Islam and Modernism).

      Suddenly “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seems pretty benign.

      Not only does the Harvard program feature homophobic and “homicidal” clerics, but even the Harvard Muslim Student Chaplain, Taha Abdul-Basser, who has lectured regularly at the Islamic Finance Project, declared apostasy from Islam a capital (not the finance kind) offense:

      Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand (The Harvard Crimson April 14, 2009).

      Dean Kagan’s reticence about these programs at her own law school should raise serious questions of integrity, sincerity, forthrightness, and ultimately, honesty.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:
  5. Mathius says:

    Does this freak anyone out:

    At what point should politicians be bashed for wanting to teach evolution in our schools? How in the world did that become a bad thing?

    (yes, I lifted this from Cesca.. what of it?)

    • This is one of problems with public education. You and I don’t have a problem with evolution being taught, but a lot of people do. Who gets to decide? Why should someone have to pay for children to be educated in a way they don’t agree with?

      Is there a solution that gives parents what they want and still educates everyone?

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t know the answer to your question, but my question is this: If evolution is a scientifically based theory (admittedly it still has a few holes, but the scientific community generally agrees it’s the best answer), why is a politician being beaten up for agreeing with it? Why is he being blasted for thinking that the bible is only partially true? Isn’t this dangerously close to a theocracy?

        • I agree that a man’s beliefs about the bible or evolution shouldn’t matter to voters, but they do. I seem to recall other politicians being bashed for believing in a “young earth”. How do we make these issues less relevant to politics? Maybe both sides should stop trying to force their ideas on each other!

          • Mathius says:

            Maybe, but agreeing with scientist should be a good thing. Disagreeing with them because of “faith” should not. I want the people who represent me to be led by empirical research and the opinions of experts, not their gut.

            This is doubly true since with (at least in theory) have a secular government.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Scientific hypotheses can NEVER be proven right.

              Evolution is a scientific hypothesis.

              Scientific hypothesis is ELEVEATED to the level of “prevailing theory” when no other better hypothesis comes along to refute the current one for quite some time.

              Nonetheless, you cannot currently say that the theory of evolution is “true”. Similarly, you cannot say the theory of relativity is “true”.

              You can say that a particular theory does the best job of any out there to describe a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena, but that is the limit.

              If you claim that ANY scientific theory is true, then you yourself have subscribed to the “religion of science”.

              In reality, the ONLY reason to trust a scientist more than a preacher is that a preacher teaches belief through faith, whereas a scientist teaches belief through experimental observation.

              In my experience, there is nothing wrong with a little faith and a little bit of experimental observation. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.

              Darwin was a firm believer in the existence of God for example….

              • Mathius says:

                All true.

                None the less. 95% of scientist believe in evolution according to the link. Specifically, if you asked them, they’d probably say that they think it does the best job of explaining things of any theory they are aware of. (yes, they would end their sentences in a preposition, they’re not English majors).

                So, given that, I think they probably have the best answer available. That said, I do not think politicians should have it held against them for agreeing.

                • Thats like saying 95% of those in the religous profession believe God had a part in creation. Of course those who study a subject will place importance and belief in that subject.

                  The problem in what was stated is the belief that scientist are immune from the above. Therefore scientists have the amazing ability to have more credibility than those of other professions. Scientist are the same as any other person in their ability to see things how they want and present any evidence in a way to “prove” their point of view.

            • The politician can, and should, believe as he wishes. To deny him this is to deny his rights as a citizen and a human being. If those beliefs create a theocratic state, then he needs to remove those aspects of state function and control to maintain a seperation of church and state. If he is not allowed to be in government because of his beliefs, then there is no proper seperation. If he is using government to teach his beliefs to to enforce them on people, then there is no proper seperation.

        • USWeapon says:


          I don’t know if he is being beat up for that as much as it seems that the ad is focused on the fact that he has completely changed sides and beliefs in order to gain political office. I know squat about him or his campaign, but that was the message that I got from that ad.


          • Mathius says:

            His belief in teaching evolution and that the bible is “only” partially true were both thrown out there as negatives (why would an attack add mention them at all if they were neutral or positive?). True, they weren’t the primary focus, but I find this is disturbing none-the-less.

        • Yes, it is Matt, which is another argument against public schools. We need a seperation of church and state. With things like evolution being part of core beliefs and directly realted to many religious debates, it stands to reason that the state should not be teaching it or creation. They should but out completely. This would solve that little theocracy issue, would it not?

          An atheistic theocracy is still a theocracy.

      • Mathius says:

        Also, take a look at this link:

        Scroll down to the third graph and tell me that we should be criticizing politicians for agreeing with scientific consensus in favor of religious ideology.

        row 1, cell 1
        row 1, cell 2

        row 2, cell 1
        row 2, cell 2

        • Looks like the scientists are outnumbered. Religious ideology wins!

          • Mathius says:

            Oh you silly goose..

            Screw the experts and the people who study things.. whichever side has more people is the one that is correct.

            That is why the sun used to revolve around a flat Earth until public opinion changed 😛

            • USWeapon says:

              Yeah, I saw the news footage of the day that the round earth/revolving around the sun group gained a majority. It was spooky. The earth actually formed itself into a globe shape. This required some stretching, hence the large increase in the size of the oceans. Prior to the change, Africa was only the size of Australia and water only covered 37.4% of the earth. Those were crazy days.

              • Mathius says:

                I saw the same footage. And back then everything was in black and white, too. It must have freaked them out when the world took on sepia tones and then colors.

                • USWeapon says:

                  Yeah, I am sure that it did. And then of course there came all the requirements for “accessorizing” Choosing the right shoes to go with the outfit was so much easier in the black and white days. I mean you just had to know that you wear all black after labor day and don’t wear a white belt with black shoes. Now the rules are so more extensive.

                  Adding color to the world made accessorizing more like the tax code. We should have stayed black and white.

            • You mean……the earth is NOT flat? Damn!

            • Hey, thats democracy Matt, that is consensus. Society has spoken. Screw the individual or the idea that one might be smarter than the collective.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Kind of scary if you ask me…

      • Displaced Okie says:

        I have never understood why people have too have it “either/or”. When I was high school (back in the good 1990’s) My science teacher, who I wouldn’t qualify as a bible thumper or anything, taught us the theory of evolution then at the end simply stated something about how it all seemed really coincindental and and we might want to ask ourselves if it was not just some sort of well thought out plan. I tend to agree with the way he taught it. As I see it we should always question everything-whether it be educators, scientists, the government, or even Black Flag..well maybe not BF 🙂

    • Mathius,

      should politicians be bashed


  6. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    To Flag, et al:

    Dread Pirate Mathius Said:

    If you do something immoral, you have to take responsibility for the repercussions. If you infringe upon my rights, you have to help me make the best of the resultant situation. If you burn my house down, you have to help me build a new one. If you take away some of my liberty, you have to make it clear to me what I have left.

    I posit that if you fail your moral duty to do no harm, you create a moral obligation on yourself to undo the harm. That is, we can add a corollary to Mr. Flag’s premise that the only moral law is to not violate the rights of others that reads that you are morally responsible for the repercussions of any violations.

    In other words, if I steal from you, I am morally responsible for giving you your stuff back. Seems logical. The absence of this corollary would mean that if I acted immorally and stole from you, I could be moral in keeping your stuff after the fact.

    I open the floor to my esteemed colleagues.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I believe that we have always said that IF YOU CAUSE DEMONSTRABLE, MEASURABLE HARM, the person you harm is entitled to RECOMPENSE from you for the harm that you caused.

  7. Bottom Line says:

    How’d that old saying go? …Birds of the same feather flock together.

    BHO picked her. That’s all I need to know about her.

    • Mathius says:

      With that attitude, nothing would ever get done.

      I don’t know what’s in that bill, but it was supported by the White House so I’m against it.

      See where this leads?

      • Yeah, that’s generally the way I look at things at this point. Very skeptical of anything that comes out of the WH.

        Have been fed too many lies to take anything at its face by this Adm.

        • Mathius says:

          They are very different things being highly skeptical of the source and rejecting something outright because of the source..

          Yours is fine. Bottom Line’s is not.

          • Bottom Line says:

            If Jim Jones offered you Kool-aid, would you …

            A – drink it and closely monitor your vitals?


            B – consider the source, and reject it?

            • Mathius says:

              C: Sniff it, send it off to a lab for a toxicology screen, talk to him about it, then make up my mind whether to drink.

              • Bottom Line says:

                How did I know that was coming?

                Yeah, sure you would Matt.

                • Mathius says:

                  OK, I’d probably pretend to drink it and subtly spill it in a bush somewhere.. but that’s only because I don’t really care enough about kool-aid to take the risk. (upside: refreshing beverage, downside: death).

                  The same cannot be said of important things like supreme court nominees.

                  • Bottom Line says:

                    Jones = The illegitimate Kenyan

                    Kool-Aid = Elena Kagan

                    Lab = Congress

                    None can be trusted. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

                    Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention the guy standing there with a gun and a social obligation telling you that you HAVE to drink the Kool-Aid because it’s in your best interest.

                    Boy, this is getting complicated.


                  • Upside=no vacancy on the supreme court
                    downside=death of the country

                    All accomlishments under this administration to date=irrelevant fluff or death to the country
                    Court nominees probability=puppet or malicious tool of destruction for the country

                    Personal opinion of Elena=negative

                    Do I reject her without research? Hell no, I never do that about anything, but in the absence of time and resources for such research, I will go with my gut.
                    Gut=reject nominee.

      • Bottom Line says:

        I equate it to Charles Manson recommending a babysitter.

        Using his recomendations, you may never find a suitable babysitter,…but your kids will be safe.

  8. A Puritan Descendant says:

    The following was e-mailed to me >

    Pick Your Reason…

    When your friends can’t explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list. They can then pick a reason

    10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    7. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

    6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

    5. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

    4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

    3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

    2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

    • Mathius says:

      I’m going to go with #4.

      • Dang it Matt-there is a difference in believing that people have a moral responsibility to help people and people having a right to demand the help. The first will never change but it is not a Right it is a moral judgement. As a society we have and do base laws on moral judgements but to do so under the idea that it is a human right not as a moral obligation is dangerous.

        • Mathius says:

          I was being facetious. I liked #4 the best since it was so deliberately misleading.

          • Then you do not personally believe that people have a right to food, helthcare, etc. because it seems to be a theme of the democratic party-that these things are a Right.

            • Mathius says:

              I believe that people have a right to a basic level of survival. Beyond that, I think it wise do what we can to help them elevate themselves beyond where they need us to provide for them.

              As such, yes, we have a moral obligation to give food*, water, shelter, health care** to those who cannot provide for themselves.***

              *basic food: ground beef, not fillet mignon.
              **basic health care: cancer treatments, not plastic surgery
              ***CAN’T provide for themselves, not who CHOOSE not to provide for themselves.

              We are best advised to provide for them the help to get to a point where they do not need the above: education, etc.

              I don’t want to get into this today, you know where I stand and I’ll never convince you that we have an obligation to help others.

              • Mathius,

                We do not have any obligation to help others

                If you believe that, why haven’t you sold your car, and all your ‘toys’ and shipped your wealth off to Africa and help the poor there (or any where else)?

                You do NOT believe you who spout.

                You want OTHERS to give away their wealth to fulfill YOUR conscience so that you don’t have to do it yourself.

                • Mathius says:

                  I do believe it, Flag. But I also believe I have a right to keep my stuff and benefit from the fruits of my labor. The art is in the balance of the two.

                  You have trouble in this because you refuse to recognize that there are two opposing forces at work, neither of which has dominion over the other. Yin and Yang. Duty and Liberty. Mathius and Dread Pirate Mathius. Jacob and The Man in Black (not Johnny Cash – the other one).

                • Cyndi P says:

                  Hey BF,

                  I’ve notice Warmers are another group who behave the same way. I haven’t found a single one who has given up any of modern life’s nicities to ‘save the planet’. Its always someone else that has to change. When I’ve called them on it, they get angry. My take is, that if everyone who believed in Warming lived like they demand the rest do, then the problem would solve itself, no legislation needed. For some reason, they don’t want to hear it. Oh well.

                  I left you a question @ #17 on yesterday’s topic. Did you see it?

              • Okay-Just think about the difference in the mind frame of something being a Right that society owes to people and something being a gift from society to help people. Then look at the world today, I think you will see the harm that has been done with the entitlement mentality that is being pushed.

              • Matt,

                How much of your income do you donate to all the poor souls in America that you say need help? By your obligitory morals you should only keep as much of your check as YOU alone need to survive. The rest should be donated out. Do you follow your own rules?

    • My choice:


    • Then ask why they voted republican:

      1) I think they are still conservative even tho they havent been for ages, and Obama is actually the first democrat to spend more than a republican administration in like 3 decades.

      2) I think that the little stupid issues like gay marriage are far mroe important than how the coutnry and economy are actually run.

      3) I think the Dem’s are bad, M’kay?

      4) We have to put in the lesser of two evils cause all is lost in THIS ELECTION< EVERYBOBY PANIC!!! It doesnt matter that the guy I vote for will do the same crap, just the light version, I can't think more than 2 years ahead! The bad guy must be stopped, even if we have to stop him by voting for another bad guy.

      5) Sarah Palin is hot, and she can see Russia from her house.

      • Mathius says:

        FIVE! … but then again, I think this is a good reason for a write in vote for Tina Fey..

  9. Cyndi P says:

    posting for comments

  10. Was it just yesterday I said I was sick of this shit?

    Who knew Congress was literally knee deep in the stuff?

    Congress Seeks to Expand Access to Women’s Restrooms in Federal Buildings


  11. Mathius

    I do believe it, Flag. But I also believe I have a right to keep my stuff and benefit from the fruits of my labor. The art is in the balance of the two.

    That “art” and that “balance” is your Right to act only on yourself.

    You have no Right to demand YOUR balance upon anyone.

    You have no Right to claim anyone holds any obligation to anyone else.

    You have trouble in this because you refuse to recognize that there are two opposing forces at work, neither of which has dominion over the other. Yin and Yang. Duty and Liberty.

    I do NOT see them as opposing forces.

    There is no Right to use FORCE – thus no right of “opposing” Force either.

    The exercise of Duty is your OWN right to determine its extent.

    That Right upon yourself does not give you any Right to extend it upon anyone else

    • Mathius says:

      You’re arguing from your own premise.

      You say: I have no right to coerce compliance with perceived duty. Then you use that premise to reject my assertion that I have a right to coerce compliance with perceived duty. This is a tautology.

      My premises:
      A. I have a right to keep my stuff and only may not impose upon others.
      B. I have a duty to society and the less fortunate and this duty supersedes my rights and the rights of others.

      I then go on to build my construct doing as best I can to balance A against B. Sometimes, unfortunately, this relies on guesswork and opinion (stipulated). Sometimes the balance tips toward A. Sometimes toward B. Sometimes it lands in the middle.

      You say: I reject B, ergo your whole argument makes no sense.

      You are fond of pointing out that one cannot prove/disprove a first principle as it is independent of the logical framework which relies upon it. As such, if you wish to disprove my views, you must – difficult as it is for you – do so within my leftist/statist framework.

      • Mathius,

        You’re arguing from your own premise.

        Actually, I’m arguing from YOUR premise. You simply apply the consequence of your belief on other people whilst excluding yourself.

        I insist you do not exclude yourself, but you still do.

        That is a contradiction.

        You say: I have no right to coerce compliance with perceived duty. Then you use that premise to reject my assertion that I have a right to coerce compliance with perceived duty. This is a tautology.

        Not quite.

        Your assertion is you have a right to coerce OTHER PEOPLE with compliance while excluding yourself.

        My premises:
        A. I have a right to keep my stuff and only may not impose upon others.
        B. I have a duty to society and the less fortunate and this duty supersedes my rights and the rights of others.

        You contradict yourself.

        If (B) is true, the (A) cannot be true. If (A) is true, then (B) cannot be true.

        Your premise demands (A) and (B) are to be true.

        That is why I reject your argument – you demand a contradiction.

        • Mathius says:

          Once again, I do not exclude myself. I pay taxes. I pay a higher percentage of my income into the pool than 90% of Americans. I pay a higher total amount than 90% of Americans. (I don’t know the actual percent, but it’s somewhere around there).

          So, no. I do not exclude myself. I follow B to the point where it balances A.

          You, again, insist that a belief in B mandates total compliance with B to the exclusion of A. This is not the case.

          How do I know that?

          If you believe that, why haven’t you sold your car, and all your ‘toys’ and shipped your wealth off to Africa and help the poor there (or any where else)?

          This is 100% B, 0% A.

          You simply apply the consequence of your belief on other people whilst excluding yourself.

          This is a non sequitur, but a good use of the words ‘whilst’ – you don’t see that much in modern English.

          So the way you view it is that I should give everything I have up. That’s a full compliance with B and a total disregard for A. I do not demand that anyone give up everything they have. You say that I demand that of others but not myself. So your assertion is demonstrably false.

          This is an old fashioned scale… as I stack blocks on one side, eventually the scale times – oops, too much of B. If I take too many off, it tips the other way – oops, not enough B. Too much taxes = not enough liberty. Not enough taxes = you are not meeting your obligation to society and the less fortunate. Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot.

          • Bottom Line says:

            Mathius – “I do not demand that anyone give up everything they have.”

            What DO you demand? Is it right to DEMAND anything that isn’t a right? Are you advocating violence against the non-violent for the sake of fairness? What’s fair about forcing someone to give away what they have earned?

            Perhaps you should give me half of everything you own, you know…just to be fair and equal.

            Mathius – “Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot.”

            A sweet spot at who’s expense?

            • Mathius says:

              A sweet spot at the expense of those who have and can afford it in favor of those who do not have and cannot afford it.

              It’s a tough concept for someone who rejects part B. As a thought experiment, accept part B as equally true to part A. Mull it over and you’ll see the pieces fall into place.

              • Mathius,

                A sweet spot at the expense of those who have and can afford it in favor of those who do not have and cannot afford it.

                There does not exist a sweet spot.

                It is a contradiction.

                All attempts to manifest a contradiction into reality is the root all human-caused suffering.

                Thus, your belief will cause human suffering, not relieve it.

                It’s a tough concept for someone who rejects part B.

                I do not reject B.

                I reject that (A) AND (B) to be true.

                Either (A) is true OR (B) is true.

                They cannot be both “equally” true as they contradict each other.

              • Bottom Line says:

                “B. I have a duty to society and the less fortunate and this duty supersedes my rights and the rights of others.”

                Where does this sense of duty originate?

                Who says that you owe society anything?

                How does social duty/obligation supersede individual rights?

                Can I have some of whatever you’re smoking?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            Nonetheless, A and B contradict each other.



            If your obligation to society outweighs your own rights, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, so if B is true, then logically A CANNOT BE TRUE. Or, if you prefer, if A is true, then B cannot be true.

            GET IT NOW???

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        “My premises:
        A. I have a right to keep my stuff and only may not impose upon others.”

        Yes, you do have that right.

        “B. I have a duty to society and the less fortunate and this duty supersedes my rights and the rights of others.”

        Yes, you do have that duty. However, you have NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THAT DUTY ON ANYONE ELSE.

        My premises:

        A: I have a right to my stuff and the fruits of my own labor. I have the right NOT TO BE IMPOSED UPON BY OTHERS.

        B: I have the DUTY not to impose upon others.

        That makes SO much more sense.

        C: I have the CHOICE of whether or not to help others who are less fortunate than myself. I personally believe that it is good to help others that are less fortunate than myself, so I CHOOSE TO DO SO OUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL. Whether or not others make the same choices I do is none of my damn business, provided their choices are not imposing upon me.

        You see Mathius, your PROBLEM is that you BELIEVE that someone making a choice not to help someone in need is CREATING AN IMPOSITION ON THE NEEDY PERSON by not providing them what they need. This is hogwash.

        I can not know WHY you need something. I am not psychic. Perhaps you genuinely need something because you just lost your job and just got divorced (and your wife’s lawyer was MUCH better than yours) and you just suffered a major injury which makes it impossible for you to seek new work right now. (Talk about a triple whammy, huh?!?!). On the other hand, you might just be a lazy bum who COULD find work but doesn’t really want to.

        This is why #1 FAMILY, #2 FRIENDS and #3 LOCAL COMMUNITY CHARITY is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than “the government” at helping the needy. Family knows you better than anyone else knows you. They are going to know when you need something and if they are able, they are more likely than anyone else to be willing to help. Friends know you better than anyone else (except maybe family). Your local community at least knows you (hopefully).

        The federal government has no idea who you are (and frankly could not possibly care less who the hell you are than they already do, which is zero). They have ZERO ability to assess your own specific personal needs and problems, and the best solutions to get you, personally, back up on your feet again.

        So, what you have done, is taken your personal view that helping the needy is EVERYONE’S moral obligation (not just YOUR moral obligation), and created the WORST POSSIBLE SYSTEM for helping people get back up on their feet again when they are in need.


        Now, what you need to do is admit to yourself that you CHOOSE helping others who are in need as YOUR OWN moral obligation, and others are FREE to choose that moral obligation for themselves, or NOT, if that is how they so choose.

        Would it SUCK if 58% of all rich people chose not to help anyone needy in any way whatsoever? Of course it would, but IT IS NOT YOUR CALL!

        Plus, people who are wealthy and run businesses and such have a tendency to want to be “good corporate citizens” and “give back to their communities”. They tend to find that such behavior is GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

        So, in reality, even in a free society, the chances are exceptionally high that most people who were well off would be very concerned about helping the needy. It is simply good business!

  12. Cyndi,

    A friend of mine here and I were talking about the 401k and IRA confiscation. He mentioned this:

    I have a retirement system plan from the State of Nevada. They sent me a letter that I received yesterday. They offered me a one time payment of $57,000 to allow them to buy me out of the plan. That would be ok except, in my payments alone I have put in $175,000.

    I told him I’d put it to you and get your take. My take is that he shouldn’t take it unless he thinks they’ll default. I’m wondering why they’d offer back roughly a third of his contributions! Looks like he looses either way. He can loose 2/3s of his contributions or he can loose every penny. The fund must be in pretty bad shape if they think any sane person would take this deal! I’m going to send him the link here so he can see what you say.


    I believe you have the ken understanding of the choices perfectly.

    Save 1/3 or lose 100%.

    But few believe they will lose 100%. They trust the government.

    10,000 years of proof of the betrayal will never convince them otherwise.

    • “ken”=”keen” or “zen”… 😉

    • Cyndi P says:

      Looks like my friend is in a lose/lose situation. I wonder what he’ll do. He, too is talking about leaving Obamaland permanently. He’s leaning toward New Zealand. If he goes, I’m definately keeping in close contact!

      Thanks for the input!

      • Cyndi,

        Has he thought of converting it into a self-directed IRA?

        (Note: I am not at all up-to-date or knowledgeable about how (or if) this is possible. I haven’t been personally involved in the details of government-supported retirement plans for over 30 years).

        • Cyndi P says:

          I don’t know, but I do know that like me, he’s concerned about having retirement funds confiscated, you know, for the common good 😉

          I have an IRA in precious metals, isn’t the gov. looking at taking those, too?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            If I were your friend, I would quit the State job, then demand full payment of all funds in the 401k (or 457a or 457b or whatever it happens to be) and either take the cash or reinvest it on his own.

            If he doesn’t roll it over into an IRA, he will take a 25-33% tax hit and a 10% penalty (unless he is at least 55), but losing 35-43% to taxes and penalties might be preferable to losing 67%!!!

            Of course, your friend may not be in any kind of position to be able to quit his current job, in which case he should probably get back what money he can and just accept that the State has no money so they just “STEALTH-TAXED” him to the tune of $100,000 or so in one fell swoop.

            • Cyndi P says:

              Hey Peter,

              He’s already quit the state job. He’s here with me.

              I agree that he’s been stealth-taxed to the tune of 100k.

              I’ve never had much and was never to happy about it either, but these days, I feel a little better knowing that I have less to loose than many others. You can’t miss what you never had….

          • Cyndi,

            It is far more difficult for them to do so with a ‘metal’ portfolio. Metal is physical, where as other forms are merely computer digits.

            It may happen, but it will be the last to happen.

            I wonder if you can ask for ‘delivery’ or transfer to something like goldmoney.com.?

            • Cyndi P says:

              I’ll check it out. Thanks.

              • Amazed1 says:

                Is the plan and insured or backed plan? If it is he can lose everything it has made but what he has contributed is secure. If it is not a insured or backed plan then he maybe in trouble.

    • OMG! How old is this person? Can he pull out $$ pre-retirement, even if paying a penalty? That is serious $$ to lose. Nevada isn’t usually one of the top states listed as being broke, but they apparently are close if they are offering these “deals”. Wow!

      • Cyndi P says:

        He’s about my age (late 40s). I don’t think he’s pulling it out so much as they’ll give it back to him at consideralbe loss to him, but now that you mention penalties, I wonder if the government will hit him up for that too. My guess is yes, they will, so he’ll end up with muchless than the 57k.

        I’ve heard Nevada is in trouble, but it must be really bad if they’re offering this lousy deal. If they weren’t insolvent, why would they think anyone would take this ‘deal’?

  13. Mathius says:

    Black Flag:

    Just so you know, Dread Pirate Mathius borrowed my credit card and bought a 1oz gold coin with it. My very first. (Probably last).

    I’m going to bury it in the mayonnaise jar out back.

    • Mathius,


      Bad move.

      Use debt to make a profit.
      Do not use debt to fund cash.

      Use cash -earned and in hand- to buy gold. Gold will not earn you a profit.

      Use cash -first- to get out of consumer debt.

      Pay off your credit cards.

      Keep your mortgage debt, do not pay this off – but lengthen the fixed term out as far into the future as possible.

      Sell the coin and pay off your credit card.

      • I’m guessing he wasn’t being serious on using the cc to pay for it?

        But question on your mortgage debt advice – lengthen the fixed term? Can you explain your strategy here?

        • Mathius says:

          There are hefty tax benefits to a mortgage. Further, if you get a fixed at a low rate, you can pay it off in cheaper money down the road as inflation floats away the real value of your payments. I’m sure Flag’s given it more thought that that, but that’s my quick answer.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            You are exactly correct.

            Get your home financed at AS LOW A RATE AS POSSIBLE for AS LONG A TERM AS POSSIBLE.

            30-40 years from now, your current monthly payment will be (quite literally) peanuts due to inflation.

            Most people do not account for “inflational errosion” when they think about mortgages.

            Which is better? 15-year mortgage at 3.5% interest and monthly payments of $1200, or a 30-year mortgage at 4% interest and monthly payments of $800?

            Obviously, for the same house, paying $800 per month for 30 years adds up to a LOT more money than paying $1200 per month for 15 years, so most people have the gut reaction to pay $1200 per month for 15 years and have the house paid off.

            If you have any discipline whatsoever, THIS IS STUPID! Take the 30-year mortgage, and take the extra $400 per month and invest it in something that will earn you lots and lots of money. Also, by natural inflation, by the end of that 30-year mortgage, $800 per month is going to be STUPIDLY INEXPENSIVE in terms of “30-years-from-now” dollars.

            Now, of course, the economy could go to hell in a handbasket, in which case this plan would not work well, or perhaps you might be a person with little or no financial discipline, in which case this plan would not work very well either….

            However, in general, paying $800 per month for 30 years is CHEAPER IN “TODAY DOLLARS” than paying $1200 per month for 15 years. It seems counter-intuitive (until you think about it).

            • Mathius says:

              Also, note that if you owe a lot of money and the global economy collapses entirely, there will be no way for them to collect – your debt is denominated in dollars. So you get to keep the house and pay back in stuff that you would otherwise burn for heat.

            • PeterB Stated:”Take the 30-year mortgage, and take the extra $400 per month and invest it in something that will earn you lots and lots of money.”

              TC:I don’t know Peter.If that’s the case wouldn’t we be better off claiming the max # of dependents on our w4’s and investing that extra money in an interest bearing account then paying our taxes at the end of the year in one lump sum and pocketing the interest earned instead of having it witheld over the course of the year?I think it would end up being determined by the amount of money made by interest vs the difference in interest of 15 or 30 years.I dun know would have to crunch some numbers.

        • Kathy,

          As Mathius did, get the longest FIXED term you can get. Get the longest amortization you can get. Try to get both the same.

          Do NOT get a term that will need to be renewed every 5 years. It will kill you.

          When inflation hits, your income-dollars will loosely go up at the rate of inflation to maintain some sort of purchasing equivalent to your costs.

          However, your loan is FIXED – static. It will not change.

          So, example:

          You earn $5,000/month – and your mortgage is $1,000 = 20% of your monthly cash flow.

          After inflation, your monthly goes up with it to say, $8,000 – you buy the same amount of goods (purchasing power is static because of inflation) – but your mortgage is fixed @ $1,000/month. Now it represents only 12.5% of your cash flow.

          Or, the other way to look at this is that the mortgage is being paid by inflation.

          The longer inflation goes on, the better it is for you.

          @10% inflation, your mortgage gets cut in half every 7 years. *blink* A $300,000 mortgage is effectively turned into $150,000 mortgage ..or.. $20,000 a year! It’s like getting a pay increase every year *tax free*.

          If you are disciplined, and pay the same percentage of cash flow toward such a mortgage, you will own your house free and clear in about 12-15 years @ 10% inflation.

          For those like Mathius who are out of consumer debt, this is once in a hundred year opportunity to actually become wealthy. They will own their own property 10 to 20 years earlier then their friends.

          This will mean up to a $1 million difference in their net worth.

          • Thank you; I will pass this on to my kids.

          • Mathius says:

            Not to mention that they aren’t making any new land and house prices are depressed right now. They’re never going to make more land and, especially near population centers, land will continue to rise indefinitely (think long term, not short term). So if you can buy at a low price and finance it cheap, there will probably never be a better opportunity in your lifetime to do better.

            What Flag likes about gold is that (A) there is a finite amount (B) it has intrinsic value (C) it’s shiny (D) it’s a good store of value. Land meets three of those four criterion.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I am holding out until I find shiny land.

            • Land suffers one serious drawback that gold does not.

              You can’t take it with you when you have to run away.

              There is a real reason why people in India wear their gold.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Most serfs don’t understand that their purchasing power doesn’t increase with inflation. Anyone who tries to tell them otherwise is stooopid. Of course, they don’t notice that wages always lag inflation. Eventually you catch up but until then, you’re losing purchasing power.

      • Mathius says:

        I should be clear, Flag. I carry ZERO debt other than my mortgage* and car**. I use a credit card for convenience and cashback rewards but pay it off in full every month without fail. The Dread Pirate considered the $13 of cashback as if it were a discount on the purchase price.

        *30 year fixed @ 5 1/4 (29.5 years left in term) – I intend to pay this back with cheaper dollars in the intermediate future.
        **5 year financing to own @ 2% (3 years left in term). I could pay this off, but at 2%, I’d rather have the money out earning me 5% in the market to make net 3%.

        Still think I should sell it?

        • Mathius,

          You and the Pirate seem to be just fine.

          Keep the coin. Buy one a month.

          When you have enough coins to pay off your mortgage, consider it…or….keep the coins and give them to your kids. You can give them coins and avoid predatory taxes.

          • Mathius says:

            Glad we meet with your approval. I can’t afford one a month. One every two or three months maybe. But I won’t. I don’t like putting all my eggs in one basket. Maybe one or two more (10 absolute tops).

            Wise men keep diversified savings. In the event that we invent Star Trek style replicators, all your gold piles will be rendered immediately worthless.

            • Mathius,

              Very wise men put all their eggs in one basket, then watch THAT basket!

              Most people cannot watch a diversified portfolio – which is why they get sucked into mutual funds who then lose their shirt.

              Gold is not an investment. It is protection from government fools.

              The amount of protection you feel you need from fools should be your measure of gold.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Knowing Mathius, I am sure he will be paying off his credit card in full as soon as it comes due.

        Nothing wrong with this approach. I charge practically everything I purchase. Then, at the end of the month, I pay it off, in full, every time.

        Go ahead and keep that coin Mathius. But don’t forget, I know where you keep that mayonnaise jar…

        • Too late…..my subterrainian raptor found it….is waiting for Matt to bring it up to ten and then it will disappear..and go to the raptor behavioural sciences.

          I prefer my method….no debt and pay cash for everything. Screws your credit rating all to hell but I prefer it that way. I make more net not having debt than I would make in a long term mortgage. Do not even own a credit card….which also makes it hard to rent a car or hold a hotel room….but that is ok with me. There are other ways around that problem.

          Oh…hi everyone. Had a tooth yanked today….a little grumpy.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ouch – that’s never fun. How you doing today??

            Nothing wrong with an all-cash approach. I agree you never want to carry any debt on a credit card. I basically use mine in lieu of carrying cash…plus I get all these points to use for travel!

  14. Holding a state-wide referendum on ObamaCare. I like that idea. Anyone here from Missouri?


    • Bottom Line says:

      I’ve decided that my next state of residence will be determined by which one takes ACTUAL steps in fighting for freedom, and both state’s and individual rights.

      In other words, Which state can I live the most freely? Which state will protect my natural rights? Which state will tell the federal gov. to stick it?

      Missouri is now on the list of possibilities.

  15. BL,

    Does a liberal interpret English differently than a conservative?


    A modern liberal hears the word “for the public good” and to them means that it is a right to take from others what they themselves deem is in excess and give to others.

    A modern conservative hears those words, and thinks “military and police are good for all” and they believe their right to take from others what they deems is in excess and give it to cops, et al.

    Because both of their thinking is subjective, they are – to themselves – in their right. Totally different outcomes.

    …and then – when both talk to me, their heads spin around their necks!

    • Bottom Line says:


      I was recently asked whether I was a Republican or a Democrat.

      I laughed and responded…”an Independent Conservative Libertarian Anarchist”

      I was about 18 when I started to realized the true function of government.

      I went to a “Subway” to eat a fresh sandwich one summer night. They were starting to clean the store as they would be closing soon, so I decided to get out of their way and go eat on the hood of my car instead. After all, It was a beautiful night.

      About the time I was getting to the last few bites, A cop pulled up and gave me a ticket for loitering even though it was obvious that I was a paying customer. I mean, I WAS sitting there with a “Subway” sandwich, chips and a soft drink. I argued to no avail. He didn’t care. His response was that he didn’t write the law, but rather just enforced it.

      What a dick!

      The ticket amount was about the same as a day’s wages. It wouldn’t make sense to take off of work (sacrificing pay)to fight it. The monetary loss was the same whether I paid it, or fought it and won. If I fought it and lost, I would lose double(pay and fine). So, I reluctantly paid it.

      Once I anylized what had just happened, I was soooo angry that I went and chopped down a tree with a hammer. Yes, a hammer. I was PISSED.

      I haven’t looked at government the same way since.

      Government = Law = Enforcement = Coercion = Violence

  16. OK, gotta run but just came across this and am shaking my head and LMAO so thought I’d share. I have no idea how I got to this site, but it’s the Savage caller I want you to listen to.


    The dumbest woman in the entire United States, on the Savage show

    • Holy crap. She needs to go see the Wizard about a brain…poor thing!

    • It almost hurt to listen to that. Although as an idea, I’m game, let Obama pay. HEHE-Wouldn’t take long for him to change his tune.

  17. TexasChem says:

    For BlackFlag and Jac,

    Enjoyed our discussion and just wanted to give yall’ this to show theirs no hard feelings!

  18. The United States posted an $82.69 billion deficit in April, nearly four times the $20.91 billion shortfall registered in April 2009 and the largest on record for that month, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

    • Cyndi P says:

      damn that George Bush, he’s still spending too much money! Good thing the president has stopped all that stupid crap.

      /sarc off

  19. TexasChem

    I suppose all matter in the multiverse just suddenly appeared with a big bang (nothing somehow created something)

    Actually, this is precisely what appears to be the case.

    Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are, themselves, made up of quarks.

    Between the quarks themselves is a vast emptiness – the absolute definition of nothing.

    Yet, this emptiness represents 95% of the mass of all things.

    “Virtual” quarks appear and disappear in this space, faster than anything in the universe can measure them – which is why we cannot see them.

    These particles appear where there is zero energy and zero matter. Yet, they appear.

    We know this because we they appear, they influence the matter (quarks) around them. They cause them to move. We can measure these virtual particles, their mass and their influence to within 8 decimal places – one of the most accurate measurements by man. We can measure nothing more accurately then we can measure “things”.

    Thus, energy and matter DOES appear to come from nowhere. 95% of what “you are” comes from nothing.

    Think about that for awhile.

    • TexasChem,

      and all this matter just randomly collided creating stars and planets and then somehow matter began taking on random life all on its own evolving from a mixture of primordial goo? (that science still has not been able to imitate)

      Random, yes. But random and chaos is NOT disorder. The Laws of the Universe are extremely and perfect in their operation – it does what it does as it must do what it does.

      Gravity between particles causes matter to move toward each other.

      Electrical charge causes dissimilar charges to attract and like to repel.

      The strong-nuclear force causes protons to overcome their electrical repulsion and glue together. Matter appears. This is Physics.

      Electron-sharing creates molecules, simple to complex – this is Chemistry.

      Complex molecules interact with each other in highly complex ways, causing “life” – this is Biology.

      Complex biological units, called ‘humans’ begin acting – this is called “Economics”.

      So what plant did the chicken evolve from BF if the egg is a mutation of a chicken?

      Seed mutate -> egg

      All animals, including humans, derive from eggs. The difference between some animals is whether the egg is external for fertilization or internal for fertilization.

      Is there some way to trace the DNA of a chicken back to a plant?The chicken tree perhaps?I’m curious as to your conclusion on this matter

      Yes. All living things have DNA.

      • LOL I don’t need a physics 101 course BF!I use physics and chemistry every day in my job!

        • TexasChem,

          Many people do not know what and where Physics goes to Chemistry goes to Biology.

          There are transition stages (as you know) Bio-Physics, Bio-Chemistry, and Chemical Physics.

    • BF Stated-“Thus, energy and matter DOES appear to come from nowhere. 95% of what “you are” comes from nothing.”

      TC:The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics.A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another.Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other.Wow BF you just negated the Law of the Conservation of energy and that of Relativity!Perhaps you should write a paper on your theory!You may get a Noble prize, they seem to be handing them out for nothing these days!

      • TC,

        The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics.

        And it is maintained, as the particle disappears back to where ever it came from


        A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another.Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other.

        Einstein’s theory -though revolutionary- did not explain the entire story. Thus, Quantum Mechanics as a theory displaced his as the better explanation.

        Though the Energy/Matter conversion remains consistent, the discovery of quarks as the building blocks of protons and electrons offers deep insights into the mechanics of the Universe.

        Wow BF you just negated the Law of the Conservation of energy and that of Relativity!

        No and no.

        +1-1=0 – it is conservation is maintained.

        Relativity has given way to Quantum mechanics.

        Perhaps you should write a paper on your theory!

        I don’t have to. Max Planck did.

        You may get a Noble prize, they seem to be handing them out for nothing these days!

        He did win a Nobel, and it was for something.

        • BF Stated:”+1-1=0 – it is conservation is maintained.”

          TC:Lets simplify this.I have one quark…I take away one quark (somehow) and now I have no quark yet I am unable show justification as to if it changed state or whether it is gone forever.So essentially I am taking something and placing it in a state of nothing therefore it does not exist.Please explain how conservation is maintained?

          • TC,

            Lets simplify this.I have one quark…I take away one quark (somehow) and now I have no quark yet I am unable show justification as to if it changed state or whether it is gone forever.

            Actually, the taking away is the easy part.

            It’s the appearance that is mind boggling. How does matter appear without energy? No one knows (yet). But it does.

            But it also disappears instantly (definition of instant = faster than something can be measured).

            So, empty space remains … “virtually empty” – yet, the after-effects it’s mass creates influence upon adjacent matter.

            So essentially I am taking something and placing it in a state of nothing therefore it does not exist.

            You are taking nothing and placing it into a state of something that creates mass which disturbs the matter around it, but this something is not there, because it is gone before the Universe can measure it, to see what exactly it was that appeared.

            Hence, “virtual” particle.

            Please explain how conservation is maintained?


            This is the formula for all sub-atomic interactions.

            When protons are smashed into each other, and fracture to their quarks, the Feynman diagrams dictate the adding of all the quarks mass and energy – which all should match the mass and energy of the protons prior to collusion.

            This is no different – at the beginning of measure, the space has zero-point, and after, it has zero-point – thus, conservation is maintained.

            A bit of a wiki explanation:


            • BF STated:”+1-1=0
              This is the formula for all sub-atomic interactions.”

              TC:That is the formula for understanding the electrical charge of protons,neutrons and electrons within an atom comparatively adding the relativity of the influence the quark and lepton charges have upon them.Not to mention whatever impact exchange particles have.

              This still does not prove that energy and mass can suddenly pop into existence. (nothing) from (something) much less dissapear back to (nothing).If this were the case we had better be concerned that one day the multiverse could dissapear completely for some as yet unknown variable…

              +1-1=0 still does not proof that conservation exists.If anything it would disprove conservation exists would it not.

              You are attempting to state that you know THAT something exists versus knowing HOW something exists.

              Anyways Bohr,Planck and Einstein all worked together postulating the theories of Quantum Physics yet Einstein and Planck both believed there were still unknown variables that could explain Quantum Physics.My question is why isn’t Quantum Physics itself used as the unknown variable to explain itself? LOL

              • This in turn leads to my 2 all time favorite Einstein quotes…
                ohhh… the anticipation….mmmm oh yeah….

                1)”God does not play dice with the universe.”

                2)”There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The
                other is as though everything is a miracle. — Albert Einstein

                • TC,

                  (1) God not only plays dice, he hasn’t a clue to what the roll will be until after the dice stop.

                  (2) I agree. Everything is a miracle.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Uneducated Puritan’s brilliant first thought of the morning >

      “Perception is Reality. When Perception fails to perceive, Reality is left with only theory.”

      There! How was that?

      It is all down hill for me until tomorrow morning. 🙂

  20. Cyndi P says:
  21. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    It’s open mic, and I can’t get over the birther’s and their tenacity. I’, posting this, because it’s interesting, but more so, if it is truly exposed as fact, what the heck is going to happen? I, at this point, could care less if Obama is, or is not what the birthers say, I’m more concerned with, if the birthers are right, and it’s proven. Here’s the article:



    Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
    3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation

    Posted: May 11, 2010
    9:57 pm Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

    In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

    WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

    The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

    See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

    The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

    “Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

    The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

    Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

    “I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

    WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

    “Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

    Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

    (Story continues below)

    Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

    WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

    To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

    “There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

    The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

    Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

    “Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

    Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

    There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

    Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

    Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

    Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

    Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

    “I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

    The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

    Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

    “It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

    Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

    Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

    Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

    After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

    Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

    Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

    The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

    Kakes ya want to go HMMMM!

    Peace !


    • G-Man,

      Nothing will happen.

      It is “a fait accompli” – the deed is done.

      He is President for 4 years (or maybe 8).

      All the whining and weeping will not change it. Even if tomorrow he says “Yep, I ain’t American”, he will still be President.

      • I agree BF. But if it’s proven, will it be the end of a certain political party made up of asses 😆

      • Birdman says:

        I would like to know the truth even if it doesn’t change anything.

      • Bottom Line says:

        BF – “Nothing will happen.”

        BL – I disagree. It would be too much of an upset for NOTHING to happen.

        He would be impeached and removed.

        1 – It’s the law.

        2 – People would demand it…perhaps even forcibly.

        They’d have to impeach him. What is the alternative? An openly illegitimate government? Civil unrest? Assassination?

        • Law, what law?

          Law is what the government say and they say he is President.

          I mean, taxation is simply unconstitutional – but try not paying!!

          • Bottom Line says:

            BF – “Law, what law?

            What I meant by “1 – It’s the law.” is that the prescribed/default means to deal with such an issue is the constitutional guidelines for the office of president and impeachment.

            ~ US Constitution – Article II – Section 1 – No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

            ~ Amendment 20 – Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. –

            3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

            4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.


            ~ Amendment 25 – Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967.

            1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

            2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

            3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

            4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

            Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

            BF – “Law is what the government say and they say he is President.”

            BL – Yeah, I had a similar thought as I was typing above(An openly illegitimate government?).

      • Whatevah BF.He would be impeached.There is absolutely no way he would be allowed to remain in office.A veritable shit storm will erupt.

        • Cyndi P says:

          I’m sure there will be a shit storm alright, but I wouldn’t bet he’ll gone. The cabal in charge has no respect for what we want. I’m pretty sure the upcoming election will be riddled with fraud. If it isn’t and nothing changes then why would we believe he’d be romoved from office?

    • As a note, anyone who did not get my recipe for homemade tomatoe brandy that I posted a few weeks back, I can repost as needed.

    • Cyndi P says:

      Ah…my favorite shit stirrer takes up the cause…. 🙂

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

      I have two SS#s. Th first was issued while I was a child. I lost this number and reapplied. I was given a 2nd number. Now today the SS administration has me listed under both the old and the new numbers as one and the same individual.

      No crime.

      • Mathius says:

        How ’bout that..

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I suppose the reason the SSA did not simply tell me what my original number was, is for fear of fraud. What if I was not who I claimed to be when I reapplied.

  22. Birdman says:

    Interesting article on Big Money eventually moving into Gold and Silver. Those considering purchasing Gold may want to start the process.


  23. Looks like no lessons were learned on handing out mortgages to those that can’t afford them.


    Democrats Reject 5% Down Payment Rule

    The Senate today rejected a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to impose a minimum 5% down payment for virtually all home mortgages. The amendment to the broader financial regulatory overhaul bill, which failed 42-57, would have required income verification and an assessment of borrowers’ ability to repay as well.

    Corker’s proposal also would have stripped out a provision that required financial firms securitizing loans to keep a 5% portfolio risk.

    Democrats then passed their own amendment imposing some underwriting standards, but no minimum down payment.

    Regarding Corker’s bill, Democrats argued that a 5% down payment would hurt minorities and the poor.

    But if you can’t scrape together a 5% payment, maybe you should remain a renter.

    It wasn’t that long ago that a 20% down payment was standard and 10% was deemed risky. A sizeable down payment gives homeowners a strong incentive to make their payments and gives them a cushion against home prices fluctuations. Now 5% is too restrictive?

    For all the focus on derivatives and securitization, the financial crisis stemmed from junk mortgages. People bought homes with little or no money out of pocket and couldn’t afford the monthly payments. Regulators and politicians encouraged or sat passively as lenders lowered their credit standards during the bubble.

    In the short term, home ownership rates rose to record highs. But it was a house built on sham documents and negative equity.

    Even after the crisis, severe recession and massive bailouts, that easy credit mentality still reigns in Washington.

    The Federal Housing Administration requires only a 3.5% down payment. FHA officials told Congress in March that raising the minimum to 5% would reduce FHA-backed loans by 40%.

  24. TexasChem

    TC:That is the formula for understanding the electrical charge of protons,neutrons and electrons within an atom comparatively adding the relativity of the influence the quark and lepton charges have upon them.

    It means that the energy that started and the energy that ended remain constant.

    If it goes “up” here, and “down” there in zero time – conservation is maintained.

    This still does not prove that energy and mass can suddenly pop into existence.

    Actually, it does.

    Since there is no other influence, their existence is required.

    (nothing) from (something) much less dissapear back to (nothing).

    You STILL have it backwards!

    It is SOMETHING from NOTHING back to NOTHING.

    If this were the case we had better be concerned that one day the multiverse could dissapear completely for some as yet unknown variable…

    Not probable – it would have done that already.

    We also know that the Universe is self-consistent or it would have “dissolved” a few billion years ago.

    +1-1=0 still does not proof that conservation exists.

    Conservation is a law of nature and is immutable.

    If anything it would disprove conservation exists would it not.

    No, since conservation is maintained.

    You are attempting to state that you know THAT something exists versus knowing HOW something exists.

    More than that – we can measure it.

    Anyways Bohr,Planck and Einstein all worked together postulating the theories of Quantum Physics yet Einstein and Planck both believed there were still unknown variables that could explain Quantum Physics.

    No doubt. The CERN experiments are there to resolve a dilemma

    . My question is why isn’t Quantum Physics itself used as the unknown variable to explain itself? LOL

    Then it would be called “String Theory” 😉

  25. Cyndi P says:

    Hey Black Flag,

    How much do you know about the goldmoney.com? It looks good but I have some concerns. Whatever came from the tungsten bars discovery? I would think that there would be more than a few fake bars. Also, they say the gold is locked in vaults in London and Hong Kong. If the global economy melts down, what’s to stop governemnts from confiscating that too? Isn’t there some concern that there isn’t enough to cover all the claims? I don’t know that much about this. If I pull my money out of my 401k, I might have 82k to playwith. I understand that gold is wealth protection and in this economy, protection is the best I can hope for, but I want to be careful and understand what I’m doing….I definately don’t want to take what’s left of my life savings and loose it to some scammer.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am not BF, but I will tell you the following:

      Buying scraps of paper that supposedly REPRESENT real gold is DANGEROUS. There are scraps of paper already floating around that represent 5 to 10 times the actual amount of above-ground already processed gold in existence. If delivery of actual gold were demanded by all of the holders of such scraps of paper, the demand could NEVER be fulfilled.

      You are far better off finding a REPUTABLE coin dealer and discussing with him the fact that you wish to buy gold as a means to aid you with wealth preservation and inflation protection. Make it clear to this dealer that you do NOT wish to buy “rare” or “collectible” gold coins (which come with a HUGE premium).

      Buy physical gold and put it in a safe. I would recommend your OWN safe, rather than a safe deposit box at a bank. If there is a run on banks, who is to say whether or not you get the stuff in your safe deposit box back or not?

      You may not have access to a reputable coin dealer where you are. If that is the case, I know a few personally who are honest guys and would even be willing to do business by insured mail. For “common” gold, they charge a few percent over the current spot price, plus whatever insured shipping would cost. If you would like a reference or two, get my email from USW and I can send you some names and addresses.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Hi Peter,

        You’ve confirmed my concerns on buying gold bullion in large quantity.

        I’ve got some other issues with taking possesion of substantial quantities of coins. I’m living on a remote island with about 2000 residents. I can’t quietly go out buy a safe and keep in my room. There is only one place here I can order it (maybe), and the local nationals will find out. They maybe poor but they aren’t stupid. If someone is ordering a safe, then there must be something of value in their quarters, no? The local nationals here are in jobs that are service oriented. They have access to keys, and we’ve already had numerous proven incidents of LNs obtaining keys and going into quarters, stealing, doing laundry, etc. There’s a woman here who travels to Hong Kong, and brings back beautiful jewelry that she sells out of a small consignment shop. A few weeks ago she told me that the local nationals obtained the key to her quarters on several occasions and gone through the place looking for the gold and silver. She can’t prove it, but knows when someone has been in her house and going through her belongings. Most people know when something isn’t right. In the shop, she has a large safe. She can also tell there have been attempts to get into the safe.

        Its possible to get ‘some’ gold here and keep it secret but there’s really no way to secure it. Then, eventually, I’m going to have to leave this island and cross borders. Right now, going through ‘security’ with substantial amounts of silver and gold isn’t much trouble BUT will that always be the case? Right now anything can be confiscated if the agents ‘suspect’ drugs are invovled. As conditions both economic and political deteriorate, I fear traveling with any sort of wealth will become more risky.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Due to your unique concerns, you may be better off having bullion in a vault given the circumstances.

          If you eventually get to a more populated place with better security options, you can always demand physical delivery of at least a portion of your holdings at that time.

    • Cyndi and Peter

      How much do you know about the goldmoney.com?

      They are a storage facility and a sales agent.

      Whatever came from the tungsten bars discovery?

      Bars were discovered. Nobody else wants to look.

      “As long as we all pretend its gold, its gold”

      they say the gold is locked in vaults in London and Hong Kong. If the global economy melts down, what’s to stop governemnts from confiscating that too?

      For 2,500 years Gold storage has been ruled by international agreement – or else sovereign gold would be at risk.

      Such agreement has survived multiple global wars without any such threat of such confiscation.

      Isn’t there some concern that there isn’t enough to cover all the claims?

      Nothing is 100% risk free.

      But put it this way.

      Really Rich People, banks and government who have a whole lot more threat of risk (due to amount) are fine with holding gold in storage facilities.

      I definately don’t want to take what’s left of my life savings and loose it to some scammer.

      They are not a scammer. However, prudent self-search and info is always a good idea when its your money.

      You can “google” them, make a few phone calls, etc.

      Buying scraps of paper that supposedly REPRESENT real gold is DANGEROUS.

      Peter is correct here.

      However, goldmoney.com is a STORAGE facility.

      The bars are registered to YOU. Goldmoney does not own the gold -they are your agent. You can demand delivery and they will do so (with a fee).

      If goldmoney goes bankrupt, you will get your gold.

      It is no different if your friend borrows your car and he goes bankrupt, you get your car back. It is not entangled in this bankruptcy. Same with a gold storage facility.

      PS: As far as I know, no gold facility has ever gone bankrupt. They are in the business of vaults. They do not ‘dabble’ in gold speculation. They sell you the gold at the price they buy (plus a small commission). They buy your gold back at the price they can sell it at (plus a small commission). They are not under threat of speculation between the buy/sell.

      You are far better off finding a REPUTABLE coin dealer and discussing with him the fact that you wish to buy gold as a means to aid you with wealth preservation and inflation protection. Make it clear to this dealer that you do NOT wish to buy “rare” or “collectible” gold coins (which come with a HUGE premium).

      I would suggest $10,000 in coins – if you have amounts greater than this, then bars make sense (simply because of the higher commission on coins).

      The other benefit of a storage facility is that you can run, and your gold is already “somewhere else”. No matter where you go, you can get your gold because it is “over there”.

      Further, giving gold to your heirs is easy. You give them the code/password to your bars and it is theirs.

      • PS:

        Bullionvault.com is another storage facility with favorable recommendations, with 19 tonnes in storage.

        You can transfer your gold between their storage facilities for free.

        • ‘In the vault your gold is soundly protected.

          * It is insured.
          * It exists under the jurisdiction you choose, so you yourself select the government and legislative structure you trust to protect your property. You can switch jurisdictions in moments.
          * Access to your account is protected with state of the art encryption technologies – but BullionVault is designed to allow account access to be compromised and still keep your property safe.
          * Withdrawal restrictions ensure value on your account is returned only to you.
          * You can at any time monitor BullionVault records to prove they correctly assign vaulted gold to you.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Do you think gold is going to go back down before everything implodes? I know the ‘herd’ is rushing in, thus not usually a good time to buy. I believe the markets are highly manipulated and suspect the herd is being purposely driven for a financial cull of sorts. I don’t want to get caught up in that. Is that fair to think, or am I paraniod? 🙂

            • Cyndi,

              Gold is a measure of trust of governments.

              Gold goes up and down depending on the people’s risk of idiots.

              When people believe the idiots, gold will go down.

              When people begin to disbelieve the idiots, gold will go up.

              Barrick Gold bought back $1.5 billion worth of their lease gold @ $1050/oz.

              These guys entire reason for living is understanding the gold marketplace.

              They put $1.5 billion “where their mouth is”.

              They believe this is the lowest price for gold purchases, or else they would not have committed to such a purchase.

              I would suggest that gold will not fall below $1050/oz in your lifetime. I believe Barrick established the floor price.

              Further, India.

              India is by far and away the single largest consumer of gold – primarily to fund daughter’s marriage dowries.

              When the price goes down, Indians buy like crazy. They will buy it all. The IMF sold 200 tonnes of gold – and 100% of the gold was bought by India.

              They will establish an absolute floor price – and it is higher than Barrick’s.

              0.25% of Americans own gold. 0.10% of mutual fund value is in gold.

              If either of these markets moves to 1%, the price of gold would triple, maybe quintuple, maybe even more, if it starts a “herd”.


              The gold market is somewhat manipulated but it cannot be controlled.

              Perspective: gold trade is the single largest commodity traded on Earth

              The daily gold trading in London is simply humongous.

              It has a daily turnover of $70 billion.

              To put this in perspective, the world consumes 86 million barrels of oil each day.

              The total cost of the global daily oil consumption is a mere $6 billion!

              Gold is 10x larger than the oil market.

              Every month, London trades the equivalent of the entire known gold reserves of the world.

              Gold is beyond *long term* manipulation.

              If the banks drive down the price, the Chinese and Indians buy like mad. If the banks drive up the price, the Chinese and Indians sell like mad.

              • Cyndi P says:

                Thanks!. .I’ve ask USW to send you something…..you can have my email if you want it. I’d like to know your thoughts on it, but prefer to keep it private….

      • Cyndi P says:

        If I go for this option, how likely is it that I may find that I’ve purchased tungsten? Can they ‘not look’ forever???

        • Cyndi,

          You will never buy tungsten.

          The purchase is guaranteed to be gold, or you get your money back.

          The tungsten was between banks and governments. You are not part of that market (10 kilo bars).

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I will agree with BF here. Coins are great and easier than ANYTHING to pass on to your heirs. If you have more to invest than you can practically store for yourself in coinage, then bars may be the way to go.

        At current prices, $10,000 in physical gold coins is only 8 1 ounce coins, which isn’t really all that much. If you can get a safe to store valuables in, more than $10,000 in physical gold in your posession MAY be desireable (depends on your own situation and risk tolerance, etc.)

        If you do decide to own physical gold (coinage, small bars, whatever) to have in your own possession, a safe is a must, and INSURANCE is a must. In fact, if you are planning to own physical gold and have it in your possession, you might want to check with several insurers FIRST. They will be able to recommend to you what sort of safe to get and any other security measures you might take that will enable you to get extremely low rates to insure your possessions.

        Gold in “someone else’s vault” may indeed be safe, and if BF is saying it is safe, I would be inclined to trust his judgement after doing some more research on my own (trust but verify!), but I would definitely have some gold in my own possession.

        The main reason for this is that if the shit hits the fan, you want a good portion of your gold to be immediately accessible and do not want to trust in (potentially defunct) delivery systems to get it to you. If it is not in your possession when the shit hits the fan, there may be no reliable means of getting it to you, depending on the severity of the situation.

        • To followup Peter’s post:

          I know a few very wealthy people who have gold in vaults. They are not at all concerned about its safety and their ability to access this gold.

          I do not have gold in vaults.

          I have a personal “thing” that I like the feeling of gold in my hands.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Hey BF,

            I looked into the GoldMoney site. I noticed that as an American serf, I’m required to report any financial foreign holding on $10,000 or more to the IRS. I believe this is a fairly recent Obama era requirement. So my thinking is like this: The government is grubbing to get its paws on my retirement money and is making moves in that direction. So, in an effort to stay one step ahead, I pull my money out and give government its 30% cut. I take what’s left, and buy gold that is stored in a Swiss vault. The company that runs it requires enough ID from me to know that I am an American serf. I can get clever and not tell the government about my holdings and hope not be found out. Of course, the government knows that some of its serfs are not stupid and blissfully unaware of what’s going on, so government puts the screws to other governments to find out which serfs have wealth overseas for future confiscation. The foreign governments cave into the bully US governemnt. Serf Cyndi is discovered to be ‘hiding’ assets offshore, just like an evil capitalist pig. Serf Cyndi will be punished severely for her crime. Serf Cyndi, being smart enough to think things through to their likely conclusion, knows that either way, she’s been had.


            • Serf Cyndi,

              This is a matter for you to confirm, however, I do not believe ore qualifies

              Quote:”other authority over any financial accounts, including bank, securities, or other types of financial accounts in a foreign country…”

              It is not a ‘financial account’, nor a security.

              You are holding a bunch of yellow metal.

              Bullionvault’s site quote:
              Although it is not regulated by the Financial Services Authority…

              This means they are NOT a financial institution as defined by UK law

              They are a storage facility.

              Thus, I suggest bullionvault.com as your vendor….

              They had to close their US vault and moved it to Switzerland.

              They are immune to US pressure.
              Please sit back and I will explain why.

              A bank cash deposit in legal reality:

              (1) Cyndi sells your money to the bank in return for a promise of repayment on demand plus a fee (interest).

              Keep this solid in your mind: “your” money in a bank is not your money. You have sold it in return for a piece of paper called a ‘deposit slip’.

              When a bank goes belly up, you do not get your money back because it is not your money, it is the banks money. (Now, the FDIC insures your DEPOSIT SLIP and will give you your money back)

              This has other consequences to a bank, making it directly vulnerable to government leverage, because the government threatens the banks money that they own (bought from you in trade for a deposit slip).

              Remember that, the government attacked the Banks MONEY.

              (2) Cyndi buys gold from Bullionvault. Cyndi sells Bullionvault her dollars and gets in return a bar of gold.

              Bullionvault owns your money, because you sold it.

              You own your gold because you bought it.

              The government attacks Bullionvault’s MONEY, but they are not attacking YOUR GOLD, because it is not Bullionvault’s – it is yours. The Swiss government will not interfere on behalf of the US government action on Bullionvault, but they will not allow, by law, your gold to be encumbered by that action. You are immune.

              A completely different threat and leverage.

              • Cyndi P says:

                So if BullionVault isn’t a financial institution under UK law, is it under US law? If not, can’t it easily become one if the US decides to make it so? I have the feeling that the current regime plays fast and loose with laws and our rights. All those new IRS workers will be looking for markers of capital fleeing the country. I’m concerned that withdrawl of MY money will flag me for closer scrutiny. A couple of my newsletters have already warned of this, not to mention a co-worker of mine who regularly wastes his time writing, calling, faxing his ‘representatives’ in DC got a letter from the IRS claiming that they have no record of his overseas residency and have ordered our government contractor employer to withhold 30% of his earnings. He’s been here for 5 years and suddenly they have no record of that or his foreign income exclusion????? This man is 72 years old and has a disabled wife back in Florida. The only reason he’s still on the job is because he cannot afford to retire, and now the IRS is clawing back 30% of his income. I don’t need that in my life. I want to stay under the radar as much as possible. Let Obama have the fucking money. Its not THAT much and I’ve still got a few goods years in me if I can escape serfdom by finding another country to call home. The problem is that most countries are almost as bad if not worse than Obamaland.

                • Cyndi

                  So if BullionVault isn’t a financial institution under UK law, is it under US law?

                  I cannot imagine how.

                  However, I’m often baffled by government.

                  It is a question best placed to a professional. He is paid to know this. *Whereas I am not 😉

                  If not, can’t it easily become one if the US decides to make it so?

                  They can declare the sky to be red.

                  But let me put a string around this issue.

                  The threat you fear will occur on your other assets long before it becomes a threat to your bullion.

                  You are trying to avoid being hit by a meteorite, while standing on the center line of an LA freeway.

                  I’d worry, first, about the semi-truck barreling down on you well before I’d worry about a rock from space hitting you.

                  But I do understand this trepidation of the unknown.

                  Gold is new to you; you have not ‘dabbled’ in this market before and it appears strange.

                  So, take your time and work it out at your own pace. The decision you make for yourself will be the right one.

                  • Cyndi P says:

                    BF- The threat you fear will occur on your other assets long before it becomes a threat to your bullion.

                    Cyndi – Very true!

              • Cyndi P says:

                I found this on their FAQs page:

                Money politics — Governments and other agencies seeking currency stability, or for other reasons, might seek to constrain or tax the ownership of bullion to the disadvantage of its owners. BullionVault provides for multiple locations from which you may choose one or more. The actuality or fear of government action might affect the value of bullion stored in a given location. This risk is not a BullionVault responsibility.

                And this:

                Force Majeure
                BullionVault shall not be liable to you for any delay or failure by it to perform its obligations if such delay or failure arises from any unforseeable causes beyond its reasonable control including, but not limited to, acts of God, floods, lightning, earthquakes, labour disputes, shortages, rationing, utility failures, war, terrorism, riot, embargoes, and actions of any government agency or subdivision thereof.

                Since American Serfs are taxed regardless of where on the planet they exist, I don’t think Bullionvault will do anymore for me than buy some time, but only if one of the new IRS workers don’t focus on me first. BullionVault seems to have enough wiggle room to leave me twisting in the wind if it is in their interest to do so.

                • http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=4118

                  Gold could touch $5,000 before this is all over…

                  • “…this is what I think gold is saying:..

                    I won’t always be this cheap.

                    If you don’t buy me soon, you may regret it.

                    I may get less expensive in the short term, but don’t mistake that to mean I’m losing value or that everything is fine with your paper currencies or your economic future.

                    What you’ve done to your fiat currencies will hurt you.

                    What is coming to the price of things will overwhelm you.

                    What the government has debased will haunt you.

                    I’m here to protect your finances.

                    I may be the only thing that can really do that.

  26. Cyndi P says:

    Has anyone heard of this??

    Tell your Federal Legislators to Oppose
    Harmful Interchange Legislation!

    Background: Each time you use your debit card, a merchant is paid immediately and the credit union that issues your card receives “interchange” through the card payment system. This interchange reflects a merchant’s fair share of the costs of this convenient and beneficial payment system. At your credit union, interchange supports everything from re-issuing cards compromised by merchant data breaches to providing a call center to contact if your card is lost or stolen. In the coming days, the United States Senate will debate S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act and a number of amendments have been proposed which would make changes to the card payment system.

    Credit Union Member Concerns: These amendments (Amendment 3769 & Amendment 3771) would be harmful to credit unions and consumers alike. Current amendments to S. 3217 threaten credit unions’ ability to offer debit cards to their members and would allow merchants to interfere with consumer choice by arbitrarily varying the terms of card acceptance. Merchants would be allowed to refuse to accept a member’s card unless an arbitrary minimum or maximum payment amount – set entirely at the merchant’s discretion – is met. The pending amendments are intended to disrupt the card payment system, with the goal of reducing the merchants’ financial responsibility for the benefits received from the card payment system.

    Action Needed: Please send a message to both of your Senators TODAY urging them to oppose any amendments to S. 3217 which would affect debit card-issuing credit unions and the card payment system. A prewritten letter is available for your use at the Credit Union Grassroots Action Center which you can personalize and send via email. (This message will be directed to the appropriate legislators based on the address you enter.)

    Thank you for your participation in this important Action Alert!

  27. Bailouts Defeat Bennett–Who Wants to Be Next?
    by Capitol Confidential

    Sen. Bob Bennett suffered a stunning defeat in his quest for re-election Saturday. And as the Senate considers the Obama/Dodd financial ‘reform’ bill, other Senators should be asking themselves if they want to be next.

    Bennett, representing the most conservative state in the country, was defeated for a number of reasons but none more obvious that his steadfast support for the Wall Street Bailout. When it came to his vote for the first Bush bailout, Bennett didn’t give an inch defending it all the way to his concession speech.

    As political prognosticators read the tea leaves, a CNN interview with a local Tea Party activist perhaps provides the most insightful commentary. It could not be clearer, grass roots conservatives see support of bailouts as anathema to free market principles; period. Politicians have now been formally warned — support for bailouts of corporations and big banks is political suicide.

    The real question is — is anyone listening. The Senate is considering a bailout bill that makes the TARP vote that defeated Sen. Bennett look like chump change. Sen. Corker, Collins and Grassley pay close attention here. The Obama/Dodd bill is a bailout bill that favors big banks and Wall Street over Main Street. It’s no different than supporting TARP — just more expensive and now contains a laundry list of intrusive Big Brother provisions like a national database that tracks citizens’ deposits and withdrawals.

    And the bill is getting worse by the minute. Sen. Kay Hagan is preparing an amendment that will create another national database to track and approve or disapprove individual installment loans. Yes, you heard that right. Under the Hagan amendment, individual citizens would need the approval of the Federal government before taking out an installment loan.

    Hagan’s amendment would limit consumers to no more than six and as few as one loan per year during a 12-month period for “covered” loans which include even some retail company credit plans. So for example, if a consumer uses Home Depot’s installment plan to buy a washing machine, he better pray the dishwasher doesn’t break because under Hagan’s amendment our consumer may not be able to buy a dishwasher (or anything else) for 275 days.

    Of course, Hagan’s amendment exempts big banks and “traditional lenders” from these provisions.

    Federalism has been so decimated that U.S. Senators apparently have no second thoughts enacting such an amendment. But Bennett’s ouster should give every member of the US Senate pause. Bennett may have represented a conservative state but support for bailouts has been clearly opposed by the majority of the electorate from across the political spectrum. Voting for the Financial Reform bill is like voting for TARP all over again — even worse.

  28. Matthius-I complied to your not wanting to talk about this but you did not HEHE 🙂 So I thought I would complete my thoughts today.

    I think Matt that you might be surprised by what I think-I do believe that as a society we have a moral responsibility to help people-I simply believe that belief has been used through the years to take advantage of individuals through government craziness-so now I simply have to look at the loss of freedoms that comes with using government to provide this help. I think I said once that I thought more like you but the conclusions I draw are closer to BF. I think that may have been an overstatement but close enough to make my point. HEHE 🙂 I think the main point I want to make here is that as a society we are probably not going to stop legislating on the basis of what people believe is right or wrong, so concentrating on making people look at this help as a gift not a Right(legal) is important. If one actually starts to see that anytime society decides to give they are also taking or stealing from someone else not fulfilling a Right , then hopefully the giving will be kept at a more reasonable level, the you owe me mentality might change to a thanks for the helping hand but I’ve gotta work hard and get off the government dime. With time and a different mind frame maybe we would see that people will take care of people without the government forcing or stealing from us to do it-I find it sad that society cannot be reasonable-I wish that we could have the government help if individual charity wasn’t enough, actually in some instances I think it is essential in order to have a society worth living in-I think most people simply don’t mind giving a helping hand-even if the government is stealing to do it, if it’s just a helping hand.

    • Hey V,

      I see Matt is avoiding your comment so far. I’m just gonna dine & dash as I have things going on right now but I’m with you all the way.

      I’ve thought this for a while. I think Matt has excellant intentions. But his help the poor is a much bigger deal than he gives consideration to. I think he fails to seperate the “poor” from the “lazy”. There are far fewer poor than he will admit to. Ther are MILLIONS of lazy who are dragging the rest down with them. And the government plays right along with it as a power grab against ALL of us. That is the part he fails to consider because of his good intentions.

      Disclaimer: The only “poor” I see are the handicapped. All the rest need to get off their ass and contribute.

      I’ll check in later 🙂

      • Mathius says:

        V.H.: Not avoiding.. busy.. will have to discuss another time..


        • Just stating my opinion-Matt-you can comment or not-we are still a free country-sorta 🙂

          As far as your response to Anita-you say it -but your politics seem to go way beyond a helping hand these differences in opinions is of course why allowing any security nets could mean the total loss of our freedoms.

      • Cyndi P says:

        You said it, Sista!


        When you respond to V and Anita can you please cover how you plan to determine who cannot help themselves and who will not? I’m really curious about this. I’ve had some experience with those who claim they cannot do for themselves but are able bodied.

        • Mathius says:

          No time. No simple answer either.

          Short answer: mistakes are going to be made either way (we give to those who don’t need, or we don’t give to those who do need), so when in doubt, it’s better to error in favor of giving too much rather than too little.

          • I am all about giving too much rather than too little. I am not about someone else giving too much of my stuff away rather than too little. I am not about someone else giving my stuff away at all. What good does that do my concience or my soul? What good does it even do for the needy person? All they got was some money and a lesson that people don’t care so the government has to steal from them by force of law for them to catch a “break”.

            That sort of “charity” is devastating to a society as a whole.

          • I don’t have much time either. I just want to point out that this is where I think you err-when you decide to okay giving too much because you might not be giving enough-that is when you start helping those who do not need it in the short term and hurting everyone in the long term. We are talking about a trade off here-and the cost of the trade is high-our freedom. I want to help people and I know if I was in trouble I would want help but at the same time I would rather die than give up very much of my freedoms for that help. So the balance that you speak of IMO has to be tilted way to the side of freedom and the use of charity needs to be looked at before we decide that government is the answer.

            • Mathius says:

              See, we can discuss this view. You, unlike Heir Flag, are arguing within a logical framework of non-absolutes and conflicting rights and obligations: ie, the real world. Let’s discuss another time. I would really like to flesh out how you balance your scales.

              • Okay-another day-gonna go have some outside fun now. 🙂

              • Mathius,

                In any conflict, there can be only one answer –

                – thus why your “A” and “B” both being true cannot be. It is a contradiction.

                One, either A or B, must prevail.

                You are required to pick one or the other – but you cannot have both.

                • Mathius says:

                  Says the man with a maniacal belief in absolutes to the man who believes in shades of gray.

                  • Mathius,

                    There is no shade of gray in this matter.

                    You cannot have a right and not have a right.

                    • You know Matt, BF, Is right there is no gray, we cannot legislate morality and legislate freedom at the same time. This has been shown to me through out my lifetime as I have watched by freedoms slowly go away. I have watched as the government through taxes and regulations and laws control our actions more and more. People can come up with reasonable reasons to do so but the end result is no freedom that we have is safe if through passage of a law it can be taken away.

      • See ya later. Hoping to get out of the office pretty soon myself. 🙂

        • Cyndi P says:

          I’m fixin’ to go in. Looks like it might be ANOTHER good beach day.


          • You poor soul, having to hang out on a beach on a nice day. Sorry I can’t help you bear the burden….lol

          • Sorry, I suspect looking at the beautiful ocean would make the longing to leave or not go much stronger.

            • Cyndi P says:

              I’m feeling *sick*, cough, cough.


              Actually that’s true to a small extent. All I have to do is cough near the boss and I’m home free!

  29. Mathius says:

    Now who do I know who would be love this…


    **COUGH** Black Flag **COUGH**

  30. http://wallstreetpit.com/27473-peter-schiff-gold-1500-2000-by-year-end

    On the price of gold:
    “It is amazing to me that gold is still so cheap. Considering all the money that has been printed, and all the money that’s going to be printed.”

    On being bullish on oil:
    I’m still very bullish on oil and I think oil and industrial metals will rise. They are going a lot higher…I own a lot of oil. I’ve made significant investments personally in oil drilling up in North Dakota where I am investing myself and clients money in drilling projects. I am extremely bullish on oil and I think it’s going to take out the highs of $150 a barrel.

    On where gold will go by the year-end:
    I’ve overestimated the intelligence of the average investor to figure this out. So I don’t know. Maybe it will hit $1500 by the end of the year. Maybe it will hit $2000.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      At the moment, I am pretty bearish on oil. Gold is a store of value. It is ALSO a used industrial commodity, but primarily the value of gold reflects the confidence (or lack thereof) in governments and their fiat currencies.

      Oil, on the other hand, is primarily a used industrial commodity. The price of oil depends HEAVILY on supply and demand, as well as the value of the dollar vs. other currencies. The dollar has “increased” in value relative to the Euro and other currencies quite a bit recently. This is driving the price of oil in dollars DOWN.

      Also, the supply of oil and oil derivatives (such as gasoline) is currently approaching an all-time high, while demand and projected demand are falling due to the craptastic global economy. This is also driving the price of oil down.

      Oil will continue to under-perform relative to other things as long as these factors persist.

  31. From an original student of Mises and a retired PhD in Economics:

    Hyper-inflation needs causality to occur, it’s not inevitable.

    Certainly the self-interest of central bankers would be violated by hyper-inflation, but not just for personal pension reasons.

    Hyper-inflation would destroy government manipulated money and the continuation of their banking school racket. Why would they do this when other alternatives and edicts are available to them, such as direct credit and price controls?

    Of course the result is depression and a massive destruction of accumulated wealth, but which would be the greater incentive to central bankers? Losing their monetary manipulation racket or impoverishment of the general welfare of the citizens?

    I’ve been convinced hyper-inflation would be an irrational act by a central bank since it would be an act of self-destruction.

    There are other fascist choices to be pursued than currency destruction. A direct command political order seems more probable, and a more likely future scenario.

    It is the insight of the public choice school of economics (James Buchanan) that we should assess the motives of bureaucrats by means of the same methodology that we apply to other economic actors. They pursue their perceived self-interest.

    It is not in the self-interest of central bankers to destroy the public’s acceptance of the monetary unit.

    If the public shifts to gold, silver, or ammunition, this reduces the ability of central bankers and central planners to allocate resources. This reduces their power. They do not want to surrender power.

    Price inflation under 15% is familiar (1980). Price inflation over 15% is not. The FED can play political chicken — inflate or not inflate — up to 15%. After that, it must decide: U.S. default or mass inflation up to 30%. After that, it must decide: hyperinflation or stabilization/depression. I think it will risk recession/depression, on the assumption that can always reinflate.

    There is a risk that Congress will nationalize the FED and demand that the FED buy Treasury debt. This risk must be balanced against the outcome of hyperinflation.

    I expect Congress to declare price controls before it nationalizes the FED.

    If it does, we will move into the command economy.

    Dealing with shortages, not high prices, will be our challenge as individuals.

    The shortages can be blamed on speculators. Congress will attack the evil of hoarding.

    That will be when to cash in your IRA and buy goods, if you have not already cashed it in.

    The Bank of England has kept the scam going since 1694.

    It has never resorted to hyperinflation. Booms and busts, yes. But the largest commercial banks have always survived.

    The existing system will slowly strip people of their wealth, not in one orgy of inflation.

    Government will expand its control over capital through regulation. It will absorb capital through debt expansion. It is doing this now.

    The public can stop this process by replacing politicians with new ones who will oppose all new spending and cut back on existing programs, especially Medicare.

    I have my doubts about this possibility.


    So do I.

  32. So we haven’t had a discussion here about Pelosi’s latest – prompting Catholic Bishops to preach about immigration from the pulpit. Is this OK? We always hear about that dangerous Religious Right? What would this be called?

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Now, they’re telling the churches what to preach on. Guess they’re going to take over churches now too, huh.

  33. First Iran wins a seat on on the UN women’s rights body.
    Now we have Libya in a seat on the UN human rights council.

    The UN has been hijacked by the OIC and has become nothing more than an organization committed to the desires of the Islamic world to spread their doctrine.UN policy has become the politically correct dhimmitude of western culture.

    If you doubt this then I suggest doing your own research into this.



    • AP sources: US to join advisory group despite concern over possible anti-Israel bias

      Associated Press Writer
      May 12, 2010 | 2:35 p.m.

      WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is preparing to join an international advisory group that the U.S. has largely shunned due to fears it would adopt anti-Israeli and anti-Western stances, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

      The officials told The Associated Press the administration plans to announce as early as this week that it will begin a formal relationship with the Alliance of Civilizations.

      The five-year-old, U.N.-backed organization aims to ease strains between societies and cultures, particularly the West and Islam.

      The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly.

      The Bush administration boycotted the group when it was founded in 2005 over concerns it would become a forum for bashing Israel and the United States. Those concerns were magnified a year later when the alliance released a report that officials in Washington said unfairly blamed Israel and the U.S. for many of the world’s problems.

      Since President Barack Obama came into office last year, the U.S. has slowly opened the door to informal dealings with the alliance, including attending some of its meetings as an observer.

      But the U.S. had yet to join the alliance by becoming a member of its “Group of Friends,” countries and organizations that have lent their names and support to its goal of countering the rise of religious extremism and cultural polarization.

      The decision to join grows out of Obama’s desire to broaden U.S. participation in international groups and improve its standing in the Muslim world.

      Earlier moves have included Obama’s thus-far failed outreach to Iran and Syria, his speech last year to the Muslim world in Cairo and the U.S. decision to join the much-criticized U.N. Human Rights Commission.

      The U.S. also participated in preparatory meetings for a U.N. conference on racism that the administration ultimately boycotted over anti-Semitism concerns.

      The U.S. had been the only member of the Group of 20 major advanced and emerging economies to refuse to join the friends group, which now includes 118 countries and organizations.

      Many nations in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia are members along with multilateral blocs including the Arab League and Organization of the Islamic Conference. Israel and the U.S. have been among the conspicuous holdouts.

      The officials said earlier fears about the “imbalances” in the group, which was set up by Spain and Turkey, had been addressed after the U.S. expressed “serious concerns” about the 2006 report.

      That report focused on the Middle East and identified Israel’s “disproportionate retaliatory actions in Gaza and Lebanon” as a main cause of Muslim-Western tension.

      The officials said the administration had been assured by its current leader, former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, that it would take a “more positive” approach to its work.

      The officials said they had consulted closely with Israel on the decision to join the alliance. Israel has no plans to join, diplomats said.

  34. Michelle Malkin

    The Jihadists’ deadly path to citizenship
    By Michelle Malkin • May 5, 2010 02:32 AM

    The Jihadists’ deadly path to citizenship
    by Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2010

    America’s homeland security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack over the weekend, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s U.S. citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

    Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham marriage racket with impunity for years. And immigration benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for U.S.-based Islamic plotters, including many other operatives planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously:

    – El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired U.S. citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.

    – Ali Mohamed became an American citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. Recently divorced, Linda Lee Sanchez wed Mohamed in Reno, Nev., after a six-week “courtship.” Mohamed became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

    – Embassy bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

    – Embassy bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband’s employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about the nature of her husband’s work. El Hage, she says, was a sweet man, and bin Laden “was a great boss.”

    – Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, N.C., married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card to remain in the country.

    – Hammoud’s brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving in the United States on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas (already married to someone else, too) to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.

    – A total of eight Middle Eastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 — Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh, and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh — all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying American citizens.

    A year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, homeland security officials cracked a massive illegal alien Middle Eastern marriage fraud ring in a sting dubbed “Operation Broken Vows.” Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for U.S. citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage visa beneficiaries. Sham marriage monitoring by backlogged homeland security investigators is practically nonexistent.

    As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: “Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major ‘dots’ that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a ‘dot’ that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists who understand how important it is for them to ‘game’ the system as a part of the embedding process.”

    Jihadists have knowingly and deliberately exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of American citizenship while they plot mass murder — and we haven’t done a damned thing to stop them.


    Related: Sen. Joe Lieberman proposes stripping citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations:

    Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is planning to introduce a bill that would allow the government to take away citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations.

    The proposal would amend current law that bars American citizens from fighting for foreign armies at the price of losing their citizenship.

    “I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act,” Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.
    But perhaps DHS and the State Department should concentrate on the homeland security front door — making sure jihadis don’t get citizenship and other immigration/entrance benefits in the first place — instead of waiting to deal with it on the back end after the fact.

    Posted in: Homeland Security, Immigration


    Ok Matt then let’s put a number to it. I’ll even be generous as I have no idea really. We’ll say 10% of the population is handicapped and cannot work. Thats 30 million people. How can you justify trillions of dollars to support 30 million

    • Mathius says:

      OK, let’s say there are 30mm people who are incapable of finding work or are permanently disabled. At, throwing out a number, 15,000 a piece, that’s 450 billion dollars. Tack on unemployment (for people who only temporarily need help) and, again, making it up, let’s say a nice even .5 trillion dollars. It think your estimate of 30mm people is too high – it’s probably closer to only 5mm who are genuinely incapable.

      Social Security is 695 billion in the 2010 budget, but I would like to means test it – that would save hundreds of billions of dollars off the top and bring the program back in line with its original goals of providing a safety net rather than a replacement for retirement savings. Additionally, I would suggest that in addition to means testing, eligibility should be available by doctor’s note only – that is, a perfectly healthy 75 year old should not be able collect, but a manual laborer who can barely walk at 45 would be eligibility. This would save billions more since 65 is not what it used to be (my mother in law is about to retire, but she could easily work another decade, and she has the money saved for a comfortable retirement – why should we pay for her?).

      So what about the rest of the budget? The elephant in the room is the Defense Department. 663.7 billion dollars. And that doesn’t include Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, so let’s just keep making stuff up. Let’s say, together, they cost 336.3 billion per year. So now, the DOD is at a cool trillion dollars. End both wars – today – bring everyone home and let the CIA handle it covertly as best they can for a fraction of the price. Trim the parts of the defense budget that are still fighting Russia in 1986 (ie, nuclear submarines, missile shields, etc), and conduct a full audit of the DOD. Maybe we could get this down to 200-300 billion?

      The next biggest culprit is Health and Human Services (HHS) at 78.7 billion. This comes out to an average of $394 to fund all the medical research, testing, FDA, etc that helps keep Americans safe. This is exactly like the defense department, only the enemies aren’t people, but bacteria, viruses and chemicals – and the budget is a tenth of the size. I suggest that “provide for the common defense” is perfectly in line with this department’s goals. I think, actually, it could use a lot more funding, but let’s leave that alone for now.

      $72 billion for the DOT. Want to see what a country is without roads? Take a look at Africa. A full audit would probably help trim this down. And I know I’ve seen roadwork where three people are standing there watching the fourth one work, so I’m sure there are efficiency improvements that could be made. Let’s say we could trim this to 50bb.

      There’s 164bb in funding of the debt – this is interest we owe. I’d pay it off using the savings from my other cuts before reducing revenue to match expenses. This is like making minimum payments on your credit card because you insist on having steak for dinner every night. Cut the steak, pay the debt, then use the savings to have steak when you can afford it. Duh.

      $571 billion of “other mandatory programs” – I’m not sure what these are, but odds are good that I don’t like many of them either.

      Now we’re into chump change (relatively speaking) VA, HUD, State, Ed, etc. Yes, they add up, and we can get into each specifically, if you like.

      All told, President Mathius’ 2010 budget is totals ~1.5 trillion dollars. Or about $7,500/worker. Put this into a progressive tax and it’s very manageable.

      You shouldn’t assume that I support the system as is. There are a lot of places where it needs to be trimmed and scaled back and revised. But on balance, I still prefer it over where the pirate live.

      • I’m too tired this morning to try and evaluate your post but it sounds like a grand time to discuss the from here to there situations we all keep talking about.

      • Mathius,

        But on balance, I still prefer it over where the pirate live.

        I can’t imagine why.

        The privately owned roads are the safest, and best maintained roads on Earth. They are that way because if they are not, their customers go elsewhere.

        Certainly the government budget can be cut in all these places. You should see my government budget and the cuts I’ve found. My budget is much, much lower than yours….

        However, you are a worse dreamer than I.

        No budget cut is possible

        You may pretend that Grandma, who doesn’t need SS, but whose dead husband paid into it for 45 years will demand repayment. You try stopping “Grey power” – it is the “third rail”.

        And that’s the problem. Every cut you promote is a “third rail” of government.

        No government will survive such an implementation.

        Some interest group will see the contraction of government “entitlement” as a direct injury to themselves and will fight tooth and nail to stop it.

        No government will survive that heat.

        Thus, it will never happen.

        Thus, government DEFAULT is guaranteed.

        • Now wait a minute BF-on one hand you say we have to find ways to go from where we are to where we want to be in steps because of the calamity that would follow if we took everything away at once and now you seem to be saying no steps are possible-I am Confused, which isn’t unusual but go with me here and Explain. 🙂

          • Ah, dear V.H.

            There are ways to get from here to “there”

            But where are you going?

            Mathius is articulating trying to save FEDERAL government programs, thereby saving the FEDERAL government.

            But that is impossible, so why waste time dickering about this?

            So, for you to get “there” is one thing, but for government to get “there” is a whole other thing.

            I’m full of ideas for YOU, but there are NO ideas for “them”.

            • But BF, would not making federal programs smaller be the first step in eliminating them.

              • V.H.

                Absolutely! No doubt! For Sure! Guaranteed!

                But warp drive would also be a brilliant step to interstellar travel too!

                I have almost an infinitely greater belief that we will discover warp drive before government programs get cut.

                • So your basically saying that as a first step cutting the budgets is a good idea but you don’t believe it’s possible so it’s a waste of time to even try.

                  • V.H.

                    Anytime government gets less money to spend, it is a great and wonderful day.

                    There is no plausible way for government to reduce its spending.

                    The theory is called “Public Choice”.

                    When the People have wrestled the right of violence to use at their whim for any cause, it becomes impossible to retract such use without revolution or collapse.

                    You try to cut any program of government, you will run into a group of people who have determined that such funds are their entitlement and such cuts – to them – is purposely inflicting grievous harm upon them.

                    This is not losing the keys to your friend’s car that you borrowed.

                    They see this as you taking THEIR CAR.

                    Whether their POV is right or not is irrelevant. This is the People’s mentality today.

                    75% of Americans receive a significant part of the income from government.

                    No matter where you try to cut, you will cut across a violent-minded swath of the People will will fight – and I mean with guns, bullets, knifes, arson, etc. – such a cut.

                    • Isn’t that why this blog and some on it are trying so hard to change the mind frame of the people so that making these changes may become possible-so what is wrong with trying to figure what the best steps to take are now, in hopes of being able to actually do it one day.

                    • V.H.

                      I do not see anyone able to change the mind of the People.

                      They are not interested at all.

                      They do not care.

                      They are wholly self-focused.

                      It is a fool’s journey to believe the People will willingly slit their own throats.

                    • You helped open my mind BF-I may not be all the way there with you but we are definitely going in the same direction.

        • BF: Dont you think if people had jobs thrown at them that they would prefer to work than to just be a leech. You posted before about phasing out SS over time. Make some jobs available, lay it on the line about phasing out SS over the years, make people accountable to save for their own retirement. If they don’t its too bad. Then their family or friends will have to get them by. Simple. Just don’t even let it be an option that govt will be there to help them.

          • Anita,

            even let it be an option that govt will be there to help them

            All fine and good.

            But they will riot.

            People see such funds as their RIGHT – and retraction will be viewed as you STEALING from them.

            They will fight.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Anita said:
            Dont you think if people had jobs thrown at them that they would prefer to work than to just be a leech.

            Cyndi says: HAHAHAHAHAHA! You’ve gotta be kidding. I would say that most people will be leeches if being a leech is comfortable enough. More comfort = more leeches

      • Well at least you are cutting and I give you credit for that. I still just dont like your help the poor guy mentality. Like I said most of them are just waiting on couch pay. I see you didnt cut any benefits to the couch sitters. Get big gov out of the way so the big money guys can put them to work. Bring back manufacturing, bring back everthing while we’re at it and let us create our own wealth. Even if you don’t make the $30 an hour you used to. At least we’ll be supporting ourselves…earning our way.

        That also means to start a “Bring the jobs back to the USA” campaign. Isn’t that what the dems usually rally about. Jobs jobs, jobs. Where are they? The current administration could go a long way in repairing their reputation if people had something to feel proud of. I don’t see that anymore. Nobody is proud about anything anymore. Do something about it. Start creating things to make people feel proud again… I’m just starting to ramble so I guess that’s it.

        • Mathius says:

          Anita said:
          Like I said most of them are just waiting on couch pay. I see you didnt cut any benefits to the couch sitters.

          I quit.

          Mathius, the eternally frustrated, said:
          OK, let’s say there are 30mm people who are incapable of finding work or are permanently disabled. […] It[sic] think your estimate of 30mm people is too high – it’s probably closer to only 5mm who are genuinely incapable.

          (emphasis added)

          ::Mathius shoots self in the head::

          • Well Common Man just put me in a different frame of mind.. I just feel like being nice now since he got me thinking about fishing.Truce for the day. Know any fishing jokes?

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              I’ll tell you a fishing joke since Mathius just shot himself in the head..


              A man was stopped by a game-warden in Northern Algonquin Park recently with two buckets of fish leaving a lake well known for its fishing

              The game warden asked the man, “Do you have a license to catch those fish?”

              The man replied to the game warden, “No, sir. These are my pet fish.”

              “Pet fish?!” the warden replied.

              “Yes, sir. Every night I take these here fish down to the lake and let them swim around for a while. I whistle and they jump back into their buckets, and I take em home.”

              “That’s a bunch of hooey! Fish can’t do that!”

              The man looked at the game warden for a moment, and then said, “Here, I’ll show you. It really works.”

              “O.K. I’ve GOT to see this!” The game warden was curious.

              The man poured the fish in to the river and stood and waited. After several minutes, the game warden turned to the man and said, “Well?”

              “Well, what?” the man responded.

              “When are you going to call them back?” the game warden prompted.

              “Call who back?” the man asked.

              “The FISH”

              “What fish?” the man asked.


              A woman goes into a shop to buy a rod and reel as a gift

              She doesn’t know which one to get so she just grabs one and goes over to the counter where there’s a shop assistant wearing dark shades. “Excuse me sir” she says “can you tell me anything about this rod and reel?”

              The assistant replies “Ma’am I’m blind but if you drop it on the counter I can tell you everything you need to know about it from the sound it makes.”

              She didn’t believe him, but dropped it on the counter anyway.

              He said, “That’s a 6′ graphite rod with a Zebco 202 reel and 10 lb. test line…It’s a good all around rod and reel and it’s only $20.00”.

              The lady said, “It’s amazing that you can tell all that just by the sound of it dropping on the counter. I think it’s what I’m looking for so I’ll take it.”

              He walks behind the counter to the register, and in the meantime the woman breaks wind big-time. At first she is embarrassed but then realizes that there is no way he could tell it was her…being blind he wouldn’t know that she was the only person around.

              The assistant rings up the sale and says, “That will be $25.50.”

              She says, “But didn’t you say it was $20.00?”

              “Yes ma’am, the rod and reel is $20.00, but the duck call is $3.00, and the catfish stink bait is $2.50.”

              • I’d just give him the extra money and leave. HEHEE

              • Dread Pirate-I would like an update on the condition of Mathius. I assume that you have been able to overcome your anger at his locking you in his basement enough to get him medical treatment.

                • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                  He’ll be fine.. In case you hadn’t noticed, Mathius has an especially thick skull.

                  • Well, now that You mention it 🙂 Yes I have-which is a trait that I actually encourage in my own children at least in some areas.

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              An Irish priest loved to fly fish, it was an obsession of his. So far this year the weather had been so bad that he hadn’t had a chance to get his beloved wadders on and his favourite flies out of their box

              Strangly though, every Sunday the weather had been good, but of course Sunday is the day he has to go to work.

              The weather forcast was good again for the coming Sunday so he called a fellow priest claiming to have lost his voice and be in bed with the flu. He asked him to take over his sermon.

              The fly fishing priest drove fifty miles to a river near the coast so that no one would recognise him. An angel up in Heaven was keeping watch and saw what the priest was doing. He told God who agreed that he would do something about it.

              With the first cast of his line a huge fish mouth gulped down the fly. For over an hour the priest ran up and down the river bank fighting the fish. At the end when he finally landed the monster size fish it turned out to be a world record Salmon.

              Confused the angel asked God, “Why did you let him catch that huge fish? I thought you were going to teach him a lesson.”

              God replied “I did. Who do you think he’s going to tell?”

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            An old man rocking on his porch sees a young kid and his fishing pole walking down the dirt road. “Where you goin’ with that pole?” he calls. “Gonna git me some fish with this here fishing pole!” answers the kid. Sure enough, as the sun is setting the old man sees the kid going home with a bucket of fish.

            Next day, old man rocking on his porch sees the kid walking down the dirt road with some duct tape. “Where you goin’ with that?” he calls. “Gonna git me some ducks with this here tape!” answers the kid. “You can’t git no ducks with tape!” hollers the old man. But sure enough, as the sun is setting the old man sees the kid going home with the tape strung out behind him and ducks stuck all over it!

            Next day, old man rocking on his porch sees the kid walking down the dirt road with some chicken wire. “Where you going with that?” he calls. “Gonna get me some chickens with this wire!” answers the kid. “You can’t get no chickens with wire!” hollers the old man. But sure enough, as the sun is setting the old man sees the kid going home with the wire strung out behind him and chickens stuck all through it!

            Next day, old man rocking on his porch sees the kid walking down the dirt road with some pussy willows. “Now hold on just a minute” calls the old man, “wait while I get my hat!!”

  36. Another reason to home school. Would you want these types of Administrators deciding what your kids should learn?



  37. OK so wheres the ACLU on this one?

    This is an instance of the government overstepping their bounds in regards to endorsing a political stance of policy through religion.I also add that our government has accomplished this several times in regards to creating immoral law.This is totally out of context with our Constitution using religion to further immoral law.Immoral in the sense of using religion to create citizenship through political stance for people here illegally without being truthful of the ramifications of illegal immigration.

    Speaker Pelosi also spoke about immigration reform last week on Capitol Hill at the Catholic Community Conference. At that event, she said she had asked Catholic bishops to speak from the pulpit about how immigration reform was a “manifestation of our living the Gospels.”

    “The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit,’” said Pelosi. “I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is — the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels.”


  38. Kathy,

    Fat Police? Could you slap a pain on him for me?


    • Yeah, another dupe from Wisconsin.

      The thing is, every athlete (or others) that lifts weights and has a lot of muscle will show up as overweight. BMI is solely based on height and weight and not body type. Muscle weighs more than fat so their BMI will go up.

      A couple of years ago during my own physical the doctor brought out the BMI chart. He had never previously used this; I couldn’t wait because I knew how it was going to play out. I am relatively short but my weight is not low due to my workout regime and eating a lot of healthy protein. Thus my BMI is either 24.5/25 depending on the graph. A BMI of 25 is the “start” of being overweight. I wear a size 6/small and I would only be considered overweight compared to starving runway models (and BMI charts).

      It was so funny, as the doctor starts frowning and trying to figure out where he’s read something wrong, so I saved him and jumped in and explained this all to him – he had no idea this was how BMI worked.

      I wonder how this little detail will play out and what the penalties will be?

      • Ha! Way to put the doc in check. Makes me thing a little on my teasing you though…nah.no problem! This Michigan hussy can handle ya 🙂

      • Bottom Line says:

        Kathy – “I wonder how this little detail will play out and what the penalties will be?”

        I find the validity of that question to be profound in the fact that it is as disturbing as it is absurd and surreal.

        Did I just wake up on the wrong planet or in an alternate universe or something?

        Is this the F*&%ing Twilight Zone?

    • Bottom Line says:

      The Healthy Choices Act = Biometrics

      ~ “Section 101 of the bill amends the Public Health Services Act by stating that health care providers must record the Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18…BMI will be taken at times when the child makes an otherwise scheduled doctor’s visit.”

      ~ “To pay for implementing BMI data gathering, Sec. 102 of the bill states that the federal government will give grants to states that meet certain criteria, including having “the capacity to store basic demographic information (including date of birth, gender and geographic area of residence), height, weight, and immunization data for each resident of the state.” ”

      ~ “This analysis, the bill states, would attempt to identify obesity trends in regions of the United States and how those trends vary according to gender and socioeconomic status–although the bill does not spell out how socioeconomic status of patients would be determined.”

      They’re compiling a biometric data base including information such as geographical and socioeconomic status?

      ~ “At a press conference last week to announce the introduction of the bill, Kind emphasized it would help “busy American families.”

      “Making the healthy choice the easy choice for our families is essential to ensuring our quality of life,” Kind said. “I am pleased to work on legislation that helps provide the opportunities that meet the needs of busy American families.””

      …To “help “busy American families”.” ?

      I’m not buying it. Something isn’t right ’bout this “Healthy Choices Act”.

      I don’t like intrusion justified by “We’re here to help you.”

      Looks like another type of class warfare in the making. I can just see it now…

      ‘Hey Tank-ass, Lay off the McFatburgers and quit wasting my tax dollars on your heart surgery and blood pressure medication.’

      • I’m not that concerned that they are collecting information about how fat people are, but I’m sure as heck annoyed that I will be paying for them to collect this information. Does anyone out there feel they need this service? I personally feel that I’m capable of keeping track of my own fatness. But whether we want it or not we all get to pay for someone to keep track of how fat we are and think up idiotic ways to try and keep us on target. Ugh! I’m so annoyed, I think I’ll go have some ice cream to cheer myself up.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Jennie said – “I’m not that concerned that they are collecting information about how fat people are, but I’m sure as heck annoyed that I will be paying for them to collect this information.”

          “…they are collecting information about how fat people are,…”

          BL – Why? Why do they care?. What justifies it? What is it’s purpose?

          “…but I’m sure as heck annoyed that I will be paying for them to collect this information.”

          BL – Yeah no kidding. What justifies the expense? What is it’s purpose?

          ~ (from article)“At a press conference last week to announce the introduction of the bill, Kind emphasized it would help “busy American families.”

          “Making the healthy choice the easy choice for our families is essential to ensuring our quality of life,” Kind said. “I am pleased to work on legislation that helps provide the opportunities that meet the needs of busy American families.””

          “…help “busy American families.”…”

          “legislation that helps provide the opportunities that meet the needs of busy American families.”””

          BL – Okay let me get this straight…So, We’re too busy to decide how do manage our weight?

          …and they need to make a “must record Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18”, date of birth, gender, geographic area of residence, socioeconomic status, FAT list to remedy the situation?

          Sorry, but I call bullshit.

          Why is it a MUST thing?(must record Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18)

          What does Biometrics have to do with socioeconomic status?

          What justifies the effort and expense?

          And how the hell does it miraculously compensate for the lack of “OPPORTUNITY” in our busy schedules to worry about getting fat?

          Sounds like BS nanny-state emotional pandering to me.

          America is so wonderful that you don’t even have to take the time to worry about getting fat.

          Like I said above…”F^&%ing Twilight Zone”


        • Bottom Line says:

          Because we Americans don’t have the “opportunity” in our busy schedules to concern ourselves with weight management…

          They want to help remedy the situation by compiling a “must record” the Body Mass Index of all children ages 2 through 18…BMI, date of birth, gender, geographic area of residence, height, weight, and immunization data for each resident of the state, socioeconomic status, FAT list?

          Why do they care?

          What does BMI have to do with socioeconomic status?

          What justifies it’s exspense and effort? What is it’s purpose?

          Who says I have a lack of opportunity in my schedule to concern myself with getting fat? I’m a working man. Busy = excercise = calorie burn & toning. Do what I do for a living and then tell me about being too busy to worry about getting fat. It kinda has a different meaning.

          And how does that miraculously compensate for this supposed lack of “opportunity” in our schedules to worry about weight management?

          What will be the long term result of The Healthy Choices Act?

          • Bottom Line says:

            America is so great that you don’t even have to take the time to concern yourself with avoiding obesity.

            Like I said…Twilight Zone


          • Cyndi P says:

            BL – What will be the long term result of The Healthy Choices Act.

            Cyndi – Eugenics

            Look into the history of the Progressive Movement last century. The National Socialist Party was into Eugenics BIGTIME.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Cyndi – “Eugenics”

              BL – Yeah, That’s kinda what I was hinting at.

              Biometrics + socioeconomic status + class warfare = Eugenics

              Cyndi – “The National Socialist Party was into Eugenics BIGTIME.”

              BL – Indeed. Read under United States:


              ~ “The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.”

              ~ “…targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed.”

              ~ “…were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth).”

              ~ “In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.”

              “What does BMI have to do with socioeconomic status?”

              Balogna is cheaper than salmon. Eating healthy costs more. It could simply be about affording less fatening foods.

              Then again, Not being able to afford healthier food could be about class warfare.

              Poor fat undesirables?

              • Cyndi P says:

                Poor fat undesirables, those who don’t follow the party line, and anyone else standing in the way Utopia. They’ll want to create the ‘perfect American’ just like you know who wanted to create the perfect Aryan. Back to the future!

          • Bottom Line says:

            That’s weird.

            I had trouble posting. I lost my post somehow, so I wrote a shorter version and reposted.

            Then they both pop up.


  39. I tried to post this the other day and cannot find it so will try again.

    Food for thought.

    Nancy Pelosi was on national TV Tuesday and from the podium she was begging for help from the Catholic church and the Cardinals and priests to preach from the pulpit against immigration reform and for amnesty.

    Now…it seems to me that the left, which is undoubtedly Nancy Pelosi, etal, continuously harps on the fact that there is to be complete separation of church and state…ie. no religious symbolism, nothing.

    Now, it seems to me that using the Speaker of the House position to beg for help from the religious organizations has just usurped that separation. Did she not just eliminate the gap? If religious symbolism and religion in general has no place on state property, it seems to me that using state resources and state property to get religion involved just became the highest form of hypocrisy. Or perhaps I am viewing this wrongly?

    • Oh, sorry Texas Chem…you addressed it. I did not mean to be redundant.

    • Common Man says:


      Hypocrisy yes, but it is also sacrilegious as well. This ‘being’ is further demonstrating how a tyrannical goverment works to manipulate any and all toward their ultimate objective; control.

      This women does not have any morals or decency left in her, provided she had any at all.

      She is just saying whatever she needs to say inorder to further the progressives cause.

      She is the epitomy of evil and needs to be voted out of her currrent position.

      She is an absolute total POS!!!!!

      If there is a Hell I expect she will go there


      • Wow-little judgemental there CM-I agree she’s a hypocrite, I agree she shouldn’t be telling the church what to do-but she may well believe that allowing immigrants into the country is following the gospel-relegating her to hell-a little to reading of the heart by man for me.

        • Common Man says:


          Notice I referred to her as ‘being’ simply because ‘human being’ would aknowledge her as human, and I don’t feel she warrants that title.

          Of all those pushing the current regiem’s plan she is the lowest of the low.

          Snake shit is higher on the scale, hell the dirt under the snake shit is higher.

          This women is wasting and stealing valuable air.


          • That’s fine CM if that’s what you believe but let’s not be dragging God into it.

            • Let the man vent V.. He’s giving me some good lines to use on other people. 🙂

              Continue CM

              • First of all I don’t have the power or the right to stop him and Second you don’t need any help. HEHEE 🙂

              • Common Man says:


                I do not wish to continue my rant on or about this ‘being’ for the simple reason it invokes my Irish anger. And because the sun is shining, tempatures are rising and I will be fishing tomorrow morning I chose to enjoy today.

                Any further thoughts or discussions about or around this POS will only serve to ruin my current state of peace.

                Everybody take time to appreciate all that you have, remind those that you hold dear that you cherise their souls, and spend the day in tranquill bliss: I am.


                • You’re right CM… IT’S THE WEEKEND…

                  I waiting for that school bus to stop at 2:48 then I’m going to the lake to get the pontoon boat in. Fishing competition starts tonight! Report back in Sunday with how many you caught and I will too. 🙂

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              CM said > “Hypocrisy yes, but it is also sacrilegious as well.”

              VH said > “but let’s not be dragging God into it.”

              sacrilegious = Guilty of or involving sacrilege

              sacrilege = The violation of anything sacred.

              I think CM is being fairly accurate, but what do I know….

              Lunch is over and back to work for me, later.

              Have a nice day.

              • You have a point, one I didn’t discuss or disagree with. I now just want to go fishing. 😦

                • I’m coming to get ya V.

                  Sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride :mrgreen:

                  • My husband and I keep talking about moving on or at least close to the water some day. May have to come check out where you are at one day-be nice to have you as a neighbor.

                    • I think I just heard a battle cry for a party on Goose Lake. Name the date and it’s on. I’ll even give up my queen size bed fer ya V 🙂

                    • That’s really nice of you Anita but I wouldn’t take your bed-how about tomorrow-no just kidding, can’t but would love to 😦

                    • VH – Michigan? Really? There is a lot of water in other places before you’d “escape” to MI.

                      Now visiting Anita on Goose Lake? I’m up for that….

                      googling now….

                    • Goose Lake or Little Goose Lake? Just north of South Bend?

                      Holy Crap, that’s just a hop-skip-jump drive for me.

                    • Oh, you are correct, I was remembering Anita saying she was thinking about buying a place in Tenn.. No offend Anita but I don’t want to go to Michigan to live, visiting would be great-maybe we can be neighbors wehen you move to Tenn.

                    • Nope. Very near Jackson. Cmon out! Party at my crib. Think I’m kidding?

                • A Puritan Descendant says:

                  Sorry V, I am probably just confused after hauling 6000 pounds of firewood around all day but I think my point was that Nancy Pelosi had already brought up “God”. LOL have a nice day

  40. PeterB in Indianapolis says:




    Some seemingly contradictory studies from NASA (both from 2006) claiming that the sun’s conveyor belt is doing different things at the same time (???) and a VERY interesting prediction from an independent scientific organization.

    Hopefully this will get through “moderation” as it contains 3 links 🙂

  41. And for the lighter side of Friday…

    A strange, strange man has been showing up on morning shows throughout the Midwest, claiming to be a yo-yo trick champion. He is not. He is actually terrible at yo-yo. Yet he keeps getting on the air.

    Little is known about “K-Strass,” who goes by Kenny Strasser, or sometimes Karl Strassburg. He claims to be from Wisconsin (except when he doesn’t). He claims to be from a broken home, with his own addiction issues (except when he isn’t).

    All we know is that K-Strass has shown up on television six times in the past month, showing off his yo-yo “skills” and generally embarrassing the hosts


    Just hilarious!

    • Everybody knows that Dickie Smothers is the only state of “YO”…….

      • If that does not date me….nothing will.

        • Bottom Line says:

          For all we know, you could be a really smart 9 yr old little girl from Uruguay.

          I seriously doubt it, but I suppose it’s possible.

          Did you know that as a teen, Ben Franklin would write editorials in his newspaper from the perspective of a middle aged mother and housewife?

          He did it to promote public response to the editorial section of his paper. (Bangwagon theory)

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Went by the name of Silence Do Good.

            How you doing BL?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Doin’ alright Judy. How ’bout you? …Hope all is well.

              “Silence Do Good” Sounds Masonic.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Doing good also BL, no complaints.

                Don’t know if it’s Masonic or not, but I do remember him writing for his brother under that name. Plus I heard it several times in the movie National treasure.

                BTW, did you get my E I sent you a few days ago?

                • Bottom Line says:

                  Haven’t checked lately

                  Maybe I should do that, huh?

                • Bottom Line says:

                  Silence – as in keeping a secret.

                  Do good – as in doing good deeds and self improvement, path to enlightenment and all that jazz.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Hate to tell you this dear Colonel, but it Tommy Smothers who is the YO Man, I remember him doing all his tricks on their TV show.

          • Really…..I thought that Tommy was the bass player…ok other way around….then…still the same….age related memory loss.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              It’s called CRS. In case you don’t know what that is, it’s can’t remember shit!

        • It does…sadly I know exactly what you are talking about.

  42. Preach it, Christie! No religious overtone implied!

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Was it not great? Would in not be great if everyone would take that attitude in dealing with the press?

      I have never figured out why it is that conservative and moderate to conservative Republicans figure that if they are nice to the press, the press will reciprocate. Bush the first was a classic example. Lulled into a sense of complacency by the Democrats and the press he backed their stupid tax bill. When the election came around they unleashed his prior statements about “Read my lips, no new taxes”. You could not turn around without seeing a constant replay of those words thirty days before the election.

      On another happy Christie note, the NJ Senate has apparently passed a school voucher plan. Don’t know the details yet but there was major support from urban democrat politicians who apparently are finally realizing that the kids should come first on this issue.

      On an unhappy Christie note, his AG seems to be anti 2nd amendment.

      • Do you think he’ll win against the teachers’ union? What a brawl!

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          He really has already won. He could lose it all by compromising now. Then he would be perceived as yet another Republican blowhard with a big mouth and nothing below the waist.

          Funny thing about guys like him is that the opposition from the democratic party who control both houses has been so muted. They know that the cuts have to be made and are perfectly willing to pay lip service only to their base and allow it to happen. They will only go into major attack mode (as will their media allies) before the election. At that point he will be blamed for everything including the Titanic sinking.

          The tea party folks are right. They know there is a war on. The other side wants unconditional surrender as always. There can be no compromise with them, they won’t allow it. With the modern left it is always, “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is up for negotiation”.Having followed politics since the mid sixties, the McGovernites have won and are in charge. Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, Jack Kennedy were all liberals. Even Joe Liebernman, considered a moderate, with his Cap and Trade push and support for late term abortion would make ’60’s radicals proud. There are no more true liberals in the Democratic party. The party leadership is Stalinist, either vote with them in lockstep or be disappeared.

          • Sounds like the article below on American Thinker about how Republicans will have no choice but to pave an immigration path for illegals because they’re so scared they’ll never win a presidential election again.

            How backasswards is that? Grrr….

            Here’s the link in case your blood pressure’s a little low:


            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Here is the simple solution to the illegals already in the country which should, note, I said should, not offend Democrats or Republicans. That assumes of course that they are all not lying pieces of crap.

              1. Build a six lane highway along the US-Mexican Border as part of a stimulus package.
              2. Erect a 30 foot high noise barrier on the Southern side so that noise pollution will not negatively impact Mexico or Mexicans.
              3. Conduct a background check on all Mexicans currently illegally here who wish to apply for legal immigrant status.
              4. Deport anyone who has so much as an unpaid parking ticket or who refuses to come forward for # 3.
              5. Grant legal status to all those left.
              6. The best part, NEVER, repeat NEVER allow anyone who has broken the law by sneaking in to become a citizen. The best that they will ever get is legal immigrant status, not citizenship. If the Bishops and the other soft brained individuals are right and these folks merely came to better their lot, then legal status should be more than enough. It enables them to emerge from the shadows and not be victimized any longer, but the right to vote? Never!

              All the legal Hispanic immigrants I know in NYC have always opposed illegal immigration. They know damn well what it does to their job prospects as well as economic future. I do not believe any poll which says otherwise. Gingrich and Krauthammer can all go to hell.

    • Lots of lessons to be learned from what Christie is doing in NJ!

    • And now here comes the boycott~

      Seton Hall Law alumni, faculty pushed to remove Gov. Chris Christie as graduation speaker


  43. Just on the News…..California crying FOUL.

    Arizona liquor stores banding together to not buy California wines and looking to Texas (second largest supplier of wines) to increase their wine production. California thinks that it is unfair that Arizona is retaliating for the California boycott of Arizona.

    How funny is this…..go Arizona.

    • HeHe I love it-take that California, mind your own business California, turn about is fair play California and last put not least you started it California so stop your complaining.

    • Actually D13, need to talk to you about this subject and your state……


      What the heck? We expect better from Texas, well because, “Don’t Mess with Texas”. What is this about? I know you are doing a lot of good at the border, but perhaps a visit to Austin might be in order?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        To the consternation of much of the rest of Texas, Austin itself tends to be one of those “liberal artsy-fartsy” places (a disease brought on by being the seat of State government I suppose).

        Real Texans tend not to go there, although some of the smaller suburbs are well-liked 🙂

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Gotta love Austin!

      • Kathy…do not get too excited about this. A City resolution carries as much weight as a dry fart in a tornado. The City Council of Austin does a lot of this. This resolution is a laughing joke down here and Michelle Malkin did not go far enough in reporting this. It is a non binding resolution. There is NO boycott of Arizona..but it does make interesting reading and actually helps to keep the governor in power because of its headlines. Please note that there are numerous towns in South Texas where the city councils are purely Hispanic….there are no other city Councils that have voted a boycott.

        Now, Texas will not adopt the Arizona law and has specifically said that…our governor has said….(insert the song “Oh I love a little side step”)….we will not enact a state law as Arizona has done because we do not need it.

        He is quite correct…Texas does not need a state law to do what we already are doing without fanfare. We ask for green cards all the time. You want to work here, you better have a green card. Our police are already empowered to do traffic stops on the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, 8 Hispanics riding in the back of a pick up truck going to a construction site is reasonable suspicion. It is not uncommon to have impromptu check points for drunk driving because that is what we want. Single family dwellings that are housing 9 families is a pretty good indication of reasonable suspicion. Texas already has the same employment laws that the Arizona law put into effect…they have just not been enforced…but they are now. So, we are keeping a low profile and accomplishing the same.

        But, it is an election year and this plays right into the hands of the governor. He gets to say…we do not need an Arizona law……and he is correct.

        But we keep our Austin liberals in check….we have to have some amusement.

  44. Canine Weapon says:

    Three blondes are sitting by the side of a river holding fishing poles with the lines in the water. A Game Warden comes up behind them, taps them on the shoulder and says, “Excuse me, ladies, I’d like to see your fishing licenses.”

    “We don’t have any.” replied the first blonde.

    “Well, if your going to fish, you need fishing licenses.” said the Game Warden.

    “But officer,” replied the second blonde,”we aren’t fishing. All we have are magnets at the end of our lines and we’re collecting debris off the bottom of the river.”

    The Game Warden lifted up all the lines and, sure enough, there were horseshoe magnets tied on the end of each line. “Well, I know of no law against it,” said the Game Warden, “take all the debris you want.” And with that, the Game Warden left.

    As soon as the Game Warden was out of sight, the three blondes started laughing hysterically. “What a dumb Fish Cop,” the second blonde said to the other two, “doesn’t he know that there are steelhead in this river?!”

    • ROTFLMAO…..good one.

    • When I checked into my motel, I said to the lady at the desk, “I hope the porn channel in my room is disabled.”

      “No,” she said, “it’s regular porn, you sick bastard.”

  45. How to get There from Here Part #2

    It wouldn’t hurt understanding the modern politic process.

    Though centralized control of violence will be diminishing greatly over the next generation, politics and government is doomed to dog mankind for awhile still.

    Being able to successfully play in that realm is a key to prosperity and survival

    Lesson #1 was “HOW TO VOTE” –

    Lesson #2 comes from my pundit’s corner. It provides a core and key insight to political power and its exercise and is tremendously powerful.


    An old friend is a retired, successful politican.

    He taught me a great deal about local politics.

    He told me that politicians want to avoid pain.

    If you can create pain for them, you can get them to change on specific issues.

    He said that one of his direct- mail strategies was to find a weak position in the voting record of a state representative who was in favor of gun control.

    In the man’s district, he was not in trouble about his votes on gun control.

    So, he found an issue that did put him at risk.

    Then he would do mass mailings into the man’s district that focused on his unpopular votes.

    The guy always knew who was creating the problem for him. My friend made sure he knew.

    Then a deal would be offered: no more mailings in exchange for some crucial vote on gun ownership. He got votes this way.

    The cover provided to local politicians by the mainstream media is worth less and less, because the mainstream media are dying. These media outlets are not being replaced by media outlets that gain the readership locally of large numbers of people.

    Instead, local readers focus on whatever single issue that motivates them most. If a politician deviates from the acceptable line — not a party line — the voters in his district who are committed to the position find out.

    These voters have generally not been political activists involved in precinct politics. But lately, the tide is turning and the crisis has mobilized a previously unorganized group of single-issue voters.

    Finding these specific issues, and applying pressure there will offer leverage on other issues that are your own direct concern.

    “Attack the enemy where he is weak” – Sun Tzu.

    • I like The Art of War…..Sun Tzu…cool.

    • I definitely like the idea of using a truth based on his work record to take out the enemy.

    • Bottom Line says:

      “Attack the enemy where he is weak” – Sun Tzu.

      Not “when/if”…but rather “where/what”

      EVERYTHING has a weakness – Find it and conquer.

  46. More from the pundit’s corner:

    The power of the Tea Party

    In many past posts at SUFA, the Tea party has been ridiculed and claimed to be ineffective.

    I posted that it is probably the most powerful political movement since 1776.

    On Saturday, May 8, an extraordinary event took place.

    United States Senator Bob Bennett, a 3-term Republican, failed to make the cut for his party’s primary. Not only was he not nominated to run, he did not make the cut to get nominated. He was a distant third.

    Two Tea Party candidates beat him.

    Bob Bennett is a legacy Senator. His father served as Senator before him.

    This was an insurrection.

    Bennett, who pretended he was a conservative, backed the TARP bailout and Obama’s health insurance bill.

    Then, three days later, across the country, it happened again.

    Congressman Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, was smashed in the Democratic Party’s primary, 56% to 44%.

    He had held that seat for 14 terms — almost 28 years.

    He had supported Obama’s health care bill. That ended his political career.

    This is a bipartisan insurrection.

    In a CNN interview with a man identified as the founder of the Tea Party movement in Utah, the interviewer tried to identify Bennett as a conservative.

    She reeled off names of supporting right-wing Beltway groups. The man being interviewed shrugged this off.

    “It isn’t a matter of conservatism,” he said. “It’s a matter of responsibility.” Bennett should not have voted to bail out failing companies, he said.

    But, she hastened to ask, “should a man’s career end because of one vote?”

    His answer was perfect: “His career WILL end with that vote.”

    And it did. CNN then switched to Bennett, who defended that vote. He is gone. The video is worth watching.


    This means that voters are so angry that they would prefer to lose the November election with a candidate who reflects their views rather than win with an incumbent who doesn’t.

    Because government spending encompasses everything that the government does, the Tea Party movement is a major threat to politicians who are always ready to vote for more spending, which is most of them.

    Now, such a action maybe political suicide. But, not spending maybe political suicide.

    Interesting times….

    • Hope dawns. Long way to go, but its sort of like when you draw blood on a seemingly invincible enemy. Somehow the will to fight grows ten-fold.

      • Yes it does, and although I see BF’s point that people will not slit their own throats I do see the willingness to take a hit. Look at the Tea Party, they see that in the long run we are going to be hurt worse by all these policies so they are fighting to change things, they are willing to take that hit. People are complicated animals full of fear and greed and we can justify a lot to save our individual selves but we also care a lot about our children and their futures-so I personally think that it is a good time for good change and that a majority of the people want and are demanding that our reps. make those tough decisions. Just MHO- the reps. are in much greater danger if they continue to spend. I have a lot of faith in the common sense of the majority of Americans but the politicians-I think they still just don’t get it.

  47. Just got back from spending the morning volunteering in the campaign office of a candidate that is looking to unseat Russ Feingold. Here’s how I came about to be there.

    Got a mailing so I called the office. I said I am interested in unseating Feingold but am not interested in just putting a “smaller” version of him in office and I had some questions for the candidate, which I rattled off. The office person said she would get answers and get back to me. Within 5 minutes the candidate himself called me and we talked about what my concerns were and he gave me his views. I felt he was being honest (a very hard thing to tell these days) and as he is a well known businessman, ie HAS ACTUALLY WORKED FOR A LIVING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, I felt I could back him and thus I am now a volunteer.

    He came out and talked to all of us this morning and again, I’m impressed with what I’m hearing. I was also impressed with the group that was there as there were many young people. YEAH!

  48. Kagan has really been bugging me for the last several days. I kept thinking I’d seen her before (outside of DC). Then, my kid looks at me and says, “Have you noticed how she looks just like Paul Blart, Mall Cop?”

    And that was IT! Now I just keep expecting to see her on a Segway….

  49. Police killings/attacks via no-knock raids


    • Bottom Line says:


      As one would expect from you, …That is a perfect example, an exemplary demonstration of how…

      Government = Law = Enforcement = Coercion = Violence

      • Bottom Line says:

        “The black flag, and the color black in general, have been associated with anarchy since the 1880s. Many anarchist collectives contain the word “black” in their names. There have been a number of anarchist periodicals titled Black Flag.”

        “The black flag represents the absence of a flag, and thus stands in opposition to the very notion of nation-states. In that light, the flag can be seen as a rejection of the concept of representation, or the idea that any person or institution can adequately represent a group of individuals”

        “Both the black and red flags first gained notoriety for their use by Buccaneers, who were pirates of French origin operating in the West Indies. The black flag (later the “Jolly Roger”) was displayed, or ‘run up’ the mast, first as an indication that the lives of the crew would be spared if they surrendered. If the crew resisted, the red flag would then be displayed to indicate that the offer of amnesty had been withdrawn; no prisoners would be taken. Clearly there is limited if any relationship between the use of red and black flags associated with political belief, and their use to indicate no quarter.”


      • Bottom Line says:
  50. Canine Weapon says:

    One day Joe and Bob were out fishing. A funeral service passes over the bridge they’re fishing by, and Bob takes off his hat and puts it over his heart. He does this until the funeral service passes by.

    Joe then said “Gee Bob, I didn’t know you had it in you!”

    Bob then replies ” It’s the least I could do. After all I was married to her for 30 years.”

  51. California: “Absolutely terrible” budget cuts to be announced at 4 PM ET

    There will be a live webcast of Governor Schwarzenegger’s comments here on the new budget that his office says includes “absolutely terrible cuts”.

    From the LA Times: Schwarzenegger’s revised budget plan is expected to eliminate health programs

    Administration officials declined to reveal which specific programs the governor would eliminate. But officials involved in the budget process, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly, said they would probably include home healthcare for the elderly and disabled, a nearly $2-billion program that serves 440,000 Californians.

    From the SacBee: Schwarzenegger’s prison plan would move nonviolent felons to county jails

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will revive a plan to house 15,000 nonviolent felons in county jails instead of state prisons, a cost-cutting move that likely would result in some inmates leaving jail early. … His office warned earlier this week that the package will contain “absolutely terrible cuts” to shrink a nearly $20 billion deficit.

    The cutbacks and layoffs continue for many state and local governments.

    This will be a national test case – to see what the reaction will be….

    • I guess they figured the elderly and disabled would be less likely to riot. If they’re in need of home health care they are probably less likely to make it out to vote too.

      • The “Grey Power” is probably the most powerful group simply because they have time on their hands.

        They have the time of the day to organize themselves, while the rest of us work at jobs.

        Arnie is a wimp compared to Grandma.

    • Yes, and lets do a comparison with Greece, including riots. Saying I think there will be riots, not wanting them to occur. And then Califpornia ( saw I miss spelled that, but made me chuckle)gets bailed out by the fed gov, to big to fail, yada, yada.

      But do any of the cuts affect ILLEGAL aliens or the intentionally unemployed?
      May not be any riots this go round, if only law abiding, paid their way, citizens are affected.

  52. Interesting article….Keep your eye on the ball…..the ball is IRAN.


  53. Judy Sabatini says:

    Don’t know if any of you saw that video where this teacher was beating the crap out of this boy, I did,, they showed it on the news, and I don’t care what the circumstance is, teachers don’t beat kids like that for any reason, none what so ever. Glad they fired her for what she did.

    HOUSTON (AP) — A teacher who was recorded on cell phone video beating a student apologized Friday, saying she was “without excuse” for the attack on the 13-year-old.

    Science teacher Sheri Lynn Davis, who was fired by the charter school this week over the attack, said she regrets what happened and would act much differently if given the opportunity.

    “I apologize for the pain that the result of this situation has brought,” she said in a brief appearance at her lawyer’s office. “I apologize for this particular incident.”

    Davis took no questions about her attack on Isaiah Reagins at Jamie’s House Charter School, a Houston-area alternative school.

    Reagins suffered a black eye and other bruises in the attack. His mother, Alesha Johnson, filed a lawsuit Thursday against Davis and the school.

    Davis’ attorney, Chip Lewis, said he believed the lawsuit would bring to light problems at the school that led to the confrontation. He said she was forced to become “not only an educator but also a bouncer, an enforcement officer.”

    “There is a fundamental lack of security, of support and staffing for the teachers to provide a safe environment for these kids to learn in,” he said. “And there’s going to be a lot said about that.”

    Davis, 40, was fired Monday night after the recording of the April 29 beating became public. It shows Davis dragging the boy by his feet and flailing him, repeatedly slapping him as he is on the floor and tries to cover up.

    Sue Davis, a spokeswoman for the school who is not related to the teacher, said she had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on it.

    “We do believe we handled the situation completely appropriately, in an appropriate time and we stand by our actions,” she said.

    Lewis said he was reluctant to provide details pending a sheriff’s department investigation. But he said a fight in the hallway that was not related to Davis’ duties started the sequence of events.

    “She saw no one was addressing the fight, she went with another teacher to break it up,” Lewis said. While she was in the hall, she heard her classroom door “not only shut, but lock.”

    “And that’s when a sense of panic came over Miss Davis,” Lewis said, adding that among the students behind the locked door was a female “special needs child.”

    He said Davis shook the door until she caught the attention of a student who opened it. Lewis said that is when the recorded incident begins.

    “We don’t have an excuse; we have an explanation as to what was going on — months, weeks, days,” he said. “The cumulative effect of these teachers dealing with this is so untenable and contrary to a learning environment. It weighed on her.

    “It doesn’t excuse. There’s no way Sheri would ever say it excuses her ultimate reaction.”

    Lewis said Davis had also met with Johnson, the child’s mother, and apologized.

    Johnson said Thursday she was upset the teacher had put her hands on her son.

    “I don’t even beat on my son, so what makes you think you can?” she said.

    Johnson said she has taken her son out of the school.

    “I’m sad because I didn’t think she was going to hit me like that,” the boy said Thursday.

    Court records show Davis, who has sons aged 14 and 4, is facing an unrelated criminal charge in which she is accused of slashing the tires of another woman’s car with a knife in January 2009.

    Lewis described that as the result of a “personal relationship” and said Davis was unaware of the charge until he began investigating her background. She turned herself in on that charge, posted a $1,000 bond Tuesday and faces a court hearing next week.

  54. @ Buck “the Walla” …… I know that you are not a constitutional lawyer but I do have a question for you concerning the constitution and the separation of church and state. There is considerable argument going on right now about Nancy Pelosi and her using the podium of the Office of the Speaker of the House as a bridge to US Law on the immigration issue. I am sure you have now seen that she has asked for direct intervention of the Catholic Church, including Cardinals, Bishops, etal, to preach from the pulpit on trying to use the church transform constitutional law.

    Last night, I talked in length with a lawyer very familiar with Constitutional law…or he said he was, and he has said that Pelosi, in his opinion, just set back decades of legal precedent and has given new rise to the constitutionality of the rights of free speech concerning the separation of church and state. His meaning is that with the inclusion of the House Speaker in this matter and actively seeking to change law or make law from the podium to the pulpit, that it puts the SCOTUS in a very delicate position. The SCOTUS will either have to slap down the Speaker of the House or, if they don’t, the the right of free speech as it pertains to religion and the separation of church and state could quite easily overturn decades of taking prayer out of schools, nativity scenes on public property…etc. But now, it is a free speech issue.

    Interesting thought…..your thoughts, please.

    Oh, as to Austin, Texas….it has its liberal element. But remember that a Texas liberal is actually a conservative in drag. Now, we do have a lot of out of state foreigners that come in and try to bring ultra liberal politics in…but they do not get very far. A Texas liberal means that they only own three guns instead of twenty.

    And…we are considering an open carry law now as well. Cool.

    • Time for me to practice quick draw again. 🙂

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Colonel sir,

        Interesting thing in this month’s “AUSA News”. On pg. 21 there is a full page article on Gates implementing recommendations in response to Ft. Hood shootings. It’s kind of weak (I think) on radical Muslims but has a lot of feel good things. The scary part for me is that DOD has been tasked by Gates to come up with, by June, a new and never before seen policy on privately owned weapons. Hmm, should be interesting and certainly deserves watching.

        I guess Gates hasn’t heard that Guns don’t kill people, Radical Muslim Psychiatrists do.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      After Nancy and the rest achieve their own personal version of nirvana in this country, the churches will be allowed to exist, as long as they tow the party line. Otherwise, they will be shut down or their tax exemptions removed. The churches, as you can imagine,are ripe for both existing and expanded “hate crime” legislation and penalties.

      Under the new peoples republic, the Catholic Church, for example, will have about as much freedom as do state sponsored churches in China and the old Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      First she twists the meaning of freedom and liberty with her little speech after passing healthcare reform. Now she trys to take the moral high ground with the church to guarantee future democratic voters, pretending not to see the contradiction she produces. Is ‘ Snake ‘ a proper description? She disgusts me for sure.

      People who want to leave a basic moral foundation to the dust bin have made a grave error for this country. It is to late now, lock down the hatches.

      Other than that, my apple orchard is about to reach full bloom here and it looks like heaven on earth! I will enjoy it all while I can.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      D13, you said: The SCOTUS will either have to slap down the Speaker of the House or, if they don’t, the the right of free speech as it pertains to religion and the separation of church and state could quite easily overturn decades of taking prayer out of schools, nativity scenes on public property…etc. But now, it is a free speech issue.

      I agree that this puts SCOTUS in a delicate position. Pelosi nauseates me with the way she uses her position as Speaker. This bicked witch makes normal (dirty) politics look almost lily white in comparison to her filthy spin on….let’s see…..EVERYTHING she says and does.

      But how will this play out, in your opinion?


    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Upon further thought, I think that the Nance will get a pass on this. It will not go to SCOTUS. The Church, on its own has advocated for illegals using that wonderful banner of “Social Justice” prior to her opening her mouth. I think her move was after the fact and an attempt to mend fences with Catholics and the church. It is sort of, “See, I am with you on Health Care, I am with you on immigration, who cares about sucking babies brains out and gay marriage anyway. Those things are not that important”.

      Sort of reminds me of the Maryknoll lay social worker I saw at a Social Justice forum before the “08 election. When cornered on Obama and the abortion issue, she hemmed and hawed and finally said that his social welfare policies would “reduce” the need for abortions. That made me ashamed to be a Catholic that day. When are these fools ever going to get it that a little bit of wrong is just as bad as a lot of wrong since one inevitably leads to the other.

    • I have been searching over at Huff Post and can not find anything covering this story-Maybe I missed it but it not being front and center considering their stance on the separation of church and state seems mighty odd.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        It has to be kept under the radar Shhh. Are you surprised that a left leaning blog would cover for a left leaning politician that they otherwise agree with. This is not to mention that the Church here is serving as a useful idiot for the open borders crowd. What is it, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? As with the Hitler-Stalin pact, there will be a reckoning at the proper time. The bishops and cardinals will then of course, act surprised.

        • I was being a little sarcastic 🙂 but I agree that religious freedom will be gone if we do not change the direction this country is going in.

  55. Not political-Just Nice 🙂

  56. “Mort Zuckerman

    Breaking the Public Sector Unions’ Stranglehold on State and Local Governments

    The American public feels it is drowning in red ink. It is dismayed and even outraged at the burgeoning national deficits, unbalanced state and local budgets, and accounting that often masks the extent of indebtedness. There is a mounting sense that taxpayers are being taken for an expensive ride by public sector unions. The extraordinary benefits the unions have secured for their members are going to be harder and harder to pay.

    The political backlash has energized the Tea Party activists, put incumbents at risk in both parties, and already elected fiscal conservatives such as Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Over the next fiscal year, the states are looking at deficits approaching hundreds of billions of dollars. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates that this coming year alone states will face an aggregate shortfall of $180 billion. In some states the budget gap is more than 30 percent. The result is a crowding out of the state role as the supporter of adequate infrastructure, education, and health care.

    How did we get into such a mess? States have always had to cope with volatility in the size and composition of their populations. Now we have shrinking tax bases caused by recession and extra costs imposed on states to pay for Medicaid in the federal health care program. The straw (well, more like an iron beam) that breaks the camel’s back is the unfunded portions of state pension plans, health care, and other retirement benefits promised to public sector employees at a time when federal government assistance to states is falling — down by roughly half in the next fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

    It is galling for private sector workers to see so many public sector workers thriving because of the power their unions exercise. Take California. Investigative journalist Steve Malanga points out in the City Journal that California’s schoolteachers are the nation’s highest paid; its prison guards can make six-figure salaries; many state workers retire at 55 with pensions that are higher than the base pay they got most of their working lives. All this when California endures an unemployment rate steeper than the nation’s. It will get worse. There’s an exodus of firms that want to escape California’s high taxes, stifling regulations, and recurring budget crises. When Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers, says he will not build any more facilities in California, you know the state is in trouble.

    The business community and a growing portion of the public now understand the dynamics that discriminate against the private sector. The public sector unions organize voting campaigns for politicians who, on election, repay their benefactors by approving salaries and benefits for the public sector, irrespective of whether they are sustainable. And what is happening with California is happening in slower motion in the rest of the country. It must be one of the reasons the Pew Research Center this year reported that support for labor unions generally has plummeted “amid growing public skepticism about unions’ power and purpose.”

    There has been a transformation in the nature of our employment. Labor is no longer dominated by private sector industrial workers who were in large part culturally conservative and economically pro-growth. Over recent decades public sector employment has exploded and public workers have come to dominate the labor movement. These public sector employees have a unique and powerful advantage in contract negotiations. Quite simply it is their capacity to deliver political endorsements and votes for the very people who are theoretically on the other side of the negotiating table. Candidates who want to appear tough on crime will look to cops, sheriffs’ deputies, prison guards, and highway patrol officers for their endorsement.

    These unions will naturally back a candidate willing to support better pay and benefits for their members, and this means as much as, or more than, the candidate’s views on law enforcement. The result has been soaring pay and the ability of state police and other safety officers to retire with pensions that place an increasingly unbearable financial burden on the states. In California, such retirees at age 50 often receive pensions at 90 percent of their pay; comparable retirees in most other states get about half their final working salary.

    In New York, public service employees have received gold-plated perks for much of the 20th century, especially generous health insurance benefits. Indeed, where once salaries were lower in the public sector, the salary gaps in the public and private sectors have disappeared in the last two decades, or even reversed for most job categories. A Citizens Budget Commission report in 2005 showed that for most job categories in the greater New York City region, public sector workers received higher hourly wages than private sector workers. And according to a 2009 survey by the same group, this doesn’t even count the money that New York City pays in full premiums for comprehensive health insurance policies for workers and their families. Only 8 percent of workers in private firms enjoy that subsidy. Moreover, in virtually all cases, the city also pays the full health care premium costs for retirees and their spouses. And the city pensions are “defined benefit” plans, which are more expensive since they guarantee specific benefits on retirement.

    On the other hand, private sector workers in the survey were mostly in “defined contribution” plans, which means that, unlike their cushioned brethren in the public sector, they do not have a pre-determined benefit at retirement. If New York City were to require its current workers to pay contributions toward health insurance equal to the amounts paid by the employees of local private sector firms, the taxpayer savings would approximate $628 million a year. In New Jersey, Christie says government employee health benefits are 41 percent more expensive than those of the average Fortune 500 company.

    What we suffer is a ruinously expensive collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers, purchased with taxpayer money. “Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” No wonder the Service Employees International Union has become the nation’s fastest-growing union: It represents government and health care workers. Half of its 700,000 California members are government employees. More and more, it wins not on the picket line but at the negotiating table, where it backs up traditional strong-arming with political power. It spends vast amounts of money on initiatives that keep the government growing–and the gravy flowing. Similarly, for the teachers unions–with the result that California and its various municipalities, especially Los Angeles, face budget shortfalls in the hundred of millions of dollars. California can no longer rely on a strong economy to support this munificence. Its unemployment rate runs about several points higher than the national rate and its high-tech companies are choosing to expand elsewhere. Why stay in a state with such higher taxes and a cumbersome regulatory environment?

    California is a horrible warning for the nation of how dreams can turn to dust. In most states, politicians face a contracting local economy and shortfalls in tax receipts. Naturally, they look to cut expenses but run into obstruction from politically powerful unions that represent state and local government employees, teachers, and health care workers who have themselves caused pension and health care insurance costs to soar. It is not an accident that in framing the national stimulus program, Congress directed a stunning percentage of the $787 billion to support public service employees.

    The lopsided subsidies for pension and health costs are a large part of the fiscal crises at the state and local levels. The subsequent squeeze on education and infrastructure investment is undermining the very programs that have made it possible for our economy to grow — thousands upon thousands of teachers let go, schools closed, mass transit slashed.

    Between New York and California, the projected deficits run about $40 billion — and that doesn’t account for projected billions of dollars in the operating deficits in the states’ mass transit systems or the multibillion-dollar unfunded liability in many of the state pension plans. New York is badly hit because it is being deprived of tax revenues by the government’s indiscriminate attack on the securities industry, which has been so critical to the economy of New York State and to the United States.

    City government was developed to serve its citizens. Today the citizenry is working in large part to serve the government. It is always hard to shrink government spending. It is particularly difficult when public sector unions have such a unique lever of pressure.

    We have to escape this cycle or it will crush us. One way is to take labor negotiations out of the hands of vulnerable legislators and assign them to independent commissions. They would have a better shot at achieving a fair balance between appropriate salary increases and the revenues and services of local municipalities. The electorate won’t swallow any more red ink.”


    Good article-
    Now per the liberal viewpoint posted in the comment section the problem isn’t that public workers are getting too much, it’s that the private sector is letting the rich keep them down- Now in my opinion the problem lies with the fact that their aren’t enough rich to support this extravagance. So we’re gonna all have to start being realistic instead of just MAD. What say you SUFA?

  57. Cyndi P says:

    America……circling the drain.


    For the past hundred years, America has been slowly moving away from the principles of its founding. The ideals of liberty, individual achievement, limited government, and the equality of opportunity have been slowly supplanted by calls for security, class warfare, excessive regulation, and the equality of outcome. The passage of stimulus acts, bailouts, government takeovers of two U.S. automakers, and the health care overhaul prove that our movement away from 1776 has accelerated.

    Passage of the health care bill has sparked a revival of small-government thinking, causing many to predict significant Republican gains in Congress this fall. But despite some short-term success, this small-government revival is doomed to fail. The depressing truth is that the only way to regain the full measure of those freedoms proclaimed in our Founding Documents is for our current federal government to completely collapse under the weight of its own excesses.

    Often, one carefully articulated analogy can succinctly convey a very complex idea. In our case, that analogy is addiction. Over the past hundred years, we have slowly allowed a monstrous system of dependence to develop until nearly every citizen relies upon government money, and thus is an addict. This has come about because the hard logic of the Founders has been replaced by the seductive ease of emotional arguments. All too often, the debate is over not if government should do something, but what it should do. This almost imperceptible shift in our national philosophy is a manifestation of our addiction.

    While the citizen-addict is hooked on government largesse, the politician-addict is hooked on something far more sinister: power. Their drug is available in Washington, D.C. Just as a dealer will go to any length to continue selling his wares, politicians will stop at nothing to retain their power. These two groups of addicts are locked in mutual co-dependence, where the politician-addict seeking re-election buys off the citizen-addict with more spending. Then the citizen-addict, seeking yet another free lunch from Washington, reelects the politician-addict. The result is endless, ever-expanding government programs and our current fiscal nightmare.

    The persistence of these programs has nothing to do with their success. They continue because we are more concerned that our actions are deemed compassionate than whether our programs are actually successful. If we truly wanted to help people save for retirement, we would not establish a program with a meager 1.23% rate of return while simultaneously supporting a monetary policy of systematic inflation. Yet these and other ineffective or even counterproductive programs continue. Such willful blindness to economic reality cannot be sustained indefinitely. The Congressional Budget Office has recently stated that our national debt will constitute 90% of our gross domestic product — that is 20.3 trillion dollars — in just ten years. What is even more shocking is that these debt numbers do not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, which currently rest at 107 trillion dollars. Sadly, this trend cannot be stopped.

    If Republicans take control of the House and Senate, and if they repeal the health care bill, then they will not be able (or likely even try) to reform Medicare or Social Security. These programs alone will bankrupt our nation. Yet they are untouchable because a large number of Americans have come to depend upon these benefits. They have become unknowingly hooked. Senior citizens have organized their financial futures around the twin promises of Social Security and Medicare and will naturally resist any change to either. George W. Bush knew this when he attempted his overhaul of Social Security. That is why his plan to privatize retirement savings was voluntary and would have excluded those over 55. Nevertheless, it was easy for the politician-addicts to scare the citizen-addicts, and his plan was defeated.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” This quote by Ben Franklin is often used by civil libertarians in opposition to government security programs such as the Patriot Act. But this sentiment is equally applicable to those who would give up economic liberty to obtain economic safety. The economic attitude of the nation has shifted. We are no longer a nation of self-sufficient, rugged individualists; we are now a nation of addicts, hooked on a politician’s promises of economic safety.

    This is why America is lost. Too many Americans are hooked for us to return to a sound economic footing via the normal political processes. Our efforts to moderate the most radical agendas — welfare reform, for example — serve only to delay the inevitable. In fact, many of those reforms are quietly undermined as the slow march towards collapse continues. We cannot alter our current trajectory; expansive government, greater entitlements, and ever-increasing taxes are our fate. Attempts by responsible citizens at reform will be only partially successful, not changing the fundamentals of our dilemma.

    The addict analogy carries through to recovery. For most addicts, recovery can begin only once they have descended so far in their addiction that they lose everything, a process often called “hitting bottom.” Sometimes there is no recovery, and hitting bottom means death. But for others, hitting bottom is a tremendous learning experience, and they emerge as better people. America is addicted. The decline has begun, and now our nation must hit bottom.

    Detoxing America will cause social, political, and economic strife of a sort unimaginable, and yet it is a process we must endure. Hitting bottom is our only hope for a national rehabilitation. It is our only chance for a true reacquaintance with those principles that made this the greatest nation on earth: liberty, individual achievement, limited government, and the equality of opportunity.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “For the past hundred years, America has been slowly moving away from the principles of its founding. The ideals of liberty, individual achievement, limited government, and the equality of opportunity have been slowly supplanted by calls for security, class warfare, excessive regulation, and the equality of outcome. The passage of stimulus acts, bailouts, government takeovers of two U.S. automakers, and the health care overhaul prove that our movement away from 1776 has accelerated.”

      So we have gone from

      liberty to security
      individual achievement to class warfare
      limited government to excessive regulation
      equality of opportunity to equality of outcome

      ain’t that the truth.

      I can never understand why people will waste their entire lives waiting for the government to steal for them what they themselves can go out and create all on their own in a much shorter time span.

      The article calls it an ‘addiction’. Maybe ‘a moral illness’ would be more accurate.

      Excellent article!

      • Cyndi P says:

        Hitting bottom I can handle, however, I expect the outcome to be death. Death of the ‘free’ Republic. I think the actually free republic died over 100 years ago. Soon it’ll be official. Happy Hope-N-Change.

    • Birdman says:

      I just read this article. Good find Cyndi P!

  58. Cyndi P says:

    BL and BF,

    Has USW forwarded you somthing on 401ks in the last day or two?

    • Bottom Line says:


      He doesn’t have my e-mail address that I know of.

      In the “E-mail(required)” box, it says “blahblahblah@blah.net”.

      blahblahblah@blah.net doesn’t exist.

      As a habbit, I fill EVERYTHING out like this.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Well. Aren’t you the naughty boy?

        I have some info about 401k confiscation. I thought you wanted to know about that?

      • USWeapon says:

        Correct, I do not have your email address. I always saw your blahblahblah but figured I didn’t care. I don’t need the email address if you don’t want to share it. It means that you end up missing out on Cyndi’s 401k information though. If you want it you can shoot me an email at usweapon@gmail.com. I keep email confidential unless you specifically tell me to send it to someone. Your call though.


        • USW, Please share my email with Cyndi….

          I would love to get your 401K info, Cyndi. Thanks!


  59. A Puritan Descendant says:


    I guess it is a start….

  60. The NRA is seeking members, money, or asks you to contact your senator or Rep.

    S. 843 & H.R. 2324 will place liabilities and excessive paperwork on gun show promoters, with eliminating gun shows, their long range goal.

    H.R. 257 could send you to jail, if your firearm is stolen and then used in a crime.

    H.R. 2159 & S. 1317 would give the Attorney General the power to put your name on a secret list and strip you of your 2nd Amd. rights with no hearing, due process and virtually no means to clear your name.

    H.R. 45 would require rifle, shotgun & handgun owners to obtain a license, submit fingerprints and photograph, and pass a “test”, or turn in their firearms.
    Penalty is a felony that includes prison.

    S 2820 A bill to create a national gun registry. ( Canada has spent over a billion dollars trying this, and has stopped trying to enforce. We could look at successful programs for a model, like China, Germany, Cuba, Russia…..)

    I wonder, after November, how many lame duck congressmen will have nothing to loose, having lost re-election, and be willing to support these bills?

    Warning to any thinking of joining, NRA does many good things such as programs
    for gun safety (Eddie Eagle), women’s self defense (Refuse to be a Victim ). They also pester you with phone calls and mailers asking for money. There are over 70 million gun owners in the US, and less than 5 million NRA members. If you look at the battles fought over gun rights, it is very likely we would not have 2nd Amd. rights today, except for the NRA. They have taken cases to the Supreme Court, and won. Had they not, the D.C. ban might be the law of the land.
    So if you join, don’t give them your phone number.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      And yet for what I read in the paper yesterday, they are still going to try and put a ban on all handguns. Sure, confiscate everybody’s guns, then let all the bad guys have them, and you won’t be able protect yourself.

      Didn’t Europe do that, and Canada do that? If I’m not mistaken, now gun crimes have risen in both places, and that’s exactly what will happen here.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      You are absolutely right and… The NRA has already proved to be a grass roots organization. I believe it was back in the 1970’s that they bought this huge chunk of Real Estate out west called the Whittington Center. The purpose was twofold. First to create a state of the art shooting and training center. The second was to move the whole Washington operation out to the hinterlands. In effect, they were giving up the game and going the way of the British. They would ultimately preside over the loss of our 2nd amendment rights.

      Well, at the annual meeting that year, there was a revolt. The entire board was thrown out and the move put on hold. Out of that meeting, I believe in Cincinnati, came a new, aggressive, take no prisoners NRA and ultimately, Charlton Heston.

      So, do as Life of Illusion says, join!

      Yes Judy, crime has increased in Britain, Canada and Australia.

      SK Trynosky Sr. NRA member since 1964

      • Thanks for the heads up on the phone calls, and more importantly on the new gun control bills. In all the mess lately, I missed those. They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers after I tried to resist them for taking my property.

  61. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hope this works.

    Great song

    Third grade teacher wrote this song and taught it to her third-grade students and now it is on you tube!!

    After all the bad press over a few teachers who stepped out of line teaching songs with a political persuasion to our children, this one is one you will be so proud to hear! At the end of the song you can even order the sheet music!! Awesome! I hope this sweeps our Country and gets sung in all our schools!

    Click & enjoy; great message. (Third graders from Tussing Elementary in Colonial Heights, Virginia, on You Tube)

    We need more teachers with this type of heart to teach out children today.

    This is good.

    —– http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=5pfBUUZNbFM

    Turn speakers ON.

    • Judy

      Thank you for that. Now I must go flip my burgers on the Barbie with a lump in my throat.

      Happy Sunday to you and your family.


    • Judy, that was awesome! Thank you for sharing~

    • Thanks Judy!


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hey all

      Got that from a friend, and wanted to share it with all here. I thought it was just wonderful, and definitely brought tears to my eyes.

      I hope you all had a wonderful weekend.

  62. Since I no longer donate directly to “the party” I’m looking for candidates that are worthy of my donation dollars.

    Check out this ad (top right corner) from Dale Peterson of Alabama. BamaDad, is he the real deal? Will send a check his way.


    • OK, he’s getting a check this week; his name is Dale (my husband’s) and his wife is Kathy! If that doesn’t make him a good candidate…….

  63. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good night dear friends, and hope you all will have a great day tomorrow.

    Good night, and sweet dreams

    Take Care

%d bloggers like this: