Wednesday Night Open Mic for June 9, 2010

As promised, the one day delay on the open mic thread proves to be just the one day. As much as I hated pushing it off for a night, I was compelled to as I found the other topic interesting and pertinent given that we were on an election night in many places. I have enjoyed the conversations thus far this week, even though some have been frustrating with some periods of unwillingness on the part of some to even consider anything other than their opinion as plausible. For tonight’s open mic we have a host of topics. We will discuss a private Christian school firing a teacher for having sex and getting pregnant three weeks before her marriage. Additionally, we will discuss the 15 year old killed on the Mexico border, California’s referendum to allow open primaries, and another round of UN sanctions that are sure to have the desired effect on Iran….


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Fla. Christian School Fires Teacher Over ‘Fornication’ Claims

    A former Florida teacher said the administrators of a Christian school where she was employed fired her because she became pregnant just before her wedding, reported.

    Now, she has filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the private school in St. Cloud, Fla.

    Jarrestta Hamilton said April of 2009 was the happiest month of her life. She was a newlywed and newly pregnant and teaching fourth graders at Southland Christian School. She said it was about that time when she approached by the administration to talk about “maternity leave.”

    She said when asked, she admitted that the baby was conceived three weeks before the wedding. A week later, she said the school fired her. Attorney Ed Gay is helping Hamilton sue the school, claiming that her termination amounts to discrimination based on her pregnancy and marital status.

    “If they’re going to single her out because she conceived prior to marriage, but allow people to remain employed who conceived during a marriage, isn’t that discriminating against her based on her marital status?” asked Gay, according to

    School administrator Rob Ennis said the school had not seen the lawsuit. “At this time, we’re going to seek legal counsel, and I really don’t feel comfortable making any comment to be honest with you.”

    MyFoxOrlando obtained a letter sent to Hamilton from the school which asked not to return because of “fornication,” sex outside of marriage. It also claims that Hamilton knew about the school’s moral stance through the employment application process.

    “Just a vague reference to upholding standards and purposes of the school,” said Gay. “That’s what they’re going on as a ‘morals’ clause.”

    Ultimately, it could be the federal courts that decide who is right and who is wrong. Hamilton also claims that the school violated her privacy by telling parents and students why she was fired.

    Read the rest of the article here:

    I find myself quite torn on this one. The issue that complicates this for me is the fact that the school in question is a private school. That means no public funding, and therefore no ability to require them to not take such action as putting a morals clause in their new hire paperwork.

    But in the end, the question comes down to whether this is discrimination or not. Because I am a fan of private business being able to hire, serve, or sell to whomever they like, I am not a giant fan of anti-discrimination laws as they exist currently. I do, however, understand why they have at times been a necessary evil in this country. But in the end, if someone want to discriminate based on whatever, I fail to see the merit of government stepping in and dictating that they treat everyone the same regardless of everything else around them. It is bad business, but should not be illegal.

    On the flip side of this is the fact that I think that this action taken by the school is simply deplorable. I find christian institutions to be some of the most hypocritical on the planet. The constant requirement to adhere to a moral code that those enforcing it rarely meet themselves. It amounts to hypocrisy at its finest. I know this will offend some of the more faith based readers here, and that they will then say that I am making assumptions based on the minority in the news…. but I warn you that is not a path you want to travel down with me. Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.

    I find myself personally hoping that the woman in question wins her lawsuit. Nothing ridiculous as an award, but compensation and a little bit of just reward for the fact that her ability to do her job was not in question, but instead her personal life. Pregnant three weeks before she was married? I can’t imagine anyone would have known that unless she told them. So what “image” were they trying to protect? They could have just told her to keep the date of conception quiet, and left it alone.

    So what do all of you think? Was the school justified in taking the action that they did? It appears that it was in the contract, and if so was “legal”. Outside of that, does it amount to discrimination in the eyes of SUFA? And what of the privacy aspect of it? Should the school be punished for revealing private information to students and parents? All businesses, public and private, are required to be in compliance with privacy laws. Was this a violation?

    • TexasChem says:

      USW Stated:”I find christian institutions to be some of the most hypocritical on the planet. The constant requirement to adhere to a moral code that those enforcing it rarely meet themselves. It amounts to hypocrisy at its finest. I know this will offend some of the more faith based readers here, and that they will then say that I am making assumptions based on the minority in the news”

      TC:While no person on this planet is perfect their are those who believe in putting forth the best possible effort to adhere to a moral standard USW.Do you condemn those that try?

      So whom is being hypocritical with the above quoted statement?
      The school enforces their moral code as a standard for employment yet you condemn the school officials stating that they do not adhere to their own moral code?Even though they enforced it?

      As a condition of employment at the christian school the teacher is to set a standard for the children by example.I would be willing to bet her contract specifically states this.Parents pay to have their children educated in a moral environment and expect those standards adhered to.Why should it enrage you that she failed to meet those standards?Perhaps you should take into consideration what your own moral standards are and deliberate whether they could possibly improve.Should we debate pre-marital sex pros and cons amongst teens?

      Could it be a factor that children see a teacher as a mentor and since “Miss so and so has sex and she’s not married it’s ok for us too!”It’s called leading by example! It is not do as I say not as I do!

      I pay to send my kids to a private religious school.Believe me they are receiving ten times the education both in moral standards and course knowleedge.I do not make this claim lightly.

      Believe it or not USW but there are still those in America that believe in the sanctity of marriage and all it entails.

      • Lori P. in St. Paul says:

        TexasChem said, “Could it be a factor that children see a teacher as a mentor and since “Miss so and so has sex and she’s not married it’s ok for us too!”It’s called leading by example! It is not do as I say not as I do!”

        I also send my child to a private religious school and that’s exactly what most kids would be saying.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @TexasChem – I’d be interested in how you specifically define ‘sanctity of marriage’? I think if you go down this path there will be a lot of “do as I say, not as I do or the pot calling the kettle black”. The very notion of ‘forgiveness of sins’ pre-supposes that one is committing sin. So yes – it is completely hypocritical of the school to fire her without forgiving her supposed sin. Be careful how quick you are to act no?

        Also – I would not think 4th graders to be ‘doing the math’ on when the teacher conceived. Believe or not, some women give birth prematurely.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Maybe they did forgive her sin, and then fired her.

          • USWeapon says:

            Judgement and punishment does not forgiveness make.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Quite often one takes disciplinary action against another and either concurrently or subsequently forgives them.

              Forgiveness does not mean that the disciplinary action is necessarily rescinded.

            • TexasChem says:

              USW Stated:”Judgement and punishment does not forgiveness make.”

              TC:And yet our very own judicial syatem of laws,judgement, and punishment does this very thing when allowing one back into society after serving their sentence!”

              • USWeapon says:

                Don’t attempt to confuse primary legal judgement with judgement on a moral basis. They are two very different things.

                • TexasChem says:

                  Please expound upon the differences between the two.I am of the opinion the two are dependent upon each other to be effective.

      • HARRUMPH!

        I’m with Ray on this one. Regardless of where you fall on the (frankly ridiculous) idea of sanctity of marriage, the likelihood that the students would do the math to figure out that she had (gasp!) premarital sex is minuscule at best. The school fired her for something that was almost certain not to impact on her moral leadership and example to her students. In short, they just fired her for doing something in her personal life that is perfectly legal and perfectly private – they never should have even asked her about it in the first place.

        Adding, if a teacher’s husband beats her and she divorces him, would the school also fire her since marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment?

        Also adding, wearing clothes made of two different materials is grounds for stoning. As is planting different crops side by side. As is failure to keep kosher. As is failure to keep the sabbath. As is being a son who persists in disobeying a parent. As is lying. I assume all of these are firing and/or expulsion-worthy.

        Just asking…

        • Mathius

          Your ridicule is of no importance. All that matters are the conditions of the “employment contract”.

          If you violate your employment contract you can be “terminated”.

          • Not everything placed in a contract is binding. Judges routinely strike portions that violate people’s rights.

        • Are you arguing that a private school has no right to make these rules. Or that it is better to allow someone to break the rules because it can be hidden and then fire someone else because it cannot. Which is more “hypocritical” in your mind.

          • I’m arguing that it’s a stupid rule in the first place.

            I’m further arguing that, where there are no victims and no one is harmed in any way shape or form, and where it is a non-issue if left alone, the most prudent action is to leave it alone.

            I’m even further arguing that a woman who is engaged in today’s society can reasonably be expected to be having sex with her fiance. To expect abstinence until marriage is unlikely to fall within the purview of “a vague reference to upholding standards”.

            Additionally, I’m insinuating that it may be the case that the school fired her to avoid having to pay maternity leave.

            Lastly, I’m stating that failing to practice forgiveness (though I don’t think forgiveness is necessary since she did nothing wrong) is not practicing what you preach, thus high hypocritical.

            • “I’m arguing that it’s a stupid rule in the first place.”

              Your opinion and you are free to believe whatever you want-But does the school have the right as a private organization to have the rule that is the important question.

              “I’m further arguing that, where there are no victims and no one is harmed in any way shape or form, and where it is a non-issue if left alone, the most prudent action is to leave it alone.”

              The only fair way to leave it alone after the woman said she intentionally broke the rule was either enforce the rule or throw it out, anything else would be hypocritical. I have no problem in general with common sense enforcement to rules depending on the situation but I simply can’t come up with any other way in this situation that would be fair. If you can-fire away.

              “I’m even further arguing that a woman who is engaged in today’s society can reasonably be expected to be having sex with her fiance. To expect abstinence until marriage is unlikely to fall within the purview of “a vague reference to upholding standards”.

              Okay this one, seriously, I’m supposed to accept your secular view that it is reasonable to presume that most every woman is having sex with their fiance but you don’t accept that it is reasonable to presume that a woman working for a church school knows that having sex outside of marriage is not upholding the standards.

              “Additionally, I’m insinuating that it may be the case that the school fired her to avoid having to pay maternity leave.’

              Always a possibility-but her breaking the rules created the possibility.

              “Lastly, I’m stating that failing to practice forgiveness (though I don’t think forgiveness is necessary since she did nothing wrong) is not practicing what you preach, thus high hypocritical.”

              This seems to be a principal that a lot of people just don’t get-Forgiveness does not mean no consequences.

              • USWeapon says:

                “The only fair way to leave it alone after the woman said she intentionally broke the rule was either enforce the rule or throw it out, anything else would be hypocritical.”

                Selective enforcement is a key here. There was no rule that said a woman could not have sex with her fiance three weeks before her marriage. It was a very general “moral clause”. I submit that every teacher at the school and every member of the administration could be fired for violating it at some point or another.

                • I will agree that the rules should be tightened, if they are that general but I will also submit any belief that the woman wasn’t aware that premarital sex was a part of this rule is beyond believable-it might well be a legal defense but that is all it is. Also, most of the discussion today hasn’t been based on a loosely written rule-it has been a condemnation of the church daring to enforce their God given rights even in the private sector. I submit that those who are actually a part of this religion would not have a very hard time determining what it means. But I haven’t actually read the rule so I will withhold my final judgement on whether or not it is too vague.

                • TexasChem says:


        • TexasChem says:


          Insisting upon using old testament teachings each and every time you attempt to belittle the new testament christian teachings of the Nazarene is childish and to quote BF…bizarre!
          I suggest researching the difference between the old covenant and new covenant before coming online and making a fool of yourself stating doctrine that is no longer binding to christians.It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

      • USWeapon says:

        While no person on this planet is perfect their are those who believe in putting forth the best possible effort to adhere to a moral standard USW.Do you condemn those that try?

        No, I in no way condemn those that try. I condemn those who judge and punish despite the fact that they, themselves, are unable to reach the level of perfection that they hold others to.

        So whom is being hypocritical with the above quoted statement?
        The school enforces their moral code as a standard for employment yet you condemn the school officials stating that they do not adhere to their own moral code?Even though they enforced it?

        You are confusing the two issues. The question was not whether they enforce it, the question is whether they live it. My call of hypocrisy is that those enforcing this moral code, the administrators, are quick to judge and punish, yet if they were judged themselves, I guarantee that we would find similar faults and violations of their precious moral code. Hypocrisy lies in punishing others for failing to meet the standard that you cannot yourself meet.

        As a condition of employment at the christian school the teacher is to set a standard for the children by example.I would be willing to bet her contract specifically states this.P arents pay to have their children educated in a moral environment and expect those standards adhered to.Why should it enrage you that she failed to meet those standards? Perhaps you should take into consideration what your own moral standards are and deliberate whether they could possibly improve. Should we debate pre-marital sex pros and cons amongst teens?

        If you want to get off subject we can debate whatever you like. But you completely fail the reality test here. She was marrying the man in 3 weeks. This is not teenage sex. And no one would have ever known that she had premarital sex unless the school made it public. I have no need to “reevaluate whether my own moral codes need to improve.” I answer to me, and my own moral code, and I don’t need some mythical man in the sky to tell me what it is. That you resorted to attacking me personally in that way is a bit disappointing. I wonder if your judgement of me fits your own moral code?

        I pay to send my kids to a private religious school.Believe me they are receiving ten times the education both in moral standards and course knowleedge.I do not make this claim lightly.

        Good for you. I imagine that you are OK with the fact that your school may fire a teacher who is excellent at ensuring your child is educated simply because that teacher failed some moral code that it is your responsibility to instill at home. I do not need a school to teach my child a moral code. I need them to educate my son on academic matters. The moral stuff is what I am responsible for. I don’t turn matters of such importance over to others.

        Believe it or not USW but there are still those in America that believe in the sanctity of marriage and all it entails.

        So, what you are implying is that I don’t believe in the sanctity of marriage. That is a bold claim to make, and one that the person that I am married to would vehemently lambast you for. I have no problem with you saying that you respect the sanctity of marriage. I would, however, point out to you that christians have the highest divorce rates in the world.

        I have no problem with what you believe. I have a problem when you decide that it is OK to punish those who don’t believe as you do, or who fail to live up to some inane standard that no one can live up to.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          If hypocrisy lies in punishing someone else for not living up to a standard that you yourself fail to live up to, then it is possible to argue that ANY STANDARDS AT ALL are simply an invitation to hypocrisy.

          That seems to be a pretty darn silly stance.

          Perhaps you should think through that a bit more….

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            BTW, I do agree that in this case the “moral code” was completely vague and general, and the teacher did not violate any actual rule set forth in her contract, merely a “moral clause” which was completely open to interpretation.

            I do not think there is any problem setting standards of behavior for yourself, your children, people in your workplace, or whatever. Such rules are NECESSARY. However, they should also be specific, and the disciplinary action taken for violation of each rule should be spelled out, and should be as consistent as possible. I think you would probably agree with that.

          • USWeapon says:

            No Peter, I think that you are taking it too far. First of all, my stating that religions generally are hypocrites does not mean that I advocate a world without rules, or one where people are not judged.

            I have no problem with rules, or moral codes that are enforced in the workplace. I find them often hypocritical in their application, but a private company can do whatever they like in terms of setting the standard for employment. However, having a vague “moral clause” that is little more than an excuse to punish whomever you like indiscriminately is wrong, and hypocritical itself. Because a vague moral clause such as this is likely violated by every person who works there. Not everyone has premarital sex, but I will put even money that every single person at the school in some way breaks the vague concept of a moral code.

            • I agree with this one. I have no issue with private companies or private school having a moral standard that they want their company to be run by. But if they make these rules vague and general in order to judge when they want, and only certain times. To me that is not a moral standard.

              • Some are obviously not taking into consideration that the rules may be written loosely -for the express purpose of being able to make judgements based on the different facts of each issue that arises-not as a way to just punish indiscriminately, based on the fact that most Christians do have a pretty good understanding of what the moral standards are that encompass our religion, but maybe as a way to punish fairly or not at all. Of course that is giving them the benefit of the doubt I suppose and since by some peoples opinions(and I am not speaking about you Ellen) it is obviously impossible to be a Christian and not be a hypocrite. Sorta like it’s not possible to be a republican and not be a racist.

                • USWeapon says:


                  Allow me to be clear that I do NOT believe that it is impossible to be a christian and not a hypocrite. I know many, many christians who are not hypocrites. What I said was christian organizations that take actions such as the one in this particular story. We must be careful that we don’t assume that it is a bias against christians or even against religion. It is not. It is merely an observation about a particular subset of people. It isn’t even a big judgement thing, as I don’t believe that there should be some punishment or regulation. It is nothing more than an observation and a statement that I think it is hypocritical. Don’t make me into a “christian hater” when I am definitely not one.


        • TexasChem says:

          USW Stated:”So, what you are implying is that I don’t believe in the sanctity of marriage. That is a bold claim to make, and one that the person that I am married to would vehemently lambast you for.”

          TC:No sir I am not implying that at all.I am implying that perhaps confronted with your own sinful belief of pre-marital sex and justification of prostitution you have identified shortcomings within your very own beliefs that cause you to react defensively.Christians call this feeling “being convicted by God”.The guilt felt from allowing negative action to take control.This negative action takes one out of the will of God.Out of the will of God, once you’re educated to know better is a horrible place to be.

    • Religious institutions are hypocritical because they have a code of behavior-I wonder is every organization which promotes a code of behavior hypocrites. Does the mere fact that an institution wants to promote a certain set of values mean they are hypocrites. Does the fact that some members of the organization choose not to follow the code make the institution hypocritical. Are we to drop all codes of behavior in our private organizations because some people involved don’t follow them. Hmmm have to wonder where this would lead. Let’s think what organizations are there in this world-what are there codes-I seriously doubt every member follows them-should we get rid of the codes-are the other institutions hypocritical too. Does the inability of all men to follow these codes make the institutions hypocrites or the member who broke the code wrong.

    • USW

      I would say it is hypocritical for someone to establish a code of conduct for others if they have not adhered to that same code of conduct. Also if they establish such code and then break it, yet discipline someone else for breaking said code.

      But to establish a code that you know most will not follow is not hypocritical in my view.

      Now since we don’t know anything about the Administrators behavior past and present I don’t think we can fairly judge them at this time.

      Now for the supposed discrimination. I find her attorneys claim lacking in complete logic. He claims that her married status was the issue because that is the only variation. But violations of rules are based on proof of violation. She confessed to having sex before marriage. If the rules clearly state that such behavior is grounds for dismissal then hasta la vista.

      And I see no reason why such standards could not be applied to public as well as private institutions. Once could easily claim that such behavior is a moral issue NOT tied to religion.

      • USWeapon says:

        But to establish a code that you know most will not follow is not hypocritical in my view.

        I agree, JAC. My claim of hypocrisy lies in the fact that enforcement is selective. The creation of some vague moral code and then not punishing every single violation is wrong. I have no problem with the establishment of a moral code. I have all kinds of problems with the fact that those who punish others for violating the code are often themselves violators of the code.

        • USW

          Agreed. I missed the point that the code was “vague” and/or “general”.

          That means there was much discretion available.

          The smell of rotting fish has suddenly increased.

        • TexasChem says:

          USW Stated:”I agree, JAC. My claim of hypocrisy lies in the fact that enforcement is selective. The creation of some vague moral code and then not punishing every single violation is wrong. I have no problem with the establishment of a moral code. I have all kinds of problems with the fact that those who punish others for violating the code are often themselves violators of the code.”

          TC:USW your above statement and previous reply to my post is all conjecture!Every last bit of it!I can tell from your postings that you are not as informed of christianity as you may believe!You stereotype an entire class of people based upon their religion accuse them all of being hypocrits and then have the audacity to judge their actions when they are holding themselves accountable to their own moral standard?

          Christians should hold other Christians accountable and they should not judge the non-Christian.By that same token ideal, you sir do not dare judge me based upon conjecturally inundated bias.

          • USWeapon says:

            I find it laughable that you think I am uninformed on christianity. You don’t know me, so I certainly don’t expect you to understand how ridiculous a statement that is about me. I do not stereotype an entire class of people. I point out that there are many doing a lot of judging while failing to meet the standard themselves. You don’t like that. Fine, I get that. I am not really concerned, as I realize that many christians do not like to be challenged on their beliefs, and even fewer are willing to consider any point where they may be wrong.

            But you completely mischaracterize my position. I do not “judge their actions when they are holding themselves accountable to their own moral standard”

            You aren’t paying attention. I judge their actions when they are holding OTHERS to a moral standard they cannot themselves meet. I fear you have jumped in over your head here, as you are unable to get past the criticism of religion and discuss the subject as a matter of fact and logic. In my personal opinion, that is where many christians fall. The mere challenge to them sparks an emotional reaction that renders them incapable of rational discussion. Hence why you decided the path forward in your comments above was to attack me personally, questioning my personal morals and values, something I did not do to you.

            To each their own.

            • TexasChem says:

              USW Stated:”Hence why you decided the path forward in your comments above was to attack me personally, questioning my personal morals and values, something I did not do to you.”

              TC:My purpose was not to attack you personally.If you have taken it as such I apologize.My intention was for you to question your own set of ideals and weigh the consequences upon our societies youth when exposed to behavior deemed morally wrong.

              As a society it seems as if we have forgotten the purpose of morals and ethics to be the mortar tieing us together.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @USW – good write-up again sir.

      Shockingly, to a degree I agree with the likes of Rand Paul with respect to government intervention and Title II – but with a twist. I believe there are moments in our time as a Nation where a ‘swing for the fences’ that resets our path as a nation. Perhaps, at the time, Title II was timely – we needed something to push us in a different direction and it worked. There is still discrimination – I believe there always will be. However, I find that Title II is no longer necessary. It would be illogical to assume many businesses would turn heel on its repeal and begin discriminating.

      Discrimination as in the presented case is, however, still very very rampant and pervasive. In a job I left very recently, my top employee was denied a promotion and, unbeknown to her, had money shaved from her raise because she missed time due to maternity leave. There was nothing presumed by me about that – nearly those exact words were used by my senior leadership. I don’t sense this scenario is uncommon and I think we need a big swing for the fences to reset the table. I consider the breakdown of the family unit and many resulting issues and problems to be rooted in the shitty way women are treated in the workplace.

      • Ray

        I think the reason there is a breakdown in the family unit is BECAUSE the woman HAS to be in the workplace to start with.

        My experience is that what you describe is not all that common. More often, young women may be passed by for promotion as the employer thinks the investment will be wasted as the sound of the clock becomes to strong to ignore.

        I don’t think we need a swing for the fences with regard to this discrimination you describe, necessarily. The number of women in the workforce is ever increasing and as they do the rules change for dealing with maternity leave and return to work.

        We sure do with regard to our monetary and fiscal policies which have created the Catch 22 many women and men find themselves trapped in.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – did you mean “uncommon” versus “common”?

          To throw a wrinkle on ya – the ‘senior leader’ who withheld the promotion in my scenario was also a woman – who also missed time in the same period due to maternity. She makes significantly more money than my employee did – and the “no promo” decision was solely hers. Maybe not the rule in every case for sure – but I guess its difficult to generalize – even as more women enter the workfarce.

          • Ray

            I meant not as common as you portrayed.

            But as you say, generalizing is a dangerous thing to do.

            But let me pull out one more anyway.

            Another thing I have seen is those women who worked their butts off and put up with all kinds of crap to break down the barriers tend to be harder on the younger women who didn’t have to “pay the price”, so to speak.

            Either way, I just don’t think we want a Title II type solution to this. It is making significant progress and I would rather see us resolve it as a society without the govt. I really don’t want to see the animosity created by govt intervention to seep into the female/female or male/female work and home relationships more than it has.

            We need women to work and they want/need to work. Employers will learn to deal with maternity and parenthood.

    • I see it as a private school….enforce any rule you want and it is no one’s business…certainly not the courts or the government. Private means private…..

    • USW

      It’s interesting that you brought up hypocrisy. Private businesses should be allowed to do discriminate however they please, unless it’s in a way that offends you?

      • USWeapon says:


        When I begin the entire statement with “I find myself quite torn on this one,” it is not hypocrisy. It is my presenting to two separate thoughts that make it a challenge for me and offering my thoughts each way. That is discussion and debate.

        I clearly said up front that I am struggling with it because private businesses should not have government interference in terms of discrimination, but at the same time discrimination such as this is hypocritical when selectively applied.

        See my argument clearly before you simply criticize me as a hypocrite, when I am merely offering the different viewpoints for discussion.

        • It was mostly the “I hope she wins her case” that bothered me. I hope she loses, as that would be a win for freedom in my opinion.

    • The private school has the right to fire her, or it should. People who find this sort of discrimination deplorable should not send their kids there.

      On an inappropriate comedy note, does anyone else think its funny that a lawyer named Gay is suing for marriage discrimination?

      • Yes, but I didn’t want to be the one who said anything. Afraid of mockery I am.

        • And who would mock you…young Padewan?

          • D13

            Thanks for the compliment Colonel but you and I would probably have been in high school at the same time. Or at least damn close.

            I would not want to suffer mocking by the Pirates parrot. I just hate Parrot mocking. Its the absolute worst.

            • Damn close, I bet. Graduated 1965….damn!!!

              • Ha ha, I figured you for graduating in 66 or 67.

                Myself in 71.

                I suddenly feel young……….ho, ho, ho!

                Seems right about the time I graduated from HS there was some kind of generational change. Maybe Viet Nam had something to do with it. TV for sure.

                Several of my best friends range from 60 to 70 years of age. I have more in common with them than I do my own wife’s friends who are only 4 years behind me.

                Guess time must have moved slower up until about that time.

    • Bottom Line says:

      It seems rather petty to fire her for such a thing. However, it’s pretty stupid for her to submit herself to such demands.

      If you don’t want to be fired for getting pregnant, don’t work for a place that would fire you for getting pregnant.

      • USWeapon says:

        I don’t imagine that she thought it was a place that would fire her for getting pregnant.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I don’t imagine ANYONE would anticipate such bullshit. Don’t get me wrong…I’m on her side for sure.

          But on the same token, she can’t say that she couldn’t have anticipated having an eventual moral ethical dilema working for someone that has such a rediculous moral standard either.

          When I apply for a job and find out that they want to run a credit check, I automatically withdraw my application. I see them as not having any respect for my privacy. If they’ll be so bold as to ask to dig into my personal finances, then what other ways will they invade my privacy?

          If I go to work for someone and notice that they have a habbit of ripping off their customers, I’ll immediately start looking for another job because I know that I am liable to end up in the middle of a lawsuit.

          I once applied for a place that wanted me to sign a waiver saying that I wouldn’t sue them for improper labor practices. This tells me that they treat their employees like dirt. I walked out.

          Common sense says that if you work for someone that does XYZ, then anticipate potential future issues with XYZ.

    • This is a cut and dry case. This is a private institution. If, in the hiring process, the teacher signed a “morals clause” saying that she must not engage in pre-marital sex, she has broken her contract and so may be fired. Easy.

      I find it funny that religions are picked on so often for hypocrisy. It’s such an easy accusation to make, but do you ever take a moment to think about it? Just because I can’t restrain myself from lying doesn’t mean that lying is not wrong. Hypocrisy does not negate a statement on right and wrong. Or do you think that since people commit murder, it is wrong for the people to make a law against murder?

      As a side/off topic note, I would like to point something out. While I believe a person’s race, gender, etc. should take NO PART in the hiring process whatsoever, doesn’t this give women an advantage? A man can never possibly take maternity leave, so a woman will necessarily receive at least as much or more compensation per working hour than men. Just a though.

      • USWeapon says:

        “I find it funny that religions are picked on so often for hypocrisy. It’s such an easy accusation to make, but do you ever take a moment to think about it? Just because I can’t restrain myself from lying doesn’t mean that lying is not wrong. Hypocrisy does not negate a statement on right and wrong. Or do you think that since people commit murder, it is wrong for the people to make a law against murder?”

        Religions are picked on so often for hypocrisy because those who do the judging are so often guilty themselves. Take your “murder” example. It would be awful hypocritical for someone who commits murders to condemn someone else for murdering. Religions are an easy target becuase they routinely judge and punish people for failing to perfectly meet some moral code, while ignoring the fact that those doing the judging and punishing also are not perfect and cannot meet the moral code.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Such religions generally realize that NO HUMAN IS PERFECT, and as such, no human is going to live up to the moral code at all times. However, if we set a standard of “You cannot judge anyone else unless you yourself are free from sin”, then you are the one advocating total chaos, because in THAT world society could not possibly have any rules.

          • USWeapon says:

            You don’t see any conflict between what you are saying and the idea that you cannot punish someone who has harmed no one else?

            I don’t say they can’t judge…. the book that they use as their standards for moral code tells them they cannot judge. I said that they cannot punish.

            • TexasChem says:

              USW Stated:”…the book that they use as their standards for moral code tells them they cannot judge.”

              TC:Here we go again.Your statement is false.If you read the scripture fully till the end and not just the first few words of it you will understand this.The lesson taught from this scripture is to NOT BE a hypocrite.If you hold ones-self to a higher standard and do not indulge in a negative behavior then you can be justified in your attempt to persuade others of not indulging in negative behavior.

              “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-5)

              As I suggested to Mathius in an above post please research and understand a topic before BASHING at it!

              • USWeapon says:

                On the contrary TC, I think what you just quoted makes my point for me. In other words, unless you are able to meet the moral code of behavior, then you do not have the right to judge others on that moral code of behavior.

                • TexasChem says:

                  Exactly USW!You have the gist of it now.

                  I agree totally with what you said.Your earlier post did indeed state christians should not judge though.

                  Where is your proof other than conjecture, that the schools officials did not have the right to judge?

                  • I disagree, this woman’s actions are not being judged against the sin or lack of sin of any individual. Her actions are being judged by the church, based on their interpretation of God’s Word.

        • TexasChem says:

          USW Stated:”Religions are picked on so often for hypocrisy because those who do the judging are so often guilty themselves. Take your “murder” example. It would be awful hypocritical for someone who commits murders to condemn someone else for murdering. Religions are an easy target becuase they routinely judge and punish people for failing to perfectly meet some moral code, while ignoring the fact that those doing the judging and punishing also are not perfect and cannot meet the moral code.”

          TC:Replace religion with politician and I agree with you! 🙂

          Topics deemed newsworthy in these times always seem to publish those who practice their religion falsely.Islamic,Christian,Catholic Jewish.They all fall under this identity.I suggest researching the idealogical fundamentals of each and every one in detail before generalizing statements of an entire religion.Doctrine and interpretation based upon the historical relevance of the culture during the times they were recorded.Otherwise you will never fully understand any of these religions.All you will know is what you are exposed to by another mans interpretation.MOST interpretations have been diluted and shaped to benefit some class in an effort to promote their own greed.Whether it was a greed of power or material or money.

        • “Religions are an easy target becuase they routinely judge and punish people for failing to perfectly meet some moral code, while ignoring the fact that those doing the judging and punishing also are not perfect and cannot meet the moral code.”

          I see your point as it pertains to this case, but that is not exactly true. Religions are easy targets because they have a strict moral code. One, by the way, they readily profess that NO ONE can live up to! The Christian church does not “punish” people for sinning. It calls them to repent. Granted, in this case, the school has judged and punished, but this is a contractual obligation, not simply a moral one. They didn’t fire her because she had pre-marital sex, they fired her because she had a contract saying (did it?) that she could not but she did anyway. There is a BIG difference for those of us who don’t choose to ignore it.

          “It would be awful hypocritical for someone who commits murders to condemn someone else for murdering.”

          This is one thing that non-Christians simply cannot understand or else choose to ignore. Hypocrisy does not negate the teaching! While it would be hypocritical for a murderer to tell other people that murder is wrong, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS WRONG! It just means that he cannot live up to it. What do I have to say to get you to see the point here?

          Christians are told not to judge (lest you be judged), but that does not mean that they cannot point out right and wrong.

    • USWep,

      The owners of the school have the full right to determines the services they buy and from who they wish to make such a purchase.

      • USWeapon says:

        Agreed. I said so clearly above. I also said that I struggle with it because religious institutions are so often enforcing a standard they cannot themselves live up to.

        I in no way advocated that the private institution does not have the legal right to do exactly what they did. I did, however, imply that they are hypocrites for doing so. There is a big difference there.

    • Been out of touch for a little bit here, Doctors & such – happens when your a geezer . . . “If I had known I would live this long, I would have taken better care of this body!” Don’t know who said it, but it seems appropriate now ‘-)

      After reading this article, and a good bit of your comments written here, I would say that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It seems to me that a lot of you folks want to fault a private business – in this case a private school – for doing what they said they would do. If you leave religion out of it and look at the rules for employment, the business said that a person must have good moral character and must live up to certain standards or that persons employment would be terminated.

      If you take a hard and deep look into any one of us – me included – and our entire past, you will find that at some point in our lives we did something that was not exactly up to morality standards of whatever religion (if any) that we might belong to. Does that mean that we could not work for any religious organization? If that be the case, then there would be no one working for any religious organization. So you cannot use that yardstick in measuring this case.

      I contend that this business was correct in doing what they did because this woman was a direct influence on her students. It is a known fact that there are only two people in our lives who have the most direct effect on shaping our attitudes and personalities – Our Mothers and our Teachers!

      Do pro football players say “Hi Dad!” when the camera is on them? Nope, its always “Hi Mom!”. Almost always when someone is receiving an award for being successful they acknowledge the influence of a favorite teacher and their Mothers.

      Should those young minds that this woman was influencing be taught that “fornication” can be done without regard for the consequences, or that the rules of that particular religious institution be ignored? No way. They were correct in firing that woman.

      However, this case is now in the Florida court system, and that system is the same court system that awarded a woman millions of dollars for buying a hot cup of coffee from a McDonalds drive through and dumping it in her lap. Their reason for the award? The McDonalds employee who handed her the cup of coffee did not tell her it was hot!?! (who, other than DPM, would buy a cup of coffee from a restaurant and not have a clue if it was hot or not?)

      • USWeapon says:


        A couple of thoughts here. First, you admit that we are all flawed, and state that in that case, if we enforce morality, no one would be able to work for a religious organization. And you follow it up with this woman is flawed, and it is right to enforce it. So which is it? You either enforce morality in your orgainzation, or you don’t. What is not acceptable is selective enforcement such as we see here.

        No one would have ever known that the woman was guilty of fornication. It was a three week difference. And 4th graders would never have thought anything at all. Your belief that she should be fired is rooted in your support for religious doctrine rather than the facts of this case.

        And before you declare the Florida court system as flawed, you should research the case. It did not happen at all the way that you claim. First the court awarded her absolutely NOTHING. The case was settled out of court. The settlement amount is completely unknown, as it was never disclosed. Second, the reason she had a case was that the restaurant was cited 4 times previously for keeping coffee up to 45 degrees hotter than normal (185 Farenheit if I recall correctly). Finally, the woman initially asked McDonalds to cover only her medical costs, as they knowingly broke the law around how hot the coffee was kept, and she suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her abdomen, genitals, and thighs. They refused to do the right thing. As a result they ended up getting sued for far more. I have no problem with you making an argument, but you should make sure of the facts around that case before you cite it as reasoning for your beliefs.

        • Once again we find ourselves at different ends of the argument for no other reason than a lack of common knowledge. What I stated was that if we remove religion from this and we put it into a business sense, and you have stated in the past that you support the rights of businesses to run their own affairs without government influence, this woman signed an agreement upon her employment to conduct her personal affairs in a certain manner or she would be terminated. Do you not agree with a person giving their word?

          As for the McDonalds incident, I used that as a “for instance” only in reference to the fact that she has now taken her plea to one of the most flawed legal venues in our country. How does someone who was denied a settlement in a court of law still win a settlement out of court? If that ain’t flawed, I don’t know what is!

          Finally, I am not going to sit here at this computer for hours on end writing a BF type book to detail my every thought on a subject and justify that thought to everyone else’s satisfaction. I have said before and I will continue to say it . . . There are many more important problems in this country to discuss than someone getting fired for not living up to the agreement that they stated they would.

          • USWeapon says:

            How does someone who was denied a settlement in a court of law still win a settlement out of court?

            No, McDonalds settled with her out of court rather than completing the case in court. Surely as an officer of the law you have seen many instances of “out of court settlements”?

            • In civil cases only, yes I have heard of many out of court settlements. Civil mitigation varies much more from state to state than criminal law. At least that is what I have seen during my career.

              About the coffee cup suit in FLA, as I understood it – and I could be wrong here as I have never read the entire case – was that she was denied a suit by a judge that ruled her case frivolous, yet some months (or even a year or two later) she was awarded several million from another court in another county. When the case was appealed to a higher court, that higher court dismissed the first denial and upheld the second lower courts award. Also from what I have heard that the lady passed away a few years ago before all the appeals were exhausted and her heirs are now the beneficiaries of her award. Ironic. To me, it seems, the only people that made out on this lawsuit was the attorneys representing her.

          • USWeapon says:

            What I stated was that if we remove religion from this and we put it into a business sense, and you have stated in the past that you support the rights of businesses to run their own affairs without government influence, this woman signed an agreement upon her employment to conduct her personal affairs in a certain manner or she would be terminated. Do you not agree with a person giving their word?

            Yes, and as I stated in the article, I was torn on the issue because I do believe in the right of a private business to do what they have done. I did not question their right to do so, nor did I recant on my belief about private business. What I did do is say that I believe that many christian organizations such as this one end up being hypocrites for selective enforcement and for the fact that when you have a vague morals clause, that I don’t believe anyone meets it completely. There is a big difference between giving your word that you will not get pregnant out of wedlock and giving your word that you will act “morally”. The clause in the contract she signed was very vague. And she obviously didn’t think that she had broken the contract, because she is the one who told them when she conceived. She would have simply lied about the three week difference if she thought it violated their vague moral code.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          I am curious. How do you KNOW that there is selective enforcement of this moral code going on at this particular school? Do you have EVIDENCE of selective enforcement, or is it merely conjuecture on your part?

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        G.A. Rowe,

        Aside from the Mac. case which I know nothing about. I just want you to know I agree with you 100%. Have a good evening.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    US-Mexico tensions heightened after US Border Patrol agent kills Mexican teen near El Paso

    Mexicans are seething over the second death of a countryman at the hands of U.S. Border Patrol agents in two weeks, an incident near downtown El Paso that is threatening to escalate tensions over migrant issues.

    U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old as officers came under a barrage of big stones while trying to detain illegal immigrants on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.

    About 30 relatives and friends gathered late Tuesday to mourn Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka, whose shooting Monday evening came along the border with Texas. He died on the Mexican side of the river.

    “Damn them! Damn them!” sobbed Rosario Hernandez, sister of the dead teenager, at a wake in the family’s two-room adobe house on the outskirts of Ciudad Juarez.

    Preliminary reports on the incident indicated that U.S. officers on bicycle patrol “were assaulted with rocks by an unknown number of people,” Border Patrol Special Operations Supervisor Ramiro Cordero said Tuesday.

    “During the assault at least one agent discharged his firearm,” he said. “The agent is currently on administrative leave. A thorough, multi-agency investigation is currently ongoing.”

    The shooting happened beneath a railroad bridge linking the two nations, and late Tuesday night a banner appeared on the bridge that said in English: “U.S. Border Patrol we worry about the violence in Mex and murders and now you. Viva Mexico!”

    Less than two weeks ago, Mexican migrant Anastasio Hernandez, 32, died after a Customs and Border Protection officer shocked him with a stun gun at the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The San Diego medical examiner’s office ruled that death a homicide.

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon said Tuesday that his government “will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants.”

    Read the rest of the article here:

    I find this baffling on one hand and infuriating on the other. Mexico, the same country that has made it state policy to send their poor to America rather than fix their economy, the same country that has exported its violence across the border as well, has expressed “outrage” over this incident. I don’t seem to recall them being “outraged” over the 300 annual kidnappings of women in Jaurez, or the illegal immigrants that come across the border and commit violent acts of rape, murder, and kidnapping.

    Let me offer my take on this situation. I wasn’t there so it is merely speculation as to what really happened out there under the bridge. What we know is that a group of Mexicans on the other side of the river were peppering the border agents with stones as the agents were dealing with some illegal immigrants who had swam across. At least one border patrol agent pulled out his gun and shot towards the group hurling the stones, killing the teenager.

    First, I think that the border patrol agent should be relieved of duty, based on what I do know. I understand that he was doing a difficult job. But to use a weapon to fire live rounds at people on the other side of the river who are throwing stones seems to me to be a bit on the side of “overreaction.” He and the other agents could have simply moved further from the river so that the stones wouldn’t reach them. There are no reports of the stone throwing group attempting to cross the river. There are no reports of the stone throwing group pulling out any weapons of any sort. So my conclusion is that the border patrol agents were not under threat on their lives. This being the case, it cannot be concluded that the agent was justified in using deadly force.

    The other side of this is much like my statement to BF around the Palestinians. As a general rule, if you have rocks, and they have guns, you have to be a pretty stupid individual to decide to pick that fight. If you don’t want to get shot by the people with guns, perhaps it might be a prudent decision to NOT THROW THE STONES AT THE GUYS WITH GUNS. And don’t tell me and the rest of the world that he was a good boy, who never did anything wrong, was a great student, and alter boy at the local church. Every single person killed in an incident like this gets that claim made about them. He obviously was NOT a good boy. As evidence, we have the fact that he was throwing rocks across the international border at agents for the US federal government. Adding to that is the fact that the boy was charged with alien smuggling in 2009. Despite the claims of his family, he was not a “good” kid. That does not, however, justify his being shot. It is just an observation.

    This situation on the border is going to get worse before it gets better. Those on the Mexico side of the border have zero respect for the laws, rules, or the people that enforce them on the US side of the border. That makes for a dangerous situation. I still say build the damn wall, enforce the border, and reform the immigration policies to eliminate the need for “sneaking” across the border.

    But so long as you continue with the status quo, we will continue to see events such as this. Americans are tiring of the situation, and when they reach that breaking point, it will get even uglier.

    And hey, for the record, put the damn rock down unless you want to risk getting seriously hurt, dumbass.

    • TexasChem says:

      In my best Chris Rock impersonation:This was a classic case of when the Mexican citizen should not stick to “Keeping it real!”

    • USW…you are correct and incorrect. Since I am firsthand involved (not with this incident but many like it) and know what the security tapes show, your rendition is farly close to the truth. The lad that was killed was in Mexico territory…by about 12 feet. This means that he was standing right on the border..throwing rocks.

      I think that the actual question is if the agent’s reaction is over reaction. Moral of the story……do not bring rocks and bricks to a gun fight. I do not care if it is rocks and bricks, a knife, or a gun. A well thrown rock/brick with any force behind it, is a lethal weapon. It can kill. It is a clear and present danger to health and life being weilded by another….the reason does not matter. The way the journalist make it sound, is like little kids throwing rocks. Having fought in various countries the world over, I do not care the age of kids. I have seen 10 year olds throw hand grenades. I have seen 12 year old girls armed with guns in Southeast Asia and in the Middle east. I have seen 15 year old boys/men with rocket propelled grenades and I have seen 6 year olds with satchel charges. They may not know what they are doing but they are not innocent and present a clear and present danger (to coin a well used phrase on this site)….AND the terminology of clear and presnt danger is not subject to interpretation. It matters not how you feel about the border and immigration. The only thing that matters is there was a teenage kid and gang member, approximately 15 years of age, throwing rocks/bricks at a uniformed officer in the line of duty. What the media is not mentioning, is how long this went on and how many rocks and bricks were thrown and how close the perpetrators got BEFORE lethal fire was employed….let me say that again….B E F O R E lethal fire was used.

      Ok,so what would Colonel D13 do in the same situation were I in charge? I would have followed standard operating procedures. The SOP, in this case, states that in the event of mob rule or disorderly conduct where firearms are NOT present and there is no immediate threat, a verbal warning is issued, in Spanish and English to disperse and move away from the crime scene. (The crime scene in this situation were illegals crossing the border and getting caught in a well know crossing site and where gang members are known to hang out.) Failure to do so is, in the words of the French Garrison on Monty Pythons In Search of the Holy Grail, “leave or I shall taunt you a second time”. A second warning is issued, in english and Spanish. Still, if the mob or crowd is not moving in a threatening manner, no fire arms are employed..however, after the second warning, if the mob or crowd moves or reacts in a threatening manner, then the use of firearms is authorized to protect lives and property. In this case, the two person bike patrol, vastly outnimbered in a hostile but legal environment where the local punks were under a well known bridge in a well known route for illegals and drug running, in a well known area of gang/criminal activity, performing their duty then the use of firearms is justified.

      Here is the bigger question that I would ask and a tactical interpretation.

      Mexico/drug cartels know that the Arizona Law will probably pass US Supreme Court muster. Mexico/drug cartels also knows that the immigration issue is a hot topic and wish to inflame it. Mexico/drug cartels know that the Obama Administration is a bunch of cowards. Mexico/drug cartels know that Texas has been very good at making illegal crossings and drug/gun running an extremely hazardous situation and that the ranchers are now well armed and fighting back, shooting anything that walks on two legs from the South. Mexico/drug cartels also know that the only way to back Texas off is to create a border environment that will get the cowardly Obama Administration involved. Mexico/drug cartels know how to incite mob rule and use it for news propaganda. The lad that was killed had two tear drop images tatooed under his eye….this means he has killed twice…and that Mexico refuses to release the body for investigation. Can anyone say….ambush?

      In addition, the Mexican Army or Federales, appeared suddenly with firearms and level them at the Border Patrol agents and other support that was arriving. This is HIGHLY irregular. This was an act of provocation to get the US side to fire or deploy troops. It did not work as the Border Patrol is also well trained by the US Army (courtesy of D13 and others in my position) on how to handle acts of provocation and recognize irregular activity. ( It is the opinon of D13, that the “Army/Federales” that arrived were not the real thing but drug cartel gang members dressed as same to try to initiate a greater response but security cameras were present.) I have no proof other than previous first hand experience, but that is my interpretation.

      So…..a short answer now is…….do not bring rocks/bricks to a gunfight. Throw a brick at me…you will die. Simple. I do not care that you are on the Mexico side. Patrolling the US side is NOT a provocation and to let Mexican illegals break the law is not an option to avoid bloodshed. I know this goes against the grain of some of you…but instead of criticizing…come on down and live under what we do for awhile. We are tired of rapes, robberies, and assaults. We are tired of walking in our parks and having Mexican bicyclists ride by and pat our women on the butt. We are tired of going to our parks and having pinatas hanging from trees and left there and trash left on the ground. We are tired of the gangs and the “poor Mexican” mentality. We are tired of the young Mexican punks stealing cars and breaking into homes. We are tired of seeing Mexican illegals and kids peeing in our park fountains and bathing and defecating in our streets. And the irony of it…..the Mexican community that is here legally is tired of it as well.

      To President Caulderon……Bring it on, home boy!

      D13 signing off….for now.

      • I’ll add something I heard on news last night.

        Mexico’s govt was claiming the US Border Patrol crossed into Mexico to shoot the boy. Yada yada yada. The proof is a shell casing found on the Mexican side where the boy was shot.

        One little problem. The security camera shows “uniformed Mexican men” crossing into the USA after agents had left. Picking something up where the agents had been standing when the shooting occurred and then crossing back into Mexico.

        One other little note. I don’t know how many of you noticed that I use the word “migrant” or “migration” to describe the illegals not “immigrant”. I do so deliberately because I do not believe most of these folks “intend” to stay. They simply want to migrate back and forth and eventually have enough “migrate” to the area to claim it as part of Mexico.

        Well notice how Mexico’s president refers to them: ” “will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants.””

      • D13

        Good morning sir.

        Do have one question for you. Didn’t see where you addressed the newly released study showing “border crime” has declined the other day.

        The softies were using the study to claim that outcries of violence along the border are being hyped by the fascist righties. The study did concede that “unreported” crime of illegal on illegal might account for some, but not all.

        Several LE officials were quoted to the effect that they see lower or stable crime, much less than other US cities.

        Would love to hear your take on this.


        • Great question, JAC….I also have the answer.

          The requirements for unreported crime (police officer goes to a break in…no suspects no bodily injury=unreported crime) have changed AND what constitutes a crime has changed. For example, simple assault without bodily injury is not reported. Things like that. The Obama administration wants the numbers down so they change the definitions.

          Ask a border agent off the record and see what he says. Ask a friend on the border and see what he/she says.

      • naten53 says:

        I saw a report on fox yesterday that said he was a known drug smuggler too.

        • Naten

          I am thinking Fox is getting a little to slick in their rationalizations of anything they deem Republican/Conservative, or perhaps just poking at the other side.

          I doubt very much that this kids “known” record came into play with the agents who were attacked. In fact they may not have even known who the kid was.

          And if he was a “known” smuggler or drug smuggler or what ever doesn’t matter. We don’t go around shooting people because of their past records. FOX et al are guilty of fallacy argumentation and diversion here. Or if you please…..RATIONALIZATION.

          This is a simple case of gang throws rocks and cops shoot back in self defense. All that is needed is a fair evaluation of whether it really was self defense. A reprimand may be in order if the reaction didn’t fit policy.

          I just hope we don’t see another “criminal prosecution” of our border agents by the Administration in hopes of mollifying the ass clowns across the border.

          • JAC….Correct. This is nothing more than a gang throwing very large rocks at Border agents on the US side..and a border agent having enough of it and in self defense fires back. I am telling you,,,Don’t mess with Texas. We will shoot.

            • I agree but the spin put on this story-his age, his mothers grief-another incident where the officials killed a man, paints a picture of poor boy against mean evil officials. Pointing out the boys past seems to even out the reporting some IMO-of course if they would just stick to the facts of this case and not embellish there would be no need for any of this mess. Just give me the facts-don’t paint me a picture-I’ll paint my own. Thank you very much.

              • naten53 says:

                I was pointing out what V.H is saying here, and what D13 said in his initial response about the tatoos. Most of the media is making it sound like this innocent boy got shot, but with his past record you can see that he probably wasn’t innocent in this incident.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        D13 said:”……do not bring rocks and bricks to a gun fight. I do not care if it is rocks and bricks, a knife, or a gun. A well thrown rock/brick with any force behind it, is a lethal weapon. It can kill. It is a clear and present danger to health and life being weilded by another….the reason does not matter.”
        Exactly, this is a case where someone with an inferior projectile weapon picked a fight with someone with a superior projectile weapon. Also, as to the lethality of a group of people throwing rocks, back in ancient times I believe it was common practice for a group of people to execute someone by throwing rocks at them (stone-ing). I think it is also important to note that it wasn’t one kid throwing one rock, it was a group throwing multiple rocks.

        • Okie,

          So, just to get this straight – because rocks were a primary weapon 2,000 years ago – that justifies shooting kids today who throw rocks….

          • Displaced Okie says:

            They were a primary weapon 2000 years ago because they were effective and lethal, so yes it could justify it. Whether you’re killed by a flying rock, bullet, nuclear weapon, or alien death ray, you are still dead. My concern, as I am sure the BP agents’ was, when I go to work is to come back home again. So if the group was hurling rocks in such a way that it put them a position that they were in fear for their lives, then I would say it is justified. However, I was not there so I couldn’t tell you if it was justified or not. But I worked for the BP briefly and at that station it was not uncommon to lose a couple of windshields a week to rock throwers( they eventually put these wierd “Mad Max”-looking cages on the vehicles) so I know a little about these types of situations.

            • Okie

              They were a primary weapon 2000 years ago because they were effective and lethal, so yes it could justify it. Whether you’re killed by a flying rock, bullet, nuclear weapon, or alien death ray, you are still dead.

              To evaluate your response to a threat requires you to prove it as a threat – thus my demand for you to offer circumstances where rocks thrown by boys towards men with guns has killed the men with guns.

              Since you cannot provide any such evidence your claim that the response of lethal force is invalid and if such an action is undertaken, it is criminal

              • USWeapon says:

                Again, a completely false claim from you. You demand proof of something ridiculous and then claim victory when you don’t get it. There is no need for a claim of someone killed with a gun by someone with a rock. The only claim needed is whether a rock can kill you. That is all that needs to be proven. PERIOD. Stop with your ridiculous tactic of trying to change the requirements to your advantage and then claiming you win.

                A three pound rock thrown by a 15 year old that is 12 feet away can and will kill you. Therefore you are under mortal threat. To require proof that someone else was as dense as you and refused to shoot someone advancing on them IS NOT REQUIRED.

                Provide proof that a three pound rock thrown by a 15 year old that is 12 feet away cannot and will not kill you. If you cannot prove that, then you lose the argument (which you already have lost, you just can’t seem to accept it yet).

        • Cyndi P says:

          DO – Also, as to the lethality of a group of people throwing rocks, back in ancient times I believe it was common practice for a group of people to execute someone by throwing rocks at them (stone-ing).

          Cyndi P – Stoning is a modern practice in several if not many countries. Quite often it is administered under Sharia Law, usually for adultery and maybe other crimes as well.

          • Cyndi,

            Maybe true.

            But what does THAT have to do with a boy throwing rocks at a government agent with a gun?

            • Cyndi P says:

              It means that A) the boy was stupid and the bullet was a drop of chlorine in the old gene pool, or B) the boy was daring, called the gun wielder’s bluff, and then lost.

              Either way, the parents are ultimately responsible for the boys death. He was a legal minor and wasn’t properly supervised. Perhaps child neglect charges are due in this case.

    • Bottom Line says:

      He should have shot all of them.

    • USWep,

      As typical lately, you miss the point.

      The reaction is the action

      “Normal” thinking people know that shooting a kid with a rock is an evil misuse of violence.

      This event was not staged.

      However, the scenario was manifested by the reaction of the US government.

      It is enviable that those the chose to use violence to solve problems of non-violent men will use such violence in a horrible and inappropriate way – which will then lead to the reversal of the very edict that created the manifestation.

      It might not happen tomorrow, or next week, or next year – but it will happen – and what will happen then, too, is the reliance on violence will have replaced rational thinking at exactly the point when the problem reaches its maximum intensity – resulting in a frozen-mindset and a consequence of being completely overrun.

      • Okay one point-throwing rocks and kid-two words that imply not dangerous and helpless or innocent-both words can be deceiving. Violence is violence if it can kill. Kid-hard to determine at what point they are just innocent and what point they can become young dangerous animals. I know I read that a lot of the drug cartel members who were kidnapping and torturing people to death would be considered kids, age wise in our society.

      • USWeapon says:

        And how exactly did I miss the point, BF. You said nothing that I didn’t say. I clearly said that shooting the boy was not justified. I clearly said the agent should be relieved of duty.

        It does not surprise me, however, that you laughably find every single situation in the world directly the fault of the evil imperialist US government. US government policy was the reason this happened. Of course, how could I not see that before.

        You border on ridiculousness sometimes.

        • USWep,

          You still miss the point.

          Your opinion of what SHOULD happen is interesting but completely moot.

          WHAT WILL HAPPEN is nothing.

          The consequence of that will be a continuation and expansion of cross border violence until the escalation literally overwhelms the area, and that escalation is DIRECTLY and SPECIFICALLY due to American policy.

          • BF says: “that escalation is DIRECTLY and SPECIFICALLY due to American policy.”

            D13 says: LOL…you really slay me. Because we wish to enforce our borders, then we are responsible for border violence….for enforcing our laws. Unbelievable but it is what I expect from you.

            BF says: “Normal” thinking people know that shooting a kid with a rock is an evil misuse of violence.”

            D13 says: Hmmm…seems I recall you saying that any use of violence against a “clear and present danger” is justified. Or, I suppose, you do not consider a teenage kid with a three or four pound rock 15 scant feet away, a clear and present danger. Ok…good for you.

            I don’t think that I have seen you answer this before, and if you have, please indulge me with a repetitive answer…but….you consider the enforcement of law as an action that creates violence if the other does not agree with it? Consequently, if the US has a law and a law enforcement officer enforces that law…then you see it as violence against non violent people when the law is being broken? Do I have this right?

            • D13,

              As typical of many, you cannot connect the dots because they appear too far distant from each other to make sense of it.

              D13 says: LOL…you really slay me. Because we wish to enforce our borders, then we are responsible for border violence….for enforcing our laws.

              Borders have been enforced since 1780.

              Why is now it appears to be so severe?

              D13 says: Hmmm…seems I recall you saying that any use of violence against a “clear and present danger” is justified.

              Sure is, but a boy with a rock fails the test.

              Or, I suppose, you do not consider a teenage kid with a three or four pound rock 15 scant feet away, a clear and present danger. Ok…good for you.

              Nope. Rocks can hurt, but bullets kill.

              I can avoid rocks, haven’t yet been able to avoid bullets (since I got hit by one once).

              ou consider the enforcement of law as an action that creates violence

              Enforcement of law ALWAYS creates violence

              That is what LAW is:

              ..use of VIOLENCE to enforce an edict.

              then you see it as violence against non violent people when the law is being broken? Do I have this right?

              When the LEO uses violence to enforce an edict upon NON-VIOLENT men – it is violence on non-violent men!!!

              How can it be something else???

              What do you call using violence on non-violent men OTHER THAN “using violence on non-violent men!!”.

              • BF says: “Borders have been enforced since 1780.Why is now it appears to be so severe?”

                D13 says: I believe our borders are far more violent and dangerous now than ever before…even in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. That is why.

                BF says: “Sure is, but a boy with a rock fails the test.”

                D13 says: What test…yours? Does not fail my test. I sure do not want to get beaned from 15 feet away by a three pound rock….it can kill.

                BF says: “I can avoid rocks, haven’t yet been able to avoid bullets (since I got hit by one once).”

                D13 says: Ok, so it is a matter of semantics with or bullets. We have a difference of opinion..that is cool. Bullets Leave nasty holes and scars, don’t they.(Sincerely hope you do not have lingering effects) No bullets for me but an awful lot of shrapnel three times….still set off airport scanners at times…always getting “the wand”.

                Ok, we have another difference of opinion. To you, any law enforcement officer is creating violence on the non violent by enforcement of law but it appears to me any enforcement of law is violence. I get it. But your reasoning is flawed….in my opinion. ok, cool. You answered my questions.

                I am sure that you also disagree with ranchers protecting their property by lethal means when their fences are cut and cabins broke into….sigh. Ok…you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions…I am entitled to mine.

                My belief….any act of physical violence against me is going to get the most lethal response that I can muster…and I will not lose one moments sleep.

                • D13,

                  A 3lb rock, 15 feet thrown by a boy …. geesh… D13, that’s weak….

                  rocks or bullets. We have a difference of opinion..that is cool.

                  Let me know how many links you can find of boys killing men with rocks ….

                  I know you don’t want me to find the number of links of bullets killing kids….

                  To defend this act simply demonstrates the extent of the depravity of the issue.

                  Sincerely hope you do not have lingering effects)

                  But your reasoning is flawed….in my opinion

                  How can it be flawed, when it is PRECISELY what it is???

                  I am sure that you also disagree with ranchers protecting their property by lethal means when their fences are cut and cabins broke into….sigh.

                  Too bad you don’t play poker – it’d be so easy to relieve you of your money.

                  Your “assured” belief of my position is badly flawed.

                  My belief….any act of physical violence against me is going to get the most lethal response that I can muster…and I will not lose one moments sleep.

                  And you understand why I say that such an belief as you have offered is a manifestation of evil.

                  • boys killing men with rocks?

                    Emmmmmmmmmm let me see.

                    I remember some kid named David taking down a big dude called Goliath.

                    And that rock didn’t even weigh a pound.

                    I wonder how heavy those rocks are they use to “stone to death” the awful sinners over there in the mid east someplace.

                  • USWeapon says:


                    I think with this particular issue you are falling to emotional appeal. If I threaten your life with a knife, I have threatened your life. If I threaten your life with a 3 pound rock or a brick, I have still threatened your life. For you to believe that it cannot be self defense because the weapon was a “less effective” weapon is simply silly. You attempt to conjure up this image of a helpless child throwing a little rock and say “look how unfair this is.” That is nothing more than emotional appeal.

                    Have you ever been hit with a brick thrown with force at a distance of twenty feet or more? I imagine not (although I also imagine that if you say “yes, in the head”, it would clear a lot of things up for us 😉 ) That brick will kill you. These guys were having rocks and bricks thrown at them. An average brick weighs between 5 and 6 pounds. And thrown that distance, it can do serious damage, and a shot to the head will kill you. I know that it goes against every fiber in your being to admit that these guys may have acted in self defense. But you were not there, and for you to claim that you alone are the final judge on what is or is not considered a life threatening moment is somewhat ridiculous.

                    We have seen people who were killed by a baseball thrown by a pitcher from three times that distance away. Drop the emotional appeal and look at this realistically. Whether you like it or not, a rock can and will kill a man. I don’t like that a 15 year old got killed. I don’t like that this is the way the event unfolded. I tend to err on the side of it was an overreaction rather than a proper reaction. But I also know I wasn’t there, and neither were you. Your passing judgement as though you are the final say in all things is little more than hubris at this point.

                    I do understand your conclusion on D13’s final statement there. But I will attempt to qualify it for the Colonel, although I certainly do not speak for him. I do believe we share a similar mentality, however, since we earned it the same way. His statement should have read “any act of physical violence against me that I feel is a threat to my life is going to get the most lethal response that I can muster…and I will not lose one moments sleep.” I know that you don’t believe that the Colonel believes he must kill a man who simply punches him in a bar. But if you threaten his life, you are as good as dead.

                    • Thanks, USWEP….I mistakenly made the assumption that BF was logical enough to connect the same dots that he claims no one else does. He just does not live in reality land and any attempt to get him to see reality is a lost cause, I am afraid. I would love to play poker with him…I need a new plane.

                      To use your analogy…a man in a bar that gets drunk and picks a fight…I will not whip out a gun and shoot him. I will control the situation as best as possible. The man picks up a beer bottle and breaks on the bar and comes at me…I am not going to be John Wayne and try to disarm him with a bar stool. I am going to pull a weapon and warn him…if he persists in trying to cut me, I will shoot him as it is a clear and present danger to my life and I see no civility in allowing myself to get cut.

                      So a few rocks and things thrown from 30 or so feet gets a warning. When a 15 year old lad gets tired of that and walks to within 15 feet and getting closer gets a pulled gun and another warning. I do not have a responsibility to retreat…he does.If he ignores the warning and attempts to throw, I have options…deadly or not and the situation depends on more circumstances. If I look over his shoulder and his bravado is spurned on by 15 or 20 others and they get more brave the more there is no response and I have a buddy doing his job a little further away, the decision that I have to make is as follows:

                      1) Turn and walk away…which breeds more violence from the lads across the way and the one that is close. It will simply embolden him.

                      2) let the illegals continue to break the law and we just walk away only gets more attempts and sends the signal…just pick up rocks and everyone walks in.

                      3) Warn the lad and assess the threat from the others. Continue to do your job and if there is a perceived threat or a “clear and present danger” use whatever means is necessary to alleviate the threat. It was not only the lad with the rock but the others as well. Unfortunately, the lad was killed…..why was he killed? He walked to the border area, with a clear intention of inciting not only riot, but also with the intention of using his bravado against authority. He loses. End of sentence.

                      4) It was not coincidence that “armed” police showed up on the Mexican side during the FBI investigation…we have great pictures of the Army or Police that showed up and leveled rifles….it is questionable if they were the “real” police. Highly questionable.

                      However, I will defend BF only on one issue….he is using emotion from a political standpoint. Until he comes down and faces the issue….all he can bring forth is hyperbole and quotes that are on the internet that have been sanitized to justify his position. He has no justification otherwise…especially on this issue. Actually, no one has until they have been here.

                      The agents down here are getting really good training now…but it is military style training. It is life protecting training and evaluation and assessment training. These particular border patrol agents have been through the training and it was probably the first real incident that they have faced since the training.

                      I do not give a rat;s ass what Mexico thinks about what we did. IF they want to widen the war that is already on the border….bring it on. WE…the UNITED STATES did not start it. And for anyone to say that enforcing our border laws is immoral and wrong simply does not know the situation.

                      BF further says that I do not understand him when I use the analogy of the ranchers but he will be the first to scream when, as he puts it, simple men looking for work are shot down and they end up unarmed. I am telling you right now…if you are a simple man crossing the border at night and you are encountered by a rancher….do not run. You will die. You are on private property and you crossed a fence line doing so and just being there makes you guilty… end of sentence. It is a war down here and it is not the policy of the United States…no matter what spin BF tries to put on it. I understand him very well. Very well.

                      But thanks, sir, for your response. I thought it obvious.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Sorry, your “violence upon non-violent men” fails in this case. Clearly the boy had a rock of some size, and clearly he and others were throwing rocks at the LEO’s.

                As such, clearly they were behaving VIOLENTLY.

                You CANNOT claim that someone is non-violent when they are being violent, that is an OBVIOUS contradiction.

                Certainly, SHOOTING someone that is throwing rocks at you is a CLEAR OVER-REACTION to the threat involved. That part we can agree on.

                However, I have to throw the BS flag on your assertion that the people throwing rocks were “non-violent”


  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    2010 California Primaries: Voters OK Open Primaries

    Blaming political parties for California’s dysfunction, voters dumped the state’s partisan primary but got no guarantee it would change government.

    The passage of Proposition 14 on Tuesday gave the nation’s most populous state an open primary in which voters can cast ballots for any candidate.

    Thomas Garner, 65, said he voted for the initiative because he can’t see a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    “They fight like cats and dogs, but in the end they’re all the same. The system is broken,” said Garner, an attorney from San Diego.

    “Californians hate their state’s politics, and they are looking for measures to change it,” added Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College.

    Still, it’s doubtful Proposition 14 will be the panacea to political stalemate in Sacramento, he added.

    Democrats will likely continue representing liberal regions, with Republicans elected in conservative areas.

    Read the rest of the article here:

    I found it interesting that such a staunchly partisan state such as California might go the route of installing open primaries as part of their political landscape. I am a supporter of the idea of an open primary. After all, when you are talking about electing the person who is supposed to be the person who represents you in office, shouldn’t the default position be that the voter should have much input as possible?

    One thing that I have gone back and forth on is whether in an open primary, voters should be alowed to participate in the primary for both parties at the same time. Having the ability to do that sets the stage for some bad things in terms of sabotaging the party you don’t identify with. For example, during the last election cycle, I was allowed to vote in whichever primary I chose, but not both. I had to decide which one was more important to me. Otherwise, I would have been able to vote for both my candidate in the one party’s primary and the candidate I felt was the weakest in the other party. That is not productive and is certainly not within the “spirit” of what an election is supposed to do. But it is certainly something that can be done. And in an era where idiots like Limbaugh are telling voters to go out and vote for Hillary to keep Obama from winning the primary because Obama is the stronger candidate, It becomes a certainly that voting in both primaries is marred by partisanship and gaming the system.

    But on the other side of that equation is the fact that I should have as much say as possible in figuring out who represents me. If I am undecided in which way I will vote in the general election, then I have a legitimate right to have a say in the candidates that win both primaries. Make no bones about it, the system is currently set up in a way that serves the two parties, not the voters. And I must support this new resolution in California, if for no other reason than the fact that both of the two party’s leadership hates the idea of open primaries. If the party leadership hates it, it must be good for the people and not the party.

    • Mathius says:

      I like open primaries too.. but I don’t like the ability to vote in both for the same reason. To take it a step further, I don’t think registered Republicans should be able to vote in Democratic primaries and vice versa. There’s still just too much potential for Limbaugh’s idiocy.

      On the plus side, this would incentivize people to register as independents rather than R’s and D’s. The only reason I’m a registered Democrat (probably one of the only ones at SUFA) is so that I can vote in the primaries – I hate that my registration bolsters their party identification numbers.

      In fact – let’s just do away with party registration entirely, break the R’s and D’s into their component parts (R’s into fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, bible-thumpers, libertarians\tea, and the crazy folks; D’s into communists, tree-hugging hippies, tax-and-spenders, politically correct nuts, and the crazy folks) and let people vote in primaries in the new parties. Would be better than a system where a third party vote is effectively a wasted vote.

      • Mathius

        The States where I have resided DO NOT have “registration”.

        When you show up to vote in the primary you must declare which ballot you want. The D or the R.

        And both parties are known to organize efforts to sabotage the others primary when this method is used.

        I think the “parties” should come up with their own method of selecting ONE candidate for the office AND they should pay the expense of that selection.

        THEN have a general OPEN primary to select say the top 4 or 5 to run off in the general.

        • So let’s do this: let’s go back to the days when the party bosses picked their candidates in a cigar-smoke filled back room.

          I will most likely vote for the candidate from the Tax-and-Spend Party (TASP).

          I suggest runoff elections rather than winner-take-all.

          • Mathius

            Your sarcasm won’t work this morning for you see, that is how they do it today.

            They have just created the illusion of choice in the primary race. And the tax payers get to foot the bill for the charade.

            I grant you that they can not control the outcome in ALL cases, but they control more than they lose.

            I visualize something like the NCAA basketball tourney combined with GOOOH process. Start at the precinct or ward (small area of 2000 people) and work up. Each bracket gets smaller and smaller until the final four is reached.

            Could all be done in one year at the most.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:


        Would that his idiocy worked. Hard to believe it but I would have preferred Hillary. Perhaps, subconsciously, he was doing it for the good of the republic.

        PS,. In response to your comment the other day, young buck, I am but a year older than D-13 and probably close to Rowe and JAC. There is a lot of truth to that old saw, “Youth is no match to age and treachery.).

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Limbaugh may behave like an idiot at times, but he is No Idiot.

    • I think all primaries should be open-I personally don’t think I should have to be a member of any political party to vote in this country. I don’t however believe one should be able to vote in more than one primary. This subject throws me because I know the parties have to be private organizations but the rights it gives them to set all the rules when it comes to voting really bothers me.

    • Its about time SOME state did this. We need open primaries everywhere. I am with V, you should not have to be a party member to vote, so that you could vote in the primary of another party if you chose, but you should not be able to vote more than once, meaning that primaries would have to share data to prevent multiple voting.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Primaries should be done away with all together.

    • Actually what this proposition does is create a spring semifinals to be followed by the finals in the fall. All candidates from all parties are listed on one ballot. The top 2 will run off in the the fall. Thus some districts will have DvsD and some RvsR in the fall. It means that any given candidate in the spring must run against all opponents not just those from his own party. Some wierd results could come out of this as a result as 2 strong candidates could knock each other out of the general election. The hope is that more centrist candidates will emerge. I doubt it. The real problem is gerrymandered districts. We will have to wait until the next election to see if that is solved. Again, I doubt it unless the citizen panel doing the mapping holds to a strict area to circumferecne rule.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    Security Council Sanctions Against Iran

    After nearly half a year of tough negotiations, the United Nations Security Council has endorsed a U.S. sponsored sanctions resolution against Iran over its suspect nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

    The U.S. and allies had hoped for all 15 members of the council to vote in favor of the resolution, but three countries refused. Turkey and Brazil held up the 10 a.m scheduled vote, as their ambassadors waited for instructions from their capitals on how to vote.

    When the Security council session finally started, the Turkish and Brazilian ambassadors announced that they would vote against the resolution, saying their 11th-hour negotiations with Iran aimed at convincing Tehran to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency obligations should have been given more time. The President of the Security Council then brought the resolution up for the vote. 12 countries voted in favor, Turkey and Brazil voted against, and Lebanon, under heavy Iranian political pressure, abstained. The 12 “yes” votes were enough to approve the resolution.

    The resolution imposes an arms embargo against Iran, blacklists entities controlled by the Islamic Republic Shipping Lines, and freezes the assets of certain individuals and organizations tied to Iran’s nuclear program and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It also calls for tighter restrictions on Iranian banks, asking countries to avoid transactions that could be connected to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

    At the start of negotiations several months ago, the U.S., France, U.K., and Germany had wanted tougher sanctions, including targeting Iran’s energy sector, but Tehran’s major trading partners Russia and China refused to support measures that would affect their economic ties. Responding to the vote, Iranian Ambassador to the U.N., Mohamed Khazaee chided ambassadors in the council who had endorsed the resolution. He insisted that his country has no ambitions to make nuclear bombs. And he said that the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.

    Read the rest of the article here:

    Once again we find ourselves with a look at increasing sanctions against a nation that doesn’t want to play by the rules set up by the UN. I will forget the fact that I believe that Iran, as a sovereign nation, has the right to do whatever they like in terms of furthering their ability to effectively do damage to their enemies. If that means building a nuclear weapon, then so be it. Who are we, the country with the largest nuclear weapon stockpile in the world, to tell other countries that they cannot do the same? I have said over and over, punish them dearly and permanently should they decide to use those weapons or if they give the weapon to a terrorist organization who uses it for mass destruction. At least at that point you will be punishing behavior rather than dictating to a sovereign nation the terms for its existence.

    But that is not going to happen. No, the US and most of her allies are far too ingrained in the political equivalency of “do as I say, not as I do.” We spend too much time telling the rest of the world how to act without cleaning up our own back yard first. Therefore, we believe it is within our rights to tell another sovereign nation what to do and how to do it. It is exactly this type of behavior that has “endeared” us to the rest of the world. The people of Iran will suffer, and the leadership of Iran will not. The people will become desperate, and then the leadership will use that desperation in order to manipulate the people into committing acts which they normally wouldn’t do.

    There must come a point when we realize that sanctions such as this are completely ineffective against a country such as Iran. The people don’t really control the government in Iran. It is the other way around. No matter how much the sanctions hurt the people, they will not hurt the greedy and sanctimonious leadership of the country. Therefore they do not work. Furthermore, the sanctions are ineffective because they will be routinely broken by whatever country finds that it is in their interest to break them. Russia is a known offender of this behavior. If there is a benefit to dealing with Iran, other countries will find a way to do that deal, sanctions or no sanctions. For the record, the US is no different, and would skirt the sanctions if it benefits them.

    So let’s see the sanctions for what they are: nothing more than a political statement that has only one true effect. That effect is that the leadership in Iran uses the sanctions as justification for their hate-mongering of the United States and Israel. It is a motivational tool.

    This is not to say that Iran is not a dangerous country. Despite some folks on this site attempting to ploy you with ill-informed rhetoric, Iran is a violent country with bad intentions against its enemies, namely the US and Israel. But I don’t think that these sanctions are helping. They are merely poking an already dangerous group of idiots with a stick.

    • You are correct USW…..Security Council resolutions mean nothing to anyone. It is a joke.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Leave them be. If they attack the US, annihilate them.

    • USWep,

      There is no evidence -including historically- that Iran is a systemic threat to any nation, let alone USA.

      I agree with your statement – the failure of the sanctions is because of the failure of the USA to abide by its own agreements.

      Iran is, and has subjected itself, to the IAEA as part of the agreement that it signed, and the USA signed.

      The USA has failed completely in its obligations under that agreement.

      The biggest fear: the foreign policy of the USA as it pertains to Iran may cause Iran to revoke its participation in the NPT, and join Israel, N.Korea, India, and Pakistan as rogue nuclear nations.

  5. Cyndi P says:

    Here’s another “why are they doing that?”

    Official US Air Force Website. No right wing lies here…

    ….”For the very first time, the U.S. Air Force has validated a unit’s wartime capability to defend the homeland by fighting an enemy right here on U.S. soil,” said Col. Greg Nelson, the commander of the Kentucky Air National Guard’s 123rd Airlift Wing, which served as the lead organization for the ORI…..

    They’re planning to fight an enemy on US soil? What enemy? Mexicans???

    ….Unlike traditional ORIs, in this one the participants were tasked with supporting civil authorities while fighting an unconventional foe in the United States. In the past, ORIs have typically required units to deploy to simulated overseas bases and defend against conventional military forces……

    Do they need this to combat Lone Wolf Muslims going on shooting sprees?

    ……All three organizations worked seamlessly to launch theater airlift and medical evacuation sorties across the Gulf Coast region, supporting U.S. Northern Command missions and civil authorities, while foiling multiple attacks by well-organized terrorists……

    Ooops, scratch the Muslims. Must be those well organized ‘teabaggers’. Also, doesn’t the Northern Command include Canada? Did they work with Canadian troops?

    …..”Even more significant, this inspection marked the first time that any Air Force unit has been wartime validated in support of the security and defense of the United States of America. That’s huge,” Colonel Nelson said….

    The evil BOOOOOSH didn’t do this did he? Well, I guess not ‘cuz because Col. Nelson says this is the first time. So much for that tin foil hat ‘Bush the Dictator’ meme.

    …..”Almost everything that an airlift wing would do in support of a real-world homeland security/homeland defense mission, whether it be response to a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or humanitarian aid following a hurricane, would be in support of a lead civilian agency at the federal, state or local level,” Colonel Nelson said. “As a result, the overall command and control aspects are completely different from those of an overseas operation…..

    Well, let’s hope this all benign enough.
    Never mind Czar John Holdren authorizing the use of UAVs in the national air space, and all that other icky police state stuff that’s been going on since the Regime took power.

    • … fight an enemy on US soil? What enemy? Mexicans??



      • Yeah, I get that feeling.

        I’m surprised you’re the only one who has responded to this post. I figured it would send several ‘red-flag alerts’.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I’m still thinking of what to say.

          Your post definately caught my attention as The Kentucky Air National Guard’s 123rd Airlift Wing is 6.9 miles away.

          • Nothing to worry about. Do not panic. Despite what the Colonel said, this is not the first time that this has happened.

            7th Bomb Wing ORI’s at the now renamed Carswell AFB in Fort Worth in 1972-1976 consistently staged readiness inspections against an enemy (whoever it was considered) as ground assault against the gates of Carswell. These type of ORI’s included the evacuation of civil authorities, using the 7th security Police to supplement civilian police officers, using the base as a Tactical Operations Center in coordination with civil authority. It was done all the time. He is completely wrong that it was the first time in history. Carswell AFB, had B-52 and KC-135 tankers on strip alert 24/7 and the Buffs were armed with nuclear weapons. There was an on base nuclear weapon storage facility and 12 miles outside of Fort Worth was a nuclear weapon storage facility. Every SAC base that had nuclear weaponry conducted ORI’s against an imaginary enemy on US soil and consistently coordinated actions with civilian authorities and intermingled communications and supplemental manpower to bolster maximum effort.

            • Cyndi P says:

              You’d think the Public Affairs officer would have correct info. What else his he mistake about, I wonder.

              I guess my biggest issue with this is my distrust of the Regime in power.

              • Cyndi

                I wasn’t kidding the other day when I said we have an inside track.

                That is if they let the insiders know when its coming.

                No worries my island buddy.

  6. As this is open mic I thought I would pop this in:

    Hope everyone has got somewhere to watch it, should be a good match. US had a surprise win over Spain a few months ago, Spain being the European champions it was a good result. Best of luck hopefully England will edge it of course 😉

    • Who made the ball? Bwahahahahaha

    • USWeapon says:

      I am absolutely ready for this one. My big ass TV and Bose surround sount system will be working overtime beginning at 1:30, eST when we begin to kick England’s pattotie.

      The US and England are the two favorite teams in the WC for Mrs. Weapon and I. We are both big WC fans. We have had June 12 circled on our calender since the day the schedule was announced…. literally.

      I loooooove the World Cup. I am so excited that it starts tomorrow. Good luck to your boys, except in their first pool play game, of course.

      • Well I suspect England and USA will go through the group stage but I hope they dont relax against Slovenia and Algeria. Although I would dearly love to see England win the world cup I reckon its going to be Spain or Argentina who do it. Well if the US coach is smart he will be telling his players to try and get Rooney mad, he is an amazing player but has a very short fuse 😦

    • Arghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Stupid sodding Green he has done that before!!!! He will be hung by the press, no one hates the England team more than the English.

  7. Anti-incumbent sentiment at it’s finest. Who wants to bet he’ll be bribed to step aside? Regardless, this is trouble for the Ds

    • When I first read this I was surprised at the Dem Party reaction and just thought they had changed their tactic from having their parties representatives become criminals after they are elected, to having them already be criminal. Saves time converting them in Washington, ya know.

    • Oh My-What’s TARP-want’s South and North Korea to be under one democracy-he can’t wait for a debate. 😯 Yikes can’t really blame them for wanting him to step down-but the people have spoken He He He

  8. OK all you Physics dudes and dudettes.

    From an article at HuffPo on death just rebooting time. Not asking about the broader claim here.

    But I do want to know what you think of the claim made in the following paragraph:

    “Before he died, Einstein said “Now Besso [an old friend] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us … know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” In fact, it was Einstein’s theory of relativity that showed that space and time are indeed relative to the observer. Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don’t perceive them. But if the world is observer-created, we shouldn’t be surprised that it’s destroyed with each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction.”

    The question I have is WHEN and HOW did Quantum Theory end the view that particles exist if we don’t perceive them?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      What you have there is a lazy person’s interpretation of the “particle in a box” phenomenon or the Schroedinger’s Cat phenomenon.

      Basically, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if you put a particle inside of a box and close the box, there is a finite probability that the particle MIGHT be outside of the box at any given time, but the only way to know for certain if the particle were inside or outside of the box would be through observation.

      NOTE HOWEVER that the particle STILL EXISTS regardless of whether it is in the box or not, so I just consider this lazy reporting by someone who doesn’t understand relativistic physics very well.

    • Hey JAC. This is one of the most fascinating aspects of physics to me. I think we’re talking here about the Copenhagen interpretation (, which was created in the 20’s. Basically, it states that particles are undefined until observed. The best example is the double slit experiment. An electron may go through either slit, but the only way to theoretically construct the experimentally determined pattern is to treat the electrons as waves (passing through both slits at the same time). When you observe which slit the electron passes through, it is no longer treated as a wave and the pattern disappears. That is a very brief description, but you can find better online.

      I tend to interpret it in the scope of information theory. The particle “exists” before we observe it, but the information about the particle is undefinable. Only when an observation is made do we collapse the wave function. That is, a particle moving through space may have any spin and indeed we treat it as though it has every spin, but once we make a measurement it has a definite spin.

      Sorta like the tree falling in the forest. Does it make a sound? Well, if you define sound as a pressure wave, yes. If you define sound as the vibration of your eardrum, then no.

      The interesting topic for me is the idea of time as being relative. We experience time as moving from past to future. Antimatter can be described as “normal” matter moving backwards in time. The weakness of gravity relative to the other forces may be explained by the force extending outside of space-time.

      I must say that this is complex stuff that I don’t fully understand (who does?) so don’t take my words for absolute truth…

      • Antimatter can be described as “normal” matter moving backwards in time.

        No, not quite.

        Anti-matter is merely atoms whose protons and electrons spin opposite to those protons and atoms in “normal matter”.

        “Normal” matter electrons spin “left”.
        “Anti-electron” matter spin “right”.

        When these two pieces of matter interact, their spin stops. Left reverses right and Right reverses left.

        When a particle stops spinning – it instantly dissolves into energy.

        Thus, anti-matter and “normal” matter – when they interact, cancel each other out into pure energy via the calculation E=mc2.

        Time is not a calculation in energy. Distance OVER time (velocity) is a calculation in energy.

        Many say “if we went faster than the speed of light, time would go backwards”. This is not at all what the theory says.

        The theory says as you approach the speed of light time slows down as your mass increases.

        The calculation of this uses a formula the ends with a solution requiring a Square root – resulting in positive AND a negative answer.

        The “negative” answer is a TACHYON – a particle whose property is opposite of a photon. That is, as it approaches ZERO velocity – its relative time slows down, it GAINS mass.

        The theorist who described this particle won the Nobel prize.

        • Oh yeah, PS:

          Both tachyons and photons go the same direction of time – entropy.

        • “Antimatter can be described as “normal” matter moving backwards in time.

          No, not quite.”

          No, no, pretty sure I’ve got this one right. Feynman diagrams, for example, treat antimatter as simple matter moving backwards in time.

          Also, an anti-electron (positron) has the opposite charge of the electron. It is the case that a positron has the “opposite” spin of an electron. That is, an electron is a left-handed particle where a positron is right-handed. The term here is parity.

          Spin, in this case does not mean that the particle is spinning in the classical sense. It is an intrinsic quality. What matters in matter-antimatter annihilation is not the spin of the particle, but the type (lepton, baryon, meson, etc). An electron (lepton) colliding with an antiproton (baryon) will not be the same as an electron colliding with a positron (lepton), though both have the same magnitude and handedness of spin.

          I’m not sure about entropy being such an important factor in special relativity. It certainly does define the “arrow of time.” That is, entropy does not decrease. I’m confused about your entropic system and the “rate of entropy.” Entropy is simply a measurement of the disorder of a system. It gives a “direction” to time. Special relativity states that, as one increases in speed, one will experience time differently. A muon will decay to an electron in a fraction of a second. If that muon is travelling near the speed of light it will exist for a longer time (to us) than if it were stationary. The muon, though, decays in a normal time period in its own rest frame. Not sure where entropy enters in there.

          General relativity deals with objects with mass distorting space-time. That is, space and time are intimately related. In physics we define something called a four-vector (ct, x, y, z) or (E/c, px, py, pz). To say that time is not a calculation in energy is true in the mathematical sense, but they are related. For example, Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle states that delta(x)delta(p) and delta(E)delta(t) are constant. The faster something decays, the more uncertainty in energy range of the particle.

          • Re: Feynman diagrams

            It is arguable. Dirac described the creation and existence of anti-matter which does not require any “time” backwards.

            Feynman diagrams the same thing – and he argues it shows the particle moving backwards in time.

            The math is the same.

            Relativity theory does NOT say
            “Special relativity states that, as one increases in speed, one will experience time differently. “.

            If fact is says precisely the opposite of your statement:

            As YOU increase in speed, YOUR experience of time DOES NOT CHANGE. The clock on your space ship ticks one second long for every second.

            Your clock and YOU are trapped in the same entropic system, thus share the same time.

            The clocks outside your system do not.

            When you stop and check the clocks, they will not show the same TIME PASSAGE. But if the two clocks where on the same ship, they would show the same time.

            • I’m not sure why you are arguing with me…

              “When you stop and check the clocks, they will not show the same TIME PASSAGE. But if the two clocks where on the same ship, they would show the same time.”

              Is this not the definition of “experience time differently”? Perhaps I should say, “experience time differently than an observer in a different rest frame”. The muon lives longer than it should because it experiences a different time than the scientist observing it.


    • JAC

      Quantum mechanics says no such thing.

      As typical, people who have no clue about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make up such bizarre myths about them, as if the theory and the Universe isn’t already strange enough! 🙂

      Peter nails it precisely.

      Uncertainly simply is a lack of positive knowledge on its LOCATION – it does not mean “a lack of existence”.

      • Further,

        “Time” is merely the “arrow” of entropy. Man’s attempt to measure the rate of entropy gives us abstractions that we call seconds and minutes.

        But time -itself- is not an abstraction. Nor does time have to be constant – that is, the rate of entropy does not have to be constant. In fact, if it is constant – that would be bizarre.

        Relativity simply acknowledges these two things – (1) time (entropy) moves in one direction.
        (2) time (entropy) is constant ONLY relative to an observe within the same ENTROPIC stream.

  9. Who is more responsible to for this problem:

    The Republicans who make it so difficult to come to America legally that they sneak in. (Green cards now cost almost $1,000 in fees which is hugely expensive for a potential day laborer). The Republicans who advocate sealing a border so large that it’s virtually impossible and prohibitively expensive. Who want to round up and expel these individuals, who by virtue of their illegal status, pay no taxes and can thus undercut citizen labor. The Republicans who criminalize drugs, thus creating a drug war on the Mexican border which allows them to further demonize immigrants and make immigration (legal or otherwise) harder still.


    The Democrats who provide so many entitlements that unemployed citizens would rather sit on the couch eating potato ships than go out and work menial jobs. (After all, $5/hr is better than $0/hr). Where, if the Americans were willing to work these jobs, there would be less unemployment and fewer job openings to entice immigrant workers in the first place, to say nothing of the added tax revenue.


    Please respond in the form of a haiku or limerick.

    • laziness is bad
      entitlements are bad too
      and politicians

      • Five buck an hour
        It is better than nothing
        Get off of your a$$.

        Alternate last lines:
        -Get off of the couch.
        -Stop sponging off me.
        -Go pick strawberries.
        -I need my lawn mowed

    • Even your dear man Obama
      Disallows, Matt, your loved marijuana
      The Democrats too
      want to keep it taboo
      They won’t let you do what you wanna

      Wow, that was really bad! Is that a limerick? I can’t remember the rules.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Chairman Barney Franks’s House
        Has a plant owned by his spouse
        He didn’t know what it was
        And we believed him because
        Something, something, he’s a louse

      • Wonderful, but I have to disqualify it since the limerick was off topic.

        • It was not off topic! You were asking who was more responsible for the problems on the border. I was pointing out that the democrats don’t seem to be any more in favor of legalizing drugs than the republicans, so they are equally responsible in that area.

    • Went hunting for those once.

      The haikus are good on the barbie, with garlic and onion.

      The limericks are hard to skin and aint much meat when your done.

    • Bottom Line says:


      • That is neither a limerick nor a haiku. I’m sorry, but I will have to disqualify you.

    • Who’s to blame we ask
      For all the confusion at our gate
      We fuss and fight and debate
      While people are left to their fate
      It’s not to late
      Time to close the gate

      And then wonder and debate

    • USWeapon says:

      Democrats like votes
      So they push amnesty hard
      This will fail again

      Republicans scream
      Keep borders closed up tightly
      Who will mow their grass?

    • Mathius says:

      Red state tobacco
      Is glad that I can’t smoke pot
      It’s coincidence

      Immigrants vote blue
      More often than they vote red
      It’s coincidence

      Third parties make sense
      But Red/Blue use wedge issues
      It’s coincidence

      The reds are morons!
      So say the idiot blues
      But you vote for them

      The bleeding heart blues
      are weak on crime, say the reds
      But I vote for them anyway

      Seal the border!
      But we still want cheap labor
      And don’t forget pot!

      • Why do you think DPM was invited to Laguna Madre…it’s proximity is no coincidence.

        • And don’t forget pot! Forgot to put that in.

          • Mathius says:

            D13, you are officially in charge of judging the first ever SUFA poetry contest. The winner gets a 0.0001 Pirate Points. (I have a few saved up)

            • USWeapon says:

              I am quite proud of mine, and I went so far as to give a Haiku for BOTH sides! Gimme the Pirate points!

              • USWeapon says:

                The reward is small
                Too small in my opinion
                up the ante Matt

                I can do haikus all day long.

            • I agree with USW. Up the ante Matt.

              But sorry Weapon– I like Vs the best.

              VOTE FOR VH 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                Alright, alright.. upping the ante..

                0.001 Pirate Points
                10 Mathius Points
                and some fresh backstraps

                I agree though, I think V’s was the best, but I vote for my own because I really want those backstraps.

                But the final decision belongs to D13.

                • Personally, I like Jennie’s the best-But thank you both and what the heck is a backstrap-and no I am not just a city girl 🙂

                • D13…thinking to employ political strategy here….ummmmmmmmmmm….do I get some back straps if I vote for you?

                  Or……….VH…do I get some back straps from you? I am learning how to bargain, Washington style.

                  Dunno….I will consult DPM in private on this…. 10 Mathius points and back straps…wow….such an honor.

                  • Perhaps I declare it a tie….and get back straps from both of you OR…….just turn the Pirate loose and split the bounty….choices…..tough choices….I mean…ewrrrr…responsibility…yes I am sure that is it….

                    Ok..decisions to be rendered shortly.

                • I think I win best limerick.

                  • I agree and I think US had the best haiku it may have been the only haiku but none the less it was good and I think I gave the best answer but I’m not sure it actually counts as a limerick. Glad I’m not D13.

  10. naten53 says:

    Think Tough Gun Laws Keep Europeans Safe? Think Again…

    It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with all its very strict gun control laws. And yet last week Derrick Bird shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others. A headline in The Times of London read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

    Multiple victim public shootings were assumed to be an American thing for it is here the guns are, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, where most countries have much tougher gun laws, has experienced many of the worst multiple victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple victim public shootings in Europe occurred where guns are banned. So it is in the United States, too — all the multiple victim public shootings (where more than three people have been killed) have taken place where civilians are not allowed to have a gun.

    Look at recent history. Where have the worst K-12 school shootings occurred? It has not been in the U.S. but Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth worst shooting was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 killed. The fifth worst school related murder spree, with 11 murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

    With three of the worst five attacks, Germany may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control. Even by European standards, Germany has some of the strictest gun control laws. Indeed, these laws are far stricter than existing gun control in the U.S., or for that matter, the restrictions currently being discussed in the United States.

    Though not quite as tight as U.K. regulations, Germany has strict licensing and registration requirements. German licenses are only valid for three years and to obtain a gun license people must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness as well as convince authorities that they have a necessity for a gun. This comes on top of requirements against mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violence or aggressive tendencies, and felony convictions.

    The attacks in Europe might not get as much attention in the U.S. or even in other countries in Europe besides where the attack occurred as the attack in the U.S., but multiple victim public shootings appear to be at least as common in Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks occurring in Europe since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun free zones, places where guns in the hands of civilians were not allowed:

    – Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament.
    – Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.
    – Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
    – Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
    – Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.
    – Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
    – Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
    – Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school.
    – Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
    – Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall (not included in totals below because it may possibly have involved the mafia).
    – Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
    Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
    – Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
    – Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
    – Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
    Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
    – Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year’s Eve.
    – Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.

    So how does this compare to the United States? The University of Chicago’s Bill Landes and I have collected data on all the multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (for a discussion of that information see the newly revised third edition of my book “More Guns, Less Crime”). If we only examine those cases where 4 or more people have been killed in an attack, the worst such attack was the Lubby’s Cafeteria shooting in which 23 people died. On average 10.56 people have died each year,

    One reason for limiting the cases to attacks with 4 or more deaths is that I haven’t collected all the cases in Europe, and the quick review here will miss fewer of the larger cases.

    Obviously, my list above for Western Europe will not have many cases where 4 or more people have been killed in a multiple victim public shooting, and I have not included attacks in Northern Ireland. That said, the average number for Europe over the 9.5 years from 2001 to the present is about 11.8 deaths per year — essentially the same as the U.S. rate.

    On the other hand, Western Europe’s population over the last decade is about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). To have the same per capita rate as the U.S., Western Europe would have had to experience one more shooting involving 4 people killed per year in six of the nine-and-a-half years. Whether a more detailed search would find that many more cases isn’t clear, but that is surely possible.

    Large multiple victim public shootings are exceedingly rare events, but they garner massive news attention and the ingrained misperceptions they produce are hard to erase.

    When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, including those from Germany, they usually start off by asking for my opinion as to why multiple victim public shootings are such an American problem.

    And of course, they are astonished when I remind of attacks in their own countries and I point out that this is a universal problem, but with a common factor: the attacks take place where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a contributor. He is an economist and author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May.”

  11. Obama’s Hands-Off Approach Just Gives More Power to Russia

    By Andrew Lewis Taylor

    Published June 10, 2010

    Last week, the Ukrainian parliament voted to outlaw its own chances of NATO membership, now and forevermore. It was yet another step in President Obama’s quiet retreat from Eastern Europe, and Russia’s re-assertion of power in the region. The west’s feeble attempts at resistance were poignantly dramatized by April’s egg-and-smoke bomb fight which broke out in Ukraine’s parliament.

    The fight was a decidedly Second World affair, featuring wasteful hurling of foodstuffs but with a menu limited to beets and eggs. It was also one-sided. Only Ukraine’s pro-Western opposition, recently ousted from office, arrived armed with eggs. Their targets: those seeking to ratify a 25-year extension of Russia’s Soviet-era naval base in southern Ukraine, less than a week after it was signed.

    The renewal was controversial. Could Ukraine actually tell its overbearing neighbor to pack up the warships and go home? Would Moscow insist on hanging on?

    Even while defending themselves with umbrellas, the pro-Russian parliamentarians knew they would be victorious. Despite the dust-up, the agreement was signed. No one expected the US to oppose a power play by the Russian-backed government, and it did not. Sadly, even if it holds another free election, Ukraine will not soon again have the same freedom it did when its democrats came to power in 2005.

    The result was thus anticlimactic. After all, Moscow had already called the West’s bluff — in the Russia-Georgia war of 2008 — when it steamrolled another westernizing NATO aspirant.

    The Georgia war did not seem consequential at the time. In the Official History, crackpot Georgian leader Michael Saakashvili had rashly provoked the Russians, igniting a brief war in which his country was humiliated. (It didn’t help that the tracksuit-wearing Saakashvili often behaved with all the self-control of a “Grand Theft Auto” avatar.)

    However, at the end of the day, this poor man’s Yeltsin was in fact the leader of Georgia. Moreover, ever since the Georgian pro-democracy movement overthrew its resident strongman in 2003, Georgia and America had been close. Georgia sent 2,000 troops to Iraq, and more to Afghanistan. Tbilisi hosted chummy Presidential visits, and got US support to join NATO. In the eyes of Saakashvili and most of the world, Georgia and the US were buddies.

    Unfortunately, when the 2008 war broke out, Vladimir Putin immediately flew home from the Beijing Olympics while President Bush stayed for the swimming. Nothing could have more vividly signaled the world that Russia was free to start the rollback of westernization in the communist world. And so, Russia surges forward.

    Autocratic Russia has never liked stasis. Its borders have always been in motion, expanding or contracting, depending on the resistance it meets. Most of this movement has no real impact on Russia’s relations with the outside world. If the West draws back, Russia pushes forward; but Russia will not view the Outside warmly in response, nor will it stop pushing on its new borders. Russia will not view such abdication as a concession, but as a right.

    If I were the Poles, I’d be worried. The line between liberal West and autocratic East is, with U.S. diplomatic acquiescence, creeping back across Europe, darkening the old Russian vassals one at a time. There’s not even much need for force.

    In part, the U.S. accedes because it desperately wants Kremlin support for UN sanctions on Iran. Fair enough. But in exchange, Russia gets – well, frankly, whatever Russia wants. It’s a smorgasbord of concession: slack on human rights, troops in Georgia, ships in Ukraine, cyber attacks on the Baltic States, no ground-based missile defenses in Poland or the Czech Republic, and a (more) friendly government in Kyrgyzstan.

    President Obama has taken America’s hands-off policy during the Georgia war and thrown it into overdrive. It is no surprise that he now wants to increase nuclear cooperation with the Kremlin, longtime supporter of Iran’s nuclear programs. He is keeping his eye on the ball.

    Yet there is no ball. If you’re a reasonably sober Russia, the threat of a nuclear-capable Iran is not threat enough to make you kill the goose that’s laying golden eggs. If you win every dispute with the U.S. because of Iran’s nuclear program, you’d be mad to end that program. Is a nuclear-capable Iran a threat to the Kremlin? Absolutely. Is it as much of a threat to the regime as a vibrant NATO and an active pro-democracy movement in Russia? I doubt it.

    And it seems very unlikely that the Eastern Europeans believe it either. They have been staring into the Russian maw for hundreds of years, waiting for deliverance. They are romantics, yes, and deliverance is romantic. But they are also realists. And at this point, eggs, smoke bombs and ultimate submission is their reality.

    • D13,

      Had to mull this over. I think Russia has changed it’s MO, and is not likely to engauge in invasive expansion.
      They are going fight by economic means as their primary weapon. I think their worldview has changed, and we can look at them as competitors instead of an enemy. I also think we should keep the powder dry, in case I’m wrong.

  12. from American Thinker
    June 10, 2010
    Options to plug the BP oil spill available, but Obama ignores them
    Tom Rowan

    -Natural oil eating bacteria was successfully used to clean up the ocean and shores after the Exxon Valdez accident. To date, the company which produces up to 200,000 gallons a day of the oil eating bacteria has not had their phone calls returned by Obama’s White House or BP.

    -Kevin Costner has a small fleet of oil cleaning centrifuges at the ready. This device actually recovers lost oil. Again, Obama’s White House is dithering and BP will not return Costner’s appeals. Costner testified in front of Congress that he was ready to help on day one of the spill over 50 days ago.

    -The Dutch government offered to help with the spill on day one. Obama and BP told them “no thanks” over 50 days ago. The Dutch have fleets of oil recovery barges and sand berm protection floats at the ready. Over 50 days of dithering.

    -BP’s first attempted fix was to drop a 4 story tall steel & concrete box on the leak. The siphon on the top of the box froze and would not take up the oil. Okay…so??? How bout leaving the damn 4 story concrete box on top of the leaking pipes?

    -A 1920 maritime law prevents the US Navy from deploying any assistance to the scene. Obama could wave this relic law of the sea and use the Navy’s expertise in deep waters. Obama will not waive the law. Why not? If Ted Kennedy can call in the US Navy to find JFK Jr’s downed airplane, how come Obama cannot call in the Navy? What is stopping him?

    -Governor Jindal has been begging Obama for supplies to shield his state’s beaches. Over 50 days after the request Obama is still dithering.( I think I heard on the news today, permission has been granted)

    -Obama declared a State of Emergency for the non-existent threat of Swine Flu. Governor Jindal declared a State of Emergency…how come Obama has not?

    These are but a few of the many things Obama could be doing. Instead, he is looking for someone’s “ass to kick” and feigning anger.

    During the Iraq War, President Bush sent in Red Adair’s oil capping company into Kuwait. Red Adair’s private company capped 628 sabotaged, booby-trapped, and blown up burning rigs in less than 9 months.

    Obama has capped exactly 0 oil wells in almost 2 months.

    How’s that government boot on the throat of BP working out for ya?

    (Their graff for the day is also interesting)

    • “Consider;
      -Natural oil eating bacteria was successfully used to clean up the ocean and shores after the Exxon Valdez accident. To date, the company which produces up to 200,000 gallons a day of the oil eating bacteria has not had their phone calls returned by Obama’s White House or BP.”

      According to the following, the oil eating bacteria does more harm than good.

  13. A Puritan Descendant says:

    This Morals case about the Christian School reminds of something which might make a good topic. I don’t have much to say about it myself other than I think it is just more government out of control. Here goes >

    The FCC during the Bush Jr. administration and maybe even today (not sure) was enforcing a moral rule on Amateur Radio License Holders. If a ARLH was found to be of poor moral character they would give the license holder a hearing and then yank the license unless the operator could convince the FCC they had good morals. They even yanked licenses from operators who behaved perfectly over the air simply because the FCC found some past bad history of the operator. And even though the FCC never asked about anything to do with moral character at the time a person applied for a License.

  14. Birdman says:

    This is a very long article but I found it very interesting. Governments may create a war to divert our attention and retain their power. Black Flag once said that all bets are off if the government goes to war. I know we have two wars going on now but the wars are not large enough.

    By Giordano Bruno

    Neithercorp Press – 06/10/2010

    As the economic collapse progresses through 2010 and its fiscal consequences become more certain, the field of view reaching towards our social and political future has become more vague and unclear. Every analyst or researcher of the New World Order and the global elite now seems to have a different insight into how our situation will develop once the financial implosion peaks, and people actually start to react to the obviously severe circumstances.

    While having a microphone in the middle of the annual Bilderberg conference in would surely clarify the details of exactly how the globalists plan to conduct themselves over the coming year, this is unfortunately not an option, and reports leaked from Bilderberg cannot always be taken at face value. One element nearly all of us can agree on, though, is the distinct possibility of expanded wars in the near term, used as a diversion by the elites to pull the focus of the masses away from their dire economic atmosphere, away from the bankers that created the meltdown, and towards an overseas adversary.

    War on a broad scale creates fear, and fear often inspires a senseless brand of collectivism and misguided patriotism in those uninformed subsections of the public, a patriotism based on blind zealotry instead of individual liberty. The average citizen faced with an ample and immediate threat by a foreign enemy tends to fall in line with establishment policy, even if the conflict with that foreign enemy is entirely fabricated, even if establishment policy is ultimately a greater threat. War has always been utilized as a tool by aristocrats and monarchy to not only expand kingdoms and empires, but to keep the “peasants” of their empires weak, weary, and subservient.

    The size of these wars seems to reflect the scope of the goal the globalists wish to accomplish at the moment, and today the stakes are very high. The world has reached a point of no return as far as the economy is concerned, and only two conclusions are possible: the people stand down, the elites prevail, and global government is established, or, the people stand firm, the elites fall, and their designs are put to an end perhaps forever. It is an all or nothing scenario, and one of the few tricks the globalists have left to turn the tide fully in their favor is war on a magnitude so humbling that it intimidates champions of free society into conceding without attempting a defense. To paraphrase the Chinese tactician, Sun Tzu: the best generals win without ever having to fight a real battle. They simply give their enemy the impression that fighting back would be utterly futile and force them to surrender before the battle ever begins.

    In this article, we will examine some of the regions around the world in which such a “shock and awe” campaign could begin, facilitating the escalation of global war.

    Israel And The Middle-Eastern Powder Keg

    If any nation poses an immediate threat to the stability of the world at large, it would have to be Israel.

    Israel receives “official” financial aid from the United States to the tune of $3 billion a year, and this does not include off-book aid or armament projects such as Obama’s recently approved ‘Iron–Dome Defense’ missile system costing $205 million:

    Despite this massive monetary and military support, the Israeli Government continues to hide behind the insincere notion that the country is some kind of “underdog” surrounded and threatened by the entire world:

    The unbalanced denial in the majority of the Israeli community over the actions of their own leadership borders on clinical insanity, and their obsessive self identification with the ‘David and Goliath’ mythology often leads them to conveniently rationalize any act of brutality. When you constantly paint yourself as the victim, every attack you make on others can then be justified as “self defense”. As the recent slaughter of activists in international waters on a Turkish flotilla bringing food and supplies to Gaza has shown, ironically, the open viciousness of their government’s foreign policy has actually begun to legitimize their paranoia by actively turning other nations, including former allies such as Turkey, against them:

    As anyone with any sense can see, the current establishment in Israel is a comprehensive disaster waiting to happen. Trying to warn most Israelis of the peril their administration has exposed them to seems to only invite accusations of racism and Anti-Semitism. Obviously, if someone is against the policies of the Israeli Government, then they must hate the entire Jewish community. Why listen to the cold hard irrefutable facts, or engage in honest debate, when you can simply label a critic as a “Neo-Nazi”?

    What could be more hazardous than a country with endless support from the world’s only superpower, and a collective Napoleon Complex? That same country with its finger on the button of a nuclear arsenal.

    Israel has never officially confirmed or denied the possession of nuclear missiles. However, in 2006, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an embarrassing slip during a visit to Germany in which he named Israel as a nuclear armed state:

    Evidence has been uncovered showing that not only has Israel had nukes for decades, but they have also tried to sell them to other countries such as apartheid South Africa during the 1970’s:

    Reports of Israeli war games in preparation for a strike on Iran also apparently include a nuclear option:

    The Israeli government has refused to join in a recent anti-nuclear arms treaty which would make its nuclear facilities subject to UN inspection:

    One would think that if Israel is so concerned about countries such as Iran constructing nuclear weapons, they would put their money where their mouth is and support a treaty which mandates UN inspection to prevent ballistic development. Apparently, Israel has more to hide than Iran does…

    Last year, we talked about the link between Syria and Russia, and the possibility that any strike by Israel in the Middle East could spur Russia into open warfare. This possibility seems more and more prevalent as 2010 progresses.

    Russia has maintained a naval base on the Syrian coast of Tartus for years, and has recently revamped and rearmed it:,7340,L-3434145,00.html

    Last year, Iran signed a ‘mutual defense treaty’ with Syria:

    And now, Israel has threatened both these countries with war:,7340,L-3877404,00.html

    The U.S. has pressed for tough sanctions against Iran in the UN, and Barack Obama has stated essentially that the nuclear option is viable in response to Iran’s enrichment program (even though UN inspectors have found no evidence that this program is for weapons purposes):

    What this produces is a regional domino effect. Anyone who thinks that an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran or Syria will be isolated to just those countries is sorely mistaken. An attack on one will eventually if not immediately involve the other, and the potential for intercession by Russia is high, especially if even a single nuclear weapon is used. How far such a conflict would escalate is anyone’s guess, but even a war on Iran alone would be devastating to the world economy and to the United States specifically. The chances for a catastrophic global conflict are very high in this situation.

    China, North Korea, And The Asian Union

    Communist China has been, and probably always will be, a construct of Globalist interests. The Chinese communist revolution succeeded because of supply and support from the U.S. military under the direction of Roosevelt and General George C. Marshall using Russia as an intermediary. The Rockefeller Foundation and the UN helped form China’s one child policy 1979, and the Rockefellers are heavily involved in the financial affairs of China to this day. China plays a key role in the push towards forced globalization.

    As we have covered in numerous articles over the past few years, China has been shifting its economic policies away from an export based economy with an artificially weakened currency, to an immense 1.3 billion person import and consumption hub with a strong reserve currency at the center of the new ASEAN trading bloc. There is a very high probability that this move is in anticipation of a final economic plunge in world markets soon to occur, allowing China to not only survive, but thrive as a new center of trade and finance.

    For this shift to succeed, China will eventually dump its extensive holdings of U.S. Treasury Bonds, causing the now publicly traded Yuan to rise, and the Dollar to finally collapse. A dollar implosion, of course, was always inevitable, and the dumping of bonds by China makes perfect sense when one understands this, but due to a lack of knowledge on currency issues a majority of the American public could be convinced that the dollar collapse was completely facilitated by China, and that war is a viable response. If recent Chinese military movements are any indication, they may be preparing for just such an eventuality.

    Military movement on the Chinese mainland has been muted, and signals little if any intentions of expansion or conflict with its neighbors, but Chinese naval production and scope has greatly increased, which is congruent if China has expectations of conflict with the West. China has diverted large portions of funds away from its ‘People Liberation Army’ into its Navy, Air Force, and Missile Command. In 2008, an underground nuclear class submarine base was discovered on the South Pacific, which would give China the ability to command the region, including the Asian shipping lanes vital to countries like South Korea, and Japan:

    The number of nuclear class submarines being built by China in the past few years has also caused India concern:

    Chinese aggressiveness in the pacific has been heightened since 2008 as well. Most of us remember the incident last year when five Chinese vessels harassed the USNS Impeccable in international waters. But this was only a preview. In April, a Chinese armada passed extremely close to Okinawa and Japanese territorial waters, which some in the Japanese government consider an act of intimidation:

    This was quickly followed by the harassment of a Japanese ship by a Chinese helicopter from the same armada:

    A Chinese submarine had also been spotted near the coast of Taiwan only days before the U.S. approved a $6 billion arms sale to the island nation, though China has officially denied the incident:

    All of these events appeared to culminate in a long range war games display by the Chinese at the end of April. The message is obvious; China wants pacific dominance, and is preparing to commandeer it by force. Why now? Because the economic bridge between Beijing and Washington D.C. is about to collapse, and there will no longer be any financial incentive to keep mutual relations peaceful.

    That does not mean that the citizenry of either side would be supportive of all out conflict, but this could change with events in North Korea.

    North Korea, like Iran or Syria, could be used as a stepping stone by globalists to lure the west into a wider war. The American public would not accept immediate full-scale combat with China, but they might accept the invasion of North Korea, and then later be manipulated into seeing combat with China as a necessary “outgrowth” of the smaller war. The bottom line is, whether China is willing to risk an alliance with North Korea in the face of U.S. opposition, the mere presence of large U.S. naval forces so close to China at this point in time would be like tripping the Chinese in the middle of their puffed-up strutting and chest beating. It would be an invitation to hostilities…

    A war in the East would be a perfect opportunity for consolidation of power. Desperate Asian nations affected by the resulting fallout would be much more apt to fully commit to ASEAN and an Asian Union. The Economic collapse would hit the U.S. harder than any other country, and China would be left to centralize control of the Pacific region.

    Pakistan, India, And The Bomb

    The U.S. has been blatantly encroaching on Pakistani territory since the Afghan war started. Aerial drone attacks on Pakistani soil now take place almost daily. Ten years ago, open U.S. incursions into allied airspace without permission would have been unheard of. Now, it’s almost expected. This type of activity undoubtedly breeds resentment in the local populace, and the terrible cycle continues. America oversteps its bounds on the orders of globalists, innocents get killed, their families become militant against us, and then we label them “terrorists”; lumping them in with Al Qaeda, an organization the CIA created and supported in the early 80’s using $3 billion in taxpayer funds. Is this irony, or is it completely intentional? Creating pockets of vengeful people around the world can be useful…

    After angering the locals with indiscriminate killing, the U.S. has now given Pakistan an ultimatum; launch more offensives against the “terrorist networks” (which we created) in outlying territories, or we will involve ourselves further in your affairs:

    One would think that the U.S. government was TRYING to infuriate Pakistan. Perhaps they are…

    Pakistan makes a wonderful target for the Elite. First, it holds a moderate nuclear arsenal of 70 to 90 missiles. Second, their western mountain ranges are home to the Taliban which was driven from Afghanistan by the U.S. Third, their previous alliances with America can be used to take advantage of them while at the same time slowly turning them into an enemy. Fourth, the failed attack in Times Square by supposed Pakistani terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, has been widely reported.

    Now, imagine a successful attack befalls an American city. Perhaps a false flag nuclear attack. How easy would it be to fabricate evidence and blame this event on Pakistan? A substantial number of Americans would buy such a story in a heartbeat. The tale falls together perfectly. U.S. actions in Pakistan are interpreted as invasion. The Pakistani government “recruits” terrorist cells in secret, hands them a nuclear weapon, or allows them to steal one, and then helps them to unleash it on their enemies in America. Retaliation and invasion becomes essential to American “security”.

    Pakistan is being groomed by our media as the new “axis of evil” state, and why not? The perfect motive has been carefully provided by us!

    The same tactic could be used on Indian soil. India holds between 60 and 80 nuclear weapons. An attack of this magnitude could set off a nuclear exchange between the two countries which would reverberate throughout the world. Even if a wider war did not erupt, the global economy would evaporate within a day.

    In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in May, General Petraeus warned that a new terrorist attack in India could destabilize the region and increase tensions with Pakistan:

    A conference of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in April was also overshadowed by the growing antagonism between Pakistan and India:

    The fact that Pakistan had to borrow $11.3 billion from the IMF last year just to stay afloat does not help. The austerity measures demanded by the IMF could eventually cripple the Pakistani economy. If the their government were to default on it sovereign debt load, their nuclear weapons facilities could go unprotected as many in Russia did during the fall of the Soviet Bloc. Under those conditions, a nuclear event would be assured.

    War Is Good For Globalists

    Each one of these projections might sound entirely theoretical, but the the evidence supporting their development is tangible, and their culmination is far closer than any of us might like to admit.

    While a large nuclear exchange would be devastating for everyone, including the Elites, a smaller controlled exchange would create enough fear to take hold of the population without laying the world to waste. Even without radiological disaster, conventional war on a new front in the midst of the most fragile financial atmosphere modern man has ever seen would be just as demoralizing. War makes drastic change, sometimes terrifying change, possible. Changes that would normally require decades to accomplish can be unleashed in the span of months or even weeks. War conditions the national psyche, and makes it susceptible to tyranny. It gives rise to collective madness, and makes us forget who we are.

    As the Liberty Movement gains ground in the real battle, the battle for the truth, we should also anticipate proxy conflicts, false terror attacks, and engineered international diversions. The closer we get to exposing reality to the masses, the more probable a global war will be. This is just the name of the game. Men in positions of unrestrained power do not give it up without taking other men down with them, and they prefer to take as many as possible. We will see terrible things in our lifetimes, and make difficult decisions no one should ever have to make, but our purpose remains clear: end the fog of lies, and keep the world free. No matter what happens, the focus should not be whatever war we are faced with, but who caused the conditions that led to that war. In all the confusion, there is only one real confrontation, one campaign; the fight between those who wish to dominate life, and those who merely wish to live unchained.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Re the Israeli situation.

      If James Earl Carter had not pulled the rug out from under the Shah of Iran who was admittedly authoritarian, would any of this crap be happening today? Think about it. As much as I dislike authoritarian governments, they seem, over time to morph into something approaching democracies. I give as examples, Spain, Chile, South Africa and Yugoslavia (for a short time). Totalitarian governments do not change except through revolution. The three great outcasts of the 1970’s and 80’s were Israel, Iran and South Africa.They did, without doubt, work together. All had their flaws, some major. In many ways, Israel does stand alone today. She will be further isolated over time and ultimately either lash out, be destroyed or both.

      Re: Pakistan, right on the money. The hoople in the White House has done incredible damage just talking about intervention or invasion. Ask any Paki you might know. Going after terrorists in Pakistan is what special ops are supposed to be about and, it is supposed to be done quietly.

      • S.K.

        Interesting you think the problem was Carter who didn’t support a tyrant and not the CIA that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and put in the Shah.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Good point but before my time. The pre-Shah history of Iran is something I should look into more closely. No question though that the destabilization of the place, destabilized the entire region.

          I tend to look at the Shah as kind of a bargain basement Kemel Mustafa (Ataturk). The post WW I history of Turkey looked like it could be used as a guidebook of how to bring dysfunctional countries or former empires into something resembling modernity.

          • S.K.

            The inference you make is you assume that the regional popular governments were “dysfunctional”.

            By what measure?

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              It is hard to say. In some instances because they were not states until after the 1st World War. In others because they could not keep their independence but have been pawns for hundreds of years.

              History is a funny thing. There is no “end” to it, merely a changing of the present into the past. When a country or empire crumbles, something will emerge from the ashes. How it emerges and how much mischief will happen along the way is always a guess.

              I did a quick look up of Iran. Due to the machinations of East and West (cold war), a popular government, similar to a constitutional monarchy was allowed to slide back into authoritarianism in the 1950’s. Most sources seem to indicate that it was supported by the majority of the people and was much more secular than religious.

              The Pahlavi dynasty was under attack from two sides, secular and religious. At the time it was falling I saw that the secular revolutionaries were making a mistake by throwing in with the religious zealots. They had the mistaken notion that they could control the clerics and that the people were behind them. Wrong a well organized minority can always take over the show.

              A question never asked at the time would be if the general population at the time of the Khomeni revolution wanted the establishment of a religious state or wanted to keep the secular reforms of the Phalavi’s without the Shah? I suspect the latter.

              Yesterday I was listening to a talk radio show on my way to work. The host was defending the President saying that the people voted for “Change”. His impression was that apparently change meant “anything goes”. I would disagree. Many of my acquaintances voted for Obama because the change they wanted was “No more Bush/Cheny”. They did not want the country and constitution stood on their heads.

              This is interesting territory here. There is the question of whether the accident of western democratic theory would have, on its own, appeared elsewhere.

              • SK,

                The perspective of Iran as you’ve laid you misses a fundamental issue.

                The Shah specifically attacked moderates in Iran so to solidify his control.

                The consequences are obvious. If you destroy moderates, you are left with radicals.

      • S.K.

        I give as examples, Spain, Chile, South Africa and Yugoslavia (for a short time). Totalitarian governments do not change except through revolution.

        Uhhh….. Spain and South Africa didn’t have revolutions….

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Point was that there is a difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian. Your general views on government might lead you to disagree. I put Spain (Franco), Chile (Pinochet) , Yugoslavia (Tito) and South Africa in because I saw them as authoritarian states that transformed. The Colonels in Greece may fall into that category too.

          Cannot see the same thing happening in North Korea, or Iran but I will not exclude the possibility. The Soviet Union went from Stalin through Khrushchev to Gorbachev. The Politburo in China and Viet-Nam has lightened up but there is still little personal freedom. After Castro dies, who knows?

          I think Russia proved that not all revolution has to be violent but it did take violence to clean house in Romania .

          • SK,

            Point was that there is a difference between Authoritarian and Totalitarian.Your general views on government might lead you to disagree.

            To be Authoritarian requires Totalitarian. It is the fingers making the fist.

            I put Spain (Franco), Chile (Pinochet) , Yugoslavia (Tito) and South Africa in because I saw them as authoritarian states that transformed. The Colonels in Greece may fall into that category too.

            South Africa is a different case and shouldn’t be grouped here.

            Chile is also different – extraction of support of its master, the USA – forced the change.

            The others – the death of the tyrant who, in his own fear of overthrow, did not cultivate an heir.

            Cannot see the same thing happening in North Korea,

            Maybe, maybe not.

            What is an interesting case study was that Kim did successfully cultivate an heir, and perhaps Kim V.2 has been successful as well. This is incredibly unique in geopolitical affairs.

            or Iran but I will not exclude the possibility.

            Iran is fine.

            The clerics derive their power from the machinations of the USA since day one (crush of democracy and promotion of the Shah).

            They live completely on the energy of anti-Americanism. The moment the US reverses this 75 year policy of interference in Iran, the clerics impact will erode at equal pace.

            I think Russia proved that not all revolution has to be violent

            Whoops…don’t move too quickly here.

            It was violent -only the failure of the politicians to understand that soldiers do not shoot their friends saved the day.

            This lesson was learned every where else.

            Now soldiers are moved to different regions and surrounded by strangers – a lot easier to kill strangers then friends.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Again, we may disagree on terms here. I see authoritarian as a government that pretty much allows you to go on with your life so long as you don’t mess with the established status quo in politics. I have made a bit of a study of Spain and think that Franco may just have been the smartest politician in the 20th century. Surely he should have been a candidate for “Time’s” greatest figures. Imagine snookering absolutely everyone and then slowly but surely leaving a functioning democracy behind. Tito’s failure was succession. In everything else he slowly let the iron fist loosen. perhaps with the 1,000 year history of fratricide in that region, there was no way it could succeed once the strong man was gone.

              I see totalitarian as a government which does not allow you and freedom of choice be it religion, politics, education, livelihood, residence, art, reading material or politics.

              Disagree on Iran. The clerics were not running the place in pre-Shah days. They are firmly entrenched in the 7th century with modern toys.

              With Russia I’m talking about the fall of Communism. What happens in the future is to be decided. A good part of that will be our fault since we never stopped treating them as “the Soviet Union” Pay attention, when you listen to someone talk of Russia these days they constantly slip back into referencing the place as the Soviet Union. It is the United States that seems not to be willing to put the Cold War behind them. That in turn is leading to a nice new one.

              • SK,

                Disagree on Iran. The clerics were not running the place in pre-Shah days. They are firmly entrenched in the 7th century with modern toys.

                I don’t think I said they were.

                They are a consequence of the Shah and CIA machinations.

                • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                  Yes and no.

                  Yes in that we, the Soviets and the Brits messed with them after WW 2.

                  No in that the takeover by the clerics was based on a total miscalculation by the pro democracy forces.

  15. TexasChem says:

    June 11, 2010
    A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?
    By Robin of Berkeley

    So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

    Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”

    The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.

    Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.

    For one, Obama’s teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.

    But it’s more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn’t fit easily into any diagnostic category.

    Many people attribute Obama’s oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.

    Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama’s strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.

    Take also Obama’s declaring on the “Today Show” that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.

    Obama is flat when passion is needed; he’s aggressive when savvy is required. What’s most worrisome is that Obama doesn’t even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.

    So if it’s not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I’ve never evaluated him, I can’t say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.

    If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I’d consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.

    –Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.

    It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?

    — Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states — and didn’t correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.

    Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?

    –Asperger’s Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger’s causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger’s can’t read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.

    Could Obama have Asperger’s? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger’s get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.

    –Mental Illness: Obama’s family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama’s biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.

    Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.

    While Obama doesn’t appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.

    Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama’s oddness.

    People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.

    Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn’t fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.

    –Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.

    But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can’t prove it, the degree of Obama’s disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.

    With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates — that is, disconnects from his being — in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.

    Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, “Pop,” that evoked images of sexual abuse — for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and “Pop’s” shorts.

    Would trauma explain Obama’s disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a “false self.” To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.

    Let’s return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.

    Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There’s even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.

    If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?

    It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid…and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.

    Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.

    Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama’s fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

    Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:

    He is not capable of it.

    A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist in Berkeley and a recovering liberal.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Do we have chapter and verse on this one? This is a very important analysis and in many ways rings true.

      My own 54 credits in psychology points toward something very similar. I have seen a number of people from a variety of mixed backgrounds “act out” . They have total identity confusion and in fact hate both sides.

      I would posit that Obama dislikes whites intensely but feels the same about blacks. He is “putting something over” on everyone. I would ask you all to think back to people you have worked with or known in your past whom you thought that you knew and then found that they, in one way or another, betrayed you in a totally unexpected, illogical way. Opportunism yes, but many times there is more to it than that.

      If you come from a mixed racial, cultural or religious background, you can become a very wise,empathetic person, or a monster.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Texas Chem,

        I checked out Robin of Berkeley, she’s the real deal. Thanks for the lead, she writes some cool stuff.

  16. SUFA

    Good Morning to All.

    Well its that time of year again.

    Time to get the itch off my feet.

    ROAD TRIP…………….

    Will try to check in from time to time but will be gone the next 2 weeks.

    Until then my friends.
    Keep it straight and true.
    and most of all

    Live Free

  17. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Totally off topic and unrelated.

    There is a rumor circulating on the internet that because of the prompt, efficient handling of the BP oil spill crisis, the Secret Service has changed the code name for POTUS.

    He will henceforth be known as …


    • Now…this is funny.

      • For the love of God, will somebody please make a Slick Willy joke?

        • As my husband tells me, when I give him instructions-Go ahead, nobodies stopping you.

          Bad V, Bad V-you are not supposed to give other husbands ideas.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          No way,

          This guy makes Clinton look like a candidate for Mt. Rushmore.

          It took 24 years for someone to replace Carter as the worst president ever. It only took eighteen months for Bush to get off the hook. Go figure.

  18. “You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”

    “Public service is my motto. Ninety percent of the people of Cook County drink and gamble and my offense has been to furnish them with those amusements. My booze has been good and my games on the square.”

    “I got nothing against the honest cop on the beat. You can just have them transferred someplace where they can’t do any harm. But don’t ever talk to me about the honor of police captains or judges. If they couldn’t be bought they wouldn’t have the job.”

    “A crook is a crook, and there’s something healthy about his frankness in this matter. But any guy who pretends he is enforcing the law and steals on his authority is a swell snake. The worst type of these punks is the big politician. You can only get a little of his time because he spends so much time covering up that no one will know that he is a thief.”

    Al Capone – public servant and tribune of the people

  19. PeterB,

    Go slower, sir.

    Sorry, your “violence upon non-violent men” fails in this case. Clearly the boy had a rock of some size, and clearly he and others were throwing rocks at the LEO’s.

    Accepted without dispute.

    I did NOT use the “violence upon non-violent men” argument here – which is why I counsel you to move S-L-o-W.

    My argument here is :

    Clear and Present Danger doctrine – which establishes the appropriate responses to violence

    The “violence on non-violent men” argument was about the roots of ALL LAW – the enforcement of edicts.

    The ROOT of the situation STARTED with a LAW – an act of enforcement, an act of INITIATION of VIOLENCE.

    The rock throwing was an ESCALATION that STARTED with the enforcement action.

    Regardless, the SHOOTING was wholly inappropriate and wholly unsupportable. Those that support the shooting, like D13 and USWep, are hanging themselves.

    As requested, no one could provide an example of rocks thrown killing a man with a gun. Nada. Zero. Not one example.

    Thus, the response -killing the boy- is a criminal act and murder.

    • USWeapon says:

      Regardless, the SHOOTING was wholly inappropriate and wholly unsupportable. Those that support the shooting, like D13 and USWep, are hanging themselves.

      As requested, no one could provide an example of rocks thrown killing a man with a gun. Nada. Zero. Not one example.

      Of course you didn’t get an example, because everyone but you realizes that it is OK to shoot in self defense. Thus, those with rocks don’t kill those with guns, so no examples exist because only you would allow the kids with rocks to throw them with shooting back. LOL

      • USWep,

        Believing rhetoric is sufficient proof is a fallacy.

        No one but government kills kids throwing rocks – and worse, gets away with it.

        • USWeapon says:

          Really, because all you have used in this argument is emotional rhetoric.

          • USWep,


            Let’s see.

            I ask for ANY circumstance – even one – where a rock thrown by a boy has killed a man with a gun.

            I do your homework for you and found 3 cases in the last 200+ years – and NONE in the last 70 years – but none with boys.

            You ignore these facts and YOU present some emotional weeping of “oooo, rocks can HURT!”.

            Devoid of any evidence, you claim MY argument is based on emotion….

            Some days, you risk taking Jim Carey’s job as a comedian.

  20. D13,

    Using an analogy of a Drunk man with a beer bottle in a bar to justify the murder of a kid with a rock truly displays the depravity of the mindset at the border.

    • It only goes to prove that clear and present danger is subjective…it is all in the interpretation.

      Some people may be threatened by a stick or 2×4…some may be threatened by a bazooka….it does not matter.

      It will not be you there to make a decision because you do not support our laws on immigration…so the point with you is moot.

      And, I will not believe you, if you tell me that if a 15 year old gang member on your property threatening to hit your wife with a three pound brick and all you had was a gun…you would not shoot. I firmly believe you would. So, it is not the age of the lad or the brick in his hand….it will be a subjective and immediate decision made on a “clear and present” danger.

      I am sure that you will say that protecting your family is not the same thing as protecting a border. I will say hogwash but that will be a smoke screen because the issue YOU brought up was a 15 year old with a rock. I do not believe you will stand there and let a 15 year old punk hit your wife in the face with a rock. You would kill him before that happened.

      Would I be wrong in this assumption?

      • D13,

        It’s a simple test.

        Please provide examples of boys with rocks killing men with guns.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I have no doubt that a “boy” throwing rocks at a man’s head in close proximity could kill a man. Why wait to find out? Just blast the little bastard.

          • Puritan,

            Give me a real example please.

            I have hundreds of examples of people throwing rocks being killed by guns.

            Find me 5? 2? 1? example of a man with a gun being killed by a rock thrown by a kid.

            Just one….

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              BF, I have always been good at killing ‘things’, and rocks will do the trick. A skull is not armor it is more like a hardened Pumkin.

            • Cyndi P says:

              I would think maybe that most people aren’t stupid enough to try it. I wouldn’t try would be stupid.

              The only reason I might try it is if I think, that for some reason, the guy with the gun wouldn’t DARE shoot. There again, it would be stupid to think, so since most people who are trained to use a weapon are trained to shoot to kill. I have been.

      • D13

        Clear and Present Danger doctrine is broad – however, it governs appropriate response.

        Those there were attacked – the Mexicans – have a right to defend themselves. Those attackers, if such defense is excessive, have a right to defend themselves.

        The judgment – whose response was appropriate within the doctrine?

        The killing of the boy is murder and criminal – by any sane measure.

        I grant that those at the border have been driven to insanity by the contradictions of government.

        Some people may be threatened by a stick or 2×4…some may be threatened by a bazooka….it does not matter.

        Of course it matters!

        To be willfully ignorant of the degree of threat makes one … ignorant and apt to make wrong decisions

        My response to sticks will be different than to knives different to guns different to bazookas – to believe there is some “equivalence” of threat is bizarre!

        It will not be you there to make a decision because you do not support our laws on immigration…so the point with you is moot.

        I don’t.

        But that point IS moot. There is NO CIRCUMSTANCE that justifies shooting a boy throwing rocks.

        And, I will not believe you, if you tell me that if a 15 year old gang member on your property threatening to hit your wife with a three pound brick and all you had was a gun…you would not shoot.

        Foolish Analogy!

        The circumstance is a 15 year old boy throwing rocks AT ME because I’m assaulting him and others with guns!!

        I know you are desperate to re-frame the circumstance to some bizarre situation that DOES NOT REPRESENT at any degree the contending points.

        • BF says: The circumstance is a 15 year old boy throwing rocks AT ME because I’m assaulting him and others with guns!!

          D13 is astounded: Whoa…where did you get this information….unless you are saying that arresting illegal immigrants on the US side is attacking with guns.

          This incident was on the US side…not Mexico. Or am I reading you wrong….where do you get the information that the Border Agents were attacking with guns? There is not one single security tape that shows this to my knowledge. The ones that I have seen show the complete opposite unless you now want to claim doctored tapes. This was a bicycle patrol on the US side.

          BF says: “Foolish Analogy!”

          D13 says: No sir, I was talking clear and present danger only. But I did not expect an answer.

        • USWeapon says:

          The circumstance is a 15 year old boy throwing rocks AT ME because I’m assaulting him and others with guns!!

          Completely untrue. The border agents did not take the gun out of the holster until the boy advanced towards them with more rocks.

          • Gentlemen,

            The circumstances as you provide are not true.

            The border agents were not some passer by that “suddenly” a 15-year old boy starts throwing rocks at.

            The agents were actively “assaulting” people. The people did not start the affair by “assaulting” the agents.


            as talking clear and present danger only.

            Certainly. To describe a situation of low or minor threat, you use an analogy of large and major threat – as if the latter would justify the former.

            That’s just stupid.

            • BF says: The circumstances as you provide are not true.

              Yes, they are true. Now, if you define “assaulting” as arresting illegals, then your analogy would be correct. It is simple…the agents catch illegals crossing the border on the US side. They arrest them…THAT is not assault. The fact that the others did not like it and start throwing rocks…that is assault.

              Again, the question to you……is arresting a law breaker an assault?

              • D13,

                Again, the question to you……is arresting a law breaker an assault?

                What LAW?

                If it is a LAW that says “non-violent men get clubbed” – then YES.

                If the LAW that says “defend the innocent from violence” then NO

          • BF says: Completely untrue. The border agents did not take the gun out of the holster until the boy advanced towards them with more rocks.

            D13 says: Have you not seen the tape? I will try to find it for you. I am sure it is on you tube is all over the TV here.

  21. Cyndi P says:

    I wonder if our Regime will try this at some point?

  22. Patriotism, like religion, meets people’s need for something greater to which their individual lives can be anchored …

    America’s state religion, [is] patriotism, a phenomenon which has convinced many of the citizenry that “treason” is morally worse than murder or rape ”

    — William Blum, author of Killing Hope

  23. ICE to make detention centers more humane

    June 8, 2010, 10:16PM

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.

    The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation’s immigration detention system.

    The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.

    ICE officials said the changes are part of broader efforts to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane…

    But the plans are prompting protests by ICE’s union leaders, who say they will jeopardize the safety of agents, guards and detainees and increase the bottom line for taxpayers. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.

    “Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt,” he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.

    The changes outlined in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, including the 900-bed Houston Contract Detention Facility on the city’s north side.

    Some of the changes will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months, said Beth Gibson, ICE’s senior counselor to Assistant Secretary John Morton and a leader of the detention reform effort.

    Other major changes include:

    • Eliminating lockdowns and lights-out for low-risk detainees.

    • Allowing visitors to stay as long as they like in a 12-hour period.

    • Providing a unit manger so detainees have someone to report problems to other than the guard.

    • Allowing low-risk detainees to wear their own clothing or other non-penal attire.

    • Providing e-mail access and Internet-based free phone service.

    Not about punishment

    Gibson said the improvements are part of ICE’s efforts to detain immigrants in the least restrictive manner possible while ensuring they leave the country if ordered to do so.

    “When people come to our custody, we’re detaining them to effect their removal,” Gibson said. “It’s about deportation. It’s not about punishing people for a crime they committed.”

    ICE officials have faced pressure from immigrant advocates and some members of Congress to improve the detention conditions for the roughly 400,000 immigrants it houses annually. The agency has relied on a hodgepodge of more than 250 government-run detention centers, private prisons and local jails to accommodate its growing population — with roughly one in four detainees held in Texas.

    At the CCA facilities that have agreed to ICE’s changes, detainees will see more variety in their dining hall menus and have self-serve beverage and fresh vegetable bars.

    CCA also plans to offer movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training, the e-mail states.

    Detainees also will be allowed four hours or more of recreation “in a natural setting, allowing for robust aerobic exercise.”

    CCA also committed to improving the look of the facilities, such as requiring plants, fresh paint and new bedding in lower-risk units.
    Advocates pleased

    Some of the improvements offered at the CCA facilities counted as hard-fought victories for immigrant advocates, including plans to improve visitor and attorney access.

    “A lot of these measures are what we’ve been advocating for,” said Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants’ Rights for Amnesty International.

    “Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system.”

    Union members said they have concerns about the plans, primarily focusing on safety.

    Rebstock said some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that “haven’t been caught doing anything wrong yet.”

    He also said eliminating lockdowns will make it more difficult to protect detainees from one another.

    He said reducing or eliminating pat-down searches could allow contraband into the facilities, including weapons.

    Gibson, with ICE, said the agency is developing a sophisticated classification system and will make sure “that our detainees are still safe and sound.”

    “As a general matter, it will be the non-criminals who don’t present a danger to anyone else who are benefitting from the lowest level of custody,” Gibson said.
    ‘On the taxpayers’ dime’

    Rebstock also questioned the cost to taxpayers for the changes.

    “My grandparents would have loved to have bingo night and a dance class at the retirement home they were in when they passed away, but that was something we would have had to pay for,” he said. “And yet these guys are getting it on the taxpayers’ dime.”

    Gibson said CCA is making the improvements at no additional cost to ICE. The agency’s contract with CCA for the Houston detention center requires that ICE pay $99 per bed daily for each detainee, slightly lower than the $102 average daily rate ICE pays nationally .

    Rosenberg said some of the changes, like new flower baskets, may seem small, but they will combine with the bigger changes to make a difference in the daily lives of detainees.

    “Taken together they will go some way to making this system less penal,” she said.

    Does anybody other than me have a problem with this?

  24. D13 – Puritan – USWep

    I did your work for you.

    Three in the United States, but none in almost seven decades. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund has gathered records on all police officers killed in the line of duty since the first U.S. patrolman went down in 1792. According to their database, rocks were responsible for three of 18,983 fatalities.

    In 1873, Officer Edward Burns of the New York Police Department was walking a suspect to headquarters when an unknown suspect ambushed him and fractured his skull with a rock.

    In 1876, inmates beat a Utah prison warden to death with a stone they had stuffed in a woolen sock.

    The last death came in 1942, when Sheriff Ralph Wald Haycraft of Leitchfield, Ky., received word of an assault on a group of soldiers. During his investigation, Haycraft was hit by a thrown rock and died three days later.

    Zero – zero – were boys throwing rocks – since 1792

    It is Murder – cold blooded murder, gentlemen.

    • Most departments teach their cadets that a rock isn’t deadly beyond 50 feet. Unless they are performing a particularly important mission, like aiding a wounded colleague, officers facing a hail of stones should retreat to that perimeter.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Take chances with your own life but don’t force me to take chances with mine.

      • Puritan,

        Act as you see fit, but be prepared for harsh consequences….

        …except if you’re a government agent, then you have no worries except conscience.

    • The above has nothing to do with it, sir. You are entitled to your opinion and it is very clear….murder to you…self defense to me….we are not teaching 50 feet and will not….each depends upon the circumstances. However, to support your position, no one did anything while the rocks were thrown from 50 feet….only when this lad comes to the US border of the crossing to within 15 feet of the officer. The tapes clearly show the warning from the officer with hand out to stop and gun in holster….the lad continues…the officer backs up with hand out, the gun in holster…the lad continues….the rest is history. He was killed 12 feet inside Mexico but advancing…not standing.

      We will not retreat on our own ground. The lad was wrong. He paid for it.

      • And, I have not ruled out a purposeful incident. I cannot prove it, but my tactical mind believes that his was a sacrificial lamb…we shall see.

        Our border is on high alert as we speak…all of our ranchers have been warned….it is an armed camp down here….relatives from all over coming down to lend a hand to the border ranchers…all armed. We will protect our land and our property and there is no degree to be determined. Do it at night…you will probably die. Do it in the day time…do not run. Get caught cutting or climbing fence, you will most likely die. It is becoming that serious.

        Texas is considering funds for solar electrified fencing for ranchers. Much like the cattle fencing…it will bite the shit out of you but not kill you. Hope the funds go through. That will stop the “innocent” looking for work…anyone else cutting it with wire cutters is not innocent at all.

      • D13,

        For you to claim self-defense, you are required to offer proof of the danger

        I even did your homework – and in over 200 years no one example of a boys throwing rocks has killed a man with a gun.

        Your claim fails.

        • Yessir, in your mind it fails…I get it.

          • D13,

            Your claim fails as you provide NO PROOF or EXAMPLE of any case to demonstrate your believe of lethal threat.

            Not ONE

            The failure of reason exists with you.

            • But, sir, I do not have to justify or offer an example to you or anybody. I have no rules to abide by….I will ascertain the threat and I will use whatever I feel is necessary to stop or eliminate the threat.

              So what if nothing is on record of a policeman being killed with a rock…that is a crazy point and who really cares? I do not want to be the first.

              • D13,

                not have to justify or offer an example to you or anybody

                Literally, this it true.

                YOU have done nothing – but defend a criminal.

      • BF…question for you….

        Is it murder to you because of the uniformed officer? Or would it be murder to you if a rancher shoots a trespasser?

    • USWeapon says:

      As I said, you don’t find rocks killing people with guns often, because the people with guns shoot them. They don’t fall into the false assumption that a rock can’t kill them.

      You are entitled to your opinion, though. No matter how wrong it is. 🙂

      • USWep,

        There are no examples. The use of lethal force in this matter is criminal, regardless of your ill-thought opinion.

        • Murphy's Law says:


          “Ill thought” only in your opinion. I totally agree with USW, D13, and Puritan here. Their arguments are compelling and well thought out, as usual. And I think it highly likely that it was a staged incident. It would not be the first time that cowards have used children to carry out their agendas.

          • Murphy,

            What argument????

            It’s not existent!

            It would not be the first time that cowards have used children to carry

            Which means to you killing the children is justified….

            …just sick, sir.

      • I had the same thought. What kind of idiot lets himself get killed with a rock while holding a gun?

        • Jennies,

          …. a boy ….

          • Murphy's Law says:

            BF…you might want to re-read her question……I thought you said you could read and understand English. The 15 yr old didn’t get “killed with a rock while holding a gun”. She was pointing out that the guy who defended himself wasn’t an idiot.

            Good point, Jennie.



    It was a bright but windy day,
    That Mathius, had something to say…
    D13, if you would be so kind,
    Please judge the poems within your mind.
    Please be fair and give us your best,
    And D13, accepted this quest.

    Vote for me, was the popular request,
    Mine is cool but mine is the best.
    Mine is terrible or a great mishap,
    Mine is tops…give me that back strap.

    At the forefront were Mathius points so meager,
    But much complaint adds points and everyone became eager..
    Then in the latter, added to the flap,
    Were points times ten and a Haiku backstrap.

    So, D13 began this quest as if he had nothing to do,
    Who could possibly turn down judging the great Haiku,
    Or the limericks so fair, some written in prose,
    With poems and humor that goes with those.

    USW, I will refer to first,
    It is his blog, and his was not the worst..

    Mathius points times three, I will give to you,
    For the best of all, in the field of Haiku.

    There was a poem that was so cute,
    It was from Jennie that followed suit,
    A limerick not quite but, oh, so true,
    So Mathius points times two, bestowed upon you.

    There is another that I cannot overlook,
    It is a poem that is ready for book,
    It is a rhyme that emites from her,
    VH, 2 points, for (almost) iambic pentameter.

    Three points are left but what to do,
    Three points left..but to who…
    Three points to go without a flap,
    But what to do with that backstrap..

    To Dread Pirate Mathius, sailing through the fog,
    Two points for you, and a cask of grog,
    One point left to bestow,
    To Nat five three, here ya go…

    Alas, we have finally arrived at the end,
    Thank goodness I do not have to fend,
    No longer subjected to ridicule and crap,
    To MATHIUS you get the great back strap !!!

    Burma Shave

  26. The Central error lies in the theory of government.

    Liberalism – as personified by Locke and displayed in Jefferson’s Declaration of
    Independence – centered around the notions of self-ownership, original appropriation of
    nature-given resources, property, and contract as universal human rights.

    Vis-a-vis princes and kings, this emphasis on the universality of rights placed liberals in radical opposition to every established government.

    For a liberal, every man, whether king or peasant, was subject to the same universal principles of justice, and a government either could derive its justification from a contract between private property owners or it could not be justified at all. But could it be?

    The liberal answer set out with the true proposition that murderers, robbers, thieves,
    thugs, conartists, etc., will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not threatened with physical punishment.

    To maintain a liberal order, it is necessary that one compel, by the threat or application of violence, anyone who will not respect the life and property of others.

    From this premise, liberals concluded that this task of the maintenance of law and order is
    the unique function of government.

    Whether this conclusion is correct or not hinges on the definition of government.

    It is correct, if government simply means any individual or firm that provides protection services to a voluntary paying clientel. But this is not the definition adopted by liberals.

    For a liberal, government is not a specialized firm. It has two unique characteristics. It has a compulsory territorial monopoly of jurisdiction (ultimate decision-making) and the right to tax.

    Yet if one assumes this definition of government, the liberal conclusion is clearly false.

    In fact, it is inconceivable how private property owners could possibly enter a contract
    which entitled another agent to compel anyone within a given territory to come exclusively to it for protection and judicial decision-making. Such a monopoly-contract would imply that every private property owner had surrendered his right to ultimate decision making regarding his person and property to someone else.

    In effect, he had submitted himself into slavery.

    But no one rightfully can, or likely will, agree to render his person and property permanently defenseless against the actions of someone else. Similarly inconceivable is that anyone would endow his monopolistic protector with the right to tax. No one can or will enter a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally, without consent of the protected, the sum that the protected must pay for protection.

    Liberals have tried to solve this internal contradiction through the make-shift of
    “implicit” or “conceptual” agreements, contracts, or constitutions. Yet all of these attempts have only added to the same unavoidable conclusion: That it is impossible to derive a justification for government from explicit contracts.

    Liberalism’s erroneous acceptance of government as consistent with the principles of
    self-ownership, private property, and contract, led to its own destruction.

    First, it follows from the initial error that the liberal solution to the problem of security – a constitutionally limited government – is a contradictory ideal.

  27. Bottom Line says:


    You’re too smart not to get it. I think you’re just being stubborn.

    I’ll tell ya what…

    You stand in a field with a holstered 9mm. pistol and two 13 round clips. One in the gun, the other is readily available in your back pocket.

    Thirty feet away, there are a dozen teenage Mexicans armed with NOTHING except their fists.

    I’ll stand to the side and give the “go” signal.

    When I say “go”, they are to attempt to bum-rush you and beat you to death.

    Can you shoot at least 11 of them in the few seconds it takes to reach you?

    Guess who loses? Guess who doesn’t need a weapon to be considered a threat? Guess who’s justified shooting at a bunch of unarmed teenagers?

    • BL,

      Guess who’s justified shooting at a bunch of unarmed teenagers?

      Most definitely, not you.

    • BL,

      …and worse, if you think you are – the degradation of American society is so severe, I doubt it will recover.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Whats the matter, Flag? You didn’t like my example?

        You didn’t like me putting you in the shoes of someone being legitimately threatened by an unarmed entity?

        You didn’t like me confusing your absolutes?


        • BL,

          What shoes are you talking about?

          A boy with a rock?

          A man with a gun?

          Please be clear – your morals are showing…

          • Bottom Line says:

            It has nothing to do with morals. It has everything to do with self preservation.

            A threat is a threat is a threat is a threat is a threat is a threat…

            Whether it is a man with a gun, a group of teens with rocks, an angry mob with fists, ect..ect…

            …Doesn’t matter.

            Regardless of the circumstances, If you are clearly and legitimately threatened, then defensive action is justifiable.

            You don’t have to be packing a gun to be a mortal threat.

            • BL,

              You, too, repeat some bizarre notion of “mortal” threat.

              I demand, as I have of D13, USWep, etc.


              Otherwise, your statement is merely idiocy.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Forget finding one – lets make one.

                You stand somewhere with a gun and refuse to fire on a 15 yr old “BOY” throwing 3 pound rocks at you from 12 feet away.

                I bet you get seriously injured or die.

                Then again, it may do nothing to someone with such a thick skull.

                • Bottom Line says:

                • BL,

                  You made a bet, now prove it.

                  Oh, you got lucky – I did your homework.

                  Not one example of a rock thrown by a boy in the last 200 years ever killing a man with a gun

                  NOT ONE EXAMPLE.

                  You lose your bet – badly.

  28. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    You do not throw things at people with guns, You do not throw things at people with guns, You do not throw things at people with guns, write this another 497 times.

    The fools at Kent state learned that the hard way too. They also learned not to throw firecrackers at people with guns, another rather suicidal move.

    • Bottom Line says:

      “Mamma always says – Stupid is as stupid does.”

      – Forrest Gump

      • My Grandma used to say “If you play with crap, you get it on you.” Well, it was something like that.

    • SK,

      Crossing the street while the light is green in your favor means…

      … you’ll never get run over???

      Sir, your comment ranks “ridiculous”.

    • SK,

      So you justify murder of kids by saying they were stupid to resist men with weapons.

      You do not ridicule those that do the killing.

      Very strange.

  29. USWep,

    Again, a completely false claim from you. You demand proof of something ridiculous and then claim victory when you don’t get it.

    Two, self-effacing, points.

    If you cannot demonstrate your claim, your claim is not demonstrated

    You cannot beat something with nothing.

    I have something.

    You have nothing.

    You lose.

    • USWeapon says:

      Actually, you have nothing, and I have everything in this case. I demonstrated what needed demonstrated. I submit that a 15 year old with a three pound rock throwing it at your head from 12 feet away can and will kill you. You do not refute this, yet claim victory. An odd claim, good friend.

      • USWep

        I do refute this since in the last 200+ years not one case exists.

        You live in a fantasy, sir.

        • Bottom Line says:

          No he doesn’t.

          Ever been hit in the face with a fast-ball?

          I have…from about 40 feet. Hurts like hell. You should have seen my shiner.

          I got knocked cold for several minutes. When I awoke the kid that threw the baseball was kneeling over me crying because he thought I was in a coma.

          If it had been a rock, I may very well HAVE BEEN in a coma.

          Trust me. Rocks are no bullshit.

          • BL,

            So you justify killing the pitcher because of a baseball in the face.


            • Bottom Line says:



              That wasn’t my point and you know it.

              I’ve never been nailed with a three pound rock. But I have been nailed with a baseball. It is my best frame of reference with respect to personal experience.

              A baseball is softer and lighter than a three pound rock.

              If a baseball thrown by a 9 yr old at approx. 40 ft. can knock me(at age 10) out cold for several minutes and make half my face swell up black & purple, then it is reasonable and LOGICAL to conclude that a three pound rock thrown at 12 ft. by a 15 yr. old will do quite a bit more damage.


        • USWeapon says:

          completely false. You asked for specific parameters of someone holding a gun and another throwing a rock. Expand that to a rock being able to kill a person, and you can find examples all day long. As I said, a fastball to the head can kill you. And that is a lot smaller than a three pound rock. They stone people to death in the Middle East. In Ohio a couple of years ago some kids were dropping rocks off an overpass and killed two motorists. They were three pound rocks. And they hit motorists at the speed of the vehicle. I can throw a rock a lot harder than 60 mph. You are bordering on ridiculous here.

    • Murphy's Law says:


      That’s the most childish sounding post I’ve ever read here.

      USW is right…..he has everything, and you have nothing.

      • Murph,

        I hope you never are on a jury.

        No evidence vs. evidence.

        You judge “go with the no evidence!!”

        Good for you, Murph.

        You confirm the depravity of the American mindset that justifies the killing of kids.

  30. SUFA,

    I find it absolutely appalling that there are you justifying the shooting of a boy throwing rocks.

    • Murphy's Law says:


      I think BF wants us all to pack our bags for a guilt trip because we don’t agree with him.

      Go be a travel agent for guilt trips somewhere else, BF.

    • BF: Dont get mad and start YELLING at me but if you took off the black hat and put on the boarder patrol hat and stood looking at a kid with 2 teardrops tatooed to his face who was hurling rocks at you then you may see it differently. At some point you have to stand up for yourself. It’s not like the kid didnt understand what he was getting into. Chances are if you just hurled a rock back at him he may SHOOT YOU. Are you ok with that?

      • Anita,

        Sorry, nope.

        I am a man with gun.

        He is a boy with a rock.

        If anyone is so confused about this scenario, you need to *seriously* talk to a priest, rabbi, or psychiatrist regarding your moral dilemma.

        • grrrrrr. ok what if he threw the rock at you..nailed you square between the eyes…would you shoot him then?

          • and anyway.. I remember asking you one day that if i came up to you and started whooping on you–you said you would whoop me back and drag me off your property…why is this different?

          • Anita,

            Your question is this:

            Would I kill a child because he hit me with a rock?

            …. I reflect the question back to you….

            • This would be a totally different story if it was some random school boy with some rocks. You cannot deny that the kid was looking for trouble. How many more people have to die at the boarder before you will shoot. Remember you are wearing a boarder patrol hat…

              • Anita,

                Why does it matter what piece of cloth I put on my head?

                Killing a child is killing a child…

                Lots of kids look for trouble – does that mean I can kill them all?

                How many people die before I shoot? …. no one by my hand until a CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER presents itself.

                You justify slaughtering children because other people die????

                Do you understand what you are saying???

                • Ok… Let’s try it this way.

                  This time YOU are the kid hurling rocks..

                  What is your intention?

                • USWeapon says:

                  How many three pound rocks have to hit me in the head before I am allowed to consider it a mortal threat?

                  • USWep,

                    All it takes is

                    ONE EXAMPLE IN the LAST 200 YEARS…

                    … and you have …


                    Your argument is totally bizarre.

                    • Go to Iran if you want to see someone die from a thrown rock. “the Law of Hodoud provides that the stones should not be so large that a person dies after being hit with two of them, nor so small as to be defined as pebbles,”

                      Since the inception of the mullahs’ rule, hundreds of women of various ages have been and continue to be stoned to death throughout Iran.

                      What makes this hideous crime even more abhorrent is that it is carried out under the name of Islam. The Quran and the Prophet of Islam despised such behavior. On the contrary, in the Quran and the Prophet’s traditions, such barbarism is denounced. The Prophet did his utmost to eradicate backward traditions, including stoning, which victimized women.

                      The authorities of the Islamic Republic have attempted to explain away stoning in Iran, as noted in the report by the U.N. Special Representative on Iran, as something that takes place only in remote and culturally backward areas. Actually, stoning and other cruel punishments are used by the regime to extend their reign of terror, while internationally Tehran tries to deny responsibility. It must be noted that:

                      1- The responsibility for any inhuman punishment, regardless of where it takes place, lies with the judiciary and the state,

                      2- Stoning and other cruel punishments taking place in the Islamic Republic of Iran are not a matter of individual discretion; rather, they are defined by the law of the land, and such sentences are issued based on these laws.

                      The penalty for adultery under Article 83 of the penal code, called the Law of Hodoud is flogging (100 lashes of the whip) for unmarried male and female offenders. Married offenders may be punished by stoning regardless of their gender, but the method laid down for a man involves his burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102). The law provides that if a person who is to be stoned manages to escape, he or she will be allowed to go free. Since it is easier for a man to escape, this discrimination literally becomes a matter of life and death.

                      Interestingly, Article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Iran has ratified, states: “Sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime.” Offenses for which the Law of Hodoud provides the death penalty do not involve murder or serious bodily harm, constituting the “most serious crimes”.

                      Article 104 of the Law of Hodoud provides that the stones should not be so large that a person dies after being hit with two of them, nor so small as to be defined as pebbles, but must cause severe injury. This makes it clear that the purpose of stoning is to inflict grievous pain on the victim, in a process leading to his or her slow death.

                    • USWeapon says:

                      As I said, because you made up some bizarre rule saying such an example must exist does not make it so. I see you lack the ability to look at this particular subject.

                • USWeapon says:

                  And you can stop referring to him as a “child”. This was a teenager who had already been caught smuggling people. He may not have reached the age of legal adulthood in America, but you and I both know that there have been rulers of countries younger than 15. And 15 was considered a “man” a mere hundred years ago.

    • Cyndi P says:

      I’ll take absolutley appalling for 1000, Alex!

      Oh btw, I’ll also have a better chance of not being fucked with and maybe staying alive than if I’d just stood there yelling “Stop or I’ll say Stop, again until you bash my head in.”

  31. Cyndi P says:

    Yes BF,

    I am utterly bizzare. As a parent, particularly of a legal minor, my number one responsiblity is my child’s well being. If something terrible happened to my child because I didn’t properly supervise, educate, provide for, etc, I would blame myself even if she were the victim of a crime. That’s pretty bizzare. Obviously few parents actually supervise their children and I’m just some freak. Got it.

    So, do you take responsiblity for your kids, or are you of the It Takes Village School of Child Rearing?

    • Cyndi,

      What does it matter?

      Does it make a difference to you if the boy was take care of or not once he has a bullet through him??

      What argumentative sense are you trying to make here?

      Because of maybe bad parenting the kid deserved to die????

      • Cyndi P says:

        BF- Does it make a difference to you if the boy was take care of or not once he has a bullet through him?

        Cyndi – No

        The kid did not deserve to die because of bad parenting. He deserved to die for assaulting another person with a deadly weapon.

        My arguement: When people learn that there are consequences, sometimes serious ones, for their actions, they will modify their behavior accordingly.

        The boy’s parents might learn to better supervise their remaining children, or not. The other rock throwing boys might learn not to throw rocks at armed law officers. In both cases, any person too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions will have their DNA removed from the gene pool. Evolve, Baby.

        • Murphy's Law says:

          PERFECT!!! One of the best points made in this argument.


        • Cyndi,

          For you to claim a “deadly” weapon, you have to demonstrate deadly.

          I did your homework for you, and by any measure of reason, your claim of deadly fails badly.

          Therefore, the use of a deadly weapon (a gun) to kill a boy with a non-deadly weapon (a thrown rock) is evil and a crime, and your defense of this murder is a serious issue.

          It demonstrates that the social order is starting to crack when people begin to miss, distort, support and justify obvious evil.

          • BF- the social order is starting to crack

            Cyndi – Absolutely. So why play by the rules when there are no rules?

            Do you plan practice what you preach as societal order collapse or will you defend yourself?

            • Cyndi,

              Adding fuel to a fire will most certainly not stop the fire.

              Ignoring social order cannot improve social order.

              Thus, you answer is to join the disorder?!?

              I will defend myself from REAL THREATS, not boys with rocks.

  32. A Puritan Descendant says:

    From post # 30 BF states >

    “I have something. You have nothing. You lose.”

    I say >

    I hope ‘all’ your arguments on this topic are based on what you see as your moral high ground, rather than simply “winning” a debate on SUFA.

  33. Seems I recall catapults and trebs being used to bring down castle walls and pelting invaders with rocks and stones.

    Seems I recall reading where Civil War soldiers fought with rocks, stones, and clubs because of no ammunition to try to fend off attacking Union soldiers with guns and bayonets. I am sure that no historian was sitting there counting the number of dead and injured from this.

    Seems I recall that before the advent of gunpowder and iron mining stones, stone axes, slings, stockpiles of stones for the use of repelling caste wall breach were quite common. wonder how many of those were recorded….the number of deaths from stones vs arrows or sword.

    Seems I recall the american Indians using versions of stones in their tomahawks or slings and fighting soldiers with guns and bayonets.

    Seems I recall many hand to hand combat renditions where men said that they fought with their hands, helmets, rocks, sticks, clubs or anything that they could get their hands on to suppress and kill and enemy. I doubt that there are any historians around that looked at the bodies and said here is one with a bullet. Here is one with a knife. Here is a face bashed in with a stone.

    Seems I recall a certain riot that developed after the debacle of the Rodney King incident wherein a gentleman was pulled from a truck on National News and beaten to death with a chunk of concrete. The Coroner was appalled at the violence and remarked that it appeared the first hit in the face with that rock probably killed him. They called it blunt force trauma.

    Seems I recall from history books, that rocks were used as a primary weapon.

    And let us not forget the ritual of stoning, where rocks are weighed for specific purposes. To kill, to maim, to prolong suffering.

    I think there are plenty of examples of rocks being a lethal weapon. Simply because it is not recorded as a statistic is smoke screen.

    In short, it all boils down to…was this excessive force. I say no, some say yes. Some say that it is justified because a law was being enforced and enforcing a law was violence and that itself justified a young lad to take up a potential lethal weapon to try to force a law officer from doing his duty of protecting a border. Some say that he should have yielded to the rock thrower….I say no yield is necessary. Some say…dodge the rocks…I say it is not necessary….stop the rock thrower.

    Here is the reality. The border is a war zone, like it or not. No tanks, no jets, no land mines are necessary for this war zone. But it is a war zone. It matters not whether you agree with having borders….they are there. It matters not whether you feel that the borders have not been violent in the past? They have..just not reported but it is worse now. It is not the fault of the United States and their immigration law….we have a right to have whatever law we wish to have and enforce it however we wish to enforce it.

    It is not the right of the Illegal Immigrant to cross our border, no matter the draw.
    It is not the right of the Illegal Immigrant to cut our fences and steal.
    It is not the right of the Illegal Immigrant to openly confront uniformed agents and not expect violence in return.
    It is not the right of the Illegal Immigrant to even be here.

    It IS the right of the rancher to protect his property by lethal means. It is our law, like it or not. Texas is still a wild country down here.
    It IS the right of our uniformed agents and civilians to protect our borders and private property…by lethal means if necessary. It is in our law, like it or not.

    In short, don’t mess with Texas or any border state for that reason. Do not steal, do not rape, do not violate our laws, and CERTAINLY do not pick up a rock and challenge and armed man. I do not care to the degree…there are no degrees when a clear and present danger is present. It is subjective. There are no rules. Like it or not.

    So, to the bleeding heart types….find another argument or come on down and solve the problem with (insert hysterical laughing here) words and deeds. But don;t do it here…Texas will not stand for it.

    • D13,

      You missed one,

      the battle between David and Goliath is given in 1 Samuel, chapter 17.[2] Saul and the Israelites are facing the Philistines at the Valley of Elah. Twice a day for forty days, Goliath, the champion of the Philistines, comes out between the lines and challenges the Israelites to send out a champion of their own to decide the outcome in single combat. However, Saul and all the other Israelites are afraid of him. By chance, David is present, having brought food for his elder brothers. Told that Saul has promised to reward any man who defeats Goliath, David accepts the challenge. Saul reluctantly agrees and offers his armor, which David declines, taking only his sling and five stones chosen in a brook.

      David and Goliath confront each other, Goliath with his armor and shield, David with his staff and sling,. “The Philistine cursed David by his gods,” but David replies: “This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that God saves not with sword and spear; for the battle is God’s, and he will give you into our hand.” [3]

      David strikes Goliath in the head with a stone from his sling, the Philistine falls on his face to the ground, David takes Goliath’s sword and cuts off his head. The Philistines flee and are pursued by the Israelites “as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron.”

      • So the best you can do is use a myth to try to demonstrate some sort of risk.

        Yet, even your myth fails.

        Goliath was not killed by the rock. His head was cut off.

    • D13,

      So the best you can do is provide men, in a war, 200 years ago as a systemic threat to justify shooting a boy.

      Sad, sir, very sad.

  34. “U.S. authorities said Tuesday a Border Patrol agent was defending himself and colleagues when he fatally shot the 15-year-old”

    US law on police use of deadly force is not what most people think, and for sure, is not like the movies. In Leathal Weapon, Danny Glover shoots a bad guy in the leg so they can question him. This would be a violation of police procedure. Every law enforcenment agency adopts procedures for use of deadly force. Nearly all simply copy the procedure developed and used by the FBI. Their procedure, when deadly force is required, is to shoot the torso, or center body mass, which reduces the chances of missing the target, and accidently injuring others. It also results in a high fatality rate, as there are “vital organs” located in the center body mass. And this might be intentional, dead men tell no tales.

    Today, we have available laser sights, which make it feasible to shoot someone in the leg, arm, etc.., but strangly, no police department has considered using them or changing their policy. If police shoot, it’s to kill.
    Some officers elect not to train in non-leathal defense, such as pepper spray. If they are trained for it, procedure requires them to use non-leathal defense first, unless a firearm has been seen. What if you had to enter a home for a domestic dispute where there are several hostile males present, they are willing to risk being “sprayed”, and know that is the only defense you are allowed to use. When the police survive a violent encounter like that, they often then get to fight multiple lawsuits for excessive force and such.

    I think the only way police procedure will change to non-leathal as their primary response will be if they are protected from all the lawsuits. A 15 yr old throws a rock which is Un-likely to kill, but is going to injure.
    Does the officer need to wait and see how bad he’s injured before responding? A lucky hit will blind him. Is he in riot gear with a helmet? No, well one rock still is not likely to kill him, but will the second or third?

    on police procedure,

    GAO found that: (1) except for a few instances, the 1988 ATF policy on
    deadly force was consistent with prior DEA and FBI policies and the 1995
    Departments of the Treasury and Justice uniform policies which
    superceded their agencies’ policies;

    (2) agents may use deadly force
    only when they reasonably believe that suspects pose an imminent threat
    of death or serious injury to themselves or other persons;

    (3) the three agencies’ new agent training in their deadly force policies is similar
    and all agents are required to be retrained on a quarterly basis
    throughout their careers;

    • LOI,

      Oh my! The horror!

      Kill a boy and the threat of lawsuits!! Cringe!!! All paid for by the government!!! Gawd!! What horror!!
      *roll eyes*

      A boy with a rock needs to be shot because he might hurt you.

      The thought that, maybe – just maybe – retreating 25 feet and let the boy exhaust himself throwing rocks never crossed anyone’s mind.

  35. BF,

    Looks like it’s on YOU to tell US when you will finally STAND UP FOR AMERICA. Not getting smart with you BF but you are the one sounding bizarre because we can’t find an example to debate you with. People have died at that boarder or as a result of ILLEGAL immigration. Both sides know it.That’s all the onus I need. We’re just saying don’t send a boy to do a man’s job. They did. It got ugly. Boy got shot. Is anyone proud of themselves..I doubt it. Why is it not the fault of the illegals for festering up trouble to begin with?
    Does it not matter to you that people are already dead as a result of all this? We have a right to defend our boarders. Come on BF. You don’t make sense. I seriously want an answer to these questions not just some more prove it statements.

    • Murphy's Law says:


      You go, girl!! Your first sentence almost took the words right out of my mouth…..tho you said it better than I would have, I think.

      But…..He won’t.

      He won’t ever stand up for America.

      Neither will he give a straight answer to your, or anyone else’s questions. I believe that is becoming abundantly clear to all of us here at SUFA.

      He just likes to believe in his own mind, that he has won arguments even when it is obvious to all others that he hasn’t.

      Not going to stop me from having a wonderful weekend! Hope yours is too!


      • Assuming the weather allows me to get my dock in the water I also plan to have a nice weekend.

        I’m out starting now. See ya!

    • Anita,

      Defense is predicated on threat. Lethal force requires lethal threat.

      That condition was not met. There was no lethal threat – it was a boy with a rock.

  36. Gonna get interesting….

    LONDON — Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times of London reported Saturday.

    In the week that the U.N. Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defense sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass without hindrance, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defense systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defenses will return to full alert.

    “The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a U.S. defense source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [U.S.] State Department.”

    Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defense circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

    The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

    • Murphy's Law says:

      Oh wow….VERY interesting…..

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      I think that it is really a shame that they don’t tell what their heading and altitude will be. While they are at it perhaps they can schedule it at a time when everyone will be awake. If this is true, these people are more nuts than we are.

      • No kidding..
        I can only think of two reasons why they would announce it to the world and i dont think they outweigh not telling the world..
        I was hoping it would get resolved somehow,but its more than obvious that Israel has to and will do what has to be done.

  37. Murphy's Law says:

    I missed the poetry contest yesterday, but I love limericks….so here’s one for today.

    On SUFA a border issue prevailed,
    Against all of us BF has railed.
    He tried to convince us
    But here’s the consensus

    • Not hating on BF but good job Murf !

    • Murph,

      When consensus of the people
      justifies evil,
      The people will suffer
      the evil they justify.

      • I never checked in on this page yesterday BF. I give you a “good job” too. 🙂 Aaaaand even though I don’t agree with you on this issue I give you credit for standing firm in what you believe in.

  38. “So let us begin anew – remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof”

    John Fitzgerald Kennedy

  39. Bottom Line says:

    head hit by rock

  40. Not that it really matters but more on the birth certificate issue with Obama.

  41. The Texas Open Carry Law will be part of the next legislature. It appears that Texas will be the first state to try to pass an Open Carry Law that will enable legal citizens to openly carry weapons and not have to carry a concealed handgun license. There is still a requirement to go through a training course and you must be ready at all times to produce documents that you are a legal citizen in the State of Texas. A driver’s license or credit card or social security card will not be sufficient identification. A light bill or water or property tax bill will not be enough to establish citizenship. It will requie a certified copy of your birth certificate or a United States passport as well as a letter from the Sheriff’s department indicationg that you are a resident in good standing. Out of State visitors will be allowed to openly carry if they have the same indentification and a letter from a local Texas Sheriff Department. In order for an out of State person to get a letter from a local Sheriff, they first must have a letter from the Sheriff’s Department in the county they reside attesting to the fact that they are a citizen in good standing.

    Previous felony arrests of any kind will disqualify anyone from carrying a weapon as the CHL does now. It is a hot button issue down here right now but has wide spread support. Polls show that Texans want an open carry law by 48% for 31% against and the rest undecided. We can already openly carry “long guns” (rifles) and shotguns and they can be loaded at all times….after all what is the use of an unloaded weapon. The only restriction to shotguns is that they must have the plug in them to allow only three shells at a time…………….while hunting. Pretty stupid as you can carry a rifle that holds a clip up to 15 shells….but I guess those doves and ducks need some help. So, we carry our plugs with us…when not hunting we “pull the plug”.

    We shall see what happens at the next legislature.

  42. Cyndi P says:

    Wow…I wonder how soon we’ll all be eating “Prole-Chow: Complete Nutrition For American Proles”.

    Will there be a “Fat Tax” for those who don’t fit the BMI scale? Will they bring back the Presidential Physcial Fitness Test? Will those who fail be sent to the fat farm run by those nice government FEMA folks?

  43. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    Still around, just been busier the a one legged fat man in a fast ass kickin contest! Got some great deer pics over the weekend, the pole barn is looking sharp and now under roof and all the doors are in place. My two four legged girls are safely at home after a 6 day scare last weekend with the youngest, but despite her battle wounds, she’s just fine. My boxer, apparently, had to whoop some coyote ass during her little vacation in the mountains, now she won’t leave the yard for nothing! 🙂

    Missed all the discussions, should have some time to follow this week and post more!

    Peace my Friends!


    • Hooray for your safe doggies G-Man. I can’t imagine mine coming up missing. I know you’re resting easy now 🙂

      • Thanks Anita!

        Dogs are just fine now! Used an old southern trick, we hung out a dirty T-shirt in the guide wire to the electric pole. Worked! Remember that!


  44. BF- Ignoring social order cannot improve social order.

    Cyndi – True, but it may keep me from being seriously injured and or killed. It also has the added effect of encouraging the predator (‘boy’ with rock who incidently is probably taller and more muscular than a 5’3″ 48 year old woman) to move on to easier prey such as man, who doesn’t take physical threats from teenage males seriously.

    • Cyndi,

      You with nothing but your shoe – is one case in face of a rock-threat.

      You with nothing but your gun – is wholly a different case in face of a rock-threat.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Are you suggesting that I hit him in the face with my flip-flop and then fist fight him?


        • Cyndi,

          If you have a gun, you are a criminal if you shoot him because he “appears” threatening.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Its easier to beg forgiveness that to get permission. I’ll take my chances since its very unlikely you and 11 others of your caliber and world view will be on the jury of my peers. More likely those judging me will not expect that I inquire as to the age of my attacker, lest he just ‘look’ 15 when he’s really of legal age, whether or not we are physically equal, if he is carrying any concealed weapons, is trained in hand to hand combat or the martial arts, and just exactly what his intentions toward me are, such as, does he intend to just frighten me, injure me, rape me, and/or kill me, BEFORE I take action to defend myself.

            • Cyndi,

              All of that may be true.

              But what is your excuse if he was running away?

              • Cyndi P says:

                IF he were CLEARLY running away and stopping his assault of me, I woudn’t shoot him.

                The question was would I shoot a ‘boy’ of 15 years if he were assualting me with a three pound stone. Answer: Yes Boy obviously fleeing and not taking up a defensive position to use his concealed weapon on me: no.

%d bloggers like this: