Tuesday Night Open Mic for June 29, 2010

We come to another Open Mic night with a full plate of topics out there. I know I could have simply picked out some of the big ones out there and ran with them. But everybody is doing that! So I decided to find some of the other stories out there and offer them up, with the full understanding that if it is a big story, someone else will be offering them up throughout the day. I intend to eventually write about Kagan, but I am not sure where I stand on her yet. The hearings aren’t giving me a lot of info. I am also going to write about the Court’s gun ruling when I can, because I think it is important, and will have a ripple effect on some other stuff. I also really wanted to offer something quick on the videos that JAC suggested, but I haven’t yet had a moment to sit down and watch them, and probably won’t have time until this weekend. But I will offer a link to them in a separate article tomorrow so look for that to make it easier for folks to find them. For tonight I offer the Federal Government boycotting Arizona, changes to the FMLA interpretations, an arrogant Congressman, and a question about what may turn out to be a nightmare for the GOP in Nevada.


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Arizona Dem Reaffirms Charge That Feds Moved Conferences to Protest State’s Immigration Law

    An Arizona congresswoman refused to back down from her allegations that two federal agencies moved their conferences from the state to boycott its new law cracking down on illegal immigrants despite the agencies’ denial.

    Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords told Fox News on Saturday that she has information that the Department of Education and the U.S. Border Patrol canceled scheduled meetings in Arizona over the state’s tough new law that has prompted at least two dozen cities or government agencies across the nation, including Los Angeles, Boston and Seattle, to pass resolutions to boycott the state or curtail economic activity.

    “We have the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education that had planned for meetings, had then canceled those meetings with the reason given that it was because of the immigration law,” she said on Saturday, repeating a charge she first leveled earlier in the week.

    But the Customs and Border Protection, the agency above the Border Patrol, has denied canceling any conferences in Arizona.

    “We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case,” the statement said. “The agency has reached out to Rep. Giffords’ office to clear up any misunderstanding.”

    The Education Department acknowledged moving a joint event held with Mexican and Canadian partners in a student exchange program.

    But Assistant Education Secretary Peter Cunningham said in a statement that it did so because the Mexicans, an equal partner in the program, asked that it be moved. Each agency pays for its part of the joint North American Mobility Program.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/26/arizona-dem-stands-charge-feds-moved-conferences-protest-states-immigration-law/

    Well, I cannot claim to know the mind of the people being accused of this particular “crime”, but I do know that the political climate in DC is at an all time low in terms of the levels that they are willing to sink on both sides of the aisle. A decade or two ago, I would not have thought that a federal agency would stoop to the level of petty games such as boycotting a state over a law that is nothing more than a federal law. For that matter I would not have thought it would happen over any law. A boycott of a state of this country by the federal government… simply madness at work. Today, however, I am inclined to agree that this is entirely plausible. The adversarial relationship between the state and federal governments is quite nasty these days. So, my inclination is that the Representative from Arizona is correct in what she claims.

    I am OK with the federal government taking legal action if they truly believe that a law is being broken. They are doing so in this case, and we will let the courts sort out who is right and wrong. But boycotting the state is a step too far in my opinion. Arizona would be justified, in my personal opinion, to secede from the union based on such a boycott.

    Add to this the growing list of cities passing resolutions to boycott Arizona because of the immigration law that is nothing more than enforcement of federal law. At first I was on the boat of thinking that these cities are merely an annoyance of ignorant, self-important city council members who wanted to make a political statement. But the more I have thought about the situation, the more I see it as something worse than that. The city where I live has voted to boycott Arizona. I intend to have words with the city council over it. Not just because it is a waste of city time voting on a nonsense resolution like this, but because of the costs involved. For example, the city of Los Angeles is now stuck with “a mountain of work by officials at the city level tasked with reviewing hundreds of internal contracts for any trace of Arizona,” (from a Fox News article). So these nonsense resolutions that are deemed harmless are actually costing taxpayers thousands of dollars and countless city worker man hours. And for what purpose?

    I guess what I am wondering is how long the people on the left side of the aisle are going to allow their political representation to mis-represent the true situation around this law. I have already written an article covering how the claims around this law are complete lies. Yet those who wish to boycott continue to do so with proven lies as the basis for their decision. It is like setting foreign policy based on the world being flat. Come on, progressives, call out your lying leadership and show the rest of us that you have some ability to separate fact from fiction and act accordingly.

    • Well, it seems to that these boycotts that these cities impose cost them far more than it costs AZ. Also there are a lot of States, mine included, who are considering, seriously, passing a law very similar or exactly like the AZ law.

      And let me tell you. If GA passed such a law my hometown, in particular one part of it, would swiftly turn into a ghost town. And I would be glad to see it.

      Does that shock you? It shouldn’t. My core principle is Liberty and Justice for all. AMERICANS. My Constitution, which I revere almost to the point of Religious zealotry, was written for Americans.

      Oh yes! I know! We are a nation of immigrants. Immigration built this nation and I have no problem with legal immigration. But that is the key in case you missed it.


      If you want in this country, come in the front door. Don’t swim the river or run through the desert bringing drugs and crime with you. We have enough of that shit on our own, thank you very much!

      AZ was right to pass their law. The Federal Government, especially THIS Administration, refuses to enforce their own Law. What do they expect the citizens, THEIR citizens to do? It is a frackin’ war zone down there along the border. Meanwhile, while our girls are abducted and sold into sex slavery OR WORSE. While drugs and Mexican gangs swarm across the border with impunity. While crime along the border and elsewhere in the country among illegal and even some legal immmigrants is rampant. Our President sits with his finger up his ass and rocked back on his thumbs AND DOES NOTHING!!!!!!!

      My fervent hope is, that not only AZ, but ALL 50 States would rise up on their hind legs and tell this Administration; This is a damn ’nuff!!! Get off your ass and enforce the laws of your nation or it’s your political and maybe even physical ASS! It’s beem over a year and a half since this son-of-a-bitch became our President. The only thing he has managed to do is turn this country almost bankrupt, and don’t think that chicken ain’t going to come home to roost soon, and try to destroy our way of life, and apoligize and lick the hindquarters of every other Nation on Earth.

      And for now, that is my rant of the day.

      • Of course, for most of the history of America it was easy to be “legal” since there were no immigration “laws”. Then people started thinking “I’m afraid of these new immigrants. Something has to be done about them. Let’s pass a law making it harder for them and their kind to come here ‘legally’.

        It wasn’t right then and isn’t right now. Where a person comes from doesn’t matter, his actions toward other people do.

        I can illustrate this point with a link to a blog post I did, based upon an email I was sent. The link is here: Girl kills attackers, but statists miss the point. It isn’t on my examiner column yet (mainly because Examiner doesn’t let me use big red letters for emphasis), but I may end up putting it there eventually. I think it is a critical thing to understand, and I see so many working so hard to avoid underatanding it.

        • Do you really think shock and ridicule furthers your stated cause. Killing cops should be celebrated-seriously this is the message you want to send-didn’t get thru-because the message and messenger just got tagged as an extremist nutcase and rejected. Hopefully, you will take this as friendly advise but either way-based on your article just call me a statist.

          • I am not advocating killing cops, just attackers. Killing attackers is always the right/ethical thing to do, but it may not always be smart (especially when they are part of a large gang that will continue to use force against you). Don’t like it? Don’t attack innocent people. A badge is not an excuse. Wrong is still wrong.

            • I think you missed my point-I may or may not agree with your message but first I must hear it-and with your using examples meant to shock- and starting out by telling people they are trying not to understand it, which means to most peoples ears that they are just stupid will cause most people to just dismiss you and the message. Call me touchy but if I feel I am being disrespected I have trouble caring what you think and I don’t think I’m an oddity among the population.

      • And I do hate to tell you Esom, but the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not speak of only Americans, but of “all men”. Either all humans have the exact same rights, regardless of the current government’s whims, or rights are meaningless.

        • Hey Kent. Believe it or not, I do see your point. I even agree, to a certain extent.

          But, if we don’t get a handle on these ‘illegal’ immigrants soon, and the rampant crime that has been coming in with them, we will soon be a third world country.

          My Middle School is approx. 40% Latino. Putting a colored Bandana in their back pocket signifies their gang colors. Almost EVERY male Latino in the school has a Bandana in their back pocket. And this is 12, 13, and 14 year old boys!

          Not to mention places like AZ, TX, and the other border states. I won’t mention CA, since they are obviously very happy with their situation. It is turning into a war zone down there.

          And the Entitlements! Do not try and tell me that someone who pays in nothing and only takes is good thing. It’s bad enough to have our citizens do it to us. Having illegals do it and not even be allowed to ask for citzenship is beyond the pale. I fail to see how that should be allowed because you think our Constitution was written to protect everyone, regardless of citizenship. If that were so, then we should just take over the whole world.

          All humans should have the same rights. Of that there is no doubt. They should even have the same rights as me, when they are in my Country. But the fact that they are given benefits and rights I can’t get for my family is bulldookey.

          Don’t mistake me. My problem is not with the Latinos coming from poverty stricken countries to better themselves. My problem is 1. They are swarming across like ants and our government makes zero effort to stop them for political reasons, and 2. They are bringing their crime and their third world countries with them. They make no effort to enter society. They make their own society and refuse to learn English. They believe WE should conform to THEIR society.

          If my thoughts on this subject seem wrong to you, I am certainly sorry for that. But it won’t change. The Government of the United States CAUSED this problem. And they are the only ones who can fix it. (yeah right)

          Don’t worry Kent. I am also a realist. Things are only going to get worse. I don’t see us backing up. We will slide slowly farther left until we are just like all the rest of the world.

          • Esom, you hit on many issues.

            Welfare must end. Completely. Even the parts “Americans” personally like, approve of, and “benefit” from. However, it is a smoke and mirrors act to pretend that “illegal immigrants” don’t pay into the system. To get a job, many of them use someone else’s SSN (Socialist Slave Number), thereby paying in with no chance of ever getting it back. When they make purchases they are faced with the same extortion fees (“taxes”) as the rest of us.

            The latino teens in school are gang members because that desire to belong, especially in the face of opposition, is a part of human nature you will not defeat. If they commit aggression, as gang members or not, they are subject to unpleasant consequences just as I would be. Drug prohibition fuels and finances most gang activity, yet people who hate gangs are the least likely to face that fact and admit prohibition is always wrong.

            All humans DO have the same rights; governments just violate those rights to different extents.

            If the immigrants form their own society and “refuse” to learn English, how does that hurt you? When they speak to me they use English if they want to be understood. If your culture is not strong enough to survive a little competition then what is it worth? If you moved to “Afcanalia”, would you stop speaking English even when talking to another English speaker? Would you be fluent in their dominant language immediately? Would you be fluent enough in “Afcanalian” to be able to deal with bureaucracies and businesses if there were no “press 4 for English” option? I can relate to the difficulties and I hold no ill-will to people just trying to make it here. It harms me in no way. Theft and aggression are a separate issue and should be dealt with decisively.

            My grandfather’s parents immigrated to America from Czechoslovakia. He was born in America, but did not speak any English until he started school. There the teacher forbade him and his relatives from speaking Czech at all, even among themselves. That was stupid and wrong. He didn’t speak a word of Czech as an adult, although his mother still had her Czech-language Bible and read it daily when she died. I feel cheated that his heritage was crushed and I was not allowed to experience any of it due to the prejudice of his teachers. I will not be a party to that being done to others.

            • Kent. You make many fine points for thought. And I will consider them. That’s all I will promise, but I WILL consder your point of view.

              I am not as radical as you and BF though, so it will be hard to convince me.

              I have to go now and tend to my sick wife. Y’all have a good night.

                • I don’t care particularly who else says what Kent.

                  These people come in, they stay to themselves. They pay cash for everything so that they don’t NEAR as much in taxes as you claim. No property tax because they own nothing. Live 100 humans to a house. (exageration) My county and others are going broke trying to pay for the extra expense of trying to provide services and education for these illegal people in MY country.

                  Yes Kent. I know that my ancestors immigrated to this country too. However these people are more akin to locusts than immigrants. They come in and contribute nothing and take all.

                  Nevermind that our own govt gives it to them and requires my state and local govt to do the same. If I approved of the govenment in question I would NOT BE ON THIS SITE BITCHING TO BEGIN WITH!

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Sometimes, It Takes an Interpretation

    A colleague of mine in the Obama administration sparked a political controversy about 15 years ago when she wrote about the impact a village can have in raising a child. While I’m sure many are disappointed that the politics guiding that debate remain much the same, there is little doubt that caring for a child involves the village now more than ever.

    In today’s America, families look different than they did in the past. Modern families have changed complexion, changed composition, and changed expectations. Yet regardless of the changes within a family, its function in our society remains the same — to provide for and nurture the development of future generations.

    When the Family and Medical Leave Act was first passed in 1993, it was a huge step forward in establishing the flexibility and security that the American workforce needed to care for our future generations. It allowed employees to take unpaid leave to care for their kids without the fear of losing their jobs.

    But while many are quick to point out that the workplace, workers, and indeed the concept of families have changed, the flexibility to apply FMLA to shifting conditions did not.

    Well, the Administration took a major step in recognizing the need for such flexibility on Tuesday when the U.S. Department of Labor issued Administrator’s Interpretation No. 1010-3, which clarifies the definition of “son and daughter” under the FMLA. In doing, so we have expanded FMLA protections to cover loving caregivers that have traditionally been left out.

    It’s called in loco parentis, a Latin phrase and legal doctrine that may require interpretation for those of us who are not lawyers: It means “in the place of a parent.” And when applied to the new realities of work and family, it means all employees who have assumed the responsibility for parenting a child, whether they have a biological or legal relationship with the child or not, may be entitled to FMLA leave.

    What does that mean in the real world? It means that children can get the support and care they need from the people who love them and are responsible for them.

    It means that we’re recognizing the importance of a partner who shares in the parenting of a child in a same sex relationship, and his or her right to FMLA leave. It means that we are recognizing the importance of “Tia” (Spanish for aunt) who steps in to care for her young nephew when his mother has been called to active military duty. And it means that a grandmother who takes responsibility for her grandchild can — when needed — take unpaid time off of work to do it.

    It’s an important interpretation and it is a long time coming.

    Article presented in its entirety. Original can be found at the Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-hilda-l-solis/sometimes-it-takes-an-int_b_625580.html

    I thought this was a good example of a change in the government that was actually a change for the better. It seems so rare these days that we find something that I think most of us can agree on. Allowing the primary caretaker of a child to be afforded the opportunity to take care of that child seems to make sense. That there were limitations that basically didn’t allow many folks to do just that seems stupid, and certainly needed to be rectified. I feel the right thing was done here.

    The question I pose to all of you is what you think of things like the Family Medical Leave Act. As an employer I despise the act, because of its impact on my business. If someone goes out on FMLA, I must hold their position for them, which means that I cannot fill that position with another qualified candidate. This can be for months at a time. At our store in Atlanta, we had someone on FMLA for 7 months. The entire store remained in limbo, and every other store in the area operated short staffed so that folks from other stores could come in and fill the void on a rotating basis. Business for the entire region was disrupted. At the end of the 7 months, the employee resigned her position and moved to another state. 7 months of holding a position open for nothing.

    As an employee, I obviously feel differently. If myself or a family member has medical issues that demand that I take care of them for a period of time, I don’t want to lose my job and my health benefits. So I am grateful that my employer is requred to save my position for me.

    So I ask all of you where you stand on it. I do believe that this is something that the free market can handle quite well on its own. I can explain my thinking on that throughout the discussion. But we don’t need a federal law to dictate something blanket such as FMLA to millions of different companies who all have different needs and requirements.

    • Could have you hired a temp worker? That way you would have had someone trained to step in permanently if needed, but no hard feelings if the original employee returned.

      • USWeapon says:


        I wish I could have, but realistically it takes 3-6 months just to get someone trained to work in one of our stores. On top of that, the person out on FMLA was actually the store manager. You can’t really get temps to run the place. So we were stuck with rotating managers in from other stores, because we couldn’t hire another manager to take her place.

    • My only objection to this interpretation are the same ones you raised. How does it affest the employer, and do we need the Federal Government interfering in the marketplace. And ther is no other word for it but ‘interfering’.

      So my answer to the first is, I don’t know, not being an employer anymore. My answer to the second is, not only no but hell no.

      BTW, what store do you have in the ATL?

      • Oh, and By the Way.

        GO GAMECOCKS!!! UCLA SUCKS!!!!! 😀 😀 😀

        • Esom

          I’ll go with that.

          It was a good CWS though.

          I loved TCU’s run as well.

          SC and UCLA sure do have some damn good pitching.

          Hows your baseball season progressing?

          • We just got done crushing all opposition in the District Tourney. Now we are headed to State.

            No bragging just fact. This was mostly due to my son’s pitching. The boy has five different pitches and and throws an 80mph fastball at 14. He also has phenomenal control.

            His batting suffers when he pitches though because he over analizes the pitches that are thrown to him. He never bats good when he pitches. But that’s why they call them a baseball TEAM.

            I try never to brag about him except to family and my one friend. But his coaches love him. One calls him his adopted son. 🙂

            And yes. It was a great CWS. I also enjoyed TCU’s run. The UCLA sucks was just a razz at Mathius for his razzing USW on the Basketball championship. 🙂

    • ” If someone goes out on FMLA, I must hold their position for them, which means that I cannot fill that position with another qualified candidate. This can be for months at a time. At our store in Atlanta, we had someone on FMLA for 7 months.”

      This is not entirley accurate. If the position that an employee held is critical, you do have the right, under the law, to permanently replace that employee. You can, if you choose, hold a similar less critical position open, should you desire, but it does not have to be at the same rate. The law is intended to eliminate discrimination but it is not designed to make you suffer a hardship. Before you hire an employee, is is best to have a clearly defined job descriiption and clearly state all of the ramifications prior to hiring and have the employee sign it.

      • USWeapon says:

        Good info D13. I would amend my statement to say HR would not let us hire another person to replace the person who was out, and it was the location’s General Manager, so as critical as could be.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

    Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., no stranger to controversy, mocked the idea that the borders are not secure when asked about the federal government’s lack of activity on border security.

    “We can’t get enough Minutemen armed. We’d like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here,” Stark said.

    Eventually, members of the audience urged Stark to offer a serious answer.

    “If you knew anything about our borders, you would know that’s not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you,” Stark said, drawing jeers.

    Stark resumed his hostile act, asking the Minuteman what he would do to secure the border.

    “I would send about about 25,000 troops for one thing and build a wall down so vehicles could not pass,” the Minuteman said.

    “How high and long would it be?” Stark asked.

    “As high and as long as it takes,” the Minuteman said, elicting cheers.

    Stark said he would start a ladder company with the Minuteman if he designed the wall and doesn’t shoot the people coming over.

    “But I’ve got to know how high the wall is and I’ll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come,” Stark said.

    “This is a very serious matter and you’re sitting there making fun of it,” the Minuteman responded.

    “I don’t have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself,” Stark said.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/29/congressman-says-borders-secure/

    And as yet another example of the hubris and arrogance of those who have somehow been elected to represent the people of the United States, I present you with Democrat Pete Stark from…. wait for it…. California. I have put the video of this as the first reply to this topic below. If you would like a prime example of arrogance and how little respect US Representatives have for those they represent, look no further. I was literally stunned to see just how condescending he really was. This wasn’t just a blowing off, this was an active sarcastic childish mocking of the people asking him questions.

    This, my friends is why we are in the mess that we are in with our borders. First, Stark makes it clear that the position that he is taking is that are borders are actually very secure. Any claims otherwise are simply unfounded and offered only by those who “haven’t studied the situation.” I think we can find varying opinions here at SUFA about how to tackle the border issue, but is there anyone here who actually thinks that the borders are actually “quite secure, thank you”? Take that a step further, and he actually comes right out and says that if a wall were built he would make a fortune selling ladders so that the security of the border could be overcome.

    It is this type of attitude that is the real problem with the border issue. We cannot hope to solve the issue when it is clear that at least some of the folks on one side of the issue not only don’t want to compromise on a solution, they actually are not interested in even trying to solve it. In fact, they will actively look for a way to overcome any solutions! That is precisely what has happened with the Arizona situation. Arizona got no federal support so they crafted their own solution within the framework of federal law. And the White House and liberal critics have actively worked to eliminate the solution! My conclusion is that the Democratic party really does not want to solve this problem. I have seen nothing that says otherwise.

    More important to this story is the fact that our supposed representatives on both sides of the aisle are, with increasing boldness, beginning to show us exactly how little they care about the concerns of their constituents. They really are 535 elitists who simply believe that they are smarter than us, better than us, and that we simply don’t matter. It is time to reevaluate our strategies. There is no fixing Congress.

    • USWeapon says:

      • Common Man says:


        Tar, feathers and a rail would be an absolute and appropriate action for this arrogant ass. The people of this district need to ensure that this video is broadcasted via every media possible to ensure this moron is no longer allowed to practice his pompous acts.

        I am glad that I do not live in this district and did not attend this ‘town hall’ meeting, because I might have gone out and gotten a rope. I would have been livid with anger. I would not have stood in the crowd, I would have gotten up and walked to the podium and verbally confronted this idiot, and let him know that it was now my mission to ensure this man retired in November.

        The sad, sad truth is that we as a people have morons like this, and worse, setting in the House and Senate bent on raping those they were elected to represent.

        This is an example of how we can work to stop the madness that I think BF would even support. A local effort where a vote can make a change.

        This is where we can make a difference and initiate a revolution towards a free nation.


        • It is even more sad that they continue to get re-elected. The way the districts are drawn only help to ensure this will continue to happen…

      • This damn fool doesn’t need to wait for November. He needs to be recalled. He is too stupid for belief. He must either not be up for reelection in November, or he is really just that much of a fool. If the latter is so, I would recall his ass so fast his head would be two weeks catching up with it.

    • Good morning 🙂

      Haven’t said much lately, but I’m following along.


    • I can not write what I am thinking right now-I will applaud you US for being able to stay civil in your response-the only way I can is to shut up-which might be the reasoning behind the flat out disrespect that is being applied. So I am just gonna ask a question-What say you democrats would you vote for this “man”?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        VH, I know absolutely nothing about the man except for this short blurb. I have no idea if I would vote for him.

        • I’m not sure what else you need to know. He purposely tried to be offensive instead of just answering the question. He chose to use ridicule instead of stating his position. He accused one of his constituents of wanting to kill someone with a huge smile on his face. He is either an arrogant ass or he’s just stupid, either way I wouldn’t want him representing anyone.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Given, and I would and do criticize him for this. However, in terms of would I vote for him — I do not know his positions on the issues. I do not know his opponent or his opponent’s positions on the issues.

            You are asking me to take a stand against voting for him based on this one clip. Absent additional knowledge on my part, I won’t do so.

            • Given that reply on this issue Buck, how could you vote for him no matter his stand on any other issue?

              With that kind of obvious arrogance and not caring what his own constituency thinks, his stand on anything else, IMHO is irrelevant.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Who is he running against? If my choice is him and his arrogance (who for sake of argument I agree with on most issues) and an opponent who I completely disagree with, then maybe I would vote for him despite this incident.

                • I actually understand this reasoning and I apply it when I am looking at the overall picture but sometimes Buck someones actions are just so reveling of their underlying character that there just is no justification for voting for them. Stay at home-call your party and tell them not to let him run for your party-protest-get yourself a better guy running-but don’t support a complete fool to represent the people of this country. Make a statement to your party by not voting at all but make sure they know why.

                • Displaced Okie says:

                  It dosen’t matter who he is running against. You can always vote third party or write-in a vote–voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
                  I would rather be the one person voting for a good person than one of the masses that is hoodwinked into voting for a bad person as their “only” option when in reality it isn’t.

                  • Okie

                    You have deservedly earned the JAC Gold Star of the day.

                    Character matters in a representative govt.

                    That means Reps treat the electorate with respect, even if they disagree.

                    Arrogance is not a virtue and must be purged from govt.

        • Common Man says:


          Your response concerns me. You are either a very gentile and forgiving person, or maybe you accept that certain species are breed to preform as did this poor excuse for a human being.

          If any person was to stand before me and my fellow citizens and demonstrate the contempt this idiot did, nothing they did or said would from that point in time garner my support; even if the bastard was my grandfather.

          This was arrogance and outright disrespect, too a point of insult. I don’t even care if prior to the video he was forced to set and listen to every person in the room call him every name but ‘white man’.

          Stark should be impeached and with extreme prejudice.


          • Buck the Wala says:

            My response shouldn’t concern you. As I just posted to VH – you want me to criticize him for this instance, gladly.

            But for me to go further and say I would never vote for him – based on this one instance and nothing more, as I have said, I know absolutely nothing about the man — that I cannot do. Is this a one time thing? Not being there (and not having watched the video as I am at work, so my thoughts come slowly from the written post if that changes anything) I refuse to take that next step.

            • I’m sure he’s your kinda guy Buck. He was a founding member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

              Some other quotes of his:

              “You get the fuck out of here or I’ll throw you out the window

              I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”

              He still has 4 yrs left on his term. A shame !

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ooooh, I like the 2d one. Gotta find time to use that somewhere!

                Context please?

                Shouldn’t you be more concerned if I was willing to completely judge the man on this one incident without any knowledge of anything he stands for, anything he has accomplished, anything else he has said or done? I do not support what or how he was saying/acting in this one incident. I’m just not willing to make a blanket statement based solely on that single incident.

                • If you would show the same understanding of a GOP candidate, then I have no issue with your leniency. Sharon Angle has not benifited from that leniency though…just sayin’…

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    I show no leniency for Angle because I have read up on her and I completely disagree with her views on pretty much everything.

                    I haven’t had the similar opportunity to look into Stark’s views on the issues.

                    • But reading up on Harry Reid is not necessary…we all know what a dirt bag he is, and he’s been there for a LONG time. Too long…Unless there was a viable 3rd party candidate,I would vote for Angle simply because Dirty Harry has to go.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      But would you vote for someone who you completely disagree with over an incumbent who you take issue with but with whom you agree on most issues?? Not an easy question to answer.

                    • I would vote for a damn monkeybefore I would vote for Reid.

                    • Buck

                      But would you vote for someone who you completely disagree with over an incumbent who you take issue with but with whom you agree on most issues?? Not an easy question to answer.

                      False dychotomy.

                      You perfectly prove how useless voting is in influencing government action.

                      You perfectly prove why the People should stop voting.

                • The context is laid out in wiki.

        • I agree with Buck, you must judge everything when you vote for someone.

          People in PA still voted for Murtha in 2008 after he called them racist and falsely accused marines of murder.

          People voted for obama even though he called them people that cling to their guns and religion.

    • I guess he didn’t get a memo from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service…..

      It’s Official: U.S. Warns It Can’t Guard Part of Mexican Border

      Postby Hauntedwinter » Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:28 pm

      Now that the feds admitted they cannot do anything about the border, I believe its time for the American Citizen to step up and do whatever needs to be done. What does everyone else think?

      “About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.

      Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.

      The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.

      “The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent,” said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.

      “It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “

      U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.

      “We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”

      Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.

      “We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

      Read more: It’s Official: U.S. Warns It Can’t Guard Part of Mexican Bor : Main Newsroom – SHTF Militia Forums http://www.shtfmilitia.com/main-newsroom/it-s-official-u-s-warns-it-can-t-guard-part-of-mexican-bor-t6750.html#ixzz0sLRN229z
      SHTF Militia

      • Too funny!! Obama’s border security plan, put up signs warning Americans illegal immigrants might be dangerous!!!!
        from FOX

        Brewer noted that she recently met with President Obama, who “promised that we would get word” on the administration’s border security plan.

        “Well, we finally got the message — these signs. These signs, calling our desert an active drug and human smuggling area. These signs warning people of danger and telling them to stay away,” Brewer said in the ad. “Washington says our border is as safe as it has ever been. Does this look safe to you?”

        The ad ended with a confrontational message: “Washington is broken, Mr. President. Do your job. Secure our borders. Arizona and the nation are waiting.”

        ‘No Serious Attempt’ to Secure the Border?

        Rep. Lamar Smith on ‘America’s Newsroom’

        One of the signs warns visitors that “smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area.” Another says “travel not recommended” due to “active drug and human smuggling” routes.

        Though warning signs have been placed in certain areas of Arizona, broad swaths of federal land are considered dangerous because of the smuggling routes.

        • LOI

          I would bet those “signs” disappear pretty soon.

          Problem solved. Take down the signs and run away.

          See. No more violence, no more concern, no more problem.

          Perhaps our national symbol should be an Ostrich instead of an Eagle.

        • So basically we have just given part of our country to the Mexico drug cartel-wonder which part they will decide they want next. Geez-this stuff is really bringing out my violent side this morning.

        • Obama has to be the biggest absolute dumbass we have EVER had in the White House. And with Jimmy Carter having preceded him, that is saying a mouthful!

          This God damned MORON is so wrapped in arrogance, and progressive liberalism, so beholden to Unions and other lobbyists and liberal elitists, that he cannot and will not do a god damned thing for his own Nation and it’s people. This worthless unmitigated bastard had got to go or we won’t have a Nation by the time he and his cronies are done with us.

          I am so freakin’ pissed by this and the other utter bullshit he has done that my temper has become so intensed I can’t even be coherent. I apologize USW for my intemperent language. But, I’m not going to change it before I post it because I am just that pissed. You may edit it if you want. I will understand. But I refuse to. I want all to know my opinion of our “President”.

        • Were they made with Stimulus $$$? Jobs, baby, jobs!

        • Common Man says:

          Just saw on Fox News that the catels are now going to target off-duty AZ police officers. Didn’t catch the county, but I suspect it is the one mentioned in the article, but the local sherriff is telling his officers to stay armed, on or off duty and to let the department no where they are at all times.

          If he hasn’t told his citizens to stay armed he should. I am betting there is going to be a lot of sh*t hit the fan down there soon.

          I’m also betting that the local gun shops can’t keep anything on the shelves.

          I know that if I was a land owner in the area I would not depend solely upon the local police.

          Here’s an idea: Maybe we should start an effort to re-populate the wolf species, along with the cougar. I know that folks up JAC’s way have to many wolves and CA has plenty of panthers to go around. This would benefit all three states plus we would be help to preserve native animals.

          Once those species were located then we could put up signs warning folks of the local preditors. Of course we would print the signs in english

          I know I’m sounding mean…Too bad we have an out of control government bent on destroying our country.

          For all those fellow AZ and TX free men and women remember what John Wayne said in the movie “The Unforgiven” – “Windage and elevation Mrs. Langston, windage and Elevation”


          • the catels have threatened to set up snipers across the border and shoot any police officers that try to stop or report illegals crossing.

            Question, What do you call it when an armed, organized group attacks people across an international border?

            • Common Man says:


              From where I come from we would call them “Dead”


            • Well allrighty then!

              That seems plain enough to me. Sounds like a declaration of war. Some of our esteemed citzenry (since we all know the military will not be allowed to do a damn thing even IF they ever show up) should do the same thing and shoot every asshole trying to cross the border.

              Shoot ’em all and let God sort them out.

              Am I joking? No I am not.

    • Too bad….he asked that question in the wrong place. I can answer it.

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    Sharron Angle Opposes Abortion Even With Rape, Incest: ‘God Has A Plan’

    Since winning the Republican nomination in the Nevada Senate race Sharron Angle has drawn attention and controversy for a host of conservative policy prescriptions that seem well outside the political mainstream. Now, a Democratic source has passed along a radio interview she did back in January 2010 that could end up topping the list.

    In an segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show — a favorable platform for Republican candidates — that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was “God’s plan.”

    Manders: I, too, am pro life but I’m also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.
    Angle: I’m pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.
    Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
    Angle: Not in my book.
    Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
    Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

    This is a line of politics that certainly has appeal to a religious conservative base. Indeed, Angle used her pro-life credentials as a cudgel against her primary opponent Sue Lowden. But opposing abortion in cases of rapes and incest is such a rigid platform to adhere to, that it stands to reason Angle’s position could prove extremely problematic in a general election.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/sharron-angle-opposes-abo_n_629371.html

    So do you think that perhaps the folks in Nevada are beginning to wonder what the hell they have done? Those opposed to Harry Reid have hung their hopes on Angle. And the more information that comes out about her, the more fringe she appears to be. I reported here a week or two ago that she is opposed to alcohol being legal. She has since changed her stance on this. Now she says that rape and incest victims should be denied abortions because it is all “part of God’s plan”? Are you kidding me?

    Add to this reports that she wants to eliminate the EPA, Tax Code, Department of Education, Social Security, Medicare, and a host of other agencies, and I am dumbstruck. Not because I disagree with her on some of those. I personally would like to eliminate all five of those mentioned. But to think that the American voter will support such a fringe position (see I admit that at least some of what I believe can be considered the fringe), is a bit insane in my opinion. History has shown that the vast majority of people do not support such positions.

    How in the hell did this woman rise to the top of the GOP ticket in Nevada. Was she a plant? Does the majority of Nevada actually agree with these positions or are the majority of Nevada voters simply not informed of her positions? I understand the desire for many to simply dump incumbents, especially Democrat Senate Majority Leader incumbents, and how that has fueled support for candidates who oppose the current government bureaucracy. And this has led to massive support for the Tea Party and its candidates.

    I think perhaps a squirrelly one may have breached the perimeter. What’s up Nevada? Did you just put the only candidate that Harry Reid has a chance of embarrassing into the lead spot to oppose him?

    • Mathius says:

      I’ve been predicting this kind of thing since the very first emergence of the Tea Party (note, capital letters now). I’ve been saying that, because the Republican Party wants Tea Party votes, they’re going to force themselves off the road, over the shoulder and into a ditch to try to capture their demographic. You can’t win a contest decided by independents if their choice is between left and extreme right – they may not be happy about it, but The People will choose the more moderate appearing candidate.

      • Desparation breeds mistakes. If the liberal/progressive adgenda was not so anti American, then perhaps the desparation would be much less. I applaude what the Tea Party stands for, but caution them to remain rational.

        I would like to see term limits on all elected positions, as well as the Supreme Court…politics was not meant to be a career, but sadly it is for too many. It will never happen though…they would never cut their own throats.

        • Mathius says:

          I’m good with a term limit of 1 term on all officials. However, I still think the Supreme Courts should be a lifetime term. This is because

          (A) Being free of elections frees them of politics – no need to get reappointed
          (B) Lifetime terms means that the court is appointed by several different Presidents. This way, no one POTUS can pack the court too much. The power of the Supreme Court is tremendous and the damage that could be done by someone like Obama or Bush (see? I’m being fair) getting to appoint all the judges is terrifying.


          As for the Tea Party, they will absolutely hamstring themselves, if not here then elsewhere. In fact, with every success, they will become bolder and run more and more ideologically pure far right wingers. They are going to pull the Republican Party further and further to the right, which will cause them to lose more and more elections, which will pull the country more and more to the left. Which will make the Tea Partiers angrier and more vocal. Which will make them demand more and more ideological purity and they will run more and more extreme candidates until they simply vanish in a puff of logic.

          I predict a long and arduous trek though the wilderness.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            On term limits, I agree that SCOTUS should remain with lifetime appointments. I disagree on (A) though as come on, let’s not kid ourselves – it is all politics regardless of having to run for election. But I do agree tremendously on point (B).

            Moving on to the Tea Party – complete agreement with you Mathius. They just keep moving right. Whats funny though (and a bit sad) is that the GOP is jumping over themselves to court the Tea Party voters, heading closer and closer to the extreme right as well.

          • I don’t totally disagree, but unfortunately politics is in play in the Supreme Court. It is sad, but true…I uderstand your point of multiple presidents appointing them so as to mitigate political leanings, but these folks are actually, IMO, the most powerful branch of government in that they control the law of the land. I think they should be limited in the time they spend in the court…or perhaps a better way to do it would be to limit the age they can be to serve…BTW I feel the same about congress.

            I believe the Tea Party stands for the right things…most notably limited government and lower taxes…but fear this movement is too late. The idealogues have firmly entrenched themselves and it will be extremely difficult to displace them…I think they should narrow their objectives and once one is realized bubble up another.

          • Mathius

            Term limits has the same effect as life time appointment relative to politics.

            Simply spread out the terms to address the Presidential appointment issue.

            There also needs to be a provision for removal by Congress for those who wish to undermine the Constitution with their rulings.

            Better yet, NO LAWYERS will be allowed to be appointed to the appellant or Supreme Court.

            • Buck the Wala says:


              I’m feeling a bit like Mathius lately.

              Are you actually arguing for the impeachment of SCOTUS justices because you believe their rulings undermine the Constitution due to a difference in constitutional interpretation? Come now!

              • Buck

                YES I am. Well not impeachment, just removal.

                I would put the threshold high but I would include it.

                There is no need for life time appointments and removal from public office MUST be an option for every position within a Free Society.

                Supreme court justices have no special knowledge or skills nor monopoly on correct philosophy that should make them exempt from removal. This “life time” appointment is a hold over from the “elitist” mentality perpetrated by Plato.

                We need some all seeing, all knowing person to look over us. Well I say Bulldookey.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  You want to argue for term limits, fine. You want to argue for popular elections of SCOTUS, fine. I can see legitimate arguments for such.

                  But to argue for removal solely because you happen to perceive their decisions go against the constitution based on your own view of constitutional interpretation? You say you would place a high threshold – care to elaborate?

                  • Buck

                    A 2/3 vote of the House to start.

                    Perhaps a 2/3 on both to remove.

                    I think the Justices should have to address The House directly when their rulings are viewed as offensive.

                    Why is it that Congress can subpoena everyone in government but a Judge for simply doing their duty?

                    If term limits applied I doubt you would ever see the removal option pursued. But it should be an option.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Sounds pretty similar to Impeachment as it currently stands…

                      The Constitution spells out what constitutes an impeachable offense. Do you really propose expanding that definition to include ‘applying anything but an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation’?

                      The reason you can’t subpoena a Judge for doing their duty is the idea that judges must act apolitically. If Congress doesn’t like a ruling, change the law.

                    • Buck

                      Here is the problem with your point.

                      Congress, which represents the People, can pass a law with 51%.

                      Yet the SCOTUS in deciding that said law is “unconstitutional” changes the common understanding of what the constitution says.

                      So what is Congress’ available course of action?

                      Revise the law to CONFORM to the opinion of 9 people, or;

                      They must AMEND the Constitution to over rule the SCOTUS.

                      So SCOTUS can change the document with a 5-4 vote and Congress has to muster a 2/3 majority and 75% of the States must agree to FIX the SCOTUS decision.

                      That my friend is at its essence Judicial Oligarchy.

                      There needs to be an easier way to address SCOTUS decisions that are offensive to the People.

                      And among those are the decisions NOT to hear certain appeals.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      So you disagree with how the Founding Fathers structured our government?


                    • Buck

                      You are just now realizing that?

                      I agree with the concept of a Judicial Branch. I do not agree with giving it such absolute and disproportionate power.

                      There needs to be accountability in ALL Branches. The current system really does not address that with the Federal Judiciary and especially SCOTUS.

                      But notice that while they included the specifics about the authorities of the Legislative and Executive they left much of the Judiciary up to Congress to determine later.

                    • Amen Brotha’ JAC! Preach the gospel Brother! 🙂

          • In your dreams, Mathius. The Tea Party movement, which is hardly a fringe right-wing group no matter how many times you say it is, will be the driving force to getting anti-American Progressives out of office.

            Will there be mistakes? You betcha! But think what a major mistake Reid has been – Angle certainly can’t be worse.

            • The liberal progressive asks: please explain why you feel progressives are “anti-American”.

              • Simply, America was founded on individual liberty and freedom. The Progressive agenda does not support this concept in any way, thus is anti-American.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Huh, didn’t realize I was anti-American. Thanks for clearing that up!

                  • Buck

                    No problem.

                    What Kathy is stating is important but missed in the political rhetoric.

                    America is and IDEA, not a place. Yes it exists here, for now. But it is not the place but the concept of individual liberty and the protection of individual rights against govt interference in our lives.

                    This was the vision of the traditional LIBERAL but has never been the core belief of the Progressive movement. Not the original nor the modern.

                    Of course, the Conservative Movement is also un-American. The core is the same but the methods change.

                    Bet you didn’t think I could raise the blisters on everyone so quickly, did you.

                    I suggest you duck because I can hear INCOMING.


                  • Oh hell no! Why would I be offended? I am a bygod Radical Right Wing Liberal!!


      • Mathius has it nailed. If Obama retains a second round of selling out the left, it will be because of lunatics on the extreme right. Joe Barton, that psycho Bachmann, Sarah Palin, et al … will scare independents back the other way if permitted to intervene with the GOP. It is exactly what leads to choosing the lesser of two evils and once you start apologizing to BP, calling the baloney $20 billion fund “redistribution of wealth” and claiming God “has a plan” regarding rape victims having to give birth … well, you lose.

        • Charlie,

          It seems to me a nutcase duped Nevada. Does that really reflect on the national Tea Party movement that calls for smaller government and fiscal responsibility?
          Does the Tea Party even have a position on abortion?

          • Not the point, LOI. The point being the more the GOP is forced to deal with the headliners (named above), the further away they’ll push the independents they’ll need to win. Moderate anybod(ies) will not support the crazies on either side. I’m still in shock that Joe Barton remains in his position; that apology will haunt the GOP. Only Obama’s ineptitude (seemingly endless) can trump that stupid remark. His apology for the apology wasn’t enough; he needed to step down (or appear to be forced out).

            • The other side has its winners as well…representative Alan Grayson leaps to mind…not to mention the other side of the ticket from Angle…and Nancy Pelosi…Barney Frank…Al Franken etc. I think you get the point…kick them all out.

            • Joe Barton should never have apologized for telling the truth. It was a shakedown and will become The One’s slush fund.

              • I guess we differ there. I would have seized their assets.

              • Kathy. While I agree that he never should have apologized, AT THE TIME it was a stupid thing to say. It was the truth and I applaud his statement. But it was just the wrong time to say it with the mood of the nation then.

                • so let me get this straight; you and Kathy think the violations BP was cited for preclude them from compensatory damages (above the $75 million)? What, they’re the good guys who made an “honest” mistake (or were victims of an “honest” accident)?

                  Talk about blind faith …

                  • No Charlie. I feel absolutely NO sympathy for BP. Let me make that very clear to all. But the deal the Government made with BP WAS a shakedown, plain and simple. Don’t get me wrong. After what they did, screw them. I dont’t care if they DO seize their assets.

                    It’s just that this reminds me of the GM fiasco that Obama pulled when he took over their Bankruptcy and screwed all the share and bondholder’s and demonized them. I just see more government bullshit interference ahead.

                    Of course. when that Hurricane hits, it’s all over anyway. Then BP is REALLY gonna get screwed!

      • Mathius

        I think what you see is the “conservatives” co-opting the “Tea Party” movement.

        Because the party had no real structure or trained political leadership it appears to be overrun by those prone to activism.

        It has, in effect become the outlet for the “conservatives” who felt betrayed by the Republican party establishment.

        Yet all Tea Parties are not the same. You will still find some differences among and within the States.

        But on your primary conclusion, I agree. Nothing will do more to keep the far left in Power, including Obama, than a turn to “far right” issues by Republican candidates.

        Unless the economy continues to fail. Then the electorate may just throw them out because that is usually what they do in that case.

      • I disagree Mathius. Abortion rights are the Law of the land. Whether her stance on Abortion is ‘fringe’ or not, she is only one person, and she will only be one Senator. The law will not change no matter her position, which, by the way, I agree with.

        I know almost no one else here, where pro-choice or pro-life, is that extreme, but that’s OK. I am and so is the rest of my family and most of the people I know.

        As far as the rest of her platform and position. I think you will be suprised by just how many of us agree with her.

        • I’m more concerned that she bases her opinion off of “God’s plan.” There is something about that that I find very disconcerting.

          I don’t know much else about her but I doubt I’d ever vote for her.

        • I agree with her stance against abortion even in these two extreme situations. Two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how much the situation SEEMS to justify it. However she should not base her justification for standing against abortion on God-this is a political position and we are not a theocracy. The simple fact, and you can argue that fact all you want, it is still a fact, destroying innocent life or potential life if one prefers, if your LIFE is not in danger is wrong, by definition it is murder.

          • anoninnc says:

            Why does acknowledging God’s existence immediately take you to the extreme of “theocracy?”

            • It doesn’t-that wasn’t my point-I believe in freedom of religion, not freedom from religion- I have no problem with governmental officials bringing up God-but to expect people who do not believe in God to accept that people shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions based on a God they do not believe in -is unreasonable.

              • You are right V.H.. People should not have abortions because it is a person and it is murder. Not because God says so. Because science says so.

                But I personally believe it is an affront and abomination to God to create life and then have man arbitrarily destroy it because it is an “inconvenience”.

    • Another abortion topic,

      Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy
      By Nathan Burchfiel
      Wed, 06/30/2010 – 08:32 ET

      If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen?

      According to an American Life League review of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period.

      The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it.

      A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy.
      Story Continues Below Ad ↓

      Don’t Follow the Money

      The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50th anniversary of the Pill.

      From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2010/06/30/media-ignore-planned-parenthoods-1-3-billion-federal-funding-discr#ixzz0sLN2lLV0

      • The worst thing about this story is that it really has nothing to do with abortions at all. This is outright theft. WHO is stealing it is secondary to the fact that it is missing to begin with.

    • USW

      I just spent a short week in Nevada and discussed this race with many old friends. Several are connected to govt and others are among community leaders.

      All but one can’t stand Reid and were ready to work to retire him.

      NOT NOW.

      They are sick with the choice they now have.

      Most used phrase to describe the new republican? Lunatic

      Before I left Reid was running TV spots showing her, in her own words, telling folks we need to “phase out social security”. Now we all may know that is true, but we also know that in American politics it is a killer.

      I left town listening to recent poles say she was 8 points up on Reid, but knowing he will get re-elected.

      I Soooooooooooo hope I am wrong.

      Now for the real question. WHY did this interview with a “radio talk show host” just now get exposed to the broader public?

      • SS doesn’t need to be phased out, just scaled back. It should be a safety net for those who absolutely need it, so that the elderly and disabled (those who cannot work) do not find themselves homeless and starving after a life of honest labor.

        It should not be an entitlement that you get as a birthday present when you reach a certain age. I’m not interested in rewarding you just for living a long time with a supplementary income directly out of my hard-earned paycheck, I’m interested in making sure you aren’t destitute – that is as far as my moral obligation extends.

        • Funny, you sound more like the republicans I talk to than a democrat at this moment. 🙂

          • What did I ever do to offend you so badly you would say something like that to me? 😛

            • It is simply not my fault if you cannot recognize a compliment when you are given one. 🙂

        • Mathius

          What you are describing is a Welfare program not Soc Sec. The latter should be phased out and if we decide we want the other it should become a budget line item from the general tax fund.

          Eliminate the payroll FICA reductions for both employee and employer.

          That would create an immediate 8% raise and an 8% reduction in operating costs for business.

          But here is a twist.

          Why shouldn’t the able bodied “elderly” have to continue working to support themselves?

          Why should AGE become a criteria for taking my money for their support?

          I think if you stick with disabled you will find the vast majority of Americans are with you. I might even compromise on that one. IF strict Constitutional limits are applied so that some future political movement can’t expand or undermine the program.

          • I am only ok with the elderly insofar as they are unable to work. I have two grandmothers still living. One was a librarian and could still reasonably put in a day’s work, but doesn’t have to since she gets social security and has a modest pension. The other is infirm and cannot get out of her chair without assistance, she has no savings as she has spent it all on her numerous bouts with cancer (5-0, go granny!) and twice weekly dialysis. The first should be working if she didn’t have enough money to live on. The second needs a social safety net which we should provide.

            That said, I’m good with removing the word “elderly” from my criterion. Just disabled is fine with me.

          • I like John Boehnor’s ideas concerning Social Security for those who do not really need it.

            This report was on fox yesterday.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi All,

      Haven’t been here in awhile, but I have to say, living in Nevada, I am not one for Angle at all. I see her ads every single day, and I don’t agree with what she has to say about any of it.

      #1. Even though I am totally against abortion, I do realize that there may be times when one is absolutely necessary under certain circumstances. I’ll just leave it at that.

      #2. The social security remark about when her father or grandfather refused it because he said he won’t accept welfare. Well, social security is not welfare, you do pay into that, and you’re entitled to that once you retire. Hell, even my husband is receiving it now. He’s worked over 40 some odd years, paid into it, so why shouldn’t he get it. It’s not welfare. You earned it. So, I don’t know where she’s coming with that one.

      As for the rest of what she said about eliminating the Department of Education, the EPA, and the rest she mentioned of eliminating, I think she’s wrong in. I supported Sue Lowden, but that remark she said about dickering deals with doctors and trading them chickens for services is what her downfall was in her campaign.

      I think the only reason people here are supporting Angle, is to make sure Reid is voted out of office. Oh, there are those who think Reid is doing a marvelous job here in Nevada, but he hasn’t don’t jack sh*t for the people here in years. He keeps saying he has created jobs for the people here, and I and a lot of other people say, if he’s created so many jobs, then why are we sitting at 14% unemployment right now?

      Now, I’m sure you all heard that Reid son Rory is running for Governor here on top of it. He’s even dropped his last name for his campaign, because he doesn’t want to be affiliated with his father. He says, don’t let what my father has done, make you not want to vote for me. Well, all I can say is , we know he’s a Reid, and a lot of people here don’t want another Reid in office.

      Hope all is having a wonderful day.

      • #2 is incorrect, ma’am. You pay for the current retirees. The money I am paying is for the current recipients – I am not accumulating a stockpile of cash somewhere for when I retire (there will be no social security when I retire). As such, the fact that he paid in for 40 years, while nice, does not entitle him to diddly. I am paying his social security check. Me, personally. Is he infirm and unable to work? Because if so, he’s welcome to it. Otherwise, he’s a mooch and, I’m sorry, there’s simply no other way around it. If he is still able to work and chooses instead to take my money, he is no different than a welfare queen even though, I’m sure, you don’t see it that way.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Wrong Matt,

          the employee and employer match funds into social security. that money is put into a trust fund (ha) to pay retirees. the fund is not broke but the government has spent it on other things and put iou’s in the lock box. you do pay for the current retirees but when you retire the people that still work will be paying for you. what sharon wants to do is have each employee pay into a personal fund that will generate 3 times as much money for their retirement and the government can not touch it. it is a better deal for all.

          That Matt came from my husband, I told him what you said, he wanted to answer you. I’m going to add this. He worked for Lockheed for 25 years, they took ex amount of dollars out of his pay, Lockheed matched that. Are you going to tell me that you’re paying for that? When he worked at the lab, the same thing. Are you going to tell me you paid for that too?

          • He may sing a different tune after he pays into it for 40 years…we have to cut him some slack…he is still young and idealistic. Experience has a way of tempering that.

      • Goodday Judy,

        I think she is right about several issues. We know SS has been perverted from its original intent. The EPA has acted way outside its intended area of responsibility. The level of student learning since the Dept. of Ed was founded has been perfectly flat, no matter how many billions are spent, kids are not getting a better education.


        So I will agree with her on eliminating EPA, dept of Ed and even SS. If you pollute, and harm an area, you will be sued.
        Without no child and the fed mandating how to teach, local schools would change to an effective method, or private schools would take all their students.

  5. Richmond Spitfire says:

    National Interest
    School Officials in Mass. Town Won’t Let Students Recite Pledge of Allegiance
    By Todd Starnes

    Published June 29, 2010 | FOXNews.com

    When Sean Harrington entered his freshman year at Arlington High School, he noticed something peculiar: There were no American flags in the classrooms, and no one recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

    So Harrington enlisted the aid of his fellow students, and now, three years later, they have succeeded in getting flags installed in the classrooms. But the pledge still will not be recited.

    The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old’s request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch.

    Harrington had presented school officials with a petition signed by 700 people, along with letters of support from lawmakers including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

    But the request to have the pledge recited failed when the committee’s vote ended in a 3-3 tie.

    “I was really heartbroken,” Harrington told FOX News Radio. “It’s hard to think that something so traditional in American society was turned down.”

    His fight has received quite a bit of support from the community. “When I was going to school, it was an honor and a privilege to pledge allegiance to the flag,” Francis De Guglielmo, 55, told the Patch. He called the ban an “absolute travesty” and a “disgrace.”

    Harrington, who will be a senior in the fall, said he will continue to fight. “I’m not a person who quits and I don’t back down. It’s a very righteous cause and needs to be followed through until the end.”

    Some committee members voiced concerns about forcing people to do something that might violate their beliefs – including religious beliefs. Among the no-votes was committee member Leba Heigham.

    “Patriotism is a very personal thing for all of us, but I do not think it is in the school committee’s best interest to mandate that any of our employees recite the pledge,” she told the Patch.

    Harrington said the recitation would have been strictly voluntary.

    “If we can’t find one teacher who is willing to say the pledge, then the system we have is cracked,” he told FOX News Radio, noting that a number of teachers signed his petition.

    He said the school’s ban on the pledge sends the wrong message. “It tells me that we’ve basically cast aside what our country is founded on,” he said. “It’s saying that we don’t really care, and it’s sad.”

    Arlington’s superintendent of schools did not return a call for comment.

    Article is found at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/29/ma-school-officials-wont-let-students-recite-pledge-allegiance/?test=latestnews


    I find this article to be very sad; two years ago, I would have said, “No way, this is not true”. Today, I have no problem believing this now. Is it just me, or are others seeing more and more (on a daily basis) anti-americanism?

    Hope all here are well,


    • It is not just you. The FACT is that more and more the progressive mentality is taking root and events such as this are becoming the norm in places other than New Youk and California…truly sad.

    • Mathius says:

      Public schools are called indoctrination centers when they hold the President of the United States up as a scholastic role model (“I am an Obama scholar”), and they are ripped when they decline to put in place policies that have students pledge their allegiance.

      Think about that.

      Hold up the leader of the free world as a role model: Bad.
      Have young children swear allegiance to the government*: Good.

      Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

      *Yes, the government. “I pledge allegiance […] and to the Republic for which it stands.”

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But Mathius, on the one hand you are pledging your allegiance and support to this great country of ours. On the other hand you are being indoctrinated to support a leftist commie socialist who wants to undermine and destroy this great country.

        • Finally…some sense out of Buck!:)

          • Mathius says:

            It was long overdue.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Every now and again I get a question right!

          • I think he nailed it perfectly-but just to add, when I say the pledge, I am pledging allegiance to this country and it’s people not to the government. “Liberty and Justice for all”-I support that-“We the People”-I support that-the government- “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

            • So it’s ok because you interpret it differently? You see “to the Republic” and mentally scratch that out and move right along to “liberty and justice for all”?

              Why would that be acceptable for children to say, but they shouldn’t be able to say “I am an Obama Scholar” if it is made clear that they are referring to his academic prowess and accomplishments, but not his policies? (I have no special knowledge that this distinction was made, I’m just asking hypothetically)

              • “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

                How have I misinterpreted it-we are a republic based on Liberty and Justice for all. I didn’t jump past republic to Liberty and Justice. We are one using the other as our yard stick.

                • hehe.. I just made myself giggle like a schoolgirl.

                  I’ll write it out for you in a bit in it’s own thread..

              • His academic prowess and accomplishments? Mathius, you are too funny~

                • “At Harvard Law School, Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, which, according to the Havard Law School website, is awarded to the top 10% of Harvard Law School students.

                  Also at Harvard Law School, Obama was accepted as one of 85-90 Editors of the Harvard Law Review, out of an estimated 1,000 students from the 2L and 3L classes that might have sought this honor.” That’s not indicative of academic prowess in and of itself? That’s not something children should aspire to?

                  Oh, and he won a Presidential election, too. Is that not an accomplishment? How many other people can lay claim to that honor?

                  • He is the President of the US-he is a political figure with power to affect our lives-You do not do anything in a class room to influence people in his favor or against him-nothing-it doesn’t matter your intent.

                  • I don’t think I would be bragging about winning the Presidential Election if i were him. Look a the freakin’ mess he’s made since he got there.

                  • Records and writings – I want to see them! Amazing to be an editor of the Harvard Law Review and have no public writings to show for it. How’d that happen?

        • More specifically, one is a country founded on freedom of the individual.

          The other is a person in a political office.

          Person vs Nation

          I have lived, remember, 8 different presidential initiatives that were pushed in schools. Until #9 none of them linked the man’s NAME to the program.

          Personally I wouldn’t have been as offended with “Presidential Scholar”.

          • Using the son-of-a-bitches name only underscores the worthless bastards arrogance and messiah-like demeanor.

            • I suppose you could put it that way as well!!


              Or you could simply say it is a deliberate propaganda ploy long used by the Progressive movement.

              Mine is more suitable for use at the ladies Sunday luncheon.

              • Yeah I know JAC. My opinion of the President (if I say My or Our one more time, I’m gonna puke) is not suitable for print.

                As time wanders on, I am starting to have a seething hatred for Y’all’s President.

                It it my belief, that he is purposely trying to destroy my Nation. I think he then thinks that he will rebuild it the way HE thinks it should be. And damn the fact that once destroyed, there will be no getting it back. Also I believe his machinations will collapse this Nation, including our Economy, and then what the hell do we do?

        • Whoa Buck…yeah! There is hope for you yet!

    • This does not suprise me, coming as it does from the Democratic Peoples Republic of MA.

      Dang, I wish this thing had spell check! I can’t spell MA!

    • From the article: “because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it”

      What the hell kind of teachers do they have there? I’d suggest they start with that issue.

    • Regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. From Wiki


      The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898). The original “Pledge of Allegiance” was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children’s magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to encourage patriotism and the display of the American flag in public schools.[2][3]

      Bellamy’s original Pledge read as follows:[4]

      I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

      Students swearing the Pledge on Flag Day in 1899

      The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[3] but decided not to.

      After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, during Columbus Day observances organized to coincide with the opening of the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois. Bellamy thought that the pledge would involve children across the country in the larger demonstration of national solidarity and patriotism of the quadricentennial observances.[5]

      In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words “my Flag” to be changed to “the Flag of the United States”, for the benefit of new immigrants. The words “of America” were added a year later. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on June 22, 1942.

      I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

      In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge, even Jehovah’s Witnesses like the defendants in that case who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. A rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah’s Witnesses followed the ruling. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “compulsory unification of opinion” violated the First Amendment.[6]

      Students pledging to the flag with the Bellamy salute.

      Swearing of the pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942, when Congress amended the Flag Code language first passed into law on June 22, 1942.[7]
      [edit] Addition of the words “under God”

      Louis A. Bowman (1872-1959) was the first to initiate the addition of “under God” to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[8][9] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[citation needed] Lincoln’s Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, “under God.” He stated that the words came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words “under God”, all the reporters’ transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said “that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.” Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[8]

      In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organization, also began including the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.[10] In New York City, on April 30, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend the text of their Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation.” Over the next two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its president, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

      In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish philosopher and educator who came to America in 1911. He was one of the originators of the Prayer Breakfast and a religious leader in Washington, D.C. President Truman met with him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of “under God” and also “love” just before “liberty and justice”.[citation needed] At the suggestion of a correspondent, Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words “under God” to the Pledge in 1953.
      Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954, at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church

      Prior to February 1954, no attempt to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln’s birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln’s pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln’s pew, the church’s pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled “A New Birth of Freedom.” He argued that the nation’s might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge’s sentiments could be those of any nation, that “there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.” He cited Lincoln’s words “under God” as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.

      President Eisenhower, though raised a Jehovah’s Witness, had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[11]

      The phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[11]

      NOW………Did everyone catch the Bellamy Salute? Did you notice what Bellamy’s background was?

      Can you spell P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E.

      Funny how no such Pledge had evolved up until the late 1800’s.

      So much buried under what appears to be such a small issue as saying the pledge.

      Am I the only one who has a problem with the current Pledge? And don’t for a minute think that is because of some dirth of Patriotism on my part.

      Perhaps we should pledging our allegiance to the Constitution and our commitment to protect it against all threats, both domestic and foreign.

      Just a little food for thought.

    • The Pledge of Allegiance is disgusting and anti-American in the extreme. It was written by a socialist who was a pre-Nazi before there were Nazis. It was specifically designed to indoctrinate young minds with nationalistic authority worship. There is a lot more about it, and its origins here: http://rexcurry.net/ “Pledging allegiance” is spitting on America and the ideals it was founded upon.

    • from Cyndi

      A fifteen year old student in Arizona writes a
      > New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME)
      > Since the Pledge of Allegiance
      > And
      > The Lord’s Prayer
      > Are not allowed in most
      > Public schools anymore
      > Because the word ‘God’ is mentioned…..
      > A kid in Arizona wrote the attached
      > NEW School prayer :
      > Now I sit me down in school
      > Where praying is against the rule
      > For this great nation under God
      > Finds mention of Him very odd.
      > If scripture now the class recites,
      > It violates the Bill of Rights.
      > And anytime my head I bow
      > Becomes a Federal matter now.
      > Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
      > That’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.
      > The law is specific, the law is precise.
      > Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
      > For praying in a public hall
      > Might offend someone with no faith at all..
      > In silence alone we must meditate,
      > God’s name is prohibited by the state..
      > We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
      > And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks…
      > They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
      > To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
      > We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
      > And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
      > It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from wrong,
      > We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not belong.
      > We can get our condoms and birth controls,
      > Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
      > But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
      > No word of God must reach this crowd.
      > It’s scary here I must confess,
      > When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
      > So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
      > Should I be shot; My soul please take!
      > Amen

  6. Common Man says:

    Saw this video and thought USW and D-13 could shed some light on this fellow. Interesting perspective about a terrible event that we don’t seem to hear much more about. Can anyone tell me what is going on with the investigation and if the idiot has been tried?



    • Hi there CM…he has not been tried yet to the full extent. But the General is correct. It is what it is. Not much needs to be added except that backgrounds need to be investigated, and if some think that is a witch hunt, ok…I will supply the matches. Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and it is active and it is here. Deal with it and deal with hit strongly and with finality.

      He was further correct in that a great majority of military leaders are more worried about their retirement and being politically correct than they are about the welfare of their men/women. Hasan is a murderer….period. He is a Muslim….period. He preached Jihad….period. He is a terrorist…period. We knew it….period. The leaders and the officers that ignored him….are complicent….period. Maybe even to the point of accessory….period.

      Any other belief is hypocrisy and a cowards way out of the reality…..period.

      How are you CM? Hope your 4th is going to be good…..period.

  7. I’ve been wondering the same thing. Pushed under the rug?

    • Remember, Kathy……Obama is the CIC (Commander in Chief)….if he has issued orders to slow it down…it will be slowed down. He also has the power to commute…and pardon…..wait for it. (He would be stupid to do so, but…what the hell…who knows).

  8. Vicki McKenna is a local conservative radio personality here in southern Wisconsin. She recently had a segment on entitlements – the long term type and she got this written letter in response to that show:

    Hi Vicki!
    On your recent topic, I can’t call in because my voice might be recognized in the area and I am not proud of the situation in my sister’s family (here in Milwaukee).

    My sister was a 17-year-old runaway who landed in Milwaukee over 30 years ago, ended up having a couple of children without a father in the picture, subsequently landed on the welfare rolls because we could not afford to support her family AND ours. That quickly became a way of life and, before you know it, her daughter started having children…five of them over 7 years, starting when she was 17. Five different fathers. With the advent of W2 in Wisconsin, my niece became even more savvy about the system, maximizing to the level she’s at today.

    It is widely known amongst she and her friends that the system will pay for, among other things, free bus transportation for your 3-year-old kindergarten/headstart, diagnosis for many different physical and mental illnesses and syndromes that necessitate a categorization for special placement in the charter/school choice school of her choosing. When her son was denied entry to the school she chose because they had no special aide who could be with him in the classroom all day, every day, she threatened to sue. Done. Success. This son has no issues except inconsistent/absent parenting effort.
    When things get tight with money, she goes to the nearest office to plead destitution and receives an emergency voucher that can be cashed and used for anything she wants.

    She does get a social security disability check for one of the two children she is raising and spends it at the casino on Canal Street.

    She is working on getting the daughter she is raising to be similarly diagnosed so she can receive an SSD check for her as well. Never mind how these children will be labeled all of their lives because of these designations.

    She has other children being raised by one of their paternal grandparents but would not permit adoption so the family cannot claim the dependent status on their taxes and she can continue to technically count them into her dependent burden for benefits. These folks love the two girls they are raising and take very good care of them but are regularly subjected to threats to take them back if they don’t come up with a “loan” for my niece when funds are gone.

    She receives all the usual funding you mentioned already (earned income credit …she works just enough to qualify for that and then has a very good reason why she was “fired” from whatever job she could hustle up and does not search for work until she absolutely HAS to./Quest/food stamp assistance/child care reimbursement/energy assistance., and a free cell phone. She regularly uploads pictures from her phone to her facebook account. I don’t even have a phone that can take photos.

    She now has a laptop computer that came home, paid for with taxpayer money from MPS and she has internet access, also paid for.

    Her most lucrative scheme involves not paying the rent on her apartment after the initial month or two of occupancy. When the landlord leans on her to come up with the money or face eviction, she starts calling the health department for:lead paint, plumbing, bugs, whatever she imagines will trigger an inspection. When the landlord is faced with those expenses, she is then required to submit her rent money to the City of Milwaukee, who holds it in escrow pending the fix of the dwelling. She continues to call and keep the inspections going and, when she has a bunch of money amassed in that account, she finds a new place to move to and starts the process all over again. I can’t imagine why these landlords don’t do a rent history check and simply NOT rent to her).

    She usually has a gang-banger boyfriend living with her and the children who is making his own way with gang-related activity and drug peddling. He is typically in and out of jail and not contributing financially in a meaningful way.

    I’m sure there is much I don’t know as we have next-to-no contact (for obvious reasons) currently so there are probably ways she works the system that others of us have no knowledge of.

    It is disgusting to see how complacent and unmotivated people become when nothing is expected of them. Also, the anger and animosity of class warfare that is generated as people are pitted against each other based on race or economic class. Democrats have it all figured out…keeping the poor “on the reservation” with the soft bigotry of low expectations. I have seen first hand how many simply give up or don’t start trying to better themselves when they constantly hear the drum-beat of why it’s not their fault and the constant flawed rhetoric that keeps their gravy train chugging along.

    By now, my niece’s children have already been indoctrinated to mistrust the police and be resentful of people who have things they do not…never making the connection between working for the stuff you have and earning the respect of an employer and your community.

    Sorry if this turned into a rant of sorts but I just wanted to illustrate how bad it truly is in the “system” and tell you to keep up the great work informing all of us about the issues that are most important and pressing today.

    Best regards,

    • HMMMMM. I have a Sister and Brother-in-Law just like that. That is why I personally think Entitlements should be done away with and SS modified.

      Of course, I also believe the Govt should stop raiding the SS piggybank to pay for their bullshit pet projects too!

  9. Black Flag’s village looks more and more welcoming every day. This is the United States of America.

    What does that mean anymore? Forget the founders for a minute.

    UNITED? In what? No one can agree on anything anymore.

    STATES? What states? States are shamed for standing up for themselves.

    AMERICA? What America? This is no where near the America that was here when even the youngest person on this blog was born.

    Ellis Island. Statue of Liberty. National Anthem. Freedom. Liberty. Republic. Sovreign.

    What do any of those words mean anymore?

    Are we past the point of no return? It just feels like there is nothing to believe in anymore. And I’m beginning to think there is no way out because no one has the guts to stand up for anything anymore. Why? What is everyone afraid of? There is no big bad wolf. The slightest bit of common sense would solve a lot of problems. Has everyone just completely gone out of their minds?

    Simplify. Get rid of. Stand up for what’s right. Get along. Vote. Donate. Volunteer.

    Good grief !!!!!!!! No this rant does not make me feel any better. I’m going fishing. A bad day fishing is better than this.

    • Anita

      My dear there is something most critical to believe in.


      Do that and teach others to do it. And pretty soon the common sense will return to right the ship.

      I hope your fishing is peaceful. You are dead right. Its not about the catching, its called fishing.

      Live free and be happy.

    • UNITED? In what? No one can agree on anything anymore. When did people ever agree on things? You have this rosy vision of the distant past which simply did not exist. The political divide was, possibly, even more acrimonious than today. You should have seen some of the newspapers of the day.

      Simplify. Get rid of. Stand up for what’s right. Get along. Vote. Donate. Volunteer. We (anti-American) progressives are trying to do what is right. That you disagree is interesting. You want us all to get along with you and do what you want us to do and get rid of what you want to get rid of and vote the way you want us to vote and simplify the way you want things to be. Gee, everything would be much better if everyone would just do what I want them to do.

      • Yeah, but Anita is right and you are wrong.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        Mathius said
        June 30, 2010 at 12:50 pm
        UNITED? In what? No one can agree on anything anymore. When did people ever agree on things? You have this rosy vision of the distant past which simply did not exist. The political divide was, possibly, even more acrimonious than today. You should have seen some of the newspapers of the day.

        Simplify. Get rid of. Stand up for what’s right. Get along. Vote. Donate. Volunteer. We (anti-American) progressives are trying to do what is right. That you disagree is interesting. You want us all to get along with you and do what you want us to do and get rid of what you want to get rid of and vote the way you want us to vote and simplify the way you want things to be. Gee, everything would be much better if everyone would just do what I want them to do.

        More problems that were already solved through the wonders of Federalism(modern definition)….it’s a shame we didn’t leave it where we could agree to disagree and then live in different areas. The way I see it, the reason we have to argue about everything now is because of the Federal Government exceeding its constitutional limits everything is a “national” issue now and that raises the stakes(and the tempers) immeasurably.

  10. 8)

    • Poker tournament?

    • Displaced Okie says:

      I think this officially makes BF the poster of both the longest post and the shortest post of all the ones I’ve read at SUFA…. 🙂

      • Mathius says:


        • Mathius says:

          There. Now, I’m the author of the shortest post!


        • Displaced Okie says:

          Ha, I knew this was coming and I expected it to be you.

          +5 Okie points, to Mathius!!!*

          *Okie points are non-refundable, non-redeemable in most states and are only valued at an exchange rate set forth by Displaced Okie in accordance to the rules and by-laws of the Okie point exchange commission. All point values are not insured by the FDIC. Displaced Okie reserves the right to void the award of Okie points in the event that the Okie point storage area of person to be awarded Okie points is known to be susceptible to raptor attack.

    • Probably means he is watching and yawning because we are arguing about (in his book) trivial things.

  11. Some notes on the Financial Regulation BIll
    A marked up copy of the about 2,000 page bill is here.

    Some aspects of the bill are here:

    Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule . . . which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

    The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money. . . .

    To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. . . .

    Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. . . .

    Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers. . . .

    The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

    Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things. . . .

    From the New York Times:

    basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact — and giving partisans on both sides a second chance to influence the outcome.

    The much-debated prohibition on banks investing their own money, for example, leaves it up to regulators to set the exact boundaries. Lobbyists for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other large banks already are pressing to exclude some kinds of lucrative trading from that definition.

    Regulators are charged with deciding how much money banks have to set aside against unexpected losses, so the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents large financial companies, and other banking groups have been making a case to the regulators that squeezing too hard would hurt the economy. . . .

    From Politico:

    Dodd, to reporters afterward: “The harmonization of our rules, particularly with those in the European community, Pacific Rim, I think will be awfully important. And the United States, having completed this work — we hope in the next week — can offer some leadership to the world …

    Translation: If the rest of the world doesn’t impose similar restrictive rules, the financial industry will leave the country.

    So what did the administration do?

    The administration was less involved than expected. But when the administration weighed in, it was to push toward TOUGHER language. An industry lobbyist says administration officials were on the Hill all day “and cornered Dems to know down pro-industry amendments at every turn.”

    Now Obama wants a bigger $90 billion tax on banks.

    Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

    “We need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis — so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. . . .

    • Both posts from John Lott’s site

      Sarah Palin discusses who funded all the lawsuits against her while she was Governor of Alaska
      The lawsuits basically forced her to leave office as governor. They would have taken a huge amount of her time just dealing with depositions. For those who haven’t been through a deposition, 28 cases would have taken one day for the deposition and easily at least two or three days to prepare. Add to that the legal bill that Palin would have had to pay based on her governor’s salary. Even without more cases being filed (and more would be filed), Palin would have gotten little else done as governor.

      So who funded the lawsuits?

      The National Democratic Committee used its Alaska chapter, the Alaska Democratic Party (ADP), to create a website with one stated goal: “Keep Sarah Palin Out of Public Office.” To this day, the Democrats use this website to publicly seek donations for funding bogus “legal challenges involving issues related to Sarah Palin.”
      The ADP’s “Keep Sarah Palin Out of Public Office” campaign used our own legal system to sponsor more than two dozen ethics complaints against Governor Palin. Out of the 27 complaints, 26 were dismissed!
      The so-called “independent counsel” who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama’s law firm.

      • Surprise, surprise. This is how Chicago has been run, well, forever, so when Chicago moves to the White House this is what you get.


    • Exactly WHO, in the F____ do the think will pay for all these new taxes and regulations?

      • I had heard it was hot in Georgia but assumed it was just the summer sun.

        Looks like the heat is being generated from within the State.

        Easy Essom, no need to blow a gasket.

        By the way. How is the peach crop looking this year.

        That offer of Huckleberries for Peaches still stands.

        • Sorry ’bout that JAC. It’s only that every time I turn around. Obama initiates ANOTHER bill or program that is only going to cost: SUPRISE!!!! US, the taxpayers and consumers. And consequently, my blood pressure goes through the roof.

          And just wait ’till next year when all these new taxes start and the tax CUTS expire.

          And if he gets that Cap and Trade in?!

          Meanwhile, there might be a few peaches around this year. We might get that trade in this year.

          Oh, and it IS VERY HOT HERE. And my son has football conditioning and drills every morning. Our State baseball tourney starts on the 9th of July.

      • To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. . . .

        Now Obama wants a bigger $90 billion tax on banks.

        Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

        “WHO, the Flock do the think will pay for all these new taxes and regulations?”
        Everyone that uses a big bank to begin with, but I expect small banks to raise their rates as well, make as much as the market allows. When the fed gov raises the cost of doing business, it hits everyone with an artificial cost of doing business.

        • “To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. . . .”

          See what I mean JAC? This is not really to punish the banks. This is to have more money to blow. And who will pay for these new fees? WE will. The banks for damn sure ain’t gonna cover them out of their pockets.

          With 50% of the Nation paying no taxes at all, they know they will get away with it too. Besides, they have all the ignurnt folks thinking that they are “punishing” the banks.

          It’s all just a scam.

  12. Judy Sabatini says:

    Sharron Angle on the Issues
    Reasons Sharron Angle is Running for Senate

    Like a soldier going to war, Sharron Angle has the training and is battle tested. Sharron Angle is fighting for her country, the Constitution of the United States and a free society. Sharron Angle has a proven record that Nevadans and Americans can trust. It is not what Sharron Angle says Sharron Angle will do, but what Sharron Angle has done and will continue to do.

    The rule of law is America’s foundation. The oath of office, to protect and defend the constitution, is a sacred trust. Sharron Angle honors both the law and the oath and will reject back door deals and closed secret meetings.

    The practice of legislators voting for unconstitutional laws has fostered cynical voter apathy and has underscored the corruption that is pervasive throughout America’s government. Sharron Angle’s work in the Nevada State Legislature demonstrates that she has a reputation of her word being her bond. One specific example is the vote Sharron Angle cast against the split roll property taxes that violated Nevada’s constitutional uniform and equal property tax provision. Sharron Angle’s vote was the only vote cast for the protection of the Nevada Constitution.

    Sharron Angle’s overall political philosophy is that proper government exists only by the consent of the governed and government must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. In the Nevada State Legislature, Sharron Angle consistently fought for smaller and more efficient government, traditional values, lower taxes and the right of the people to vote and petition.

    Americans must elect people who are willing to keep their oath of office to defend and protect the constitution. Sharron Angle has and will continue to base her decisions upon the Constitution and the desires of her constituents.
    Sharron Angle’s Personal History

    Sharron Angle’s first venture into politics began in 1982, when she and some of her fellow citizens enjoined the Nevada State Legislature to enact a new home school law.

    In 1992, Sharron Angle served one term on the Nye County School Board of Trustees and beginning in 1998 Sharron Angle was elected to four terms in the Nevada State Assembly (1998 to 2006).

    In 2007, Sharron Angle was an unpaid citizen lobbyist, having submitted ten Bill Drafts (BDR’s), prior to her retirement, as a state legislator. One of Sharron Angle’s bills, regarding a home school freedom law, has become a model for home school legislation throughout the United States.

    In 2008, Sharron Angle sponsored and qualified the Nevada Property Tax Restraint initiative for the 2008 ballot.

    The Claremont Institute awarded Sharron Angle the Ronald Reagan Freedom Medallion, in recognition of her battle, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to preserve Nevada’s Constitutional two-thirds legislative vote requirement, to raise taxes and fees.

    Sharron Angle went to court five times to defense of the Nevada Constitution. No other candidate in this senatorial race, including Harry Reid, has that record. As a result of Sharron Angle’s dedication to constitutional law, she has been endorsed by Declaration Alliance PAC.

    Professionally, Sharron Angle has over 25 years experience as a teacher in public, private and home schools. Sharron Angle was also an instructor for the community college, senior citizens and a juvenile probation program. Additionally, Sharron Angle managed two small businesses for over 20 years.

    Sharron Angle’s community service began in college when she was a reading tutor in a high risk Reno elementary school. In succeeding years, Sharron Angle worked in various communities in northern Nevada:

    * Ely, Nevada-Sharron Angle co-founded a crisis hotline for troubled teens.
    * Winnemucca, Nevada-Sharron Angle was art of a ministry team to the nursing home and the prison honor camp
    * Winnemucca, Nevada-Sharron Angle co-founded the Winnemucca Fine Art Gallery
    * Tonopah, Nevada-Sharron Angle co-founded the Tonopah Life Center, a recreation facility for teens and their families


    Defunding ObamaCare is essential to the economic survival of the United States. The federal healthcare takeover offers no solutions to the cost issues or quality of care issues, related to healthcare. One needs look no further than Massachusetts, to know that nationalized healthcare will not work. Rationing healthcare will put huge segments of America’s population at risk.

    Social Security and its attendant Medicare are broken and bankrupt systems because we, as voting citizens, have allowed congress to transform these systems from insurance programs to and entitlement programs. The government must continue to keep its contract with seniors, who entered into the system on good faith and now are depending on that contract. (Pat Boone, a champion for seniors and the spokesman for 60’s Plus, has endorsed Sharron Angle’s candidacy.)

    Free market alternatives, which offer retirement choices to employees and employers, must be developed and offered to those still in their wage earning years, as the Social Security system is transitioned out. Young workers must be encouraged to investigate personal retirement account options.

    Doctors and hospitals must receive timely payments and emergency rooms can no longer serve as primary care facilities for the uninsured.

    TRICARE (the health care program serving active duty service members, National Guard and Reserve members, retirees, their families, survivors and certain former spouses worldwide. As a major component of the Military Health System) must be protected from attacks that dilute quality of care and increased costs.

    Assemblywoman, Sharron Angle introduced affordable insurance legislation that removed costly mandates and created a basic health insurance policy, with the ability to add those benefits that were specific to each person.

    Sharron Angle also introduced legislation that placed caps on non-economic damages, in all tort actions. Sharron Angle voted for and helped collect signatures for medical tort reform, in Nevada, both as a legislative and constitutional amendment.

    Sharron Angle will support efforts, similar to those described above, at the Federal level for associational healthcare and tort reform that would lower the cost of healthcare to businesses and individuals.

    Sharron Angle suggests the followings possible solutions, which could be implemented across the nation, for the reduction of healthcare costs:

    * Elimination of coverage mandates
    * Expanded client pools
    * Tort reform
    * Purchasing insurance across state lines
    * Tax credited health savings accounts

    Energy Policy

    Rapid increases in gas prices must be addressed, with short-term efforts that bring immediate relief and long-term energy policy changes that reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil.

    As a long-term policy, America must expand its own domestic energy supplies. Sharron Angle would legislate to repeal regulations that prohibit off shore drilling, drilling in ANWR and development of American owned petroleum resources. In the Nevada State Legislature, Sharron Angle led efforts to reduce Nevada’s high gas tax, which was the second highest in the nation.

    Sharron Angle would have supported the three coal fired plants in Ely, that Harry Reid killed.

    For nearly twenty years, Sharron Angle has been in favor of Yucca Mountain, as a profitable center for reprocessing, not a nuclear landfill and dumping ground. Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Energy industry have long been demonized and demagogued by Harry Reid. In 2005, Sharron Angle voted for a resolution rejecting Yucca mountain as a dead-end nuclear dump.

    Yucca Mountain has enormous potential for fulfilling the need in America for clean, cost efficient energy, as well as economic diversity for Nevada and much needed jobs for thousands.

    As your Nevada Senator, Sharron Angle would:

    * Promote Nevada, as the nuclear energy capital of reprocessing spent fuels for the United States.
    * Invite scientists to do research and development in a secure test site environment as well as mentoring students who would come to UNR and UNLV to study under these great minds.
    * Introduce and shepherd legislation that would remove the prohibitions on reprocessing in the United States, as well as, the executive order agreement with France, which prohibits reprocessing in the US and has strangled domestic reprocessing.
    * Reverse Harry Reid’s actions, which have reneged on the contract with the nuclear industry for storage of nuclear spent fuels at Yucca Mountain. This contract should be negotiated in terms of reprocessing those fuels at Yucca Mountain and using those reprocessed fuels to fire nuclear power plants on site at Yucca.
    * Educate Nevadans and Americans, on the safe transportation of nuclear spent fuels since 1954 over 400 million miles without an accident.

    Cap and Trade will injure the free market system and cripple America’s energy supplies. Cap and Trade, which is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax, steps over the constitutional boundaries of the federal government and is merely another way to tax the people.

    Sharron Angle will vote “no” on Cap and Trade.

    As your U.S. Senator, Sharron Angle will introduce legislation in line with her economic policy of:

    * Pay back the deficit
    * Cut back on spending, taxation and regulation
    * Take back the economy by defunding ObamaCare
    * Auditing the “Fed” (Federal Reserve)
    * Abolishing the 67,000-pages of IRS code
    * Making the capital gains and death tax cuts permanent

    Sharron Angle signed the National Taxpayers Pledge to vote against tax and fee increases.

    Sharron Angle believes in limited government and limited taxes to perform and administer essential public needs.

    In the Nevada State Legislature, Sharron Angle was consistently the only vote, against unnecessary tax increases. Sharron Angle is proud of her record, as a member of the Assembly, to have voted against more than 100 attempts to increase taxes and fees.

    Sharron Angle supports tax reform that leads to a simpler, fairer, flatter tax system.

    Today, the federal government taxes and spends far too much. Nevada taxpayers have to work until July 5th, every year, just to meet their tax obligations. That is wrong. With the new federal budget, federal spending is spiraling out of control. This new budget endangers individual financial freedom, not only for the current generation, but for future generations, including our children and grandchildren. That is doubly wrong.

    The best way to control an overbearing government is to strictly control the amount of taxes imposed its citizens. That is why Sharron Angle supports a simplification of tax systems.

    In Nevada, Sharron Angle has a long record to back up her position on limited taxes. Sharron Angle sponsored the Angle Property Tax Restraint Initiative (aka Nevada’s Prop 13) which placed a hard cap on property tax increases that future Legislatures could not repeal. Sharron Angle was a co-sponsor of Tax and Spend Control for Nevada, which imposed a constitutional measure to limit government spending.

    Sharron Angle is the only candidate, in the current senatorial race, who actively opposed Nevada’s record-breaking tax increase in 2003. Sharron Angle, singularly, led the fight in the Nevada Legislature and in the courts to stop that tax increase.
    National Security and Public Protection

    Because the war on terror is the central challenge of our time, Sharron Angle supports a military force of superior strength and readiness to deter all threats to America’s national security. The safety and freedom of American citizens is paramount.

    Without equivocation, the U.S. military must be equipped with the best possible weapons and intelligence. Sharron Angle will never forsake the U.S. military, whether their mission is foreign or domestic. Sharron Angle will work tirelessly to secure the safety, health and welfare of the nation’s military.

    Sharron Angle supports strong sanctions against rogue nations that export, support or harbor terrorism. Sanctions on these countries may include, but not be limited to, the withdrawal of visas and the institution of trade restrictions on imports and exports.

    Sharron Angle opposes the placement of U.S. troops under any foreign command, including the United Nations. Neither the United Nations nor any foreign capital should be allowed to regulate U.S. troops. Sharron Angle pledges to preserve the United States’ sovereign right of to defend the security of American citizens and to regulate its military.

    The U.N. has been captured by the far left and has become ineffective and costly. The U.N. continually threatens U.S. sovereignty, with endless rhetoric and treaties and it has now become the “umpire” on fraudulent science, such as global warming. The United State needs to withdraw from the United Nations and work solely with America’s willing allies.

    Israel, a democratic nation, is the United States’ strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel’s sovereignty, stability and security are in the best interests of the United States, especially when dealing with radical Islamic terrorism.

    When the U.S. engages diplomatically with its allies, the U.S. must always promote freedom around the world. The United States must encourage its allies to join in the sanctioning of those nations who harbor terrorists and encourage tyranny.
    Active Military and Veterans

    The United States is only as strong as the military that defends it.

    The citizens of America owe their lives and their fortunes to the U.S. military. Sharron Angle proudly pays tribute to all those who serve or have served this great nation. America’s military must be fully funded and supported, as necessary, to meet the demands of modern warfare. The wellbeing and safety, of those in the theatre of war, should not and cannot be minimized.

    Sharron Angle strongly supports improved compensation and care for those serving in the U.S. military, as well as their families and veterans. TRICARE for the military must be protected from attacks that dilute quality of care and increase costs.

    Sharron Angle has a record of supporting the military and has received the Certificate of Appreciation from the Southern Chapter of MOAA (Military Officers Association of America).
    Border Security/Illegal Immigration

    The United States must secure its borders and enforce its laws. Sharron Angle supports an intensive physical presence on borders, including military assistance to help the Border Patrol do its job effectively.

    Every day, thousands of people cross both the southern and northern borders of the United States, illegally and undetected. The intentions of these illegal aliens are unknown and there are no means to track their activities.

    Sharron Angle opposes amnesty proposals, which send a ruinous signal that breaking the law is acceptable in the United States. “Illegals” must be discouraged from living comfortably within the U.S. borders. This can be achieved by eliminating access to benefits for non-citizens and anyone living in the U.S. illegally.

    In the Nevada State Legislature, Sharron Angle voted against the Millennium Scholarship because it allowed non-citizens to receive, taxpayer subsidized, college tuition. Sharron Angle also authored legislation to safeguard the election process by requiring identification for voting in Nevada.

    Sharron Angle has been endorsed by Minuteman PAC.
    Economic Development and Government Regulation

    Sharron Angle supported and defended the Nevada Right to Work Law.

    Sharron Angle supports a “balanced budget” amendment to the Constitution.

    Sharron Angle supports a single subject rule on all legislation to help eliminate pork attachments and earmarks, a supermajority two-thirds requirement for passing tax increases and spending increases and a restriction on spending growth to population plus inflation growth.

    Sharron Angle is offended by bailouts, bonuses, stimulus packages and the loss of retirement accounts which continue to crater the American economy and enlarge America’s debt. These ruinous states of affair have brought rising unemployment and stock market instability.

    Businesses need to be liberated from over regulation and taxation. Freedom to act would encourage the private sector to produce good paying jobs and put American citizens back to work.

    Sharron Angle’s specific economic policy is pay back, cut back and take back.

    First a triage of paying back the $500 billion left in stimulus funds, the $500 billion TARP funds being returned by banks and the $1 Billion in unspent budget appropriations.

    Second, cut back to a capped 2010 budget by cutting five percent per year for the next five years, on a prioritized list of those departments and agencies, not including America’s contract with seniors on Social Security and Medicare and those not constitutionally enumerated. Additionally, the death tax and capital gains tax cuts should be made permanent.

    Third, take back the government by defunding the ObamaCare /Healthcare law, auditing the “Fed” (Federal Reserve); dismantle Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Further, the 67,000 pages of IRS tax code designed to reward friends and punish enemies must be abolished.

    Sharron Angle supports a constitutional amendment, restraining spending to no more than twenty percent of the GDP, with the exception of declared war and the requirement of a two-thirds vote of both houses to exceed the cap. Sharron Angle will work toward making a basket of commodities (metals, oil etc.) as a basis for maintaining the value of the U.S. currency.

    Pork is about politics, not people. “Let’s make a deal”, Harry Reid, proved his prowess at manipulating politics by offering pork deals like the “Florida Free Ride”, the “Louisiana Purchase”, and the “Cornhusker Kickback”. There are two solutions to stopping this type of practice. Sharron Angle will author legislation that will deter the practice of pork and encourage its elimination by reinstituting the line item veto and requiring single subject legislation.

    Sharron Angle believes that the 1872 Mining Law is important to the economic development of Nevada and needs to remain in place, with no further regulatory erosion of the original intent of the law. Furthermore, the withdrawal of public lands from mineral development, through pressure from environmentalists, is restricting the nation’s growth and development. The withdrawal of these lands must be reversed.

    Sharron Angle will strive to maintain the mining laws and provide access to public lands.
    Private Property

    Sharron Angle respects and defends the rights of the individual to own property.

    Sharron Angle led the effort for the Angle Property Tax Restraint Initiative, which placed a hard cap on property tax increases which future legislatures, could not reverse Sharron Angle also co-sponsored the initiative that protected property owners from the potential abuses of eminent domain.
    Right to Bear Arms, Second Amendment

    Sharron Angle supports the individual constitutionally protected right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, property, as well as for other lawful purposes. She will oppose Supreme Court nominees who do not fully support our Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

    Sharron Angle is qualified for a concealed weapons permit.

    Sharron Angle has been endorsed by the Gun Owners of America and has an “A” rating with the National Rifle Association (NRA).
    Family Values

    Sharron Angle recognizes the traditional family as the foundation of America’s society. Parents have the fundamental right and primary responsibility to direct their children and to provide nurturing care, discipline, and training in moral values.

    Sharron Angle worked to pass the Constitutional Protection of Marriage Act in Nevada, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and Sharron Angle supports the Federal Marriage Amendment to do the same. Sharron Angle has been endorsed by Family PAC Federal, Phyllis Schlafly, and Concerned Women for America.
    Protection of Life

    All human life is precious, regardless of location, age, infirmity, or degree of dependence.

    Sharron Angle is the only candidate, in this senatorial race, holding a pro-life position. In the Nevada State Legislature, Sharron Angle introduced and supported life-protecting legislation. Sharron Angle has been endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly, Life and Liberty PAC, and Concerned Women for America.

    As a mother, grandmother, and former school teacher, Sharron Angle is passionate about education.

    Sharron Angle supported incentives that promoted competitive excellence and the rights of parents to choose public, private or at-home education.

    Every child has the right to read and reading should be taught using scientifically-based reading research which emphasizes alphabetic principles (phonics).

    Sharron Angle believes that the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level. Agencies, such as the Department of Education, have given Americans a one-size-fits-all policy and programs that fit no one, i.e. No Child Left Behind. NCLB has burdened classrooms and hamstrung teachers with testing and regulation.

    The best education is the education that is controlled closest to the local level as possible. Sharron Angle believes that parents should have alternative choices and advocates for home school, vouchers and charter schools.

    Sharron Angle has been endorsed by the Nevada Home School Network.
    Campaign Finance Reform

    Sharron Angle believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves. Sharron Angle has been endorsed by Citizens United, the group that won the U.S. Supreme Court case against McCain Feingold, as a violation of First Amendment rights to free political speech.

    The U.S. Constitution is the rule of law in America. If the rule of law is violated America will lose its foundation. The matter of limiting campaign contributions has failed because big donors, who want a vested interest in campaigns, find opportunities within the loopholes in the campaign reform laws.

    Sharron Angle does not accept money from casinos and unions. Sharron Angle does not oppose casinos and unions but wants to avoid the perception, by voters, that these groups might put undue pressure on her, as a legislator. All of Sharron Angle’s U.S. Senate contributions come from individuals, and seventy-five percent of those contributions come from small donors.

    Sharron Angle supports a campaign law that requires immediate disclosure, of large contributions, via the internet.

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) wanted to fly 10 lawmakers down to the Gulf of Mexico to see the damage caused by BP’s gigantic oil spill first hand.

    House Democrats said no.

    Scalise’s trip was rejected for a variety of bureaucratic and logistical reasons, but it has also opened a new vein of partisan squabbling over who should be allowed to arrange a trip to view the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

    Republicans want to be able to take trips using their office spending allowance. But Democrats have heard from the Department of Homeland Security, which has asked that Congress organize trips through committees of jurisdiction, to avoid having to cater to a ton of individual lawmakers in a disaster zone, Democratic aides say. GOP leaders say they’ve heard nothing of this.

    The squabbling over who gets to travel to the Gulf on whose dime is the latest sign that congressional oversight of the oil spill oversight from Capitol Hill has been bogged down by partisanship. Congress has held upwards of 20 hearings on the disaster, often duplicative ones each week, as lawmakers struggle to grasp and fully realize the scope of BP’s giant oil spill.

    Scalise, who has already been to the Gulf on another codel, wants to organize a trip so lawmakers can fully grasp the impact before they vote on oil drilling regulations. And he doesn’t want to do it through a committee, because the members don’t fit neatly into specific panels — they stretch across committee, and even partisan, lines.

    About two weeks ago, Scalise requested to be able to use his Members Representational Allowance – a fund typically reserved for office expenses and travel back to the district – to go to the Gulf with a group of about 10 other lawmakers.

    He sought permission from the House Administration committee, which regulates office account spending and would have to approve the trip. After a few weeks, Scalise was ping-ponged between several committees. Eventually, John Lawrence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) chief of staff, told Scalise’s chief that “it was unlikely that the request would be granted” by the House Administration Committee.

    Republicans, however, say Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.), who chairs the committee, has approved at least a dozen such trips in 2009 alone – something Democrats don’t deny.

    “Unless there is some extraordinary reason to prohibit this trip – which has yet to be communicated to us – this is an unacceptable departure from past practices,” said Rep, Dan Lungren of California, the top Republican on the administration committee. “This is an educational trip for members using their own representational budgets to see, first-hand, the devastating impact of the Gulf spill. Our travel regulations permit this type of travel in support of our official representational duties, and unfortunately, this disaster is already having environmental and economical implications for the entire country – not just those districts represented by Members sitting on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.”

    Republicans say that Democrats are just trying to shield lawmakers from going to see the damage in the Gulf.

    “Every Member should see the result of eight years of failed Bush-Cheney energy policies that have done nothing to secure our energy future,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

    So for now, the Scalise visit remains unscheduled.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39225.html#ixzz0sMyuYSZl

    • “Every Member should see the result of eight years of failed Bush-Cheney energy policies that have done nothing to secure our energy future,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

      Oh give me a freaking break! When will this Government stop blaming Bush and Cheney for eveything that happens.

      Hey ASSHOLES!!! Democrats have been in cahrge in Conress for over 3 and a half YEARS! Obama has been in the White House for over a years and a half. Why haven’t y’all done anything to secure our energy future?

      Maybe because all those ALTERNATIVE energy sources aren’t ready for widespread use yet? Because the technology just isn’t ready? It isn’t up to par yet?

      Hell, Pelosi just now found out Natural gas is a fossil fuel too, so now she is against that. How’s that for DUMBASS!

  14. From yesterday,


    I would have preferred the Constitution to abolish slavery. I guess you are ok with just pushing it off for a few more decades…

    It did abolish it.

    However, a group of People who resembled the modern Progressives refused to acknowledge that all human beings are persons. We see their similar arguments used in abortion debates today.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Where in the Constitution was slavery abolished?

      Unless you mean the Constitution as amended…?

      • Buck,

        That is like saying “Where in the Constitution did it abolish murder?”

        How about these few first words:

        We the People

        The Progressives of that day argued that Blacks were not Persons and therefore could not avail themselves to human rights.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          My recollection is “PEOPLE” at the time only included adult white male property owners. But I could be wrong…

          • Buck,

            Nope. “People” always referred to all human beings.

            Perhaps you are thinking about voting “rights”

          • Re: Slavery

            Massachusetts declared it inconsistent with its new state constitution, ratified in 1780.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Ah, MA, that crazy liberal progressive state! Outlawing slavery back in the 1700s!?

              • Buck,

                Back then, it at least attempted to abide by the Constitution as written.

                Today, it is overrun by people who seem to struggle with simple English sentences.

              • Buck,

                PS: they did not OUTLAW slavery since there was no law AUTHORIZING slavery.

                They found that slavery, as a concept, could not be supported in the Constitution, hence, the concept of slavery could not be upheld.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.

                  MA may not have explicitly outlawed slavery, but I am taking a leap here in saying that by not authorizing slavery, it was illegal to have slaves at that time. Correct?

                  • Buck,

                    Yep – but its called “kidnapping”, “assault and battery”, and “false imprisonment” – just to name a few of the illegalities…..

        • Buck

          It was the “Progressive” Supreme Court that went wholly bizzare in the “Dred Scott” ruling.

          A 7-2 ruling, they declared that:

          -Declaration of Independence does not include slaves as part of the people.

          —the rights and privileges conferred by the constitution upon citizens do not apply to the negro race.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Ah Dred Scott, a blight on constitutional law if there ever was one…

            • Displaced Okie says:

              I like to think of it as taking something written in fairly plain language then having to “interpret” it when it doesn’t fit your agenda….

              • Look folks. You are missing one thing. You are thinking from a 21st century point of view.

                They were thinking from a 19th century point of view. When slavery was a fact. Not saying it was or is right. Just that you must think of it from their view at the time.

                Personally. I believe slavery was a disgusting and vile institution.

  15. Judy Sabatini says:
    • Buck the Wala says:

      From the article:

      Kagan also said ACOG couldn’t identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

      “There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe,” she said. “And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

      “And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things,” she said. “We informed President Clinton of that fact.”

      Kagan said the “disaster” would have been a statement that didn’t reflect the group’s two beliefs.
      —————————————————-++++Kagan also said ACOG couldn’t identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

      “There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe,” she said. “And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

      “And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things,” she said. “We informed President Clinton of that fact.”

      Kagan said the “disaster” would have been a statement that didn’t reflect the group’s two beliefs
      Kagan also said ACOG couldn’t identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

      “There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe,” she said. “And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

      “And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things,” she said. “We informed President Clinton of that fact.”

      Kagan said the “disaster” would have been a statement that didn’t reflect the group’s two beliefs


      Need to give it some additional thought, but I don’t think I have a problem with this…

      1) In her role she was advocating on behalf of the President’s stated positions; and
      2) Given the above statements at face value, if the ACOG really did come to those two conclusions, both should have been included in its final report, at least in my opinion.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Hmm…that posted very strangely for some reason. To clarify:

        From the article:

        Kagan also said ACOG couldn’t identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

        “There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe,” she said. “And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

        “And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things,” she said. “We informed President Clinton of that fact.”

        Kagan said the “disaster” would have been a statement that didn’t reflect the group’s two beliefs.


        Need to give it some additional thought, but I don’t think I have a problem with this…

        1) In her role she was advocating on behalf of the President’s stated positions; and
        2) Given the above statements at face value, if the ACOG really did come to those two conclusions, both should have been included in its final report, at least in my opinion.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        How is a partial birth abortion saving a woman’s life? If she gives partial birth, then why not finish it, and let that baby live? All a partial birth is, letting the head out, then sucking it’s brains out, she still has to deliver the rest of that baby. So, what good does a partial birth do besides kill that baby?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          All I’m saying here is that, if the ACOG came to both conclusions [(a) that partial birth is never necessary to save the mother’s life and (b) that although not necessary there are times when it is the least riskiest procedure] then both should have been made a part of their statement.

          That Kagan was the one to push this in her role working for the White House at the time does not bother me.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            She still hasn’t said whether or not she’s for it or against it, just revised what was said.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I thought there were no litmus tests to serve on SCOTUS…

              A pipe dream if there ever was one.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Buck, it doesn’t matter to me which way she goes, I just want her to be fair, that’s all. Even though I’m against abortions, and if she’s all for them, don’t let it be one sided, weigh all the issues first before making any rash decisions. That make sense? I don’t judge, ( NO PUN INTENDED HERE ) anybody on what or how they believe in anything, I’m just calling for a fair judge.

          • Of course it’s the least riskiest-it’s always easier to kill when one can reach a part of the babies body without having to go through the MOTHER-but as Judy stated the point isn’t to rid the MOTHER of the invasion of privacy to her body-the point IS to get rid of an inconvenience.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hey V.

              Exactly. My problem with these so called partial birth abortions is this. If it’s so risky in the first place to even have a baby, then why did she go through an entire pregnancy only to have it aborted in that manner, why not get an abortion in the first 3 months if that was a risk to the woman in the first place? Makes no sense to me. But then, I’m against them anyway, and yes I know there are times when it might be necessary, but why wait so long?

  16. On Illegal Migration and Such.

    No body has a Right to enter onto another person’s property without permission.

    Each of us has a Right to establish the rules for deciding who can come onto our property or into our home, whether owned or not.

    The only criteria is that those rules must be based on the same ethic or moral standards that we assign to ourselves. For example, preventing blacks from coming to visit because they were black is immoral. You would not assign race as a standard against yourself and you should not against others.

    Our Rights as a Free Nation flow from the rights of the Free People who occupy it. Whether the anarchists like it or not, man kind has divided the world into nation states. Ours is no different. As a nation state we have the same right, as a free people, to enforce the same rules regarding who can come to visit or stay in our home.

    In other words, the USA has the right to establish immigration and visitation policies and to enforce those policies. This is done via law. Not rightful law, but moral law based on the same moral principles that support a free people, as individuals.

    This argument that it is immoral to have and enforce such border rules is irrational. No free people could remain free nor protect the rights of a free society without some measures of assuring that those who come to stay share those principles. Or that the numbers who would migrate here would not overwhelm the very institutions in place.

    The argument that enforcement of immigration policy, including arrest and deportation, is the “initiation” of violence is equally irrational and devoid of proper moral foundation. When someone enters your home without permission it is completely reasonable and moral to remove them and put them back where they came from. Again, the same rights of free people extend to the nation state of free people. It is nothing less than self defense.

    While there is no doubt that anti-drug laws help feed criminal drug activity, like booze during prohibition, I find the argument that the current violence is OUR fault because of drug laws to be devoid of logic as well.

    Human trafficking is also a major problem. So if we apply the same logic, then enforcing anti-human trafficking laws is the “cause” of violence by those who wish to profit from this activity? And that therefore, the violence by traffickers is OUR fault? This of course means the only proper thing to do is legalize human trafficking.

    Hee, hee, hee.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      I think I hear Dread Pirate Mathius’ ship lurking around these waters…

      • Ahhhhhhhhhhh…..leave DPM alone….he is operating under a well conceived, albeit covert, letter of Marque.

    • JAC…JAC…JAC………..you’ll do to ride the river with….

  17. Esom-

    You say “No property tax because they own nothing.” Everyone who pays rent pays property “tax”. Landlords do not “eat” the cost, but pass it on. That’s the same fallacy that “liberals” pass off when they say “tax the rich” or “tax big business more”. It always gets passed on down the line until it is the little people like you and me who pay it. Always. It has to be that way.

    Then you say “these people are more akin to locusts than immigrants“. This has been the justification for every generation of “we were here first”er’s calls to ban “those people”. At various times it has been the Italians, the Chinese, the Irish, etc. It was wrong every other time too.

    I understand your sentiments, I just don’t agree and I know why I don’t agree.

    • Kent. I work for my county in the school system. I see the cost of illegal immigration everyday at my school. I see it every day in my hometown. I see it every day in both my county and my State. We in Georgia are LITERALLY OVERRUN with illegal aliens. And this does NOT include those who have been here long enough to become legal by default.

      Our ‘illegal’ population in this county increases daily. It is causing more and more both legal and financial problems in my community daily.

      I understand your sentiments also, and don’t agree and know why I don’t.

      I even understand the fact that we drove out the Indians, excuse me, Native Americans before us just as they drove out others before them. This is a cycle of life that has gone on before time began. I am part Cherokee by the way, so I have a special sympathy for the Native Americans. But basically, they were driven out by a more populous and stronger people. I will add greedy bastards too. So I do indeed see your point.

      But as the one being slowly driven out or absorbed into another culture that is not only alien to me, but mostly bassackwards as well. Excuse me if I go down kicking and screaming instead of accepting it with a fatalistic approach.

      • It is causing more and more both legal and financial problems in my community daily.

        What “legal” problems? If someone causes harm to another, the “law” is the biggest barrier to stopping that harm. All “laws” against self defense and self defensive weaponry are counterfeit “laws” and you have no ethical obligation to obey them.

        If you are talking about “drug crime” (as many people do when talking about “illegals”), the solution is simple. The stupid and evil “War on Drugs”, just like Prohibition before it, is the biggest boost to crime ever conceived. End it totally and completely, like Constitutionality would demand, and pull the rug out from under the gangs and big-time dealers. It isn’t “giving in” when you realize you are headed in the wrong direction and you stop and turn around.

        And as for the “financial problems”- this just exposes the insanity of socialism by whatever name. There should be zero “public services” anywhere for anyone to use. If a service is needed and wanted, the market could provide it (better and probably at a fraction of the cost of doing it coercively) and no one would be a financial problem.

        I’m not being driven out of anywhere and my culture is not at risk, no matter who lives around me. I guess this is why I am not kicking and screaming about immigrants.

        • Kent.
          While you make valid points and I agree with all of them, I am only dealing in the reality of our Country.

          While the “War on Drugs” is a complete and utter failure and should be eliminated, it is in fact, not.

          While there should be NO Social Services at all. There in fact, are.

          And I must in fact, obey the Laws of my Community or it’s MY behind sitting in jail.

          I am also glad to know that you have no problems where you live like we do here. I am very happy to know this problem is not everywhere in the U.S.. YET.

          But in Georgia, we are absolutely and most surely overrun with them. It seems that most of them who cross the border end up here. I’m sure that is not the case, but it seems that way.

          So while I can see you, I can’t quite reach you. In other words Kent, I believe in your principles and values. I am only dealing with the realities of life here.

          • And I must in fact, obey the Laws of my Community or it’s MY behind sitting in jail.

            Nah. I disobey a lot of “laws”. In fact each and every one of us commits an average of 3 federal felonies every day. So what? A retired sheriff’s deputy told me years ago that before any of us eats breakfast, we have broken a bunch of “laws”. He told me not to worry about it and just do the right thing regardless of the “law”. Best advice I have ever gotten.

            I am also glad to know that you have no problems where you live like we do here.

            I guess it depends on your idea of “problem”. Half of my neighbors are Hispanic, and it’s more every day. I don’t know or care if the are “legal” or not as long as they do not aggress or steal. They drive down the street playing “Mexican music” and all speak Spanish among themselves. They have pinata parties for their kids, and eat strange things. How does any of that hurt me in any way?

            So, I guess my reality differs from yours. I don’t excuse one evil just because another one is entrenched and unlikely to be eliminated any time soon. Socialism is just wrong. Even if there were no “illegal immigrants” using “public services”, it would still be just as wrong. The drug war is wrong, but is too profitable and useful to the State to be ended. It is wrong and it is the reality. That doesn’t mean I pretend to support it or stay quiet around those who do. And, that is just the reality of America today. Fortunately, I don’t let much of it rub off on me, so it isn’t my reality.

    • Kent

      You are wrong about landlords and property taxes.

      Rent, like all commodities has a price the consumer is willing to pay. If taxes increase cost beyond that point the landlord EATS the tax cost.

      The theory that ALL costs, including taxes, are passed to the consumer through price increases is false.

      The cost is passed to the economy in reduced profits, aka wealth creation.

      • My only thing is that he missed the 100 humans to house part. While I WAS exagerating, there are many instances here where 20 to 30 live in one house and share expenses.

        • Esom, I have seen the houses with a bunch of people sharing one house. Why is that wrong? Is it wrong to share expenses? Don’t we all make trade-offs to live less expensively? I certainly do. Some of the compromises I make might be distasteful to other people, but if it is worth it to me, how is it anyone else’s business? Now, if a landlord has a limit on how many people may live in the house, then the landlord can evict someone for violating his rules. Yes, I realize it is sometimes hard to enforce your rules and actually evict someone with government dictating what you can and can not do, but once again that shows the root problem to be government meddling, not the people trying to live cheaply.

      • JaC- Landlords won’t rent a house if they will lose money on it. And that includes property “taxes”. At least I have never known even one who would. There are a lot of houses here in this town sitting empty because the owners can not get the amount of rent they would need to cover the property “taxes”. So they have a financial burden, and people who need a house can’t find one.

        • Kent

          I am a landlord and I know many others.

          Right now many are losing money.

          But they lose less by absorbing increased taxes, etc than if they have big time vacancy.

          Rentals are interesting because you can look at break even in three ways.

          Before tax Profit and Loss

          After tax Profit and Loss

          After tax Profit plus increase in equity less cost.

          It is not until you reach the point that income and equity all go negative with no short term recovery that you see landlords walk away. Or if they are overextended elsewhere.

          Bottom line, all businesses are force to absorb increased costs at times if the price point on the product/service will not allow increases.

          • Wanna rent a house to me, then? No one around here (or anywhere else I have ever lived) is willing to lose any money on a rental. 😉

%d bloggers like this: