Tuesday Night Open Mic for November 9, 2010

I am going to do open mic a little differently this evening. I have been working around the house this week as I prepare for the new job. Yesterday I painted the bedroom (a warm orange) and didn’t get to bed until 8:00 am! Tonight I was cleaning the bathroom and apparently managed to find the sharp end of some tweezers that gashed my finger. As a result typing is a very slow process. Couple that with my only sleeping from 8:00 til around 10:00 this morning and you find an exhausted blogger who cannot type well. So tonight I will find the articles I want to put up for open mic and post them without my commentary. They I will begin answering comments from yesterday and adding my thoughts on the topics I post until I can no longer keep my eyes open. For tonight’s topics we have a Tea Party Candidate (and Palin lackey) being petty, Wealthy Americans cutting back on charity, Quatitative easing by the Fed, and the new START treaty. I will also pull forward a thing or two from yesterday’s discussion. Particularly, I want to pull forward a JAC topic and a comment or two directed at me.


  1. USWeapon Topic #1

    Murkowski Write-In Count: Miller Files Lawsuit To Enforce Spelling In Alaska Senate Race

    Election workers will begin scrutinizing tens of thousands of ballots in the Alaska Senate race on Wednesday in a scene reminiscent of the 2000 Florida recount. There will be no hanging chads this time around – just lots of scribbled names.

    The vote count could help determine whether Sen. Lisa Murkowski wins re-election as a write-in candidate – or whether the courts get the final say in what has been a fiercely contested race.

    Murkowski waged an aggressive write-in campaign after losing the GOP primary to the Sarah Palin-backed candidate Joe Miller. Write-ins held an overall lead of 11,557 Tuesday, when early-cast and some absentee ballots were added to the election night count. It remains unclear how many of those write-ins were for Murkowski or for the 159 other write-in candidates.

    What happens if people misspell Murkowski? What if the handwriting isn’t legible? What if a voter scribbles the name “Lisa M.” instead of the full Murkowski?

    Under state law, the write-in oval must be filled in and either a candidate’s last name or the name as it appears on her candidacy declaration has to be written in. Miller’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said he intends to hold the state to that standard.

    Election officials made clear Monday that they will use discretion in determining voter intent where the written name “appears to be a variation or misspelling” of Murkowski or Lisa Murkowski. Van Flein called that practice unacceptable.

    Van Flein filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking a federal judge to uphold that law. He’s seeking a Wednesday hearing. A spokesman for the Alaska Division of Law had no immediate comment

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/murkowski-writein-count-m_n_781346.html

    • “Elections officials have said the write-in oval must be filled, with the name of the preferred candidate next to it. Alaska Supreme Court rulings have broadly said “voter intent” must be valued heavily “to make each citizen’s vote as meaningful as every other vote.”

      State law will automatically tally a vote for “Lisa Murkowski” and “Murkowski,” but beyond that the rules become hazy. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell has stated that a “minor misspelling” will be counted.

      “If somebody spelled it incorrectly but phonetically, it counted,” said Harris County Clerk’s Office spokesman Hector De Leon.

      Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

      Sounbds like the rules are fairly set…go for it.

    • The acting like a spoiled child label should have stayed with Murkowski-win or loss. Now the label applies to both of them.

    • My first thought was Miller only cared about winning, not how he won. There might be another side to that…


      Miller has another argument that is interesting:

      Prior to the election, people commented on radio stations and in the comment sections in blogs and newspaper stories that they would deliberately incorrectly write-in a variation of “Murkowski” as a protest. They did so knowing that Murkowski was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a “spelling bee” campaign, replete with wrist bands, pencils and tattoos, all to educate the voters on proper spelling. Why was this done? Because even Murkowski had read the law and knew that it required proper spelling — “No exceptions.” So protest voters were trying to send a message to the candidate.

      In other words, Miller’s lawyers claim that people who misspelled Murkowski’s name on a write-in ballot may have been mocking her, “safe” in the knowledge that their vote would not be counted for her because of the state’s clear laws. At a minimum, this argument throws a monkey wrench at a court trying to ignore the clear language of the law to apply a murky “intent” standard. (See what I did there?) Whether it’s a persuasive monkey wrench is another issue.

      • I retract my above statement-I was not aware of this-I think anyone doing the above should question their intelligence but it does change my perception on this issue.

        • Murkowski lost the primary, and I think should have accepted the results. But the same applies to Miller. If I write Lisa M., it’s clear who I intended to vote for, and should be counted. If I did it as some sort of joke, and she wins, the joke’s on me.

      • Actually with more thought I was just wrong to begin with. The rules were clear-they shouldn’t be changed after the fact. They are trying to turn this into a chad hanging silliness issue and wanting to blame it on Miller, when it was Murkowski’s refusal to listen to the people who actually cared enough to vote in the primary, that caused an expensive and time consuming hand count in the first place. The more I think about it the more irritated this situation makes me. All those people who didn’t care enough to go to the polls and vote in the primary come out after the vote and decided their voices weren’t heard(surprise, surprise) and she just must run anyway. Well, maybe next time they will vote in the primary and not be the cause of all this silliness and expense.

        • That’s my feelings on the matter also. If you wanted Murkowski, fine. Come to the Primary and vote for her there. Then you don’t have this HorseDookey.

          I voted in the Primary for Gov of GA. My candidate did not win. I voted in the runoff. My candidate didn’t win that either. So in the General Election, I turned around, held my nose, and voted for the least worthless Bastard that was left.

          There was no real choice left. But. Ain’t no way I wanted our Flag-stealing, lobbyist ass kissing, education destroying former Governor back in there.

    • OK, Finally a chance to begin offering some of my takes on this.

      I think that Miller is being childish on this particular subject. And I see that many of you don’t like Murkowski choosing to do a write in campaign as well.

      I don’t have an issue with the decision to do a write in campaign. If Murkowski believes that she is the right choice, and believes that the voters would choose her over Miller after all the facts come out, why exactly should she not do a campaign. Politics are a dirty business. We all acknowledge that. Would any of you object to the guy in Delaware doing the same after losing to O’Donnell? Right AFTER she beat him, all the crazy comments and videos started showing up. Enough that she lost in a landslide. Perhaps the guy she beat in the primary would have won. The same applies here. Miller appeared a little less an ideal candidate AFTER the primaries were over. Murkowski believed she was still the choice voters would make. She followed the laws as they stand and waged a write in campaign. I don’t fault her for doing so. She worked within the confines of the rules of the game.

      As for what Miller is doing, I find that to be childish. Also, it appears that if the law requires the spelling to be correct, then I think the law is flawed. The important thing in the end is that we are able to clearly discern the intent of the voter. I really don’t care if the voter wrote “LEECAH MERRCAUWSKEE” in the slot. It is obvious who they intended to vote for, and their vote should be counted. What Joe Miller is stating in filing this motion is that he is more interested in being elected than he is in ensuring that the people of Alaska get the representative of their choosing. In other words, he is willing to do whatever necessary in order to win, including refusing the will of the people. What does that say about what kind of representative of the people he really is.

      I didn’t follow this particular race close enough to know Miller’s positions, so I don’t have a favorite in the contest. Be it Republican, Democrat, or Write in candidate, I just hope that the person declared the winner is the one that the people of Alaska actually chose. I have less confidence in this being the case as the legal wrangling occurs.

      • Well, that was my first reaction-didn’t like Murkowski running but realized she had the right to do so-because she was following the rules-Now people want to change the rules. I don’t think so-not based on the election board or whoever just deciding that’s what they want to do. They can’t just decide that they are going to ignore the laws. If they can than next time maybe they will decide that Murkowski doesn’t have the right to run when she lost in the primary. Who cares what the law says-this is what we think is right in this situation so lets go for it. Next time who knows-maybe the people involved will prefer the law as written and then they can follow or ignore the laws to suit themselves.

        • I understand your position. I do believe that if the law says the name must be spelled correctly, then the law is flawed. The people of Alaska should demand a change to the law to ensure that their voice is heard. Something like spelling a candidates name wrong when the intent is clear sounds to me a lot like a rule put in by politicians in order to use as a tool when convenient…. like right now.

          • Which is exactly what Miller’s action will or should accomplish ? If he doesn’t challenge this action the law would probably just stay on the books as written.

    • Something like spelling a candidates name wrong when the intent is clear sounds to me a lot like a rule put in by politicians in order to use as a tool when convenient…. like right now.

      I agree USWeapon!

      I’m surprised by a lot of the comments. I thought most of you didn’t like the two party system and would want to make it easier for independent, third-party, and write-in candidates to get on the ballot – and have a chance to win.

      • same here. It is hard enough to get the established parties out of power, why would we want to make the established rules and primaries more powerful? I get that we should not change the rules after the vote to try to get a different result, that is not legitimate, but I do not stand in support of the rules as they are, and I certainly am not interested in limiting write-in campaigns in any way.

  2. USWeapon Topic #2

    Don’t Stall on New START

    It’s time for the U.S. Senate to ratify the new arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia (New START).

    The treaty’s benefits are clear and concrete (PDF). Each side would reduce its nuclear stockpile by about one-third. Each side would adhere to an effective, multi-faceted monitoring scheme — including satellite reconnaissance, on-site inspections, and extensive information exchanges — that would ensure compliance with the agreement. The treaty would also set the stage for enhanced U.S. and Russian cooperation on urgent issues such as curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and securing nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. And it would signal to the rest of the world that the United States and Russia — which together account for over 90% of the world’s more than 20,000 nuclear weapons — are serious about their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty calls for existing nuclear weapons states to reduce and eventually eliminate their arsenals in exchange for other signatories agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.

    The fewer nuclear weapons there are, the safer we all will be. New START offers an important step in the right direction.

    So why hasn’t the Senate ratified the treaty yet? First, the administration needed to make the case for the treaty, with a particular focus on Republican skeptics whose votes were needed to reach the 67 vote total needed to ratify a treaty. But that case has been made. There have been 18 hearings, dozens of briefings, hundreds of questions answered at the request of individual Senators, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis, and testimony. An impressive bipartisan group of experts, including national security advisors and secretaries of state and defense from the Reagan, Bush (father and son) and Clinton administrations, has endorsed the treaty. So have all of the nation’s top military leaders, along with key retired leaders like seven former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

    So what is the holdup? Laura Rozen of Politico got hold of a memo by a staffer from the Senate Republican Policy Committee that purports to supply the reasons why the Senate should delay any vote on the treaty. In fact, the memo acknowledges that two of the main objections raised by the treaty’s critics have already been addressed.

    The first issue is “nuclear modernization” — the ability to build a new generation of nuclear delivery vehicles and to preserve the reliability of existing warheads in the context of an upgraded nuclear weapons complex. There are serious questions about whether spending in these areas is in fact needed at a time when U.S. and Rusian arsenals are being reduced. But whatever one may think about building a shiny new weapons complex at a time when a growing number of world leaders are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Republican memo notes that New START will “preserve the ability of the United States to modernize its nuclear forces.” The real complaint is that the Obama administration is not doing so quickly enough, even though it is spending more on the nuclear weapons complex than even the George W. Bush administration did.
    As Linton Brooks, the head of the nuclear weapons complex in the Bush administration, said in April, “I’d have killed for that budget and that much high-level attention” during the Bush years compared to the Obama years.

    A second major issue raised by Republican skeptics has been whether New START constrains the United States from developing whatever kind of missile defense system it chooses to. It does not. The Republican memo notes that this “may be a true statement,” but that the real question is how much money and effort the Obama administration is willing to devote to missile defense. As with nuclear modernization, this is an issue of administration policy that has no direct link to the New START treaty. The treaty allows any administration to pursue as extensive a missile defense system as it desires; it does not, and should not, dictate what shape that system should take, or how much should be spent on it. That is an ongoing policy issue.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-hartung/dont-stall-on-new-start_b_781252.html

    • Why should we NOT stall on the new START treaty? A Treaty that gives away all of our advantages and take NONE away from the Russkies?

      If we’re not careful Obama’s going to give away our entire Nation and us with it.

      • Esom,

        The Chinese have about 100 to 200 nukes – which is more than enough to deter everyone on Earth from attacking China with nukes.

        Neither the US nor Russia need 20,000 of them.

        • Honey Chile, everybody knows that already. But we don’t, according to Hillary, have 20,000, but a smidge over 2,000 nukes. Admittedly, still too many.

          My problem is, we seem to have this propensity to give away every advantage that we have for absolutely NO gain, nor even parity, with the Nations`that`we`make these “Treaties” with.

          Why can’t we make a Treaty with China that makes trade with them fair to US as well as them?

          My biggest problem with Obama’s treaties, is the fact that he has no problem with giving away the whole damn Nation if it can allow him to Kiss the rest of the world’s ass.

          Why we should give in to everyone ELSE’S demands to us is amazing to me. And unfreakinbelievable too.

          • Esom

            The math:

            United States 9,600[3]
            Russia 12,000[3]

            equals 21,600 nuclear weapons.

          • Esom

            Treaty with China that makes trade with them fair to US as well as them


            What “unfair” trade do you think exists?

            The Chinese worker labors for you, discounting his labor by about 30% so that you can buy his goods at less cost then he makes them.

            To pay for this, the Chinese government prints yuan faster then the US does the dollar – China suffers about 25% inflation.

            So, a poor Chinese worker paying you to buy his product is unfair to the US

            ….Up is Down, Black is White….

            • Does this also mean that freedom is slavery?

            • BF.

              What is “unfair” is as much America’s fault as it is China’s. Probably more`so.

              What is “unfair” is that China does all the selling and none of the buying.

              I don’t want my goods made in China with lead tainted plastic and cheap child labor. I want it made in the United States by my fellow citizens, allowing them to make a living as well as me.

              Of course, as I said, part of this is America’s own fault. We have stopped being producers and become only consumers. Some of this due to high Union wages, and partly because we have allowed, nay, pushed busnesses out of this Country.

              As far as the “poor” Chinese worker goes. Screw them. I only worry about the “poor” American worker. Of which I am one.

              • I don’t want my goods made in China with lead tainted plastic and cheap child labor.

                Then don’t buy them. Why do you care what I buy?

                I want it made in the United States by my fellow citizens, allowing them to make a living as well as me.

                So pay more to buy goods made in the US. Again, you have no right to force me to do the same.

              • Esom

                Re-read DKII.

                that China does all the selling and none of the buying.

                There is nothing a man in China who earns $5 a day wants to buy from the USA.

                I want it made in the United States by my fellow citizens, allowing them to make a living as well as me.

                Then pay through the nose for everything you want, as is your right

      • Overall, I agree with Flag. The cold war is over, MAD doctrine is not sane. We need to reduce our numbers, just for the money it will save.
        And is there any country you would have to use more than 100 nukes on?
        Some will miss, so maybe we target 1,000 as our arsenal size?

    • My thoughts on the new START Treaty…

      Stall it, Kill it, do whatever you want but don’t ratify it. And as soon as it is dead, begin reducing nuclear stockpiles on your own.

      The bottom line is this for me: I don’t like treaties such as this. They are first and foremost rarely about the headline. There are things in them that I don’t like and they are supported because of the giant headline topic which rarely has a dramatic impact. Should we reduce the number of nuclear warheads we have? Absolutely. And we can do so on our own with or without Russia doing the same. I would have actually supported Obama’s position if he came out and simply said, “We have way more nuclear weapons than we need. We are going to cut that number in half over the next 5 years and we will still have enough nukes to destroy the world ten times over instead of twenty. We will cut costs for maintenance and oversight by doing so. We encourage Russia to do the same.”

      The START treaty is a waste of time and is completely unenforceable by either of the two parties involved. As such, why should we bother with it? I will guarantee that there are ulterior motives behind it that have nothing to do with reducing nuclear capabilities.

  3. USWeapon Topic #3

    Fed Counts on ‘Psychological Bump’ With Borrowing, but May Just Add to Debt, Inflation

    Investors beware: The Federal Reserve may have just agreed to make $600 billion more available for borrowing, but don’t expect to see that money flooding the market any time soon.

    At least that’s the warning from some financial experts who say the Federal Reserve’s pledge to buy $600 billion in Treasury bonds is unlikely to help improve inflation or interest rates, which are at historically low levels, but it will add to the U.S. debt.

    The Fed is “looking for a psychological bump to get (Americans) out of the doldrums they’re in,” said Michael Canet, head of Prostatis Financial Advisors Group and host of the “Savvy Investor” radio show out of Baltimore, Md.

    “Unemployment is still 9.5 percent … manufacturing is still at 70 percent capacity,” he noted.

    Canet is among a slew of economists, politicians and financial planners who say the Fed’s use of monetary policy to push the economy forward could have the opposite effect of what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke intends.

    “We already have very loose monetary policy, very, very low interest rates. This is going to give us an inflation problem in the future. It’s going to give us an interest rate problem in the future. It is destabilizing investment horizons,” Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the next House Budget Committee chairman, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

    The Federal Reserve’s plan, called “quantitative easing” by policy wonks, is an effort to make more money available so that banks will lend more and people will feel freer to spend. Three years ago, the Federal Reserve did a similar trick, purchasing $300 billion in Treasury bonds to make credit more accessible.

    That was at the start of the recession. The economy has started to grow since then, which to many means Fed policy should be looking at ways to wipe debt from the books, not take more on.

    “I didn’t argue with the first quantitative easing but the economy is growing for 16 months now,” said Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and member of Ronald Reagan’s transition team at the Office of Management and Budget.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/09/pols-warn-fed-treasury-bond-buy-wont-help-workers-jobs/?test=latestnews

    • The Wall Street Journal can’t seem to decide whether Sarah Palin is knowledgable on monetary policy or not.

      WSJ reporter Sudeep Reddy criticized Palin’s “inflation hyperbole” in an article Tuesday, claiming that, contrary to Palin’s claims, “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly.”

      “Do Wall Street Journal reporters read the Wall Street Journal?” Palin shot back in a Facebook post, noting that the Journal itself had raised concerns about grocery prices mere days ago. “An inflationary tide is beginning to ripple through America’s supermarkets and restaurants,” an article claimed on Thursday.

      Palin wrote:

      Ever since 2008, people seem inordinately interested in my reading habits. Among various newspapers, magazines, and local Alaskan papers, I read the Wall Street Journal.

      So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”

      Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”…

      Reddy responded on the Journal’s website, and stood by his assertion.

      Our post on Monday examined the assertion that grocery prices “have risen significantly over the past year or so.” That view is not supported by the facts.

      A broad measure of food prices from the Labor Department shows prices rose at an average annual rate of less than 0.6% in the first nine months of the year. September’s increase in food prices — 1.4% for food and beverages at an annual rate — was low by historical standards.(In fact, the lowest average annual inflation rate on record was 1.4%, in 1992.) Commerce Department inflation data show a similarly slow year-over-year increase for food prices, 1.3%.

      But while grocery inflation is not high by historical standards, it is high relative to overall inflation – i.e. prices for groceries are rising faster than prices for other goods. Ed Morrissey explains:

      The problem isn’t that this current inflation rate is somehow historically large. It isn’t, as Reddy and the original WSJ article notes, although retailers are already having problems in getting consumers to purchase goods in normal quantities because of it. The point Palin made was that taking a voyage on the QE2 would make a difficult issue for consumers and retailers much worse through the deliberate introduction of even higher inflation, an explicit motivation behind the Fed’s actions.

      So Palin was right once again, and once again a reporter winds up with egg on face from starting out with an assumption that Palin couldn’t possibly know what she’s talking about. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      And once again we must ask, does Reddy read his own newspaper? If he does, he must avoid the editorial pages – a conservative outpost within a newsroom that trends to the left just as most do – because he clearly missed a “Review and Outlook” editorial today claiming that Palin has “a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan.”

      The editorial, presumably written by the Journal’s editorial page editor Paul Gigot, goes on to compare Palin’s impact on national economic policy to that of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp.

      And the immense praise this editorial heaped upon Palin was due entirely to her discussion of quantitative easing (otherwise known as printing more money), the practice Palin said would lead to damaging grocery inflation:

      Stressing the risks of Fed “pump priming,” Mrs. Palin zeroed in on the connection between a “weak dollar—a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market”—and rising oil and food prices. She also noted the rising world alarm about the Fed’s actions, which by now includes blunt comments by Germany, Brazil, China and most of Asia, among many others.

      “We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings,” the former GOP Vice Presidential nominee said. “We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.”

      Mrs. Palin’s remarks may have the beneficial effect of bringing the dollar back to the center of the American political debate, not to mention of the GOP economic platform. Republican economic reformers of the 1970s and 1980s—especially Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp—understood the importance of stable money to U.S. prosperity.

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/11/09/palin-bashing-wsj-reporter-apparently-doesnt-read-his-own-newspaper#ixzz14osygfLb

    • SEOUL – An international backlash against the Federal Reserve’s move last week to pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy is threatening to undercut the Obama administration’s economic goals for this week’s G-20 meeting of world leaders.


      • As a grocery buyer myself, I can say that Sarah the Babe is right. Groceries HAVE gone up. And not just a little.

        EVERYTHING is beginning to go up. Gas is beginning to skyrocket again. This at a time when most of us can’t afford it.

        But it is my belief that this is planned. Planned to get most of us on the Government dime.The only way to shut us up is to get us beholden to the Govt.

        I AIN’T THERE YET.

        • I think it’s funny, this reporter tried to make her look foolish, and his own paper reported the same thing.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Actually, not quite. From my understanding of the matter, Palin neglected to actually read the full sentence that she decided to use to form the basis of her statement. The article stated that there was lackluster inflation on grocery items of only 0.6% thus far this year, though that trend was about to change. It just goes to show once again that Palin does not know how to read.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            From a Slate article:

            On Monday, Palin rebuked a reporter on her Facebook page. “Do Wall Street Journal reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?” she asked. The Journal reporter, Sudeep Reddy, had asserted that Palin had gotten her facts wrong in a recent speech when she said,”Everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so.” Grocery prices, Reddy pointed out, “haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact”—inflation is at 0.6 percent for the first nine months of 2010. Palin responded: “Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”

            But then I read Reddy’s critique and the story Palin says undermines it. The story Palin cites to support her claim doesn’t do that. In her speech, Palin said that “prices have risen significantly over the past year or so.” The Journal article says prices are only “beginning” to rise. The time period of “significant” increase Palin is talking about is referred to in the first sentence of the exculpatory article as “the tamest year of food pricing in nearly two decades.”

            • Buck,

              Do you agree with the Fed’s decision to buy the $600 billion, or do you agree with Sara Palin? Maybe you split hairs on how much it has increased the cost of goods to date, but overall, which side are you on? Also, oil and gold prices have gone up, so it’s not just about “Twinkies”.

              Sarah Palin shows that she is smarter than a WSJ reporter who was trying to attack her intelligence
              Palin is a lot smarter than those on the left believe and it is a big mistake that they will make at their own expense. See the discussion here.

              The WSJ editorial page has this:

              The former Alaskan Governor showed sound political and economic instincts by inveighing forcefully against the Federal Reserve’s latest round of quantitative easing. According to the prepared text of remarks that she released to National Review online, Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan.

              Stressing the risks of Fed “pump priming,” Mrs. Palin zeroed in on the connection between a “weak dollar—a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market”—and rising oil and food prices. She also noted the rising world alarm about the Fed’s actions, which by now includes blunt comments by Germany, Brazil, China and most of Asia, among many others.

              “We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings,” the former GOP Vice Presidential nominee said. “We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.” .

            • Buck. Don’t pay attention to The WSJ OR Sarah Palin. Go to the Grocery store yourself, or talk to whoever in your household does and decide for yourself who is right.

              That is what I did. I am the Grocery buyer in my household, and while some things may not have gone up that much, most have.

              And it’s not even so much that the food has gone up as much as the products needed to get the food on the shelf have gone up, particularly fuel.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I am the grocery buyer; the price of my groceries have not raised significantly in the least over the past year.

                • Significant is subjective and mine have risen a lot-I used to spend about $150. now it’s in the high 200’s and sometimes 300. I haven’t changed my buying habits-though I will have too. The man’s arguing a subjective point while agreeing they will go up. Is this to you a viable point to stand on-a point to use to call Palin wrong. Aren’t we getting a little nit picky and frankly a little bit petty in order to justify some people’s stance that Palin is stupid.

                  • Buck the Wala says:

                    I don’t think its being nit-picky when you actually look at Palin’s initial statement, the story she used, the WSJ reporter’s response to Palin’s statement and Palin’s response to the reporter.

                    As for groceries, sure its subjective, but my groceries really have not gone up all that much in the past year (if at all when you average it out from week to week). When were you paying $150/week as opposed to the high $200s currently?

                    • Buck,

                      It really does come down to what you are buying. My wife and I have found groceries to have gone up significantly over the last 5 years. I don’t have any studies or statistics to back that up, just my grocery bills. I know that fruits and vegetables (we buy a lot of fresh on both) are expensive as hell these days.

                      I don’t know the answer on the $600 billion question either. But given the damage I think the FED has done, I would actually side with Palin simply because she doesn’t work for them. The FED has killed us over the years and No one is more dangerously manipulative with America’s economy than they are.


                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      True re: groceries. Depends on what you’re buying – I buy all fresh; Whole Foods (what can I say, I’m a liberal!) Over the past 5-yrs, sure the price has gone up significantly. But in the past year, at least for me, I haven’t noticed it.

                      Re: Palin/Bernanke – Sorry USW, but that’s just not a good enough reason to side with Palin in my book. And I’m still wondering who she has preparing her remarks on this topic…

                    • Truthseeker says:

                      Buck, the same people that writes President Obama’s remarks could be the same ones writing Palin’s. Does it really matter who provides the information as long as the speaker gets credit?

                • Buck

                  Grocery buyer

                  All commodities are up double digits, Buck.

                  However, what you are seeing is that sellers of the retail goods are eating the increases – they know even a small rise in price will drive their customers to anyone who doesn’t raise their prices.

                  But this cannot last forever – one of them will break – and risk going bankrupt with the loss of customers or risk going bankrupt with their costs rising.

                  It will probably set off a fire-storm of price rising across the board.


                  Warning: If you have not stocked up or depleted your stored goods …. get back on top of it.

                  Wheat = 100% increase in price!!

                  Coffee = 85% increase.

                  Sugar =45%


                  It’s coming and it will hit hard.

                  • Thanks BF.

                    I’ve been sending my daughter a cople of hundred bucks to buy canned food. She’s been doing it and better yet, she’s starting think about what’s going on. Today she mentioned buying seeds ‘just in case’. It gave me the opportunity to tell her about heirloom seeds, and send her a link

    • Buck, LOI

      $600 billion will do nothing at all.

      The banks already have a $1 trillion in excess reserves, and are not lending.

      Another $600 billion will do zip.

      Bernanke is “pushing a string” and he loves it. He can provide money and claim he is doing something while also taking credit for not suffering mass inflation.

      Do not pay attention to the printing of money that never makes it into the money supply.

      Pay attention to the rate of interest the FED pays for those excessive reserves

      The moment the FED stops paying (or charges negative interest), the flood gate will open.

      • Flag,

        The $600 billion is having an effect. We pressure China to stop manipulating the yen, then play endless games with the dollar. We look like the idiots we are, and it does affect business. Private companies in the US are said to have 2 trillion in cash reserves, and Bernake/Obama can’t understand why they aren’t spending when money is cheap.

        “Pay attention to the rate of interest the FED pays for those excessive reserves” (I will, good point)

        “The moment the FED stops paying (or charges negative interest), the flood gate will open.” (Not sure on this one, our bleeding might just increase from a drip, drip to a steady stream. Survivable for a time, but requiring attention, or death is assured.)

        For the record, I did take your advice on gold (as much as I could afford) and have reaped the rewards!

    • SUFA

      A number of for-fee economic websites that I participate in have been having a hot dialogue – a dialogue, not a debate.

      The near-universal agreement is bundled into this single statement:

      The currency war has begun. Inflation is coming.

      You now have been warned, too.

      • Bottom Line says:

        As soon as the government started going nuts with the spending, I started telling this to everyone I know.

        I explain to them how all of it will be borrowed, and will eventually result in inflation.

        Many roll their eyes as I will when they start complaining how they are having trouble affording a living.

      • Truthseeker says:

        So when inflation comes, does that mean it is good to get loans now and inflation will pay them off faster?

        • Truthseeker,


          People do not have the discipline to take advantage of this on purpose. You might get an advantage by accident, but that’s something you can’t guess at.

          People will trap themselves by getting too much debt. The banks will raise their rates, and when the term expires, the people haven’t banked the cash to pay it off – then they are hit with a huge loan at a huge interest rate.

        • Truthseeker,
          Actually, I think it is a good time to go into debt, for the exact reason you said. Interest rates are at historic lows and so are property values. You can get good deals from motivated sellers.

          But Black Flag is absolutely right – it can also get you in a lot of trouble. Only buy something if you have a good plan for how you will use it in the future, and only if you are sure you can handle the debt. Don’t go on a buying spree just to buy “stuff”, but look for under-valued assets that have real value.

  4. USWeapon Topic #4

    Rich Americans cut back on charitable giving

    Charitable giving by wealthy Americans dropped by more than a third between 2007 and 2009 as the worst U.S. recession in decades put pressure on the nonprofit sector, according to a study released Tuesday.

    While almost all rich Americans — more than 98 percent — donated to nonprofit groups last year, the average amount fell to $54,016 in 2009 from $83,034 in 2007 and $91,928 in 2005, the third biennial Bank of America Merrill Lynch study found.

    “We obviously did see a decrease in the actual dollars given, that’s not surprising given the times,” Claire Costello, national foundation executive for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told Reuters.

    More than 800 people with a household income of more than $200,000 and/or net worth of at least $1 million — excluding the value of their homes — were surveyed by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. The average wealth of the respondents was $10.7 million.

    Total U.S. charitable giving fell 3.9 percent in 2009 to $303.7 billion, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found in a separate study earlier this year.

    While the longest U.S. recession since the Great Depression ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the country’s economy has been struggling to recover, with unemployment stuck around 9.6 percent.

    Two-thirds of wealthy families continued to support the same charities in 2009, found the Study of High Net World Philanthropy, and more than 94 percent have confidence in nonprofit groups to solve the world’s problems.

    More than 43 percent of all wealthy donors gave less than $10,000 to charity in 2009, while 2.5 percent made donations of more than $500,000, the study found.

    The top three causes supported by rich Americans were basic needs, education and the arts. The top three motivations were the wish to make a difference, feeling financially secure and wanting to give to a group that is efficient.

    The study found a growing trend of wealthy donors expecting nonprofit organizations to be effective and transparent.

    More than 78 percent of wealthy Americans also volunteered in 2009, up nearly 4 percent from 2007, volunteering an average of 307 hours.

    Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097010/ns/us_news-giving/

    • The rich are probably saving their money for when Obama fulfills his objective of villifying all the rich and giving all their money to the po’ folks in his wealth redistribution plan.

      • Shouldn’t they be giving it away faster so that the people they want to give it to get it rather than the federal government?

        I think this is more a sign of what they believe the future of the economy will be.

  5. Didn’t know tweezers had a sharp end. 🙂

    • These were the demon spawn of tweezers. They caught be just the right way as I was digging in a drawer and suddenly I had a steady stream of blood everywhere. A Gushah!

      Hoping the finger stops hurting by tomorrow so I can type effectively again.

      • Come on, USW…..the M1 thumb….the .50 cal pinch….the ammo box toe….and our favorite,the T-10 Gonad Grab….and now the “tweezer Poke”. Just add it to the list of things already done. However, puncture wounds are painful. I am totally convinced that houss hold Demon Spawns are prolific. They are everywhere…especially the famous toe splitter…you know the one…walk around the end of the bed and kick the support…big toe separates from the rest of the foot. Have aa nice day.

        • Ah yes. I know all of the pains you speak of personally with the exception of the M1 thumb. Never did that one.

          I agree the household is a dangerous place. And the older I get the more I seem to find the dangers, lol.

          • The M1 thumb…..like the .50 cal pinch…you will only do it once. It happens on inspection arms…bolt locked back….when releasing the bolt back to the forward position…you must holr the rifle in left hand…push bolt back with side of right hand,,,push thumb into chamber to release bolt and release…remembering that the spring is very strong…you must be quick or the blot catches the thumb…..voila…..thumb nail gone.

            As for the house…..eveil gremlins are everywhere.

  6. USWeapon Topic #5

    From Kent McManigal on Election Results

    With every election I have ever heard of, the results are always the same: Liberty loses and The State wins.  If you are even the slightest bit aware, you already know that will happen since the system is rigged.

    I have zero faith that the “Tea Party-backed” politicians who won their elections will do anything but increase the breadth and depth of government.  They may focus their efforts in different areas than the Democrats have been- I expect more religious justifications for violating liberties of Americans, more “patriotic” justifications for the cult of border-worship and the related demonization of hispanicimmigrants in particular, and a mix of the two excuses for the endless parade of US-sponsored terrorism Orwellishly called “The War on Terror“.   All, historically proven Big Government favorites.
    Believe it or not, this never-changing course makes me smile to myself.  It isn’t as hopeless as you might think if you were counting on liberty to be saved by an election (which is a ridiculous notion).  The reason is that these election results are only the “official, government sanctioned results”.  The reality is that The State, with the help of its supporters, is killing itself bit by bit with each election.  It loses more true-believers every day, and I don’t think they are being replaced as fast as they are leaving.  Even I used to vote.

    Read the rest of this article at the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner:  http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-albuquerque/results-of-elections

    I will add some thoughts on what Kent has added to the discussion with this article, however I do ask that you take a moment and jump over to his site and read the remainder of this article there. You’ll notice that I always have part of an article and a link to read the rest. I do so because I think the original author should be rewarded with traffic to his or her site. This is especially true with Kent. He takes the time to come over to SUFA and converse with us when he can. I would appreciate you taking a moment to leave him a comment there as well as discussing it here! Thanks.

    • I would like to point out to Kent and Black Flag – and all other so-called self-proclaimed anarchists – that there is nothing stopping them from moving to Somalia (the one and only nation on this planet that has completely embraced anarchism)where they can live happily ever after in an anarchist paradise.

      I am just not sure how long they could actually survive . . . . .

      • Papa

        And we remind you that you can move to N. Korea, Communist China, Communist Vietnam, Burma et al where the government runs your life as you love.

        ….how long you’d survive (shrug), but I’m sure you’d just love how the government takes care of you….

  7. Just A Citizen Topic #1

    De Facto Shariah Law in America

    Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws. The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.

    Christianity Suppressed

    In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

    In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren’t blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.

    Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of “Allah hu Akbar” from Muslim bystanders.

    In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of “Ave Maria” was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito’s protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.

    In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.

    Islam Accepted

    In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.

    After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher’s aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)

    In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a “Merry Christmas” sign from their station.

    Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.

    At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, “The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety.”

    Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.

    These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran — “Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions” (48:28), “Islam will dominate other religions” (9:33), and “Islam does not coexist with other faiths” (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam — “The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them” (9:123).

    Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.

    Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and “winter holidays” replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California’s classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.

    Censure of Non-Muslims

    Further, the First Amendment, free-speech rights of non-Muslims are being curtailed amidst the demands of Muslims who operate under few constraints. While non-Muslims are self-censoring out of fear and being shut down by authorities, Muslims enjoy almost unfettered rights to speak out.

    For example, leading up to the 9th anniversary of the Muslim attack on 9/11, Pastor Terry Jones of Florida announced that he would burn the Koran in protest of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Not only was Jones’s life threatened by Muslims, but an Obama administration official asked him to cancel his plans. New York Governor David A. Paterson commented in response to Jones’ threat: “More and more, particularly this year, I feel that the memory of those who were lost is being disrespected.” However, Paterson did not criticize the Muslim threat on Jones’ life, nor the plan itself to build a mosque over the remains of the victims of Islamic terrorism killed on 9/11.

    While Pastor Jones was punished by the loss of his mortgage and insurance and was presented with a bill for $180,000 for security by the City of Gainesville, Muslims avoided any public opprobrium even though twenty innocent people around the world died during Muslim protests against Jones. Like the response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons years earlier, the Koran-burning activity was suppressed and censured as disrespectful to Muslims. It was even compared to the burning of churches and synagogues. Yet Muslims who threatened violent reprisals against Jones were not warned that attempts to curtail First Amendment rights and even mayhem, assaults, or murder would not be tolerated and would be punished to the full extent of the law.

    In another instance of free speech rights violations, when New Jersey Transit Authority (NJTA) worker Derek Fenton burned a Koran near Ground Zero on 9-11, he was promptly removed by authorities as much for the perceived insult to Islam as for his own safety. The very next day, he was fired from his job of eleven years.

    In October, NPR reporter,Juan Williams was fired for expressing on Fox News a fear shared by the majority of Americans in a post-9/11 world — his discomfort about being on a plane with people who dress as conservative Muslims. Thanks to pressure from CAIR, a Hamas-supporting, extremist-linked organization, Williams was punished for this thoughtcrime and, without first talking to Williams, an NPR spokesperson broke the news on Twitter. Ironically, CAIR spokespersons are regular guests on NPR programs.

    Cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to disappear after declaring April 20 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Norris ignited a religious firestorm with radical Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki publicly ordering her execution. Under FBI recommendations and at her own expense, Norris went underground, changing her name and identity. She is no longer publishing cartoons at the publication where she has been a regular contributor.

    Freedom of Speech for Muslims

    Whereas Norris was forced to enter a witness-protection program in response to a fatwa against her, Islamic leaders enjoy unlimited freedom to spread their messages of hate within the United States. Some even receive protection at taxpayer expense, as did Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Egyptian-American Sufi imam who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Rauf is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, endeavors to supplant U.S. law with shariah, and refuses to condemn jihadist groups and terrorism. In addition, he refused to sign a pledge revoking the mandatory death sentence for Muslim apostasy, has encouraged U.S. government officials to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas, and blames the United States for 9/11. Imam Rauf, who created the Shariah Index Project, which rates countries around the world on shariah compliance, has said that he believes in shariah supremacy.

    Read the rest of this article at American Thinker (this is only about half of the article): http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html

    • I can think of several SUFA posters who will say this is wonderful. I’m not one of them.

    • Christmas present for Aunt Jodie = $50

      Christmas dinner for ten with ALL the fixins = $200

      The look on a muslims face when you wish him “Merry Christmas”= PRICELESS

    • Common Man says:

      I have given this a great deal of thought.

      The Native American’s of this country, living in a trabal community, have their own government and deal with their own according to their own laws/rules.

      The Amish also have their own rules/laws and manage their community accordingly.

      I am sure there other ‘groups’ out there that operate within defined standards, so why would we discriminate the Muslims?

      Now, it should be noted that both the Native American and Amish must also toe the mark relative to US law. Capital offences like murder, rape, etc are prosecuted no differently than they would be on any other citizen, although I wonder how many murder trials are on the books involving Amish?

      I guess the point is that since we all are free to practice whatever religon we choose, and that religon does not violate natural law, who’s business is it to intervene?

      As long as people respect the rights of others, operate within the parameters of natural law they should be allowed to do as they so please.

      If a Muslim, Amish, Native American or Irish person choose to violate the rights of another, then the offender needs to be dealt with accordingly. If the offender’s religon/lifestyle/ warrants a more severe punishment than Natural/Constitutional law, so be it; as long as that punishment does not violate Natural/Constitutional law.

      Judging others actions or belief’s through your own standards is discrimination. I try to look at things through their eyes and see what they see. I may decide that I want nothing to do with them or their belief’s, but it does not give me a right to condem their actions; unless they are violating Natural Law


      • CM says: “I guess the point is that since we all are free to practice whatever religon we choose, and that religon does not violate natural law, who’s business is it to intervene?

        As long as people respect the rights of others, operate within the parameters of natural law they should be allowed to do as they so please.”

        D13 observes: Therein lies the problem, sir. My experience is that Muslim and Islamic religion/law does not leave others alone and will not. Having said that….to me, it means that the gloves are off at that point. As I read Natural Law, that means that I can respond in almost any manner that I wish.

        I think that USW makes a pretty good point. It will be interesting to see what the left side now says about separation of church and state….foot baths, seperate recess, etc…is this not the same as taking Christmas away or eliminating in god we trust? If it is not the same, then explain the difference.

        I have never seen prayer time in Texas by the Muslim block streets or walkways, either in airports or anywhere and I doubt that we will….not here. No one will walk around nor should they. Go prostate on the sidewalk I am on,,,,you just became part of the sidewalk.

        Islam has not been hijacked my a “few” extremists…it is what it is and has a militant arm.

        • D13,

          D13 observes: Therein lies the problem, sir. My experience is that Muslim and Islamic religion/law does not leave others alone and will not. Having said that….to me, it means that the gloves are off at that point. As I read Natural Law, that means that I can respond in almost any manner that I wish.

          And there in lies the real problem, not the fake one that D13 believes exists.

          Based on someone’s words in a book, D13 believes he can attack people who have done nothing to him and believes that he has a right to do so.

          Then he will watch his world burn down as these people respond to his real assault with him complaining “how dare they!”

          As long as men fear words and respond with violence, evil will rule.

          • Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.

            In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.

            The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

            The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

            The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

            Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists.

            Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/11/09/cenk-uygur-oklahoma-voters-youre-bunch-idiots-passing-anti-sharia-law#ixzz14tkLBjTL

            • LOI,

              And I’ll save you from the volumes of Christians who rape and murder their wives and WORSE strangers!!

              Damn Christians – they are ALL insane!!



              It does not matter what is written in some book – the words do not make men evil.

              The evil actions of men make men evil

              • Why do you insist on misinterpreting words-this article is talking about the introduction of sharia law as a means of usurping our laws. Our laws do not say it is okay to rape your wife. The fact that all segments of any society can be evil doesn’t change the fact that Sharia Law allows the practice by law. Their law is their interpretation of their religion. I am not going to condemn the whole religion or all people who follow Islam but I will condemn those who follow Sharia Law and it’s obvious evil interpretation.

                • I want to change one statement.
                  I will condemn those who WILLINGLYfollow Sharia Law and it’s obvious evil interpretation.

                • V.H.,

                  If you follow immoral law, who is immoral? – those that make the law, or those who use the law to justify their immoral actions?

                  Words have no power unless you act on them.

                  • Very interesting thought provoking questions-but what does it have to do with this particular discussion. It’s a great discussion when we are talking government vs. no government. But we are talking about the affect that sharia law is and can have on our currant system of laws. You want to make it a discussion based on your non government stance or on people attacking all muslams. You refuse to discuss the actual points being made. Every point make should not be twisted to fit your desired talking points.

                    What do you think about the court ruling the way they did?

                    What effect do you think the currant political arguments about Sharia Law-will have on this country and our laws?

                  • V.H.

                    But we are talking about the affect that sharia law is and can have on our currant system of laws

                    It will have absolutely no effect whatsoever

                    • Based on what? Reality or your belief that all but one law-do not impose on me-is evil-so it just doesn’t matter. Or am I completely misunderstanding your stance.

                    • V.H.

                      Law is created by legislation – what possible legislation could occur, when “easy” bills take years?

                    • You don’t have to immediately change the law-just the interpretation-just a few legal precedents-then voila-it’s accepted as normal and as if it is a reasonable interpretation of our law.

              • Flag,

                How many Christians have been charged with raping their wives, and used the Bible for defense?

                I seem to recall instances where our government was not willing to allow extreme christian groups to worship as they saw fit. Double standard?

          • I’m not at all sure where D13 said anything about a book or even religion really-I think he was talking more about actual actions that take place in countries which use Sharia Law. About actual actions which are taking place to help establish Sharia Law as part of our law. He’s talking about the reality of current actions which are backed up by actual laws in countries that are theocracies. In reality the religion isn’t the issue it is the laws these countries impose that are at issue, when they want to bring them here is usurp our laws.

          • What book would this be, BF?

          • BF says: “D13 believes he can attack people who have done nothing to him and believes that he has a right to do so.”

            Still don’t know what book yu are referring to…but doesn’t your precious Natural Law give me the right to respond in same?

          • Common Man says:

            To all responding

            I don’t look upon a muslim any different than I do the Amish, Catholics, or Buddhist’s when it comes to them practicing their religon.

            I don’t agree with about 50-60% of what any of those reliigons preach, but that does not give me the right to suppress their practicing.

            When and if any of their religon promotes violence then natural Law and/or the laws of the state need to be enforced.

            Now making exceptions or arrangements for certain religous practices like prayer rooms or feet washing redeptors at my expense is not going to happen either.

            The Amish have successfully transitioned into our society to the level that they are willing to do so, as have the Jew’s, Catholics, etc, etc. Each of these religon’s have unique practices and rules that society has basically accpeted, and we should do the same for any who want to pursue a life of peace. Peace and peacefull being the key verbs.


    • I think radical Muslims want the war on terror to become a religious war.


      “Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities.”

      I don’t agree with that, blocking streets and sidewalks is illegal. We are promised equal treatment by our laws. Be interesting if a Christian group starts having daily street prayers and is confronted by police. Of course, the SCOTUS could decline to hear the resulting case…

      Prime Minister John Howard – Australia

      Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks,

      ‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

      ‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’

      ‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

      ‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

      ‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’

    • I don’t believe any of this is actually a fight for one religion over another-I think it’s more an attempt to pit one religion against the other. A tool to punish the Christian faith in the short run for daring to support laws which they feel takes away their rights.But in the long run an attempt to take away freedom of religion or just destroy religion all together. It’s also a way to divide us even more. It obviously has nothing to do with equal rights. A lot more to do with an attempt to shut Christians up. Sad part is I think it’s working.

      • I also think it’s about taking an inch, a foot, then a mile as far as we let them. Look at the influence they have in France and the UK. They achieved that success in the same manner. There is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time, if pushed, to push back.

        • The point that draws our thoughts together is that there are different groups working together,even though some may not realize that they are helping the left and the extremists, most are simply trying to use the other to their advantage. But they are not working towards the same end game IMO.

  8. PapaDawg Said:

    Well, how `bout that?!?

    A former U.S. Army Special Forces man has now declared that any and all elections within the borders of the United States of America mean absolutely nothing!

    Thank you USW for your demoralizing declaration. I know that any upcoming young American who will reach voting age by the next election will want to just run out and register to vote after reading your glowing article filled with disdain for the American people of the Christian religions and the American voting process in general.

    Just curious . . . did you bother to vote at all?

    FYI – the system will not get fixed overnight, or by just one election, simply because it did not get broken overnight or by just one election. Stop trying to discourage everyone from voting and start trying to teach them HOW to fix the problem by getting out and voting for what ever it is that they believe in, be it the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green, or whatever political ideal that they think is closest to what they believe in. HINT: No one individual or political party will ever meet anyone’s exact political aspirations, but some may be closer than others.

    But what ever you do, get off this kick about how voting does no good whatsoever!

    Just so you know, that is if you read this this far, I know that is not what you intended this article to imply . . . but from the standpoint of someone who had never read any of your articles before, that is exactly what it sounded like to my ten year old Grandson.

    USW Says…. I will be answering this one Wednesday PD. You are not only wrong, you are way off base in deciphering WHAT I said, let alone taking umbrage with how I said it. You didn’t think I was going to let you get away with this did you? 😉

    • PapaDawg

      A former U.S. Army Special Forces man has now declared that any and all elections within the borders of the United States of America mean absolutely nothing!

      I said no such thing. Where did you come up with such a statement? What I said that the analysis of this particular election, in my opinion, was a net result of nothing. Politically it will do nothing in terms of new legislation offered that will be better for the country. It split power, and will therefore slow government down a little, which I counted as a good thing.

      Thank you USW for your demoralizing declaration. I know that any upcoming young American who will reach voting age by the next election will want to just run out and register to vote after reading your glowing article filled with disdain for the American people of the Christian religions and the American voting process in general.

      I have no disdain for people of the Christian religions. My wife went to a Catholic HS AND Catholic College. If I have disdain for Christians, I am really going to have a problem with her. What I have a problem with, PD, is the belief by Christians or anyone else who think that it is OK to trample the rights of others in order to promote their religion. Every member of Congress can be a practicing Catholic for all I care, so long as they don’t require me to be one or force anyone else to. The religious right in America’s political spectrum are a bunch of hypocritical, pompous, asshats who commonly preach to us about morals and then leave the podium for a date with a hooker and a fifth of Seagram’s VO. But I won’t waste time arguing with you about the religious right. I have written plenty on my issues with them in the past, and given the change in tenor in Washington, I will have plenty of opportunity to do so in the future.

      As for my disdain of the American voting process, you betcha. You decree it good because things went more your way this time but thought the system broken and the American voter clueless a mere two years ago when the same process yielded different results. I have been saying the process is broken for two years on this blog. Did you think I would change my opinion simply because the pendulum swung the other way? That would make me a hypocrite.

      Just curious . . . did you bother to vote at all?

      I did, and I said so in other comments where I was asked. I have not claimed that voting is a waste or that the voting process is a waste. What I have claimed is that the campaigning and gamesmanship of the election process has rendered the process flawed. The results of the last 50 years or so have proven me right. What do you have to offer in the way of proof that the process is not flawed and broken?

      FYI – the system will not get fixed overnight, or by just one election, simply because it did not get broken overnight or by just one election.

      So you now agree with me that the process is broken?

      Stop trying to discourage everyone from voting

      I did no such thing. Nowhere in my article did I say that people should not vote. Have you confused me with BF?

      and start trying to teach them HOW to fix the problem by getting out and voting for what ever it is that they believe in, be it the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green, or whatever political ideal that they think is closest to what they believe in. HINT: No one individual or political party will ever meet anyone’s exact political aspirations, but some may be closer than others.

      I believe that has been my stance from the beginning. Where, in two years worth of articles have I EVER encouraged people to not vote or to not get out and support the principles that they believe in. What I said in my article is that the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats, and thus the results of this election are that the pendulum has swung, but little else has changed. Had there been a change to the House to a third party having power or a change to the majority of incoming Representatives believing that cutting spending and reducing the size of government is good, I would have felt like there were positive steps. Instead we bring a new majority who believes government should grow in different areas and spending should increase in different areas. In other words, the topics will change, but the behavior will not. Hence, the result is NOTHING of consequence for the citizens.

      But what ever you do, get off this kick about how voting does no good whatsoever!

      Again, not sure where I said that or where you are getting it from.

      Just so you know, that is if you read this this far, I know that is not what you intended this article to imply . . . but from the standpoint of someone who had never read any of your articles before, that is exactly what it sounded like to my ten year old Grandson.

      So you are now saying, after all that rant about how I needed to get off the kick of saying don’t vote, that you are well aware that the article I wrote did not intend to tell people not to vote? So I never said don’t vote. And you know I didn’t mean don’t vote. But because your ten year old grandson might DEDUCE that I might mean don’t vote, then that is the message. I am really lost as to how to react to such nonsense.

      As for your grandson, I submit that it is your responsibility to teach him the importance of voting, along with all the other facets of living in America. If you are counting on me to do so, I will only let you down. I don’t trust the education of my son to anyone but me. You wouldn’t trust the Huffington Post to educate him. Why would you depend on my words? I write a blog for people who are politically savvy and interested in honestly discussing the issues. I encourage your grandson to read and discuss whatever he likes, but learn and ask questions, the same as I require of my son.

  9. And so it begins…………… the Obama hidden tax. The health care that the Progs wanted is soon to be here…barring changes. McDonalds, Kaiser, Lockheed, Cargill, ADM are all asking for exemptions to the health care because of the bottom line costs and that without the exemptions, they will just pay the fine and drop all coverage. (GM is already exempt as are all Federal workers.) The government knows that it cannot handle this and will comply. The insurance companies are raising premiums an average of 14%, when we were told it would not happen….the companies are passing it to the employee. In 2017, the Medicaid/Medicare premiums are going to be passed to the States from the Federal Government under a mandate….and the State’s will have to raise the taxes.

    But we can carry our children longer and our premiums are going to go up? We were told it was free….
    But pre-existing conditions can be carried forward and our premiums are going up? We were told it was free….
    But AARP assured the older generation that it would improve but supplemental policies and general policies are going up….

    “Good Morning, I am from the Obama Lemming Assiciation. Please stay in line”

    • http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

      More on what Republicans can do to control Obama care
      While Republicans will try to defund the 150+ new health care regulatory bureaus, there are real limits to what they can do:

      The Republican in line to lead the House Budget Committee acknowledged Sunday that the GOP is unlikely to get a repeal of a Democratic-backed health care law because President Obama can veto it, but said House Republicans will move forward on a vote anyway.

      Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said Republicans have some opportunities to slow the advance of the Democratic plan by defunding actual rollouts, but acknowledged the president would have to sign that legislation.

      Cognizant of missing a presidential signature, Republicans are still looking at court challenges and other congressional maneuvers to stop enactment of elements of the law. . . .

      The NY Times has this:

      But [Republicans] said they hoped to use the power of the purse to challenge main elements of the law, forcing Democrats — especially those in the Senate who will be up for re-election in 2012 — into a series of votes to defend it.

      Republican lawmakers said, for example, that they would propose limiting the money and personnel available to the Internal Revenue Service, so the agency could not aggressively enforce provisions that require people to obtain health insurance and employers to help pay for it. Under the law, individuals and employers who flout the requirements will face tax penalties.

      Moreover, Republican leaders said, they plan to use spending bills to block federal insurance regulations to which they object. And they will try to limit access to government-subsidized private health plans that include coverage of abortion — one of the most contentious issues in Congressional debate over the legislation.

      Those are just a few examples of the ways in which newly empowered House Republicans plan to use spending bills to pressure Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats to accept changes in the law.

      Given their slim majority, Senate Democrats must stick together if they want to avoid sending Mr. Obama spending bills and other legislation that he would feel compelled to veto, setting up the prospect of a broader deadlock and, in an extreme situation, a government shutdown. . . .

      States might also have to get involved because the federal government is imposing such a burden on them. Texas might be leading the way. (Notice the editorializing in what passes as a “news” story in the NY Times.”) This is indeed a tough step, but it shows how really bad the federal system has gotten. Texans would still be forced to pay massive federal Medicaid taxes, but then wouldn’t get any of the benefits.

      Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.

      Far-right conservatives are offering that possibility in impassioned news conferences. Moderate Republicans are studying it behind closed doors. And the party’s advisers on health care policy say it is being discussed more seriously than ever, though they admit it may be as much a huge in-your-face to Washington as anything else.

      “With Obamacare mandates coming down, we have a situation where we cannot reduce benefits or change eligibility” to cut costs, said State Representative Warren Chisum, Republican of Pampa, the veteran conservative lawmaker who recently entered the race for speaker of the House. “This system is bankrupting our state,” he said. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year.”

      The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization, estimates Texas could save $60 billion from 2013 to 2019 by opting out of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, dropping coverage for acute care but continuing to finance long-term care services. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, which has 3.6 million children, people with disabilities and impoverished Texans enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, will release its own study on the effect of ending the state’s participation in the federal match program at some point between now and January. . . .

    • Is this part of healthcare?

      Thomas Sowell
      Politics Versus Gold

      One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to do with sneaking in an extension of the government’s power over gold, in a bill too big for most people to read.

      Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.

      When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat people as easily.

      Read more here:


  10. 🙂

      • Happy Birthday! Thanks you all, for your service and may the Good Lord Bless and keep you.

      • And a big OOORAH! to my son-in-law deployed in Okinawa as we speak. My daughter says they’re partying big time on base in Hawaii. I just booked tickets to go see them both for Xmas!

    • Ohhhh…..ok. The Army says Happy Birthday……………………………………..jar heads.

    • Indeed… salute the Standing Army…

      …keep up the good work….


    • The Marines’ Hymn is a tribute to Warriors. Marine Warriors stormed fortress Derna, raised the American flag, and gave us “the shores of Tripoli.” Marines fought their way into the castle at Chapultepec and gave us the “halls of Montezuma.” Marines exist for the purpose of warfighting. Fighting is their role in life. They “fight for right and freedom” and “to keep our honor clean.” They fight “in the air, on land, and sea.” The Marine Corps is Valhalla for Warriors. U.S. Marines need no song. They have a hymn.
      Ironically, no one knows who wrote the hymn, which was in widespread use by the mid-1800s. Col. A.S. McLemore, USMC, spent several years trying to identify the origin of the tune. In 1878 he told the leader of the Marine Band that the tune had been adopted from the comic opera Genevieve de Barbant, by Jaques Offenback. Yet, others believe the tune originated from a Spanish folk song. Whatever! Regardless of its origin, The Marines’ Hymn has remained a revered icon of the United States Marine Corps for almost 200 years.
      In 1929 The Marines’ Hymn became the official hymn of the Corps. Thirteen years later in November 1942 the Commandant approved a change in the words of the first verse, fourth line. Because of the increasing use of aircraft in the Corps, the words were changed to “In the air, on land, and sea.” No other changes have been made since that time. When you have attained absolute perfection, there is no need for further modification:

      From the Halls of Montezuma,
      To the Shores of Tripoli;
      We fight our country’s battles
      In the air, on land, and sea;
      First to fight for right and freedom
      And to keep our honor clean;
      We are proud to claim the title

      Our flag’s unfurled to every breeze,
      From dawn to setting sun;
      We have fought in every clime and place
      Where we could take a gun;
      In the snow of far off northern lands
      And in sunny tropic scenes;
      You will find us always on the job —

      Here’s health to you and to our Corps
      Which we are proud to serve;
      In many a strife we’ve fought for life
      And never lost our nerve;
      If the Army and the Navy
      Ever look on Heaven’s scenes;
      They will find the streets are guarded

      Sir Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister, became an ardent admirer of the U.S. Marine Corps. In the company of guests of state, he often demonstrated his respect for U.S. Marines by reciting, from memory, all three verses of The Marines’ Hymn.

    • Kathy. Did you see the video where the people were holding up signs saying that Obama was a Keynesian, and all the Obama buttkissers were jumping up and down that the signtoters were still protesting that Obama was really an American, and not a KENYAN?

      Boy, that sure made them look VERY stupid.

  11. Why we shoot deer in the wild (A letter from someone who wants to remain anonymous, who farms, writes well and actually tried this)

    I had this idea that I could rope a deer, put it in a stall, feed it up on corn for a couple of weeks, then kill it and eat it. The first step in this adventure was getting a deer. I figured that, since they congregate at my cattle feeder and do not seem to have much fear of me when we are there (a bold one will sometimes come right up and sniff at the bags of feed while I am in the back of the truck not 4 feet away), it should not be difficult to rope one, get up to it and toss a bag over its head (to calm it down) then hog tie it and transport it home.

    I filled the cattle feeder then hid down at the end with my rope. The cattle, having seen the roping thing before, stayed well back. They were not having any of it. After about 20 minutes, my deer showed up– 3 of them. I picked out a likely looking one, stepped out from the end of the feeder, and threw my rope. The deer just stood there and stared at me. I wrapped the rope around my waist and twisted the end so I would have a good hold.

    The deer still just stood and stared at me, but you could tell it was mildly concerned about the whole rope situation. I took a step towards it, it took a step away. I put a little tension on the rope .., and then received an education. The first thing that I learned is that, while a deer may just stand there looking at you funny while you rope it, they are spurred to action when you start pulling on that rope.

    That deer EXPLODED. The second thing I learned is that pound for pound, a deer is a LOT stronger than a cow or a colt. A cow or a colt in that weight range I could fight down with a rope and with some dignity. A deer– no Chance. That thing ran and bucked and twisted and pulled. There was no controlling it and certainly no getting close to it. As it jerked me off my feet and started dragging me across the ground, it occurred to me that having a deer on a rope was not nearly as good an idea as I had originally imagined. The only upside is that they do not have as much stamina as many other animals.

    A brief 10 minutes later, it was tired and not nearly as quick to jerk me off my feet and drag me when I managed to get up. It took me a few minutes to realize this, since I was mostly blinded by the blood flowing out of the big gash in my head. At that point, I had lost my taste for corn-fed venison. I just wanted to get that devil creature off the end of that rope.

    I figured if I just let it go with the rope hanging around its neck, it would likely die slow and painfully somewhere. At the time, there was no love at all between me and that deer. At that moment, I hated the thing, and I would venture a guess that the feeling was mutual. Despite the gash in my head and the several large knots where I had cleverly
    arrested the deer’s momentum by bracing my head against various large rocks as it dragged me across the ground, I could still think clearly enough to recognize that there was a small chance that I shared some tiny amount of responsibility for the situation we were in. I didn’t want the deer to have to suffer a slow death, so I managed to get it lined back up in between my truck and the feeder – a little trap I had set before hand…kind of like a squeeze chute. I got it to back in there and I started moving up so I could get my rope back.

    Did you know that deer bite?

    They do! I never in a million years would have thought that a deer would bite somebody, so I was very surprised when ….. I reached up there to grab that rope and the deer grabbed hold of my wrist. Now, when a deer bites you, it is not like being bit by a horse where they just bite you and slide off to then let go. A deer bites you and shakes its head–almost like a pit bull. They bite HARD and it hurts.

    The proper thing to do when a deer bites you is probably to freeze and draw back slowly. I tried screaming and shaking instead. My method was ineffective.

    It seems like the deer was biting and shaking for several minutes, but it was likely only several seconds. I, being smarter than a deer (though you may be questioning that claim by now), tricked it. While I kept it busy tearing the tendons out of my right arm, I reached up with my left hand and pulled that rope loose.

    That was when I got my final lesson in deer behavior for the day.

    Deer will strike at you with their front feet. They rear right up on their back feet and strike right about head and shoulder level, and their hooves are surprisingly sharp… I learned a long time ago that, when an animal -like a horse –strikes at you with their hooves and you can’t get away easily, the best thing to do is try to make a loud noise and make an aggressive move towards the animal. This will usually cause them to back down a bit so you can escape.

    This was not a horse. This was a deer, so obviously, such trickery would not work. In the course of a millisecond, I devised a different strategy. I screamed like a woman and tried to turn and run. The reason I had always been told NOT to try to turn and run from a horse that paws at you is that there is a good chance that it will hit you in the back of the head. Deer may not be so different from horses after all, besides being twice as strong
    and 3 times as evil, because the second I turned to run, it hit me right in the back of the head and knocked me down.

    Now, when a deer paws at you and knocks you down, it does not immediately leave I suspect it does not recognize that the danger has passed. What they do instead is paw your back and jump up and down on you while you are laying there crying like a little girl and covering your head.

    I finally managed to crawl under the truck and the deer went away. So now I know why when people go deer hunting they bring a rifle with a scope……to sort of even the odds!!

    All these events are true so help me God… An Educated Farmer

    • LOI

      Great one………..ROTFLMAO….

      Brought back memories of my deer trapping days.

      From experience I can tell you it takes two men and at least one horse if you want to rope a deer without getting killed. Otherwise, two men and a deer trap will work. But it is more risky.

      • Just got a mental picture, young JAC walks into a bar, bruised and bloody. People stare and one asks who he was fighting? No fight, just out deer-roping…..
        Glad you enjoyed.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I had a Mamma Moose put her ears back and come after me one day and my dog drew it away from me and saved me. I can see from that video I would have been in some sorry shape if that Moose had stomped me.. A year before that one of my dogs got stomped by a Moose and broke his back.

      • JAC
        Had an uncle that tried to kill a cornered young deer with a knife, he only made that mistake once. They do bite and those hooves are sharp. He was quite the site when it was all over.

  12. Fox News’s dominance on Election Night was overwhelming. If the competition between Fox, CNN, and MSNBC had instead been an electoral contest, they would have called it 30 seconds after the polls closed.

    The graphic that follows illustrates just how big Fox’s gains were in 2010 compare to 2006, after a mediocre 2006 compared to 2002:

    (Sources: Media Bistro — 2010, 2006)

    Fox had over 60% of the total cable news Election Night audience, and not far from 60% of the 25-54 demographic. CNN’s audience share dropped almost 16 percentage points (over 13 points in the 25-54 demo), while MSNBC’s share dropped by over 7 points (9.5 points in the demo).

    It looks like lots of viewers preferred their election coverage fair and balanced. After some of the Election Night shenanigans reported at NewsBusters relating to MSNBC, I can’t say I blame them.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/11/10/underappreciated-how-thoroughly-fox-news-trounced-cnn-msnbc-election-nig#ixzz14uibUICC

    • Or maybe it just proves how gullible so many people are…

      • Didn’t ABC give Obama an hour to explain his healthcare proposal to America? No one else was allowed to argue the other side of the debate. No one pointed out that Pelosi and Reed wrote the bill, Obama just acted as pitchman. The network even refused advertisements opposing Obamacare!

        Gullible, such an interesting word. At times, it has/does apply to me.
        How about you, Todd? Are you pleased Barney Franks easily won re-election?

        • LOI,
          What does ABC giving Obama an hour to explain his healthcare proposal to America have to do with this?

          If the people of Mass want Barney Frank as their Rep, I believe that is their right.

          What do you think about John Boehner winning re-election and being the next Speaker of the House?

          • ABC news anchors presented it, giving it the appearance of a report or debate. Consider the news media is supposed to remain unbiased in it’s reporting. This was a major issue, and to only present one side shows blatant bias. The networks have been loosing viewers, FOX has been gaining.

            What if the network loss and FOXes gains are a result in trust? People are lazy, don’t want to have to research something to find out the truth. That’s what the news is supposed to do for them.

            On John Boehner winning re-election (would have cheered at 100% election of new members of house)
            and being the next Speaker of the House? (Would prefer others, like Paul Ryan)

            Barney Frank, yes, it’s their right, and I respect that. I do not respect them, though. IMHO, he is the individual most responsible for the financial crisis. He protected Fannie/Freddie, and should have to answer for that. The people who voted for him, I think, must be as corrupt as he is, and I wonder how much pork he buys their loyalty with?
            But hey, that’s just your tax dollars at work…..

  13. November 10, 2010
    Number of bureaucrats making 150K doubles under Obama
    Rick Moran, American Thinker

    It should warm the cockles of all Americans that at least someone is making out like a bandit in this recession.

    Unfortunately, these guys are a large part of the problem:

    The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

    The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut. “It’s stunning when you see what’s happened to federal compensation,” he says. “Every metric shows we’re heading in the wrong direction.”

    National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley counters that the proposed raise “is a modest amount and should be implemented” to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector.

    The hell she says:

    At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

    Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

    You think that union president would know something about compensating bureaucrats. The fact that she doesn’t illustrates why that 10% across the board cut is more than warranted.

  14. What did the Founders mean when they gave Congress the authority to regulate “commerce”.

    What did “commerce” mean to them.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      From Balkin’s writings:

      The most plausible version of orignalism is framework originalism, which views the Constitution as an initial framework for governance that sets politics in motion, and that must be filled out over time through constitutional construction. In implementing the Constitution, later generations must remain faithful to the basic framework, which requires fidelity to original meaning but not the original expected application of the text. This permits a wide range of possible future constitutional constructions that implement the original meaning and that add new institutional structures and political practices not inconsistent with it.

      Framework originalism leaves space for future generations to build out and construct the Constitution-in-practice. Living constitutionalism occupies this space. It explains and justifies the process of constitutional development. Thus, strictly speaking, living constitutionalism is not a theory of constitutional interpretation at all but a theory of constitutional construction.

      • Buck

        I was hoping that would get you out in the open today.

        Problem with Balkin’s theory. It doesn’t allow future generation to do any such thing. What it does is allows Govt to slip the bonds of the Constitution.

        I fail to see how one can be faithful to the original meaning yet not to the original expected application.

        Once we understand what they meant, then we need to understand why they included it. As noted in the article. They placed greater value on FREEDOM and therein lies the rub.

        While I agree that “living consitutionalism” may explain the process of constitutional development, as viewed by the activist mindset, it certainly doesn’t “justify” it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I’m not supporting Balkin in everything he says – just providing some backdrop for his approach and how he reaches the conclusions he does.

          You may have gotten me out in the open, but I’m not taking the debate on this one, at least not today…

    • JAC,
      Why should I, or anyone else, care what a group of men thought 220 years ago?

      Their creation of the Constitution showed a lot of wisdom and thought, but they had their flaws too. I think they knew that, so they created a way to modify the Constitution to fit future changes in the world.

      It is just as amazing that the USA has survived 220 years, despite the many threats – internal and external. I think that shows the collective wisdom of the generations that have followed.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “I think they knew that, so they created a way to modify the Constitution to fit future changes in the world.”

        The proper way to “modify” the constitution is through the ammendmant process NOT by some fruitcake judge’s agenda and imagination, or yours! This country has been slowly destroyed by the mutilation of our original constitution by NOT using the proper process. One warped ruling becomes “precedent” leading to another warped ruling until our constitution isn’t worth used toilet paper anymore. What a disgrace!

        Your post makes my blood boil. My heart rate skyrocketed to about 190.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Once again…there is a huge difference between the amendment process and intepretational theories of the Constitution.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            interpretational ‘theories’ = Lunacy

            • Buck the Wala says:

              How is interpreting the document ‘lunacy’? You interpret things you read everyday.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                ‘theories’ = Lunacy.

                Yes, interpretations are made by us all. Precedent is the problem when errors in USSC rulings (or AGENDA’s) try to ‘modify’ the original meaning of our constitution for all time.

              • I have a couple questions-then I really have to work today 🙂 If the purpose of the Constitution is to limit government power and to protect our freedoms(I’m assuming you agree with this statement)-then what is it under this interpretation theory that the federal government cannot do? and At what point must they actually use the amendment process?

                • A Puritan Descendant says:

                  “(I’m assuming you agree with this statement)”
                  BIG assumption! LOL

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  Amendments are meant for wholesale changes to the constitution.

                  Interpretation is how you apply the text of the constitution to changing facts/circumstances.

                  My favorite example for interpretation, which I have used before, is ‘no cruel and unusual punishment’. What does that mean? Do you believe any and all punishments that were allowed in 18th century America are ok for use today??

                  For other examples – read the constitution and look for the ‘shalls’ and ‘nos’. For instance:

                  “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” You can’t use interpretation to lower this to 21, but you can use an Amendment to change this to 21.

                  • A Puritan Descendant says:

                    The problem is when wholesale changes to the original constitution

                    are made using interprtation and prcedent instead of the amendment process

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Depends on the meaning of ‘wholesale’, now doesn’t it? 🙂

                      Care to provide an example to discuss?

            • Puritan,

              interpretational ‘theories’ = Lunacy

              The Founding Fathers created the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. Is that the “Lunacy” you’re referring too?

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                I am refering to ‘theories’ created out of thin air to subvert our original constitution by people who should have their citizenship stripped for being enemies of the constitution. Especially politicians/judgeswho take an oath to support it. Have a nice day Todd. (Pulse rate now 47).

                • A Puritan Descendant says:

                  Oh, my apologies! The politicians are exempt because they never had time to read the constitution.

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  So now judges should be ‘stripped of their citizenship’ for having a different view of the constitution than your own??

                  • A Puritan Descendant says:

                    Anyone who with a straight face who can say they believe the original constitution and commerce clause, intended for the federal government to be able to force people to buy an insurance product simply because they have the ability to breath, should look into moving to another country more in tune with their desire to live a life of servitude to the state.

                    • Buck the Wala says:

                      Imagine me sitting here with a straight face right now:

                      I believe the provisions of Obama’s health care plan are CONSTITUTIONAL, pursuant to both the commerce clause and tax/spending clause.

                      So what say you? Am I still a US citizen, or should I start packing?

                    • Then there is nothing they can’t do. No right they cannot take. Nothing they cannot force you to do. No loop hole they cannot find to back up what they want to do-and they don’t even have to go through an amendment process to do it. A process which was meant to be hard as a protection against the extreme. As a way to insure that the majority of WE THE PEOPLE agreed to the change. And these things are a CHANGE-not an interpretation.

    • It depends on what your definition of “is” is.

      • Has there been a case that comes to mind in the last decade or so-where they interpreted the Constitutionality of some act -where you personally believe they were interpreting when they should have used the amendment process.

        And do you believe that just because they opened the door to some government intervention means that their power is limitless-Do you not think that the original intent to protect our freedom should be interpreted as limiting that power as much as possible.

        • this was addressed to Buck , Sorry 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Hate to break it to you VH, but I’m for a strong centralized federal government. I’m surprised if that isn’t clear by now.

          There are times where, despite the fact that we are 50 individual states, we have national problems that require national attention. And do you know how I know this? I know this because Florida did not fight the Germans in World War II. (source anyone? Mathius, I’m looking to you on this…)

          In all seriousness though, has the constitution been interepreted too broadly in certain cases, sure. But I don’t think the amendment process should have been used in those cases (changing the constitution ‘wholesale’ would have been a much more disastrous result, and something that would have been much more difficult to overturn).

          • I was aware of that 🙂 What I am trying to determine is whether or not you believe we should even have a Constitution-it seems to me that the interpretation theory combined with the desire for a strong centralized government really means law isn’t important. That we as a people simply look at any problems that arise and determine what we think is the right thing to do to solve the problem. Not based on any specific foundational basis like freedom.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              The foundation lies in the text; I’ve never said otherwise. However, that text is not completely unambigious – reasonable minds will differ. We must interpret that text and apply it to changing facts and circumstances.

              • “The foundation lies in the text;

                What do you mean by this?

                • Buck the Wala says:

                  You and others seem to think that my interpretation hinges on which way the wind is blowing that day.

                  Start with the text of the Constitution – where it is unambiguous, apply the text. (For instance, the age requirements for elected officials)Otherwise, interpret the text and then apply. (For instance, defining cruel and unusual punishment)

                  • No one is saying that interpretation doesn’t play a part-but by foundation-I am talking overall intent of all the relevant founding documents.If you want to dissect every word of the constitution as a means of doing what you want to, while ignoring this basic foundational(individual freedoms) principal. You are not interpreting you are looking for loop holes.

                    I’ve gotta get back to work-will check in later. 🙂

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Buck, over here. Wholesale and ‘modify’ 🙂 Example?: The commerce clause as to Obamacare. But now we are back to where this began so I will let others discuss it. 🙂

    • One thing to consider – the Founding Father’s originally create the USA thru the Articles of Confederation. That didn’t work because the Federal Government didn’t have enough power, so they recreated it with the Constitution.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Fine, just don’t give it any more meaning than what they spelled out. Gotta work today. Have a nice day.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Down here Buck,

      Buck says

      “Imagine me sitting here with a straight face right now:

      I believe the provisions of Obama’s health care plan are CONSTITUTIONAL, pursuant to both the commerce clause and tax/spending clause.

      So what say you? Am I still a US citizen, or should I start packing?”

      If you believe that was the original intent than I will either buy your ticket or pay for your re-education camp here at freedom orchard, .

      If you think it is ok to build rulings on erroneous precedent rulings than I just feel sorry for you and all the rest of us who will suffer because of it.

      If you are just saying that, because you are an enemy of the original constitution, then I would have to look for treson charges aginst you.

      Presidents take an oath to defend the country against enemies of the constitution foreign and domestic. Too bad it it just lip service.

      Later, lunch is over.

      • Puritan,
        Your attitude of “my way or the highway” doesn’t really sound like “freedom” to me…

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Todd, I am sri if I came across that way. One of my smilies didn’t come through 🙂 I have an old keyboard here.

          Our original constitution helps protect our freedoms. Those who wish to subvert it for any reason are the true enemies of freedom for others and themselves.

          I get your drift and I am certain you and Buck get mine. No need to ‘debate’ it any further. I am not practicing for the boobie prize for schools match wit.

          Later, I do appreciate your input!

    • So LOI, has Obama screwed the Navy up just as bad as the rest of the US? 😉

      A Chinese sub might get off the first shot, but diesel subs need to spend a lot of time on the surface with their diesel engines running to recharge their batteries. If the US Navy was actively hunting these subs, I think they’d be easy pickings…

      I’m guessing too many participants were caught up in the “games” part of “war games”, and not looking for real threats.

      • Todd,

        I don’t see Obama having anything to do with the Navy’s readiness. I will credit him for not backing down after all China’s protests. He has the authority to cancel war games.

        My understanding on diesel/electrics, they can be very tough to track, especially if hampered with overconfidence. I only saw this one report, and hoped others might have more info. Also consider, the navy might have been tracking, but would not reveal such information.

        Better to look weak to the public than reveal true tech superiority.

        • LOI,
          I’m curious if you noticed the date on this article?

        • LOI,

          I will credit him for not backing down after all China’s protests. He has the authority to cancel war games.

          I’m confused – what are you giving Obama credit for?

          This incident happened in October of 2007

          • Todd,

            My bad, did not notice the date. Still find it interesting and wonder if it is true. I give credit to Obama for not caving into China’s pressure on our conducting war games with S. Korea.

  15. The United Nations got it half right…..denied Iran’s bid for the Women’s Right Council….but let in Saudi Arabia. Go figure.

  16. D13,
    I saw your comments in the previous blog about the accidental missile firing off California. Everyone is now saying it was an airplane, but I think that’s laughable. I’ve never seen a commercial airplane that has a glowing engine and a single contrail. All big jets leave the 2 or 4 line contrail, and if the contrail is that obvious, you can usually see the jet just in front of it.

    Also, if it was a level flight of a jet coming at the camera, it would have eventually gotten closer to the camera, which it doesn’t. I’ve seen “weird” contrails many times, but after a minute or two the jet creating it becomes obvious. This one doesn’t. And if it was a commercial jet, the FAA should be able to explain exactly which flight caused it.

    I think it was either an accidental launch, or a test of a new military missile or plane – maybe that “space plane” they launched in April and reportedly returned to earth last month…

    Have you heard anything new about it?

    • Todd,

      There is already documentation it was a missle test.

      Here is the NOTAM

      <i?.From page 55.
      1400Z TO 2359Z AND 0001Z TO 0200Z DAILY MONDAY THRU FRIDAY


    • Hi Todd….given my first view of it…..and since I have personally seen dozens of them……I am under no illusion. I still have the wherewithall to check things out with NORAD and since I am a private Pilot, I checked out what is called NOTAMS and AIRMETS……none were mentioned….however, when flying over restricted areas, all pilots know that when it says MOA Operational and gives times and altitudes for it…..be careful. YOu never know what is going to go in front of you around you or through you. Unless the area is posted restricted, a pilot can fly over it….at their own risk. If it is restricted….don’t go there (lest you find yourself escorted by faster flying planes with a whole lot of bullets).

      It was a missile….as to a test or accidental…..if it was accidental…it will be a test. 🙂

      Oh…it was not a black ops operation…that is fear mongering by both medias.

  17. To all Veterans and families of Veterans,,,,from a Veteran: Today is one of rememberance and honor. Thank you for your sacrifice and your honor. There is no greater honor than serving under our Flag. Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.


    • My thanks also, the example you set is what keeps America great.

      For those who don’t know, Marines have long celebrated our founding on November 10th 1775 at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia where a committee of the Continental Congress met to draft a resolution calling for two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and shore. Furthermore, Samuel Nicholas was appointed the first Commandant and Robert Mullan (owner of Tun Tavern) was commissioned as a Captain and the first recruiter – that’s right the guy selling the beer also sold potential recruits on the benefits of the Corps!

      Throughout the years since our founding, Marines have celebrated the birthday of the Corps. In 1925 the first formal Birthday Ball was held in Philadelphia and many of the traditions now celebrated were instituted. However, given the nature of our jobs it not uncommon for Marines to celebrate down range and in harms way without the pageantry and gentile company that garrison life affords.

      One such birthday celebration occurred on November 10th 2004, the Second Battle of Fallujah known as Operation Phantom Fury had started just three days prior as Marines stepped across the line of departure into a heavily defended urban hell that was Fallujah. As Marines engaged in some of the most ferocious close quarters combat in the history of the Corps, a surreal but very poignant moment played out. This same moment has repeated on countless battlefields throughout the years in places such as Tripoli, Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe San, Mogadishu, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

      In the midst of the din of battle as AK-47’s & RPG’s impacted all around a pinned down platoon of Marine grunts, a battle weary Sgt turned to his platoon and said with a wry grin: “Hey devil dogs, it’s November 10th, Happy Birthday”! The Marines responded with a short sharp vigorous Marine Corps growl “ooh rah” and returned to the task at hand– killing hajis!

      A few hours passed and a lull in the fighting prompted a young private to ask: “Hey Sgt, where’s my birthday cake?” The resourceful Marine NCO rummaged through his kit and MRE where he found a packet of pound cake, peanut butter spread, and an unfiltered Marlboro. The Sgt used these ingredients to create a field expedient Marine Corps birthday cake complete with a candle (the Marlboro) that would have made Chesty Puller proud.

      Next the Sgt called his platoon to gather around the cake where he stated: “We may be far from home, fighting for our lives in this godforsaken city with drug crazed hajis all around us shouting “Allahu Akhbar”. We may be low on ammunition, food, and water. We have neither slept nor bathed in a week. But do not despair Marines, for we have our history and each other. The hippies sitting back at home may question our sanity for pausing in the middle of a battle to celebrate our Corps’ birthday – forgive them their ignorance, for they do not know that our history, traditions and symbols are what gird us for battle and give us the strength to fight harder and longer than our enemy ever will.”

      The Sgt. cut two pieces of cake and gave them to the oldest and youngest Marines in the group, then as he passed the rest of pound cake amongst his Marines he said “I don’t know what the Commandant’s Birthday Message was, but I do know that our celebration of the Corps birthday on this day is what being a Marine is all about – Semper Fi Marines!”

      No matter where you are today, whether it is in the ballroom of the Ritz Carlton (gotta be an officer’s ball) or in an LP/OP in some remote mountain pass in the Hindu Kush, take a moment to reflect on the history of our Corps and the brothers and sisters you call Marine, for these are truly the things worth celebrating.

      Check out this piece at the Heritage Foundation for more on the Corps’s glorious history.

      Many thanks to BKeyser and all other vets here at NB – Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Guardsmen – for their selfless service to our nation.

      Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2010/11/10/open-thread-happy-birthday-marines#ixzz14ywWhn6p

    • My thanks go out also to all our veterans here on SUFA – those that are proud of their service and those that aren’t!

      You have my utmost respect.

    • Twenty-five years ago President Ronald Reagan honored our heroes on Veteran’s Day at Arlington National Cemetery. The words our president spoke on that day are more poignant than ever.

      …the living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that led to the wars in which our heroes died. Perhaps we can start by remembering this: that all of those who died for us and our country were, in one way or another, victims of a peace process that failed; victims of a decision to forget certain things; to forget, for instance, that the surest way to keep a peace going is to stay strong. Weakness, after all, is a temptation — it tempts the pugnacious to assert themselves — but strength is a declaration that cannot be misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares actions have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the belligerent that aggression need not go unanswered.

      Peace fails when we forget what we stand for. It fails when we forget that our Republic is based on firm principles, principles that have real meaning, that with them, we are the last, best hope of man on Earth; without them, we’re little more than the crust of a continent. Peace also fails when we forget to bring to the bargaining table God’s first intellectual gift to man: common sense. Common sense gives us a realistic knowledge of human beings and how they think, how they live in the world, what motivates them. Common sense tells us that man has magic in him, but also clay. Common sense can tell the difference between right and wrong. Common sense forgives error, but it always recognizes it to be error first.

      We endanger the peace and confuse all issues when we obscure the truth; when we refuse to name an act for what it is; when we refuse to see the obvious and seek safety in Almighty. Peace is only maintained and won by those who have clear eyes and brave minds. Peace is imperiled when we forget to try for agreements and settlements and treaties; when we forget to hold out our hands and strive; when we forget that God gave us talents to use in securing the ends He desires. Peace fails when we forget that agreements, once made, cannot be broken without a price.

      Each new day carries within it the potential for breakthroughs, for progress. Each new day bursts with possibilities. And so, hope is realistic and despair a pointless little sin. And peace fails when we forget to pray to the source of all peace and life and happiness. I think sometimes of General Matthew Ridgeway, who, the night before D-day, tossed sleepless on his cot and talked to the Lord and listened for the promise that God made to Joshua: “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

      We’re surrounded today by the dead of our wars. We owe them a debt we can never repay. All we can do is remember them and what they did and why they had to be brave for us. All we can do is try to see that other young men never have to join them. Today, as never before, we must pledge to remember the things that will continue the peace. Today, as never before, we must pray for God’s help in broadening and deepening the peace we enjoy. Let us pray for freedom and justice and a more stable world. And let us make a compact today with the dead, a promise in the words for which General Ridgeway listened, “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

      In memory of those who gave the last full measure of devotion, may our efforts to achieve lasting peace gain strength. And through whatever coincidence or accident of timing, I tell you that a week from now when I am some thousands of miles away, believe me, the memory and the importance of this day will be in the forefront of my mind and in my heart.

      Thank you. God bless you all, and God bless America.

  18. Tried on NORMAL this morning but that didn’t fit, so i had to settle for WACKO..wish I had that HUG MYSELF jacket to go with it. 🙂

  19. 11/10/2010 from John Lott

    UK government ties work directly to welfare benefits
    The British are clearly going in the opposite direction from us.

    The government unveiled a radical shake-up of the welfare state Thursday, saying it would withhold benefit payments for up to three years from those who refuse to take jobs.
    Prime Minister David Cameron’s government wants to introduce a sliding scale of penalties for those who either decline a job offer, fail to apply for a job they are advised to or do not turn up for mandatory four-week work placements.
    The weekly 65 pound unemployment benefit will be withheld for three months from those who violate any of the three conditions.
    That would rise to six months for a second violation and three years for a third, aides said.
    The announcement came as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith prepared to give details of the universal credit, a single welfare payment which officials say will simplify the current complex benefits system and make two and a half million people better off.
    Cameron’s coalition government, which took power in May, describes the plans as the most radical since the wide-ranging welfare state was put in place just after World War II.
    Welfare now accounts for roughly a third of government spending. . . .

  20. November 11th, 397AD

    Ceaser ordered an attack on the Gauls for failure to pay a tribute.

    A half-Christian, and Officer under Ceaser was in turmoil. How could he follow the Prince of Peace while obeying the State to kill?

    Waiting in the night for the orders that would come tomorrow, he received a sign…a beggar came by….

    And the Officer remembered that Jesus said to give your tunic to him who asked – but still, those night watches can be cold. SO as he was split between Jesus and the State, so he only gave him half his cloak to the beggar, and kept half for himself.

    The night wore on, and his act disturbed him.

    He had only done half a duty to both his masters. He had a dream, and it was Jesus speaking to the angels: “Here he is, the Roman soldier who is not baptized; but he has clad Me.”

    No more half-measures and half cloaks!

    Martin ran for the nearest priest and proclaimed his faith.

    And no more Roman soldier.

    He informed his superiors of his new faith, his new life, his new everything and requested a discharge: for a Christian could have no part in this fight of Caesar.

    They said he was a coward – for Martin spoke on the eve of battle.

    No man likes to be thought a coward so he volunteered to be set weaponless at the front of the battle and take his chances with the grace of God and the steel of Gauls.

    But the high command would have none of that – bad for morale. So he was sent off to a jail cell.

    And then they let him go.

    What could they do?

    To kill him would only have made him a martyr – and Caesar was learning that the blood of martyrs was the seed of yet more.

    Keep him in jail? He would just preach to others – he would be the very opposite of a force multiplier of the State.

    Thus, the life of St. Martin of Tours, Confessor, founder of orders, preacher of the cross – a life he was ready to lay down on November 11, 397 – a life that beggar Christ has promised will be restored to him when all earthly kingdoms are swept away.

    That is the November 11th that needs to be honored, and not those that kept their cloak, discarded their oath to God, and kept their oath to the murderous State.

    • You make some relevant points in your arguments against government and the military. But your continued judgemental condemnation of everyone who made a choice different than yours is wrong. So please take that plank out of your own eye. They are not wrong for serving their country and anyone who doesn’t serve because it goes against their principals are not cowards. I for one am not going to respond to anymore of these statements today. Have a good day-I must work-your friend V

      • V.H.

        I did not call them cowards.

        A man cannot be for Peace and for War.

        Pick one, but if the one picked is War you cannot claim to be a Christian.

        The euphemism of “serving their country” is sickening.

        They served not the country.
        The country did not benefit, it lost – it lost their sons and it lost their freedom.

        The government won, and thus, that is who they were serving.

  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    I would like to thank all Veterans here for their service to our country. Even you Flag whether you like it or not, you still served.

    Hope you all have a great day.

    Take Care as always.


    • Judy,

      It is not a matter of service, it is the matter of importance of one’s principles.

      I was lucky that I got to leave before I had to kill for the State.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I understand that Flag, and I understand how you feel also, but, I just wanted to thank all those who did. It’s just my way of showing my gratitude.

        • Judy,

          You can thank whomever for whatever.

          For me, the world would be a far better place if they had stayed home.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Maybe you’re right Flag, but, there will always be a military, and I don’t believe it will ever be disbanded either. But, I don’t understand why you have to be so cynical to those who have served, are serving now, and will serve in the future. Why you think they’re all so violent against others. What about when Japan invaded us? What were we suppose to do, just stand by and not doing anything?

            I know and understand you want peace around the world, who doesn’t, but you got to know deep down, there never will be. There will always be those who will wage war against someone somewhere.

            • Judy,

              First, Japan did not invade “us” nor the USA.

              FDR placed an oil embargo on Japan – an act of war – to force Japan to launch an attack in response.

              FDR wanted war – and used Japan to get it.

              “Cynical”? No, aware.

              Since 1789, the only government on earth that has had the power to crush the American people’s liberties across the board has been the government of the United States.

              Neither Kaiser Wilhelm’s forces nor Hitler’s — and certainly not Japan’s — had the capacity to deprive Americans of their liberties, ‘take over the country,’ ‘destroy our way of life,’ or do anything of the sort.

              The Spanish American War – America’s first real international war after the War between the States – was directly caused by President Munroe’s doctrine of commanding the America’s.

              It was a purposeful made-for-newspaper war. It was instigated to seize Puerto Rico, Cuba, Panama, Guam, Midway and the Philippines.

              The Filipino’s fought on the side of the US because of the promise of independence, but as soon as the war was over with Spain, US turned Philippines into a US territory – and the locals erupted in a guerrilla war against the US.

              The US response was brutalization of the population by the US Marines and the slaughter of the locals – a million dead. The start of the Empire.

              The mercantilists took over, and the US seized the independent islands of Hawaii.

              WW1 -the next step to Empire- gave us universal slavehood to the State – income tax.

              WW2 – the next step to Empire – gave us Socialism and wholesale Government intervention into industry and production – and internment camps..

              Every war since has expanded the US empire and shrunk your freedom. It continues unabated.

              Indeed, there are those who will wage war against someone – and the US is right up front near the top of that group.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Flag, I’m not here to argue with you or have any dragged out fights either. I may not have participated much here lately either, but I do read a long when I can, but, I get the sense that no matter what anybody seems to do or say, you think there’s always violence behind it, and that’s not always the case here, all I was doing was just giving my thanks to those here who served.

              • As usual, you tell one half of the story…..our embargo did not start the war with Japan….just a catalyst.

      • All war must be just the killing of strangers against whom you feel no personal animosity; strangers whom, in other circumstances, you would help if you found them in trouble, and who would help you if you needed it.

        Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.

        He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind.

        He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out…and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.

        ..And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man”–with his mouth.

        – Mark Twain

      • O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them!

        With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

        O Lord our God,
        help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells;
        help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead;
        help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain;
        help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire;
        help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief;
        help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst,
        sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter,
        broken in spirit,
        worn with travail,
        imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-

        for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord,
        blast their hopes,
        blight their lives,
        protract their bitter pilgrimage,
        make heavy their steps,
        water their way with their tears,
        stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

        We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.


  22. Earmark bans are the talk right now. Here is a look at one view:


    • Kathy, Good find!

      4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark

      Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.

      Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”

      Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.

      Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

      Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.

      Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?

    • I’ve been saying this since I started posting on SUFA! See JAC! I told you I’m a step ahead of you! 🙂

  23. Bottom Line says:

    To volunteer, to join the military, is a selfless act stating you’re willing to risk your life to protect the land you call home,as well as the lands of those in need of defensive helping hand. It is an act worthy of the respect and honor given on days like today.

    Unfortunately, the powers to be have distorted such an honorable thing as to confuse defense with imperialism, taking away from the prestige that was once associated with the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Happy Veterans Day.

  24. The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

    In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

    “The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.

    The six-month ban on offshore drilling installed in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill became a major political issue over the summer, as Gulf State lawmakers and industry groups charged the White House with unfairly threatening thousands of jobs. House Republicans have said they plan on investigating the circumstances surrounding the moratorium when they take power next year.

    Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and several other Gulf State members of Congress asked the Interior IG to investigate the moratorium and the peer review claim.

    “The inspector general’s finding that the blanket-drilling moratorium was driven by politics and not by science is bitter news for families who, because of it, lost their jobs, savings, and way of life,” Cassidy said Tuesday. “Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology. If that were true, at least 12,000 jobs and 1.8 billion dollars of economic activity would have been saved on the Gulf Coast.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44921.html#ixzz1503I5AVm

  25. Buck the Wala said
    Hate to break it to you VH, but I’m for a strong centralized federal government. I’m surprised if that isn’t clear by now.

    I know that you are but everything I read purports that the founders intended for a small Federal Government. Such as:

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
    Federalist No. 45
    James Madison

    Madison (he should know) clearly states that the Federal Government is responsible for “external objects” and even ties taxation with foreign commerce. He then states that all things involving the citizens are reserved to the states. We surely have come a long ways from that. I, for one prefer Madison’s take on how government should operate.
    Back later.

  26. One of the greatest anti-war speeches
    Americanization of Emily, 1964

    I don’t trust people who make bitter reflections about war, Mrs. Barham.

    It’s always the generals with the bloodiest records who are the first to shout what a Hell it is.

    And it’s always the widows who lead the Memorial Day parades … we shall never end wars, Mrs. Barham, by blaming it on ministers and generals or warmongering imperialists or all the other banal bogies.

    It’s the rest of us who build statues to those generals and name boulevards after those ministers; the rest of us who make heroes of our dead and shrines of our battlefields.

    We wear our widows’ weeds like nuns and perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.

    My brother died at Anzio – an everyday soldier’s death, no special heroism involved. They buried what pieces they found of him. But my mother insists he died a brave death and pretends to be very proud.

    Mrs. Barham: You’re very hard on your mother. It seems a harmless enough pretense to me.

    Charlie: No, Mrs. Barham.

    No, you see, now my other brother can’t wait to reach enlistment age. That’ll be in September.

    May be ministers and generals who blunder us into wars, but the least the rest of us can do is to resist honoring the institution.

    What has my mother got for pretending bravery was admirable? She’s under constant sedation and terrified she may wake up one morning and find her last son has run off to be brave.

    • There are others who think the same as you Flagster (not me). You might also like “Lives in the Balance”.

      • Yes LOI, there are some.

        Just not many.

        Thus war continues onward, unabated.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Let me ask you something Flag. What do you think about those Westboro church group that goes to military funerals holding signs up that says, THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS, OR GOD HATES FAGS, not to mention other signs they hold up when they protest these funerals. Yes, I know, freedom of speech, but don’t you think that’s going a little too far? Don’t you think these families have the right to be left alone and not to have to deal with the likes of them? Or, do you agree with them? Just wondering.

          • Judy,

            I do not agree with them.

            Attacking the survivors of the dead does not bring back the dead or stop the killing – it is too late. Their protests -literally- fall upon deaf ears.

            They should be marching outside of US military bases and harassing living solider and their families – for those are the only ones who can stop pulling the trigger and stop obeying evil orders.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              So, I guess they should be at my house protesting me, because my own 2 son’s are in then, right. That’s what I’m hearing you say.

              • That is what it will take to stop war – the mother’s refusing to send their son’s to war or celebrate their sons killing and dying for it.

                • Judy Sabatini says:

                  Flag, I didn’t send them, they volunteered for service, just like with all our men and women, and yes, my youngest was in Iraq, twice, seen what war can do, but we know/knew that he might not have come back, fortunately he did. And I’ll tell you another thing, I’m damn proud of both my son’s for going in,they said it was the best thing they did too. I’m proud of my father for serving in WWII along with his brother, I’m proud of my brother for going in, my cousin, I can go on, but I won’t. I think you get the picture.

                  I’m sorry you feel the way you do about our military, really I am, and I know there’s nothing anybody can say that will ever, ever change your mind about the way you feel, and I wouldn’t even try, that’s just who you are.

                  I have a lot of admiration for you Flag, and I have learned a great deal from you in the past, and there have been several things I have agreed with you on, but not this, not this time. I don’t understand how someone can say their patriotic and yet say these things, really I don’t.

                  • Judy,

                    I would fight hard to convince my daughter to never join.

                    To join means you may, one day, kill innocent people at the beckoning of the State.

                    Killing innocent people is not Patriotism. Killing those that have done you no harm is not Patriotism.

                    All war is the machinations of the State.

                    All war is fought by People.

                    When the People refuse war, war will end.

                    As long as People are proud of war, war will never end.

                  • Judy…..haven’t you earned by now that talking to BF about the military is fruitless…you will never convince him of anything. It is not worth the effort. He has no concept of Patriotism other than from an anarchist point of view…..but that is an anarchist…they call themselves patriots because they stand against all form of government.

                    So, go outside and find an oak tree and talk to it. It will listen and not try to fill you with clap trap of anarchy. In his mind and some of the books he reads ( I have read some of the ones that he has mentioned ) there is no way but his way. He is intelligent in some areas but where the military is concerned and this country…..he hates them both. My recommendation…..read history but dont go back 200 years….go back two thousand years…..the United States is a piker compared the hedgmonic exapnsion and violence of other countries. We rate a dismal 4th. Well, behind his precious Persia (who was more into slavery and violence and killing children than any country out there)….he wishes to limit it to 200 years…hell, we are a neophyte compared to Persia, China, Rome, England..and even pacifist India. Read some history. This world is rough and tough and it is NOT the doing of the United States…it is just our turn and we will learn and we have been more successful but we have made our fair share of mistakes and bad decisions. We will make more. The secret is to learn.

                    So, from this Colonel to you and your sons….you have raised them right and you shoud be proud….I am proud of them.

                    Col D

                • Will the terrorist mothers be stopping their sons soon? The latest violence in Iraq in a Catholic church, is that supposed to make us think their is no need for police and soldiers?

                  And why did Hitler invade Russia?(if you justify his other aggressions) As long as there are those willing to use force, there needs to be some willing to stand against them.

                  • LOI,

                    Yes, they will when the US stops killing their children, husbands and sons.

                    Justify aggression? No. He had reasons -going back to WW1- they were not actions in a vacuum.

                    Stand against those that attack you – but to attack others under lies and deception???

        • “Tom Sawyer”

          A modern day warrior
          Mean, mean stride
          Today’s Tom Sawyer
          Mean, mean pride

          Though his mind is not for rent
          Don’t put him down as arrogant
          His reserve, a quiet defense
          Riding out the day’s events
          The river

          What you say about his company
          Is what you say about society
          Catch the mist, catch the myth
          Catch the mystery, catch the drift

          The world is, the world is
          Love and life are deep
          Maybe as his skies are wide

          Today’s Tom Sawyer
          He gets high on you
          And the space he invades
          He gets by on you

          No his mind is not for rent
          To any god or government
          Always hopeful, yet discontent
          He knows changes aren’t permanent
          But change is

          What you say about his company
          Is what you say about society
          Catch the witness, catch the wit
          Catch the spirit, catch the spit

          The world is, the world is
          Love and life are deep
          Maybe as his eyes are wide

          Exit the warrior
          Today’s Tom Sawyer
          He gets high on you
          And the energy you trade
          He gets right on to the friction of the day

      • Don’t remember that one. Read the lyrics for For America, Lives in the Balance, and I’m a Patriot..All three apply to BF.

  27. On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs – Dave Grossman
    By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing.”

    Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? – William J. Bennett – in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

    One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

    “Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

    Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

    I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

    “Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

    “Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

    If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

    Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools.

    But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

    The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

    Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

    Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

    The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

    Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

    Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

    Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

    There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

    Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

    Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes, business people and parents. — from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

    There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. – Edmund Burke

    Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

    If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

    For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

    I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

    Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

    Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”

    It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

    Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn’t bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

    Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: “…denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.”

    Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

    And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself…


    This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

    • When People are deceived by those that claim to protect them, but exist to subvert them, the People are doomed.

      They are not the sheep dog.

      There are not wolves waiting to eat you.

      There are evil men who will use your fear to enslave you.

      • Sorry Flag,

        But I think LTC Grossman win’s the debate on this.
        Anyone want to vote?
        For Flag______

        • Long live the SHEEPDOGS! I sleep soundly at night because they have my back. Thanks to every sheepdog past and present.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          Sri Flag, I go with the sheepdog. Just had another Maremma sheepdog flown in from out of state. I even named him “Mohawk”, named after one of my non-Puritan ancestors from upstate New York.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:

    And what about all those who want to kill Americans just because they don’t like Americans? Or them blowing up trains, subways, buses, airplanes, buildings, or what have you, but not just in this country, but other countries as well, like Britain, or Italy, or France?

    • Judy

      There is no such thing as those that want to kill Americans because they don’t like Americans.

      The Americans are under attack because of American ACTIONS, and if America was not in 170 countries, bombing and killing thousands of people in dozens of those countries, then America would not be a target, either.

      If you look at the action of these nations, you will see the cause of the violent response against them….

      People do not attack powerful nations just because … they have no reason.

      They have reasons – compelling reasons – and the ignorance of the People is knowing these reasons will most certainly cause a continuation of the violence.

  29. BF, I’ve gained the impression you are anti-American, ready to blame the ills of the world on America for the past 200 years of this nation’s existence. So I’m curious, do you find anything positive about America?

    • Plainly,

      Hegemonic Theory (which I believe I am the original theorist) says that the Hegemony acts, the weaker powers react.

      Thus, the action of the US creates consequences that the rest of world reacts to.

      So if the US invades a region, the region reacts.

      No weaker power will ever invade the hegemony, thus no weaker power has ever invaded the US.

      Positive? Tons and lots! It’s a great country with good people.

      But the positive does not blind me to the consequences that its evil actions create.

      • Interesting theory. I’m intrigued.

        If I may ask – are you saying then (for example) that the attack upon the World Trade Towers was the consequence of some US action?

        Also, I’ve read the ideas of not doing violence to another and that defending yourself from the violence of another is not itself violence and well within your own rights to do. But tell me if I – with this simple example – understand this correctly.

        Person A walks up and begins punching Person B in the face. I get it that while this occurs any physical response from Person B is acceptable (and is not violence). Now, Person B gets no chance to respond po the attack and after several punches Person A turns and starts walking away. If Person B reacts to the attack at this point in time is Person B then the one committing violence against Person A (giving Person A the right to physically defend him/herself)?

        • Plainly,

          If I may ask – are you saying then (for example) that the attack upon the World Trade Towers was the consequence of some US action?

          Considering I believe the US government was, in some direct way, a co-actor in the event – then yes!

          But I know what you are asking.

          And, yes.

          American involvement in the Middle East. No action against the atrocities in Lebanon by Israel in Sabra, etc. …Unilateral support of Israel regardless of its horrific human rights record and active blocking of the plight of the Palestinians….

          Also, I’ve read the ideas of not doing violence to another and that defending yourself from the violence of another is not itself violence and well within your own rights to do.

          Darn sure is violence to defend yourself! It’s not a waltz!

          The difference:
          initiation of violence=evil

          defense from initiation of violence=Human Right

          Person A walks up and begins punching Person B in the face. I get it that while this occurs any physical response from Person B is acceptable (and is not violence).

          It IS violence, but as a RESPONSE to the initiation of violence.

          Now, Person B gets no chance to respond po the attack and after several punches Person A turns and starts walking away. If Person B reacts to the attack at this point in time is Person B then the one committing violence against Person A (giving Person A the right to physically defend him/herself)?

          Correct. It’s no longer “defense” but revenge

          That does not mean you do not have a Right to Compensation or Redress of his assault – but that calculation must be done without a calculation of revenge

          Some basics;

          • Thanks, I’ll do some reading at tolfa – and I’ve read Kent’s posting on zap (with interest).

            I understand that a person would still have rights to compensation or redress but at the moment I would like to stick to discussing whether the act is evil or a human right.

            But, if I may – then with initiation of violence being evil, was the attacks on the WTC an evil act since those in the planes and towers had not initiated acts of violence against the hijackers/terrorists?

            • Plainly

              whether the act is evil or a human right.


              …remembering that the situation does change with time…

              But, if I may – then with initiation of violence being evil, was the attacks on the WTC an evil act since those in the planes and towers had not initiated acts of violence against the hijackers/terrorists?


              • So then, would it be correct to say that while you have strong stances in support of (for example) Palestinians you are not supporting or condoning any evil act of violence that is committed against Israelis anymore than you condone Israeli evil acts of violence against Palestinians?

    • Plainly,

      Here is a good answer


  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    Here Flag read and watch these.


  31. Bottom Line says:

    I just realized that I have been posting as “Botoom Line”

    I just got a laptop and I’m not quite used to this keyboard.


%d bloggers like this: