It Couldn’t Be Because You Suck….

Another day, another claim from a Democrat that opposition to someone is surely based on the fact that they are not white. Eric Holder, embattled Attorney General, gave an interview to the New York Times. I read the interview and was utterly shocked (sarcasm mode activated) to find that he believes the criticism of his actions while Attorney General are based on the fact that he is black. I don’t want to make this about Democrats and Republicans, but this has been, overwhelmingly, a tactic employed by the Obama administration and the Democrats over and over again throughout the last three years. And it isn’t going to stop until they face the backlash that they should face for it.

To be fair, Holder didn’t claim race was the factor for all his critics. He merely said that it was the motivating factor for the “extreme” ones. Of course, according to the Obama administration, nearly anyone opposed to their agenda is considered “extreme.” Veterans returning from combat, Tea Party protestors, GOP candidates and members of Congress, they have all been called extreme by the left. So I guess Holder only thinks GOP folks, returning veterans, and Tea Party members are racist. The rest of the country is fine, except the ones who are not smart enough to not be “tricked” into agreeing with those extremists.

I have news for you, Mr. Holder. The reason people have been so critical of you is because you are a liar, you use the office you hold as a political weapon, and you generally suck as the Attorney General.

Let’s start with Fast and Furious. We all know the deal here. Anyone who claims that the Attorney General didn’t know what was going on is either lying to themselves or has an IQ somewhere in the double digits coupled with a complete lack of understanding of how things work. That doesn’t mean that he knew every detail, but he was aware of the program. No program like that could exist without his approval. If it did, then he is incompetent and shouldn’t be in the office in the first place. And for him to go in front of the country and claim that he wasn’t aware is a blatant lie that most of us have the ability to see right through.

Then there are the plethora of lawsuits brought forth from his office standing in the way of states enforcing immigration laws on the premise that they are the federal government’s domain, while simultaneously refusing to enforce the federal laws that you claim trump the state’s action. Here’s the deal: If you don’t like the laws then go to Congress and have them changed. But you don’t get to just ignore them. That isn’t how the law works. This radical idea that as Attorney General, you get to pick and choose which laws you enforce and which ones you blatantly ignore is downright criminal. There are lots of laws I don’t like. If I was President, I would work to have them repealed.

The only thing that is worse than the Attorney General refusing to enforce federal law while refusing to allow states to act in their own interests, is this ridiculous fascination that the left has with painting all immigration law as overtly racist and meant to allow racial profiling. If you are foreign and cannot speak english, I don’t think it is a stretch to ask to see some form of proof that you are here legally. It isn’t racism, it is common sense, something people in the political spectrum, politicians and media folks alike, both seem to have skipped school the day they issued it.

And let’s not forget the blatant attempt on election day by the Black Panthers to intimidate voters. Despite the obvious guilt, the Attorney General decided not to prosecute. That one still just sits with me in a very wrong way.

But this is about more than just the Attorney General making yet another claim of racism. This is about the fact that the left in America (and I am sorry to paint it as one side, but let’s face facts, the right doesn’t use this “racism” tactic very often) has resorted to claiming racism on every single issue where they are losing the debate. I mean the list is endless…

  • Katrina wasn’t about FEMA’s incompetence, it was that George Bush hates black people.
  • Arizona wasn’t trying to protect its citizens and solve its problems, they hate Mexicans.
  • A verbally abusive and arrogant professor wasn’t arrested for being so, he was arrested because he was black.
  • The birther madness wasn’t about a President proving he is qualified to hold the office, it was racism.
  • 20 years listening to a man that says “God Damn America?” If you have a problem with it you are a racist.
  • Opposed to the President’s Supreme Court selections? You are racist AND hate women.
  • Fed up with high taxes and big government? Join the racist Tea Party.
  • Heck even at SUFA, support capitalism or the founding fathers? Then you hate native Americans and want to return to slavery.

This is nothing but a diversionary tactic employed by those who cannot win the debates on the merits of their position. Emotional rhetoric is a staple of politics (on both sides), and it is a horrible development. It shows the shallowness of the person using the tactics position. If you want a proper gauge of the strength of a person’s position, you merely need to clock how quickly these emotional ploys are employed. The earlier they are employed, the weaker the argument of the employer.

The emotional ploys need to stop. But even more important, we need to all agree to condemn these constant claims of racism where they don’t belong. They are the most disgusting form of political tactic that can be used. Sadly, they are also some of the most effective. Besides the fact that they are baseless and desperate, they delegitimize the claims made when actual racism occurs. When every argument ends up with someone being called a racist, the claim begins to lose its power. Then when it is really occurring, many people will simply tune out the second the word racist is mentioned. You can only cry wolf so many times.

The reality is that there are racists in America. However, the election of Barack Obama, despite the claims to the contrary, completely debunks the claim that it is rampant in America. You can’t get over half the vote in the country if the majority of people are racists. Millions and millions of white people voted for Obama, and they didn’t do it out of “white guilt”. They did it because they didn’t care about the color of his skin. They cared about what his positions were.

And millions of people voted against Barack Obama. The vast majority of them voted that way not because of the color of his skin, but because they don’t believe that his vision for America is a healthy one. I am one of those people. I have never been a racist. I just think the left’s plan for America is horrendous. But I am sure tired of being labeled a racist because I don’t believe in his vision. I am tired of being told I support slavery because I happen to think that at its core, the Constitution was a good attempt at creating a great societal set-up.

If you are one of those employing the race card during political discourse, stop it. It makes you a douchebag. And worse, it makes you a very large part of the problem when it comes to race relations in America.

Further, it makes it so that when the wolves really do come, I won’t be there to help defend you.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. But then no Tea Partiers or R’s or I’s can even respond loud or hard enough because the lefties refuse to hear it!

    Welcome home USW. I, for one, have missed reading your writing

  2. USW

    Back with a flourish I see.

    Very clever, working in the hating Indians and supporting slavery.

    I’m going now, cause I can hear the sharks coming and I detect a USW that is loaded for bear.

    I don’t want to get caught between you and them.

    Hope you and yours had a wonderful Christmas.
    JAC

  3. 8)

  4. 😐

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂

  6. Katrina wasn’t about FEMA’s incompetence, it was that George Bush hates black people.
    Actually, I think it was about George Bush’s incompetence doubled down by FEMA (and his “Heck of a Job, Brownie” appointment to head FEMA). The fact provisions weren’t rushed to the disaster fast enough certainly leave the administration at the time open to claims of racism (would those in Malibu have had the same type of problem?). But I’m one who believes the politicians on sight were most to blame–for not demanding people leave and for not providing them with the means to leave (both Dems, I believe — the Governor and Mayor).
    Arizona wasn’t trying to protect its citizens and solve its problems, they hate Mexicans.
    Not familiar enough with Arizona vs. Mexico but if you brought it up, there’s probably a valid argument from the left.
    A verbally abusive and arrogant professor wasn’t arrested for being so, he was arrested because he was black.
    As it turned out, apparently so. I mean, it was the man’s house he was “breaking into.”
    The birther madness wasn’t about a President proving he is qualified to hold the office, it was racism.
    I don’t know how you justify the birther movement … then again, you’re pretty consistent at justifying nonsense such as this. Did anyone “really” believe a sitting U.S. Senator in this day and age wasn’t a U.S. citizen (or that the Democrats would leave themselves that open to attack)?
    20 years listening to a man that says “God Damn America?” If you have a problem with it you are a racist.
    Assuming he listened to the man saying “God Damn America” for 20 years, what’s the problem? The man was making some pretty valid points about America. Are you suggesting we censor him?
    Opposed to the President’s Supreme Court selections? You are racist AND hate women.
    Sometimes, when the shoe fits …
    Fed up with high taxes and big government? Join the racist Tea Party.
    I think that association has more to do with some of the misspelled signs depicting Obama in white face, etc.; it certainly lent a racist taint.
    Heck even at SUFA, support capitalism or the founding fathers? Then you hate native Americans and want to return to slavery.
    Only when you’re half as insouciant as some here at SUFA are about it. And I’m very comfortable with the full insouciance routine being defined as racist, but what do I know, I’m just another SAGE. I mean, if it walks like a duck and quacks like one, I take it to a Chinese restaurant and order Peking Duck.

    If you want a proper gauge of the strength of a person’s position, you merely need to clock how quickly these emotional ploys are employed. The earlier they are employed, the weaker the argument of the employer.

    Does talking to someone as they are passing through a locker room count?

    You can’t get over half the vote in the country if the majority of people are racists.
    Sure you can. Some blacks voted for Obama because he is half-black just as some whites voted against him for the same reason. Racism works both ways … you tend to point at it when it serves your purpose (your words: “and I am sorry to paint it as one side, but let’s face facts, the right doesn’t use this “racism” tactic very often”) … to which I say, Herman Cain. When it suits the right’s purpose, it is used just as quickly.

    I am tired of being told I support slavery because I happen to think that at its core, the Constitution was a good attempt at creating a great societal set-up.

    Talk about emotional pleas … I don’t think anybody accused you of being a racist, USW, but I (for one) sure wonder how anyone (you included) can brush off with such apparent nonchalance how and what happened to both American Natives and slaves while simultaneously lauding the efforts of the Founding Fathers. To say the founding fathers were concerned with building a nation/forming a government and that’s why they didn’t abolish slavery is very white of those proposing the argument, but it doesn’t change the fact that the founding fathers were at best nazi’s who thought other peoples were below them or the fact that expansion across America came at the cost of native Americans who have never once have had a treaty honored. To ignore the fact rich white men were the ones who did the “creating of a great societal set-up” at the expense of everyone else is pretty carefree as well.

    Anyway, it’s good to have you back.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “Opposed to the President’s Supreme Court selections? You are racist AND hate women.
      Sometimes, when the shoe fits …”

      Weakest argument I have yet seen on SUFA! Gold star for that one, it made my day!

      • Ah, Peter, still upset over your coltless?

        The SAGE wears gold … why have it any other way?

        By exclusion, I guess you agree with the rest of’em. Good boy.

  7. Hey, speaking of Native Americans … we have a blurb from Ward Churchill on the next book … make sure you order 10 each when it becomes available … my characters attack both sides of the American political scene in this one … and both arguments are very valid. You’ll definitely want to spend your hard earned dollars reading the SAGE’s fiction …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/12/rough-riders-cover.html

  8. On Jeremiah Wright: Pretty good credentials, you ask me … all that military service, for instance.

    From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University,[2] in Richmond and is a member of Omega Psi Phi fraternity, Zeta chapter. In 1961 Wright left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.[11][12] Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.[13][14][15]

    In 1967 Wright enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he earned a bachelor’s degree in 1968 and a master’s degree in English in 1969. He also earned a master’s degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School.[11] Wright holds a Doctor of Ministry degree (1990) from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he studied under Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr.[16]

    The fact Ron Paul says essentially the same thing about 9-11 … America’s chickens came home to roost (getting involved in areas we don’t belong is what led to terrorist attacks, I don’t see how you ignore that). He no doubt spoke without a filter, but it’s certainly no less offensive than what some of the GOP presidential candidates have been quoted as saying (or ignoring in their newsletters 20 years ago) …

    Maybe it’s the way Wright espoused his argument that bothers many but what he said does have quite a bit of substance.

  9. And stop raping our culture, yous capitalists!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      How does one “rape” culture? I wasn’t aware that culture had any orifices into which one could stick…

      Oh well, you get the point! 🙂

  10. The Hazards of Being a Wal-Mart Greeter
    December 26, 2011 6:29 P.M.
    By Nancy French
    Today, I read this story about how a belligerent customer (who was not a cop, as previously reported here) punched a 70-year-old Wal-Mart greeter in the face when the employee asked her to see her receipt on her way out of the store.

    It reminded me of one harried day I was in Wal-Mart while my husband was in Iraq. I’ll go ahead and admit that it wasn’t one of my best moments. I’d stopped by the store to get some organizational bins so I could make my house more orderly, lost track of time while shopping, and realized I was already late to pick up the kids.

    Hurriedly, I scooted past the elderly greeter, who stopped me.

    “Ma’am,” she said. “I need to see your receipt.”

    I later learned that if one of your items was not in a bag, they’re instructed to stop you to check. Since I had a gigantic bin, she stopped me. She was just doing her job.

    Of course, I didn’t see it that way. I saw it as further proof that I’d lost control of my life. I’d just purchased the bin 20 seconds ago, but I’m not the type of person who sticks her receipt in a certain compartment in my purse in case I need to return it later. I never return it later. To return a defective item would require more organization than I have the power to muster. So when a cashier hands me a receipt, I crinkle it up, stick it in a pocket, or use it to get rid of my stale Doublemint.

    “Do you really think I stole this?” I asked, rudely. I must start brushing my hair and matching my clothes, I thought. I envisioned the kids sitting in after-school care wondering why I wasn’t showing up. All of the indignities and difficulties of the deployment seemed to rear their head right there in the entrance of Wal-Mart. “I just bought it at that register. You saw me!”

    The older lady looked at me. She’d probably seen a lot of inconsiderate, selfish people like me over the course of the day. Then, she did something that completely shocked me.

    “I love you, honey,” she said. “Everything’s going to be all right.”

    Perhaps she could see that I was about to lose it right there. Maybe she could tell there was more going on with me than simply not knowing where I stuck that receipt. But right there in the door of Wal-Mart in Columbia, Tenn., the greeter embraced me. I literally cried right there in her arms. It was one of those moments during the year that defined the deployment for me, a stranger showing kindness in spite of my own inadequacies.

    I boo-hooed for probably a minute or two right there in her arms, and she didn’t say a word. I never explained that my husband was in Iraq, that I feared for his safety, or that I felt as if I wasn’t doing a good job of mothering my two kids while he was away.

    And when I was done, I wiped my eyes and found my receipt. It was wadded up in my pocket.

    She grabbed it, looked over it, glanced at my cart, and sent me on my way. Just an average day in the life of a Wal-Mart greeter, I suppose. But it still sticks with me, more than four years later.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front

  11. Could someone -Please define “White” for me.

    DECEMBER 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    Diversity, Inc.
    “Diversity” places appearances above “the content of our character.”

    ‘Affirmative action” was the logical sequel to the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s. The initial reasoning was attractive enough. New guarantees of equality of opportunity were insufficient to achieve the promised social parity, given the legacy of slavery and the existence of ongoing racial bias. Therefore, to counteract the effects of historical discrimination, the race of individuals must be weighed into contemporary hiring and admissions practices. The key was to avoid the word “quota.” That did not sound very “affirmative” for a program that supposedly was about growing (or “enriching”) the pie, not a crass zero-sum game of taking a college spot or a job from one person and giving it to another on the basis of race.

    Second, although slavery was confined to the Confederacy, there was the general assumption that, as blacks in the postbellum era had migrated northward, they were subjected to all sorts of bias, and so the recompense was to be a national, not just a southern, obligation.

    Third, it was soon clear that all sorts of groups other than blacks could lodge historical claims against the supposedly dominant “white” culture. Soon Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians likewise petitioned for inclusion in set-aside and compensatory programs. The subtext was that these groups, given racial bias, would not intermarry and assimilate as quickly or to the same degree, and would not do as well economically, as had other terribly persecuted minorities like Jews, Italians, and the Irish, who after decades of discrimination seemingly had morphed into the so-called white majority.
    As these original victimized groups experienced success (though at differing rates), and as a legion of other cadres sought inclusion in the preference industries, “affirmative action” insidiously was replaced by a new euphemism, “diversity” — which apparently denoted that almost anyone who was not a white male heterosexual Christian could qualify for preference on the basis of “difference.”

    A university, for example, might highlight its “rich diversity” by pointing to gay students, female students, Punjabi students, Arab students, Korean students, and disabled students — even should they all come from quite affluent families and backgrounds. Key here was that “diversity” was admittedly cosmetic, or at least mostly to be distinguishable by the eye — skin color, gender, etc. — rather than internal and predicated on differences in political ideology or values. A Brown or an Amherst worried not at all that its classes included very few Mormons, libertarians, or ROTC candidates; instead, if the students looked diverse, but held identical political and social views, then in fact they were diverse.

    But as we near a half-century of racial preferences, the entire industry is now obsolete, as illiberal as it is counterproductive. Quite simply, there were inherent flaws in affirmative action/diversity that were never addressed. And they now have come back to haunt the entire experiment as something as corrupt and unworkable as our far briefer trial with Prohibition. Here are five good reasons to dismantle the Diversity Industry, and simply attempt to judge Americans on the “content of our character” rather than by the way we look.

    1. Who is a minority? There were never clear, established rules for racial set-asides. To make such rules would by definition require some sort of racial-purity protocols, whose history, whether in the antebellum South or National Socialist Germany, has been frightening. But America is still the melting pot where intermarriage and assimilation continue — far more so than the during the 1960s, when quotas were being established. Thus, are Barack Obama’s children (of one-half African-American, one-fourth Kenyan, and one-fourth white heritage) “black”? Who is Mexican-American? Does one qualify by having a half-Mexican-American father, which ensures a one-quarter-Mexican racial line and a Hispanic last name?

    Our universities today are full of Spanish and Latin American elite academics, whose accented last names have allowed them to piggy-back onto the Mexican-American experience. Africans and Caribbeans can claim victimized affinities to American-born blacks, a leap that supposedly translates into an instant shared heritage of centuries of suffering in America and thus the need for redress. If Barack Obama — the son of two academics and himself a middle-class prep-schooler — qualified for affirmative action at Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard, it was apparently only on the logic that he was to the eye indistinguishable from American blacks, and therefore he must have suffered ongoing racial prejudice in the 1970s and 1980s that deserved official redress. Yet it is hard to accept that the racial bias of 1990 was analogous to that of 1965, or that it always trumps other considerations of culture and habit. But to keep this obsession with racial pedigrees going, either we will have to become entirely cynical and allow that the affluent suburbanite with the Cherokee grandmother really is “Native American,” or we will have to establish clear-cut blood laws and hire federal genealogists. And to apply economic litmus tests for affirmative action is taboo: for to admit that many minorities do well in America and do not need preferences is to suggest that race itself does not predetermine one’s fate.

    2. Who was victimized? The industry could never quite decide what constituted grounds for favoritism. In 1970, African-Americans might legitimately make the claim that the heritage of slavery and Jim Crow, and ongoing prejudice north of the Mason-Dixon line, made their struggle for equality almost impossible without government help. But do second-generation dark-skinned Pakistanis, first-generation immigrants from Barbados, or Palestinians on student visas qualify for government preferences? In racial terms, one group can be darker than another, and receive no help: but if an Egyptian is not a beneficiary of affirmative action, does that mean racial prejudice no longer exists? Is it the supposed present or past bias that counts — or both? Does an illegal alien of 17 — a Mexican national named Raúl Martínez, who crossed the border in 2009 — qualify on the basis that he looks like a Mexican-American and has an Hispanic surname — and thus can plead that traditional discrimination against Mexican-Americans was immediately turned against him, and to such a degree that he needs government preference? Again, any discussion of culture also became forbidden, as race trumped all: Did racial prejudice alone, rather than patterns of marriage, child-raising, and parental involvement, result in differing rates of success between Korean-Americans and African-Americans? Why on a per capita basis are Punjabi immigrants or Armenian-Americans wealthier than whites of Dust Bowl heritages in Tulare County, given that the latter supposedly enjoy insidious advantages based on their race?
    3. Who needs help? There was always the sneaking suspicion that affirmative action was based not just on historical claims but on present performance levels — or at least sort of. In theory, Chinese-Americans or Japanese-Americans could claim a toxic collective prejudice that matches anything turned against blacks, Native Americans, or Mexican-Americans, given immigration exclusion laws, zoning prejudices, and internment. But at some magical moment, suddenly “Asian” was no longer grounds for redress, but rather a reason for discrimination. We see this clearly in the University of California system, and especially at the flagship Berkeley campus, where the GPA and SAT scores of Asian students have to be higher than those of their black or Hispanic counterparts for them to gain admission.

    As “affirmative action” transmogrified into “diversity,” and Asians became “overrepresented” on some campuses, universities stealthily began discriminating against them — almost as if to say, “Yes, your Japanese grandmother was put into a camp during World War II, but obviously that trauma, or lingering anti-Asian discrimination, did not haunt you at all, given your 4.0 GPA and your 1,500 SAT score, so therefore we see no need to offer you an advantage.” Or is it worse still?: “Obviously such past bias not only did not hurt you but also did not hurt thousands like you, who outperform others and therefore must be collectively curtailed in order to allow space for others.” But note here that success must be collective: The children of elite suburban African-Americans and Mexican-Americans still do benefit from affirmative action, on the logic that the barrio and the ghetto are still with us in a manner that sweatshops and internment camps are not.

    4. Who must be diverse? Affirmative action and diversity were never applied uniformly throughout the economy, and for two reasons. It was apparently one thing for an ascendant dean to insist on a diverse Department of Sociology, but quite another for an airline executive to insist that his 747 pilots reflect the ethnic makeup of the United States, or that neurosurgery departments be subject to court-imposed rulings that would ensure that brain surgeons reflect a diverse profile. No one complained that the NBA and NFL employed blacks in vastly disproportionate fashion (79 percent and 65 percent, respectively), or suggested that each team should have quotas for whites and Asians commensurate with their numbers in the general population. Merit, then, was considered vital for some jobs — where lives depended on racially blind proven skill and experience, or where vast sums of money were involved — but not so for others, where, at least in the short term, qualifications need not hinge on “constructed” norms.

    Second, elite whites never saw much contradiction in using their status, influence, and capital to ensure that their own were not subject to tougher standards. If a university was devoted to the idea that historically oppressed groups deserve special consideration, and that as a result some white (and now Asian) students would have to step aside, it was also equally devoted to the archaic and illiberal notion that money and contacts still trumped such considerations. A university provost can preach at noon about his record in improving diversity, and at dinner promise a big donor his child will be admitted to the university, even if his grades and test scores might not be competitive in the new diverse atmosphere. If there were to be losers in the race industry, it would be mostly the white clingers of the middle class (and now Asians), who lacked both the correct color and influential parents.
    5. Who can control us all? Once the government insisted on proportional representation, there really was no limit to extending that logic. But do we really wish for a Ministry of Diversity that will begin to ask all sorts of repugnant questions? After all, in 2011, professional sports teams are not very diverse. The Postal Service, with its coveted benefits, has a disproportionate number of African-American employees. Women are vastly overrepresented as K–8 teachers, and they graduate from college at disproportionately high rates compared to their male counterparts. We have not had a white-male secretary of state in 15 years. The Latino community in California still refers to itself as a “minority,” even though it is now the largest so-called ethnic group in the state, where there is no longer any majority. Are we to worry that combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq fell on the “white” community in numbers disproportionate to those in both the U.S. military and the general population? Once one goes down this odious “disproportionate” path of an illiberal sectarianism, the road gets increasingly bleak.

    I note superficially that here in central California optometrists and dentists seem overwhelming to be Asian; owners of small quick-stop stores seem disproportionately to be Punjabi or Pakistani; the lucrative raisin-packing industry is still inordinately controlled by Armenian-Americans. Dry cleaners and donut shops don’t seem very diversely operated. The employees at the DMV seem largely Latino. Do we wish to live in a society that makes such observations and in response takes steps to racially tinker? Because if we do, the future will not be a multiracial population bound by a common culture and swirling continuously in a melting pot, but something akin to the Balkans, Iraq, or Rwanda, where our appearances and self-claimed identities are essential, not incidental, to our characters — a nightmare of endless competitive claims that can only end in violence and chaos.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286695/diversity-inc-victor-davis-hanson?pg=3

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The left apparently seems to think that the definition of “white” is anyone who axiomatically hates anyone who isn’t “white” and systematically and purposefully discriminates against and attempts to enslave anyone who isn’t “white”. Basically, the assumption is that all “whites” are subliminally, secretly, or overtly Nazis, and support Hitler’s Arian Master Race theory. Fortunately, “liberal” “whites” actually realize this, and so they constantly self-flagellate, and find other ways to punish themselves for believing these things which they know to be evil. They also seek to make laws and rules to flagellate and punish all other “whites” who either secretly or overtly believe these evil things, but are too unenlightened to either realize it or admit it. This, they call “social justice”.

      Question of the day: how much of this post is sarcasm?

  12. During two days of recent congressional hearings into how as much as $1.2 billion disappeared from MF Global customer accounts, the chief operating officer of the imploding investment firm responded again and again that he did not know.

    Yet as the House and Senate interrogated Bradley I. Abelow and other top executives at MF Global Holdings Ltd., lawmakers did not mention Mr. Abelow’s role as a financial adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency, which as of Tuesday listed him as the chairman of its financial advisory board.

    Even as he finds himself the public face of a bankruptcy and admitted to lawmakers that he had no idea how client funds disappeared, Congress and the administration have voiced no public concern about Mr. Abelow’s role advising the $8.6 billion government agency on its finances.

    “EPA relying on Wall Street for financial guidance is like the blind leading the blind,” said Jeff Ruch, president of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in Washington.

    “In Abelow, you have a Wall Street executive who just presided over the disappearance of $1 billion in investor funds purporting to help guide federal infrastructure financing.”

    The EPA did not respond to multiple messages concerning Mr. Abelow’s status with the board, though the EPA’s website still reports that he is its chairman and notes his job at MF Global.

    When first questioned about Mr. Abelow’s ties to the EPA in early November, just after MF Global declared bankruptcy, EPA officials issued a short statement saying only that he was appointed as chairman of the board on March 10, 2010, and that he is not paid for his position.

    Officials declined to say whether they were reviewing his continued service for the board.

  13. Now, 91 congressmen have ‘no confidence’ in Holder or believe he should quit

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/20/now-90-congressmen-have-no-confidence-in-holder-or-believe-he-should-quit/#ixzz1hq7zjTix

    • gmanfortruth says:

      And a couple hundred million Americans have “no confidence” in Congress or the idiot in the White house.

    • He’s Obama’s firewall and they will fight like crazy to keep him there. They cannot allow full exposure of all that is Obama and it will be ugly.

      • Carry over:

        JAC
        Re: Commerce Clause

        Reviewing your post and your reference, I can say that your expert (and subsequently you) are wrong.

        A couple of points:
        (1) For your case to hold, it equally must hold that the Founders do not understand the difference between Legislation and Regulation

        But these two concepts have not changed over the last 1,000 years.

        These concepts were identical to them as they are to you.

        For these men – some of the most brilliant legal minds of their era – to be confused over these terms is preposterous.

        The 4,400 words of the Constitution that defines the foundation of the State of America is succinct. Every word was precisely chosen and not haphazardly applied.

        Had they wanted to use “legislation”, that is the word they would have used.

        But they did not.

        They used the word “regulation” – they did not do so by accident. It was purposeful and poignant.

        (2)
        Further reading of the supporting documentation regarding this clause demonstrates that your reading is in err.

        First to note, there was no disagreement. It is interesting that all the parties of the Convention held no disagreement at all to this clause.

        In fact, this clause is a carry-over from the foundational document – the Articles of Confederation, paragraph 4. – which dictates that trade between the States shall not be inhibited to the benefit of a citizen of one State over the benefit of a citizen of a different State.

        The purpose of the clause was to ensure fair trade within the United States. The Federal government regulates the laws of the States made to govern the trade of that State between other States

        So some examples to clarify:

        1). JAC of Montana sells is products to Buck of New York, but refuses to sell to D13 of Texas.
        The clause has no effect. The clause specifically applies to trade of the State, not that of citizens and individuals. JAC can chose who, and who not, and what terms he sells his product, within his State and to other citizens of the US regardless of their State of residence.

        2). Montana enacts a law that prohibits JAC from selling his product to D13 of Texas, but allows its sale to Buck of New York.
        Here, the clause come into effect. The Federal government now has its Constitutional right to regulate the Montana law in any manner it sees fit. The intention was that the Fed would regulate the law so that D13 is allowed to purchase from JAC under the same law that allows Buck to buy.

        3) Texas enacts a law that prohibits JAC’s products from any State, and from its own citizens.
        Here, the clause comes into effect. The Feds can produce regulation in any manner it sees fit to consistently apply Texas State law as it relates to other States. In this case, the intent was the Fed would enforce Texas’ law and prevent such goods from entering Texas from any other State – as it applies to its own citizens as it applies to other States citizens as well.

        Now, my conclusions of the action of the Federals is mine – nowhere in the Constitution does it define what regulation nor its application – that was left open ended.

        But what is clear – the Feds are prohibited (ie: not explicitly granted) from MAKING Law – they are tasked with making REGULATIONS based on the legislation of the States themselves.

        Therefore, for your case to be true, the Founders must be legally incompetent and careless and that the Articles of Confederation was not the foundation of the Constitution.

        I cannot find that either, let alone both, of these requirements to be true.

        Ref: The text of the 4th Paragraph of the Articles

        The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

        • Update to Commerce Clause discussion:

          he Founders must be legally incompetent and careless

          hahahahah … right… the Founders are legally incompetent and must be institutionalized in a mental hospital!

          What I meant was that the Founders must have been incompetent with their understanding of law to mistaken regulation/legislation … not that there were nitwits!

    • Holder Plays the Race Card
      December 19, 2011 1:05 P.M.
      By Victor Davis Hanson
      “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately . . . Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

      The more Attorney General Eric Holder proved contradictory in his recent statements about his knowledge of Fast and Furious, the more I expected that at some point, to save his tenure, he would play the race card. Apparently, he just has.

      By any fair token, Holder has received far less media and partisan hostility than his predecessors John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales; but I say that we should have known he would revert to racial victimization in lieu of a candid and logical explanation of the disasters under his watch (e.g., the proposed KSM trial, the misguided efforts to close Guantanamo, the suing of states over immigration law). Careerist racial chauvinism has aways been the attorney general’s modus operandi — referring to African-Americans as “my people” when he shot back at those bewildered by his special treatment of the Black Panther voter-intimidation case, smearing the country at large as “cowards” because they apparently do not choose to view contemporary racial tensions through the particular prisms favored by Holder for most of his career, and, more recently, turning on a media critic with a paranoid conspiratorial outburst: “You guys need to — you need to stop this. It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

      Now, in extremis, when a growing chorus wants him gone, we get this from Holder about his legislative critics: “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him. Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

      What would have happened had John Ashcroft shown dismay at the furor directed at him from the liberal community by suggesting he was a surrogate target of George Bush, given their common racial identity? And would the logical antithesis of Holder’s charge be that congressional investigative bodies should not, given Holder’s racial identity, be outraged that a branch of the Department of Justice was selling automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels that led to the death of several, among them U.S. agents, and should not worry that it cannot get a consistent, logical, and candid explanation from the Attorney General?

      Holder should have resigned weeks ago, but at least he serves as a portent of what we can expect in the national dialogue of 2012.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286206/holder-plays-race-card-victor-davis-hanson

  14. OK, I will admit it…I am a racist.

    Those people who milk the welfare system and teach their kids, all 7 or 8 of them, how to also milk the welfare system. Those worthless pukes that work the medical system to obtain some kind of disability when they are fully capable of working. The idiots that whine about their kids being “special” and therefore require additional government support, or that the reason they are doing poorly in school is because the teacher doesn’t like them. How about those militant groups that try to enforce their political perspective via threats and intimidation. I really despise those that claim we are screwing up the planets environment by using regular light bulbs. How about those stupid shits that form community organizations allegedly designed to assist individuals obtain housing or some other form of government handout, while skimming funds. How about the morons in public office that insisted that poorer folks should own homes that they couldn’t afford.

    I really hate the non-representing representatives that sponsor laws that limit my Constitutional rights while providing unconstitutional rights to those that scream they are being oppressed because they are less fortunate than me.

    I am really fed up with the morons that keep telling us that Communism, Socialism and Fascism are sound and righteous forms of government and that Capitalism is a form of slavery.

    And I really don’t appreciate the shitbags that scream they are oppressed and that I am a rasist any time I disagree with their pathetic excuse for not at least attempting to pull their own asses up by the boot straps

    Now for those of you out there that believe I am representing a particular race, well you are right. It is a race of ASSHOLES and they are made up of every skin color known to man.

    I don’t care if you are white, black, yellow, red, brown or martian green, if you think this world owes you a living, a house, a job, an education, a fair share of my hard earned dollars, a car, a TV or a vacation in Vegas, and believe the government should steal from me to provide it then you fall into the catigory of ASSHOLE and I am a racist towards ASSHOLES.

    CM

  15. I have to ask-is racism really our problem anymore-or is the accusations of racism Mostly just a useful tool to justify the unjustifiable.

    DECEMBER 21, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    A Vandalized Valley
    While the elites make excuses, citizens cope with theft and destruction.

    I am starting to feel as if I am living in a Vandal state, perhaps on the frontier near Carthage around a.d. 530, or in a beleaguered Rome in 455. Here are some updates from the rural area surrounding my farm, taken from about a 30-mile radius. In this take, I am not so much interested in chronicling the flotsam and jetsam as in fathoming whether there is some ideology that drives it.

    Last week an ancestral rural school near the Kings River had its large bronze bell stolen. I think it dated from 1911. I have driven by it about 100 times in the 42 years since I got my first license. The bell had endured all those years. Where it is now I don’t know. Does someone just cut up a beautifully crafted bell in some chop yard in rural Fresno County, without a worry about who forged it or why — or why others for a century until now enjoyed its presence?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    The city of Fresno is now under siege. Hundreds of street lights are out, their copper wire stripped away. In desperation, workers are now cementing the bases of all the poles — as if the original steel access doors were not necessary to service the wiring. How sad the synergy! Since darkness begets crime, the thieves achieve a twofer: The more copper they steal, the easier under cover of spreading night it is to steal more. Yet do thieves themselves at home with their wives and children not sometimes appreciate light in the darkness? Do they vandalize the street lights in front of their own homes?
    In a small town two miles away, the thefts now sound like something out of Edward Gibbon’s bleaker chapters — or maybe George Miller’s Road Warrior, or the Hughes brothers’ more recent The Book of Eli. Hundreds of bronze commemorative plaques were ripped off my town’s public buildings (and with them all record of our ancestors’ public-spiritedness). I guess that is our version of Trotskyization.

    The Catholic church was just looted (again) of its bronze and silver icons. Manhole covers are missing (some of the town’s own maintenance staff were arrested for this theft, no less!). The Little League clubhouse was ransacked of its equipment.

    In short, all the stuff of civilization — municipal buildings, education, religion, transportation, recreation — seems under assault in the last year by the contemporary forces of barbarism. After several thefts of mail, I ordered a fortified, armored mailbox. I was ecstatic when I saw the fabricator’s Internet ad: On the video, someone with an AK-47 emptied a clip into it; the mail inside was untouched. I gleefully said to myself: “That’s the one for me.” And it has been so far. But I wonder: Do the thieves not like to get their own mail? Do their children not play Little League? Do they not want a priest at their funeral? Would they not like to drive their cars without worrying about holes in the street? Or is their thinking that a rich society can cover for their crimes without their crimes’ ever much affecting them — given that most others still do not act as they do?

    I know it is popular to suggest that as we reach our sixties, everything seems “worse,” and, like Horace’s laudatores temporis acti, we damn the present in comparison to the past. Sorry, it just isn’t so. In 1961, 1971, and 1981, city street lights were not systematically de-wired. And the fact that plaques and bells of a century’s pedigree were just now looted attests that they all survived the Great Depression, the punks of the 1950s, and the crime-ridden 1970s.

    A couple now in their early 90s lives about three miles away from me on their small farm. I have known them for 50 years; he went to high school with my mother, and she was my Cub Scout leader. They now live alone and have recently been robbed nine, yes, nine, times. He told me he is thinking of putting a sign out at the entrance to his driveway: “Go away! Nothing left! You’ve already taken everything we have.” Would their robbers appreciate someone else doing that to their own grandparents? Do the vandals have locks on their own doors against other vandals?

    There is indeed something of the Dark Ages about all this. In the vast rural expanse between the Sierras and the Coast Ranges, and from Sacramento to Bakersfield, our rural homes are like stray sheep outside the herd, without whatever protection is offered by the density of a town. When we leave for a trip or just go into town, the predators swarm.

    Last summer several cars drove into my driveway, the surprised occupants ready with all sorts of innocent-sounding inquiries: “We just are looking for a rental.” “Do you have scrap for sale?” “We’re having car trouble.” And so on.
    All this serves as a sort of red/green traffic light: If someone comes out from the house, the driver poses the question and then abruptly leaves; but if no one appears, he strikes quickly. I remember three or four intruders I confronted this year who had trucks as nice as or nicer than my 2006 Toyota. Two had sports apparel more expensive than my jeans and sweatshirt. All were heavier than I. In other words, malnourishment, the desire for basic transportation, the need for clothing on their backs — all the classically cited catalysts for stealing — are not what is driving these modern vandals.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    At a local gathering last week, lots of farmers — of a variety of races and religions — were swapping just such stories. In our new Vandal state, one successful theft begets another — at least once deterrence is lost. In my case, one night an old boat in the barn was stripped. Soon, the storage house was hit. Ten days later, all the antique bolts and square nails were taken from the shop. Usually — as is true with the street lights — the damage to the buildings is greater than the value of the missing items. I would have given the thieves all the lost items rather than have had to fix broken locks and doors.
    I just spoke with another group of farmers at a rural fairground. Every single person I talked to has had the copper wire ripped out of his agricultural pumps within the last two years. The conduits taken from my own 15-horsepower and 10-horsepower pumps were worth about $200 at most. The repair bill was $1,500.

    Most farmers have lost any steel or iron lying around their barnyards, whether their grandparents’ iron wagon hardware or valuable replacement furrowers and discs. Stories of refuse piled in their vineyards and wrecked cars fished out of their orchards are monotonous. Did the thieves never eat raisins, a peach, an almond? And did they not appreciate that if we did what they did we would all starve?

    As I write, I am looking out the window toward my barn at a strange new trash pile that, presto, appeared overnight while I slept: all the accouterments of an old car — seats, dashboard, outside moldings, etc. — are heaped together, along with household garbage. What am I to do with it? I can’t burn it. (Believe me, an environmental officer would appear out of nowhere at the rising of the toxic smoke to fine me, as surely as he is absent when the garbage and refuse are tossed on the roadsides outside of town.) There is too much of it to pile into my $100-a-month Waste Management bin, where I put the plastic garbage sacks tossed by the mailbox each week. It would take two trips in my pickup to haul it to the distant county dump. So for now, the problem is mine, and not that of the miscreant who tossed it. Was he thinking, “Mr. Hanson has more time, more money, more concern over trash, or more neuroticism of some sort, and therefore is more likely to deal with my trash than I am”? — as if to say, “I can live in a neighborhood where wrecked car parts litter the road; he obviously cannot.” So are these tossers simply comfortable with refuse on our streets, or are they not, but, like irked toddlers with soiled diapers, expect someone else to clean up after them?

    And is not that the point, after all? Behind the easy criminality of stealing metal or driving outside of town to toss your garbage is an implicit mentality, as frightening as it is never expressed. Someone will indeed take the garbage away. And someone indeed will have copper wire for others to harvest for their needs. And someone will pay the taxes and costs associated with the commission of the crime, efforts at prevention, and rare apprehension of the criminal. And lastly, someone most certainly should. In our crude radical egalitarianism, the fact that one has more, and another less, is de facto wrong, and invites popular remedies. Now, for every crime committed, a new sociology will arise to explain away its commission. We are back to the bankrupt French philosophers who asserted: “Property is theft!”

    In the last 20 years, several vehicles have zoomed off the road and plowed into my rather short stretch of roadside vineyard. The symptomology has always been the same: The driver fled; no proof of registration or insurance was left behind. The cost of replanting the vines and replacing the stakes remained all mine. Even the car was towed away and impounded by the state for its fees. As I drive these days across the valley, I play a game of looking at vineyards abutting the road to spot newly replanted vines and fresh stakes; these car-induced blights are quite common. Occasionally, I see the Catholic version of the Orthodox iconostases so common on Greek roadsides — commemorative crosses and shrines erected to mark the spot where one driver did not survive the zoom into the vineyard or orchard.

    I just asked a neighbor how many times he has been rammed at a rural intersection, with the other driver fleeing the scene and leaving the car behind (my tally: twice). He laughed and said, “None, but I can top you anyway. Last month a hit-and-run driver swerved off the road, hit the power pole next to my farm, and fled as the high-voltage cables fell onto my grape arbors — and smoked ten acres of overhead vineyard wire.”
    I agreed that I could not top that. Who could imagine electrified grapes? I wonder how much in taxes the hit-and-run driver has paid this year to make up for the cost of a utility pole, and the repair of downed wires and a vineyard’s trellising system? Even more frightening are the thousands in our society — journalists, politicians, academics, activists — who get up each morning more concerned about the fleeing driver who destroys power and vines than the victims who pay for the carnage.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    The immediate reaction of the victimized in rural central California is predictable and yet quite strange. As in 5th-century North Africa, farmers feel that civilization is vanishing and they are on their own. The “authorities” of an insolvent state, like petty Roman bureaucrats, are too busy releasing criminals from overcrowded jails to want any more. The stories of cyclical releases are horrific: Criminals are not arrested and let go just twice a year, but five and six and ten times. Sometimes we read of the surreal, like this week’s story in my local Selma Enterprise of one criminal’s 36 arrests and releases — and these are only for the crimes we know he committed and was caught for:
    TOP STORY

    Chief says: Jail revolving door hurting Selma

    Crime is Topic No. 1 in Selma, which makes the story of Adam Joshua Perez worth telling. Selma Police have arrested Perez 24 times since he turned 18 in October 2004. Charges against the Selma man have included burglary, theft, possession of narcotics, and weapons-related offenses, according to interim Police Chief Myron Dyck. In that time period, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department also arrested Perez eight times, and the Kingsburg Police took him into custody four times, Dyck said. Fresno Police also were looking at him for some car thefts, Dyck added.

    He calls Perez (born Oct. 23, 1986) a career criminal who’s getting the benefit of a broken criminal justice system. And there are other people like Perez on Selma’s streets, Dyck said.

    Yes, there are.

    There is also an unspoken acknowledgment of how state and local law enforcement now works, and it is predicated on a cost-to-benefit calculus. Reporting to the local police or sheriff a huge pile of refuse in your yard — even when the address of the tosser can be found from power bills or letters — or the theft of a tool from the barn is simply not worth the effort. It is not even worth the cost and trouble of activating a high-deductible farm-insurance policy. I guess the reasoning is that you in fact will replace the stolen item, and even if the criminal were apprehended, the costs of arrest, trial, and incarceration — even without the entrance of immigration authorities into the matrix — are too steep for a bankrupt state.

    Indeed, farmers out here are beginning to feel targeted, not protected, by law enforcement. In the new pay-as-you-go state, shrouded in politically correct bureaucratese, Californians have developed a keen sense of cynicism. The scores of Highway Patrol cars that now dot our freeways are looking for the middle class — the minor, income-producing infractions of the generally law-abiding — inasmuch as in comparison the felonies of the underclass are lose–lose propositions.

    If I were to use a cellphone while driving and get caught, the state might make an easy $170 for five minutes’ work. If the same officer were to arrest the dumper who threw a dishwasher or refrigerator into the local pond among the fish and ducks, the arrest and detention would be costly and ultimately fruitless, providing neither revenue from a non-paying suspect nor deterrence against future environmental sacrilege. We need middle-class misdemeanors to pay for the felonies of the underclass.

    The state’s reaction to all this is a contorted exercise in blaming the victim, in both the immediate and the abstract senses. Governor Brown wants to raise income taxes on the top two brackets by 1 to 2 percentage points, making them over 11 and 12 percent respectively. That our schools are near dead last in test scores, that many of our main freeways are potholed relics from the 1960s, that we just passed the DREAM Act to extend state financial support for college-age illegal aliens, and that the overtaxed are fleeing the state do not register. Again, those who in theory can pay, should — and should keep quiet about why they must suddenly pay a 12 percent income tax that was not needed, say, in 1991, 1971, or 1961, when test scores were higher, roads better, and communities far safer.
    There is, of course, a vague code of silence about who is doing the stealing, although occasionally the most flagrant offenders are caught either by sheriffs or on tape; or, in my typical case, run off only to return successfully at night. In the vast majority of cases, rural central California is being vandalized by gangs of young Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans — in the latter case, a criminal subset of an otherwise largely successful and increasingly integrated and assimilated near majority of the state’s population. Everyone knows it; everyone keeps quiet about it — even though increasingly the victims are the established local Mexican-American middle class that now runs the city councils of most rural towns and must deal with the costs.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Out here in the Dark Ages we depend instead on truth from the oral tradition, in the manner of Homeric bards. Rural folk offer their stories of woe to help others deter crime, cognizant that official accounts in the media are either incomplete or censored to reflect a sort of Ministry of Truth groupthink.
    Poverty, racism, class oppression, an uncaring society, government neglect, exploitation, greed — cite them all endlessly, as our coastal lawmakers, academics, and bureaucrats largely do. But most of these elite groups also seek to live as far away as possible from rural central California, the testing ground where their utopian imaginations become reified for distant others.

    The influx of over 11 million illegal aliens has had a sort of ripple effect that is rarely calibrated. Sixty percent of Hispanic males in California are not graduating from high school. Unemployment in rural California runs about 20 percent. There is less fear now of arrest and incarceration, given the bankruptcy of the state, which, of course, is rarely officially connected even in small part to illegal immigration. Perhaps because illegal immigration poses so many mind-boggling challenges (e.g., probably over $20 billion lost to the state in remittances, the undermining of federal law, the prejudice shown against legal immigration applicants, ethnic favoritism as the engine of amnesty, subterfuge on the part of Mexico, vast costs in entitlements and subsidies), talking about it is futile. So most don’t, in fear of accusations of “racism.”

    For those who do not leave the area, silence for now remains the norm. We pick up the litter from our farms on the implicit logic that the vandal — and, indeed, the state as well — expects us to, given our greater worry that his garbage would be likely to attract rats, flies, and other historical purveyors of illness. Dead cats, dirty diapers, used needles, baby carriages, shattered TVs, chairs, sofas, rotting lumber, broken windows, concrete blocks, tree limbs, used paint cans, household poisons, bags of used toilet paper and tampons, broken toys, fast-food boxes, toddler’s pools, tires, rotting chickens and dogs — anything that does not have easily detachable clean steel or copper — I’ve picked them all up from my vineyard and driveways.

    I do not (yet) move wrecked Winnebagos and trailers onto my single-family-zoned rural parcel to garner rental cash, as do many of my neighbors. After all, some must not, if the careful zoning work of a century is to survive. When one dog in four is not licensed and vaccinated out here, we have a problem; when four out of four will not be, we should expect a 19th-century crisis. When there are three outdoor privies used daily behind a neighbor’s house, the local environment can still handle the flies, the odor, and the increase in the chance of disease; but if there were to be 100 in a half-mile stretch, civilization itself would break down.

    Cynicism is the result. We pay no attention to news accounts of new state measures to check the source of metals presented at recycling centers, because we know these efforts are futile — as futile as the “seminars” in which we are told to fence everything in, to buy huge guard dogs, to install video cameras in trees, and to acquire electric gates — as if we were not so much being protected but being held prisoner.

    I stay here, however, because I now ask: Why should we change our way of life rather than demanding that those who are changing it should look inward and themselves change?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286354/vandalized-valley-victor-davis-hanson?pg=4

    • Or maybe an even more important question-Might be-Is it the reason we are unable to fix our problems??

  16. DECEMBER 7, 2011 4:00 A.M.
    Illegal Immigration Is Immoral
    Among its victims: the American underclass, the law, and legal immigrants.

    Illegal immigration has been in the news daily during the Republican primary campaign, even though a depressed economy here, stronger border enforcement, and vast new finds of petroleum in Latin America may soon radically curtail the number of illegal entrants into the United States. But for now, conservatives are warned that coming down hard on illegal immigration (i.e., enforcing federal statutes) would lose them the all-critical Hispanic vote. Meanwhile, in California, some legislators want to grant de facto state amnesty to illegal residents. But lost in the continuing furor, pro and con, is the moral dimension. The strange notion has developed that supporting something as immoral as illegal immigration is somehow ethical. It is not, and there are several reasons why.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    1. Entry-level labor. Real wages for the working poor in the United States have been stagnant for decades, especially in the Southwest — largely because of the influx of millions of illegal aliens, who, at least for a time, will work for considerably lower wages than Americans. In the last three decades, we have written off an entire class of Americans on the premise that “They won’t do the work.” Here in a California of 10 percent–plus unemployment, everyone from farmers to landscapers complains from experience that the citizen poor cannot or will not work manually. But in theory, why should they, when employers have a constant option of undercutting their wages, and when expanding entitlements make entry-level work an unattractive alternative, both financially and socially? We have expanded social services and decreased workers’ incentives, and then we wonder that a subsidized welfare class lacks the spunk of people crossing the border illegally from an impoverished Mexico. Yet there is something abhorrent about the present American notion of giving up on incentives to promote American labor — among which would be the prevention of cheaper foreign workers entering the country illegally and undercutting wages. Advocacy for illegal immigration is now a de facto lack of concern for the American underclass.
    2. Ethnic chauvinism. Illegal immigration is primarily a Hispanic phenomenon, in general from Latin America and in particular from Mexico. Advocates for open borders, other than cynical employers, are today largely Hispanic activists or those who seek political advantage by catering to them. They argue for changes in or relaxation of immigration law, both out of an understandable sense of ethnic solidarity and real concern for the downtrodden, and, yet in some cases, out of a more dubious notion that the more Latin Americans who enter the country by any means necessary, the more power will eventually accrue to Spanish-speaking American elites who represent the collective interest. Or as Los Angeles County supervisor Gloria Molina put it in an infamous 1996 rant, “We are going to talk to all of those young people that need to become registered voters and go out to vote, and we’re politicizing every single one of those new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country. And what we are saying is by November we will have one million additional Latino voters in this country, and we’re gonna march, and our vote is going to be important. But I gotta tell you, there’s a lot of people that are saying, ‘I’m gonna go out there and vote because I want to pay them back!’”

    Immigration lobbyists, remember, are not really worried about the plight of Chinese or Indian students who overstay their visas. Somehow ethnic chauvinism has been cloaked with a thin humanitarian veneer, when in fact the concern is not for illegal aliens per se, but for a particular category of illegal aliens. Try a thought experiment. Ask the National Council of La Raza whether it would support offering fast-track citizenship to a commensurate 15 million economic refugees from an imploding Europe or an impoverished Africa, even on conditions not imposed on those from Latin America, such as legality, mastery of English, a college degree, and proof of sustenance. Unfortunately, present advocacy for illegal immigration assumes that race and race-based identity politics shall determine the winners and losers in the immigration lottery. And that seems to me immoral to the core.

    3. Legal immigration. Hundreds of thousands from Asia, Africa, and Europe wait patiently and in legal fashion to apply for citizenship. “Crowding to the front of the line” is not a cheap talking point, but an accurate description of those who ignore the rules while others suffer. In essence, the United States has established that several million foreign nationals have precedence for citizenship by virtue of the facts that (a) they have already broken the law in entering the U.S., (b) they are currently residing illegally in the U.S., and (c) they are of a particular ethnic group. To question why a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from India must wait for years to gain permanent residence in the U.S. while someone from Oaxaca without a high-school diploma is exempt from such scrutiny is deemed illiberal; in fact, the reality, not the description of it, is the real illiberality.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    4. The law. Much of the discussion focuses on the fact that illegal immigration flouts federal law. But the problem is less the initial entry into the U.S. without documentation, and more the succession of law-breaking that needs must follow. If one crosses the border illegally, then one is not likely to state the truth on dozens of subsequent official documents, from matters of identification to certification of employment and entitlement. At each juncture, the law itself is insidiously eroded and the calls for it to be ignored increase. The real immorality is not a law that is found oppressive, but the notion that anyone, most ironically a foreign national, has the right to pick and choose which laws he will obey. No civilization can survive when the law hinges on individual interpretation. If foreign nationals are not required to abide by U.S. law, why would American citizens think that they must?
    5. Mexico. The largest ethical myth of illegal immigration is the notion of a Mexico morally concerned about the treatment of its expatriates. Of all the players in the illegal-immigration tragedy, the government of Mexico has proven the most heartless. It facilitates its own citizens’ leaving, going so far as to publish comic books on how to do it (apparently assuming both that its potential emigrants are illiterate and that they should act illegally). It counts on remittances as its second-largest source of foreign exchange, apparently cruelly calibrating that while it won’t fully support its own people, they should help support it once they leave the country. It has opened dozens of new consulates to facilitate help for illegal aliens in the United States, when Mexican citizens in Mexico are in far more need of such government concern. And while Mexico is far more interested in luring wealthy Americans southward with prospects of selling vacation homes in Baja California than it is in helping its own people find housing in Oaxaca, it somehow poses as the protector of the rights of Mexicans in America, whom it never troubled to help when they were in Mexico. Without illegal immigration, Mexico would lose American cash, have to reform its own social and economic policies, and forfeit leverage on U.S. social and foreign policy.

    6. Poverty. We do not know how many billions of dollars leave the U.S. economy each year bound for Latin America. Before the recession, the number was estimated at anywhere between $25 billion and $50 billion, more than half of it believed sent to Mexico. If it is true that millions of illegal aliens, who are the primarily remitters, are poor and at some point in need of public assistance for their housing, sustenance, and health care, then their sending dollars home is a direct subsidy by American taxpayers to foreign governments. In California the cost of providing support for illegal aliens ranges from $8 billion to some $12 billion a year, a figure that might roughly match the amount of money sent to Mexico from California each year. In a moral universe, illegal aliens would not remit money home and then expect their hosts to make up the difference; a moral Mexico in turn would not expect its most impoverished to work abroad and live cheaply, in order to send billions home to alleviate Mexico City’s responsibility for its own poor. And in a moral universe, to suggest all that would not be deemed a thought crime.

    7. Moral racketeering. One of the most disturbing aspects surrounding illegal immigration is the attempt to silence debate with charges of racism, nativism, and bias. In fact, there are legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but simply are not being voiced about the consequences of millions arriving illegally, without capital or education, and without English. At present, there may be anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 illegal aliens incarcerated in the California penal system (exact figures are rarely released). The high-school dropout rate among first- and second-generation Hispanic males in California now nears 60 percent. To say out loud that millions of illegal aliens have some connection to California’s declining test scores, its insolvent finances, and the exodus of California citizens from the state is absolutely taboo, but it is generally and quietly assumed. More disturbingly, an entire edifice of victimization has been built on American culpability for purported oppression on the basis of class and race. It has now reached the point of an eerie Orwellianism, in which many in the Hispanic political establishment make moral claims against an America unwilling to grant blanket amnesty, and yet must simultaneously assume that such a morally suspect entity is a far more desirable place than is Mexico — though the reasons for that tacit assumption must never be voiced. A disturbing example of how this plays out was the recent booing of the American national soccer team in the Los Angeles Coliseum by the “hometown” crowd. A psychiatrist is needed to explain why thousands were booing symbols of a country that they risked their lives to reach, while cheering on a country that they were dying to leave. That schizophrenia was inculcated largely in America.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    8. Politics. The Republican candidates have been advised to tread carefully in talking about illegal immigration, in fear of the wrath of Hispanic voters, which has so effectively been massaged by President Obama (“punish our enemies,” “alligators and moats”). Indeed, even to talk of illegal immigration in any but the vaguest terms is considered near suicidal to one’s career and reputation. But such a calculus ignores long-term reality. Closing the borders will hasten assimilation, integration, and intermarriage, as the success of third- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans attests. Compliance with the law is the only mechanism to allow the full expression of a naturally conservative Hispanic culture. The Mexican-American community deals first-hand with the chaos of massive illegal immigration and is not always happy about the consequences. In contrast, open borders and amnesty will ensure a constant influx of illegal immigrants who become constituents of those who facilitate illegal entry and residence.
    There are ways that are both moral and practical to deport recent arrivals, felons, and those entirely on public assistance, while offering mechanisms for long-residing aliens, employed and not convicted of felonies, to apply for citizenship — without automatic approval, however, and only after meeting logical criteria and paying fines. The only real issue is whether the qualified should obtain temporary residence cards while waiting for adjudication of their requests, or must return to Mexico to apply; but that is a decision that follows, not precedes, an end to open borders. A fence, changed economic conditions in both the United States and Latin America, and new public doubts about illegal immigration are already beginning to slow down the influx, suggesting that it is time to address the issue in ways that will lay the groundwork for better policies in the future.

    But for now, it is also time to change the entire tenor of the discussion, and accept that the proponents of illegal immigration have lost all moral credibility.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285087/illegal-immigration-immoral-victor-davis-hanson?pg=3

  17. This may have been posted previously when the Ron Paul newsletter issue was being discussed, but I’m reposting as I feel it makes some valid points in the left’s use of racism.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/the-ron-paul-newsletter-controversy-is-a-textbook-liberal-smear-campaign/

    • Good article-I was also amazed that the guy would do a “flip it” test-in this instance. Especially when Obama won’t even let us read what he wrote years ago.

  18. Mathius™ says:
  19. From the “Why it is pointless to bother with Federal Politics” file:

    There is no difference between the Parties

    When asked recently by Wolf Blitzer whom he would vote for in a race between Paul and Obama, Gingrich replied: “I think you’d have a very hard choice.” When asked recently by Chris Wallace about Ron Paul, Huckabee replied that his views on foreign policy “are so much an anathema to Republicans and Democrats and what I call middle of the road people. He has a core of fanatical believers, and they don’t represent mainstream Americans. It is not okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

    But of Obama Huckabee said: “I think he’s a decent, patriotic American. He loves America different than me, but I don’t doubt he loves America.”

    ……….

    Exactly – there is one party … the middle of the Road Party …. that embraces the Warfare/Welfare State.

    To believe that changing the name of this party from Dem to Rep and back again changes anything is foolish.

    • With the republicans-I have at least a chance of surviving with enough freedom left to take my freedoms back over time. If the people open their eyes enough to join with those fighting for our freedoms and actually start putting the right people in office. With the Dems. I have no hope whatsoever of having enough freedom left to even fight the government without an actual bloody revolution and bloody revolutions are no guarantee of freedom either. So your just sit at home and let it fall-guarantees nothing and would in my estimation of the people today-would more likely ensure a dictatorship.

      • V.H.

        With the republicans-I have at least a chance of surviving with enough freedom left to take my freedoms back over time.

        That is completely untrue

        Who instituted the Patriot Act? Rep or Dem?
        Rep!

        Who, repeatedly, keeps renewing the Act? Rep or Dem?
        Rep!

        Who started the wars? Rep or Dem?
        Rep!

        You at far more risk of the Warfare half of the Warfare/Welfare Party for your freedom.

        The Warfare part will destroy your freedom.
        The Welfare part will destroy your economy and wealth.

        Together is what is called “A Total Unmitigated Disaster”

        • what-you trying to tell me that the dems. don’t support war-just because they spout the words.

          • And one other thing-it is very apparent to me-that the republicans in power are being pushed to turn back towards freedom and the dems. in power are being pushed to further push socialist policies. So I’m going with the republicans -I am not going to sit at home and stay out of Federal politics on the claim they are the same-they are not the same because the people supporting them are not the same. I think your working on politics at the local level is a brilliant idea but just how long do you think, at the present level of socialist thought-it would take the left to completely take over -if everybody on the right just ignored Federal policies and we CAN do both. IMHO 🙂

            • V.H.

              that the republicans in power are being pushed to turn back towards freedom

              Where the heck do you see this???

              • I see it all around me-the tea party, people on SUFA, some of my friends, the debates on how founding principals going on everywhere and the Rand Pauls in Congress-How do you not see it?

              • V.H.

                The Tea Party has nothing to do with the Rep Party. In fact, the Rep party HATES the Tea Party.

                Ron and Rand Paul are pariahs of the Rep party – the Rep part HATES them, and as I posted in this comment thread, the Rep part would rather have Obama then Paul.

                There is a rise in the discontent of the political systems – especially Federal – but that has nothing to do with either Party.

                Indeed, supporting or operating within the Party system undermines all the progress – Ron Paul notwithstanding.

                As much as Ron Paul would be a great President, he will never be one.

                As much as Ron Paul demonstrates the massive disconnect between rhetoric and reality of the Party system, it will not change.

                But Ron Paul is hurting the greater cause – for he is re-establishing hope that change is possible …. in a system where change is impossible … any possibility to change the system was removed by FDR and utterly destroyed by Johnston/Nixon.

                Paul is creating the dead-cat bounce of hope for politics, and that is not good – even if he would be a great President.

              • You see it on blogs like this. You see it in conservative talk radio and TV. You see it through the tea party. You see it with congressmen fleeing congress. It’s there BF, if you want to see it!

              • oops sorry V..you were’nt there a second ago!

              • Don’t apologize-can use all the support I can get-so please say anything, anytime you want.

              • The republican party hates the tea party-tough-the tea party has become a part of the republican party-because the voting public wants them to be there-we will see if they want more -or we might shut them down and start a new party. Or maybe we’ll eventually just have a big old bloody revolution. It’s all happened before. Or maybe, worse case scenario, we’ll totally ignore the Federal level and we’ll very quickly be living under a dictatorship.

            • V.H.

              You cannot do both.

              You cannot support the Feds, whose self-appointed mandate is to overrule local politics, while claiming you supporting local political independence.

              You are using a hammer your own hand that tenuously holding you from falling.

              • I simply don’t see the logic in that argument-You act like when it comes to Federal politics that all people are the same-no individuals among them-that might actually fight for state rights at the federal level.

              • V.H.

                Federal politics trumps local politics.

                You want to increase the influence of local politics.

                You support Federal politics, which diminishes local politics.

                You cannot have both – you end up smashing your own fingers.

              • Seems to me, You just made my argument-if Federal politics trump local politics-what is going to happen while I just support local politics-and Federal politics is controlled by the socialist who continue to vote.

              • V.H.

                and Federal politics is controlled by the socialist who continue to vote

                and nothing you do will change that…

                So take that energy and focus it to where it will make a difference, and not waste it where it makes no difference.

                I think you think that when the system flies apart, only then you will wake up, stop wasting your political time, and begin building your local politic environment.

                But you will be too late

                Charlie will already be sitting in all the local political chairs laughing at your ignorance.
                He started a decades ago. He has at least an easy 20-year head start.

                You think the day after the Fed’s implode, that you can start rebuilding?
                ahahahahahahahaha

                The race will be over before you even knew one existed, with Charlie the big winner.

                He is the big winner because his group understands the power of time and slow, incremental application of energy.
                His group started a long time ago, and have a plan and are ready to apply it.

                You can’t even get to the conceptual point that you need a plan!… let alone start building toward it!

                You had better get your head in the game – leave Washington alone – and concentrate on what is going on in your town or city, and you had better start building or supporting a local political group that is aligned with your beliefs, or else you will have one powerfully imposed on you by Charlie

              • I will say this once more-we need to do both-we must do both-we can do both-doing just one is a waste of time unless your game plan includes a bloody revolution. . I don’t like that option-I would like to try and avoid it.

          • V.H.

            What I am saying is that believing one arm is worse or better than the other is terribly wrong.

            Dems support Rep wars so that they get the Rep support for welfare.

            Reps support Dems welfare so that they get the Dem support for warfare.

            • I’d have to be a total fool not to acknowledge that a lot of their public BS is just showmanship-but that does not mean that the right people can’t make a difference-if we all keep pushing the party to actually stand on their stated principals. If we continue to back the Tea Party and others who are fighting this fight-sitting home and not voting-not supporting what they are trying to do. What kind of sense does that make? Why the hell should they fight for our freedoms if we aren’t going to support their efforts?

              • V.H.

                but that does not mean that the right people can’t make a difference

                I posted previously on the Messiah Syndrome – the search for the right “man” or people who will overwhelm the entire system and right it again.

                And like the endless hope for the 2nd coming of Christ, this is utterly pointless.

                All that happens is a continuing replacement of evil, terrible men with other evil, terrible men.

                For reasons I cannot fathom, this lesson is not learned by the People until they have been utterly wiped out.

                -if we all keep pushing the party to actually stand on their stated principals.

                How are you going to do that?

                What power do this “we” have that you haven’t had to have prevented the disastrous tumble in the first place????

                It is far easier to avoid problems then fix problems.

                But you had no power to avoid the problems

                But now you believe you have MORE power to fix the problems when you had no power to avoid them?!?!?

                You are claiming you are stronger now when you are weaker….!

                If we continue to back the Tea Party

                hahahahah….

                Right, “you” voted in a whole bunch of them and all of them except one or two completely supported the debt increase and every Rep/Dem spending bill.

                You continue to back liars, and seem surprised that they lied to you.

                sitting home and not voting

                You know that is not what I said, so don’t try to cop out.

                Not voting is the right answer.

                Doing something else is the right answer.

                Why the hell should they fight for our freedoms if we aren’t going to support their efforts?

                Because supporting their efforts is destroying your freedom

                You are smashing your own fingers.

              • So why is Canada in better shape than we are? Don’t ask me to back it up cause I can’t. but you yourself have mentioned keeping a passport handy and you also have Canadian gold. Canada has turned way more conservative. Why? Because the people made a difference.

              • Further.. All of Europe is calling for tightening the purse strings. Left and right all over the world people are saying socialism and every other ism isnt working. And now I have to go help with the kids move some more. Will check back in later.

              • Anita

                So why is Canada in better shape than we are? Don’t ask me to back it up cause I can’t.

                They are NOT in better shape at all

                They are running massive deficits Federally and Provincially.
                Ontario is nearly wiped out.

                The only economic center worth anything is Alberta due to the oil. But even their provincial government is running in the deep red.

                The only reason they are not in total collapse right now is because they started a massive debt reduction plan 10 years ago when thir S&P Rating was cut to AA+ from AAA..

                The time was different; it appeared the rest of the world were economic genius and Canada was running with economically two-left feet.

                Well the truth is the rest of the world were not geniuses, and actually were running on all four-left feet…. but Canada “woke” up alone in the market place, their bond interest rates climbing daily, and they needed a plan.

                But that does not mean they are better — in a reverse beauty contest, they may be doing less worse, but that certainly is not pretty either.

              • Anita

                Further.. All of Europe is calling for tightening the purse strings. Left and right all over the world people are saying socialism and every other ism isnt working. And now I have to go help with the kids move some more. Will check back in later.

                They have been calling for that for decades! So what???

                Who cares whether their lips are moving.
                Watch what they do.

                And they are doing nothing but adding more debt and NOT cutting a single program …indeed, even in Greece – they all got budget increases

                Unless you contemplate and understand why things are not working all that happens is you leap from one boiling pot into another boiling pot – while never figuring out that someone should put out the fire.

              • Betrayed-I don’t see it that way-when your outnumbered sometimes you only get small victories-but we will see.

              • Anita,

                And yes, I am bullish on Canada – it is in the best position to make a strong recovery – not because of its government, but because of its geography

                It has no enemies.
                It has essentially only one border it shares with a “family member”.
                It is isolated by the three largest oceans of the world.

                It has massive resource wealth.
                It has massive food resources.
                It has massive oil resources.
                It has massive water resources.

                It has massive geography of very few people – lots of room to grow.

                And it is very cold. This keeps most of the troublesome people away.

                Canada lacks nothing.

                The hewers of wood, miners of oil and drawers of water will do will in a global economy demanding fuel and water.

    • We half agree. Fully on this: Exactly – there is one party

      And not on this that embraces the Warfare/Welfare State.

      More like it embraces what it was PAID to embrace … the 1% Party … MONEY

      And on this we agree fully: To believe that changing the name of this party from Dem to Rep and back again changes anything is foolish.

  20. Mathius™ says:

    Mr. Flag,

    Silver: now.. or wait?

    • Mathius,

      Buy!

      But buy $80 of gold for every $20 of silver.

      The drop -as I noted awhile ago – is expected as the global economies all continue their move into a deep recession.
      All commodities will see prices fall.

      Prices of most goods – especially goods that rot over time – food and electronics – will see massive decrease in prices.

      If you need a new TV, January will be your Xmas!

      • missingtexas says:

        BF,

        What if you really don’t have enough money to buy an 80/20 mix? And where would you even look to buy from?

        • MissingTexas,

          From where?

          These guys are ok..
          Camino Coins
          http://caminocompany.com

          Not enough money?

          Then save.
          You can find $2000 somewhere, just to start.

          Or, put away a few hundred a month ….

          Personal finance is paramount for survival in the future.

          If you cannot save now, it will be completely impossible in the future.

          Start now by doing a radical cut of expenses – I mean radical. Cut everything to the bone.

          You will have to do it in the future – but if it is forced upon you then, you will suffer badly.

          Do it now – and then when the lean future unrolls, you’ll have already been steeled and hardened, and operating under your own terms.

          The BF family went through a voluntary cut of expenses over the last year – and we found over $12,000 in savings …and we did not really try very hard…we still got our toys and luxuries…didn’t really miss a thing.

          This year, we are going thru another round of cuts…because even we can do better.

          We will continue to cut until it is uncomfortable, then we will live in that uncomfortable state until we get used to it, and the discomfort fades back into “same old same old”.

          Then we will cut again until it is uncomfortable, and repeat.

          Do it while it is in our control, because if we are forced to do it out of our control, the pain will be horrific.

          • missingtexas says:

            BF,

            Thank you! I guess I was thinking I needed more to begin than that. I have about $4000 saved so far, but don’t know enough on what to look for in terms of gold and silver. I will check out the web site you posted. I have already cut down, but as you indicated, radical cutting is necessary. Glad I started getting out of debt last year.
            Thanks again

            • MissingTexas,

              I would suggest your first purchases be gold/silver coins.

              A great mantra of the founder of Camino Coins which I wholly agree:

              “Buy the best, pay cash, take delivery”

              So, for gold, the best is American Eagle or Canadian Maple Leaf, for the reasons they are very easy to buy and sell.

              Chinese panda and Austrian coins are nice, but few know these by sight and when you need to sell, a debate on the quality or the uniqueness is not what you want.

              Canadian Silver Coins are recommended.

              You want coins initially because -again- to sell, it is easy. If you buy a bar, the dealer may want to get it assayed – to test the weight and purity, and this will be at your cost. A bar comes in different form factors and sizes so there is not an easy way to test otherwise.

              For Canadian and American coins, however, the dealer has a little mechanical device.

              There is a hole that is exactly the size of the coin, if the coin is too big, it won’t fit and too small, it will rattle around.
              Then he places it on a balance with a predetermined counter weight.
              If it balances, the coin must be good – the volume and mass must be exactly right for the coin.

              If it does not balance, you get your fake coin back 😉

              Continue to buy coins up until it represents 10% or so of your net worth (calculated EXCLUDING your house property, if you have one).
              After that, buying bars will save you a bit of money (there is a numismatic value added on coins that doesn’t exist for a bar).

              The reasoning is, 10% of your net worth should cover your immediate emergencies as necessary – you can take the time to redeem the bars as you are covered over that time by the coins.

  21. Mathius™ says:

    SHARIA LAW!

    I thought only Muslims did this kind of thing..

    • No, there are extremists in all walks of life-secular, religious-all walks of life.

      • Mathius™ says:

        DING DING DING!

        You win a prize.

        Other people here, however, seem to be of the opinion that (almost) all Muslims support Sharia law and that (almost) all Christians and Jews are peaceful and tolerant to a fault.

        This wasn’t really meant for you.

        But I’m out of here.. have a good night! 🙂

  22. Why are we speaking in Italics?

    Seems to have started with a Mathius posting above. Change it back Mathius!

    • Mathius™ says:

      BWA HA HA HA!

      I broke SUFA

    • Upon further review, it appears that it was charlieopera who broke SUFA.

      Yes, that’s right, the page source does not lie.

      To believe that changing the name of this party from Dem to Rep and back again changes anything is foolish.

      To get the italics, he used open-bracket, letter i, close bracket.
      HOWEVER, to end the italics, he used open-bracket, letter i, space, forward slash, close-bracket (there should be no space and the slash should come first).

      So let’s place blame where it belongs, shall we?

  23. Black Flag

    Re: Commerce Clause

    I give you my first witness against your position. Mr. James Madison.

    Following is a comment made to Mr. Washington in his letter of April 16, 1787, regarding the Virginia Plan that he has constructed and given to Mr. Randolph to introduce at the convention.

    “I would propose next that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, etc. etc.”

    Now please note his use of the term “….the regulation of trade” and the context in which it is proposed “….should be armed with positive and compleate authority in all cases which require uniformity”. Of course he gives the Federal govt the power to determine what “requires uniformity”. That is to be done via the Legislative Power vested in Congress.

    Thought you would like his comment that followed as well.

    “Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded and defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction to violate treaties and the law of nations and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its controul on the internal vicisitudes of State policy, and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and of individuals.”

    My next witness is Mr. Randolph and the motion he puts before the Convention.

    Provision 6 of said resolution is:

    6. Resolved that each branch (of the federal Legislature) ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be impowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress by the Confederation and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof.”

    And by the way, you started your latest rebuttal with an error. They did not use the word “regulation” in the document. They used the phrase “to regulate”.

  24. For Anita and V.H.

    Please listen to this video – its an hour or so long:

    http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17039&title=g–edward-griffin–the-collectivist-conspiracy

    Then come and talk to me

    • An hour of their lives? You ask too much, BF.

      I’m reading Hitch 22 right now and he claimed that one of the biggest mistakes the left made (he was a socialist) was long boring lectures … better to play them while sleeping … brainwashing is so much more effective that way.

    • I listened to 12 minutes of this nonsense. conspiracy theorists don’t hold much water for me, BF, but when he leaves out the fact the government is owned by the money of the 1% and corporate America, he assumes his audience if friggin’ retarded.

      I can’t even say nice try. This was weak, brother. Very weak. America is anything but collectivist. Is it a hording mentality by those with the power (Money) to do so.

      but you’re right about one thing, Charlie and his ilk will win out in the end.

      The SAGE has spoken …

    • Hate to advertise how bad my computer skills are 🙂 but for some reason I can’t listen to video’s right now-still having computer problems. Will try to remember to watch this when I get the problem fixed.

      • I can watch it but I’ve just gotten in from running around all day. I’ll get back to you on it also BF

    • The video I asked V.H. and Anita to review is worth others watching as well – whether or not you agree with some or all of it.

      For me, it fixed up an issue I’ve had with Charlie.

      Charlie started here on SUFA as a Statist/Communist and …to his credit…. has shifted his position to be more of an Anarchist/Communist…

      …but that didn’t make much sense. He would bounce between Statist and Anarchist arguments and use both to promote his (horrific) political thought.

      The video filled in the blank.
      It isn’t Statism vs Anarchist … though this is where the battle has to be fought

      It is Collectivism vs. Individualism.

      Collectivism is not an evil, nor is Individualism. In any one person there are degrees of one and the other, and may even be fluid between them.

      However, in any one person there is a dominate train of thought -either Collectivism dominates or Individualism dominates.

      However, the State is merely a tool used to accomplish a goal.

      The tendency is for Collectivists to use the State as their primary tool (as exampled by Buck and Mathius) and it is somewhat a tendency of Individualists to avoid the State (radically at times, like me) – but this is not always the case, as exampled by Charlie as the Collectivist/Non-State and USWep or JAC as the Individualist/Pro-State.

      So, expect me in the future to use better terms in my dialogues – where I used “Statist” in the past would probably be better to have used “Collectivist”.

      This however does not change the goal – the End of the State – because it isn’t Collectivism that is “bad” … it is only bad and evil when it is forced on others to compel them to join “the Collective”.

      And the same thing can be said about Individualism … except it is rare that an Individualist engages in force upon others to compel them to join him, since that would require him to reverse his Individualistic tendency.

      So this is why we see vastly more Collectivists using State and its violence as its tool then you would ever see an Individualist use such a tool.

      • The tendency is for Collectivists to use the State as their primary tool (as exampled by Buck and Mathius)

        This is a fair assertion.

        For my part, I would much prefer a non-statist collectivist society, but humans are not designed for that.

        But don’t ever forget, Flag, there’s a part of me that wants the whole thing to burn to the ground, letting gleeful anarchy rein as Darwin reasserts itself and I would be DPM would be free to succeed or fail on his own merit, where he could cut down trees on his own property without getting permission from some bureaucrat, where I do not have to pay for the retirement of people I don’t know, or put food on the table of someone who thinks it’s beneath them to take a job picking strawberries. I have my gold coin, and a 100 oz of silver on it’s way, so let it collapse. (hopefully the silver arrives before the postal service collapses though). Y’AARRRGH!

        Let it burn
        Wanna let it burn
        Wanna let it burn
        Wanna wanna let it bu-urn!
        Sublime – April 29, 1992

        • Mathius,

          This is a fair assertion. For my part, I would much prefer a non-statist collectivist society, but humans are not designed for that

          Yes, we are designed for it.

          It is the State that is artificial here, not the lack of it.

          However, the little light in BF’s head going off is certainly important.

          My discourse has often engaged you and Buck at the Collectivist level – and though we are in large disagreement here, this is an Individual choice (hence, all Collectivists are misguided Individualist 😉 ) – and really matters not one wit one way or the other.

          The issue is the use of the tool to enforce the Collectivism or deny it.

          The battle is to End the State – not make a war over Collectivism or Individualism – which is probably where you and DPM can re-merge back into a single entity – you can fluidly move between Collectivism and Individualism as you desire of the moment, but it is the use of the State that make either evil.

          • My discourse has often engaged you and Buck at the Collectivist level – and though we are in large disagreement here, this is an Individual choice (hence, all Collectivists are misguided Individualist 😉 )

            Curious. How “individualist” are you talking here? Because one man living alone in a cabin dies of old age, and the human race goes extinct. One family living alone in in a cabin is already “collectivist” – so could you elaborate on your concept so I know what it is, exactly, you’re asserting here?

      • Long story (and video) short, collectivism is capitalism (or why do only 1% of the population own the rest?)

        So, it’s better that 1% gets to hord pretty much everything (certainly control over the government–thank you, founding fatheads) and we all get to be slaves to the 1%. Nice deck of rigged cards.

        An hour and change to avoid what is factual here in this great land of ours; 1% of the population (less than that) owns the rest of the population.

  25. Hitch 22 … Midnight in Paris … Weight Watchers … Back to School … End of the Season and the best of Paulie Walnuts …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/12/amici-hitch-22.html

  26. Attorney General Eric Holder—blaming the “devastating and unacceptable” rise in deaths on illegal firearms—

    (Newser) – Law enforcement deaths in the line of duty rose 13% this year to 173—the second sharp rise since 2009’s 50-year-low, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Gunfire claimed the lives of 68 officers, making this the first year since 1997 in which more law enforcement officers died in shootings than in traffic accidents, CNN reports. The deadliest year for shooting deaths of law enforcement officers in the US was 1973, when 156 officers were shot and killed

    The memorial’s fund chairman blamed the rise in deaths on budget cuts, noting that close to 10,000 police officers and sheriff deputies were laid off this year. “Our officers are facing a more brazen, cold-blooded element, and fighting a war on terror, and we’re giving them less training and less equipment than they need to do their jobs safely,” he said. Attorney General Eric Holder—blaming the “devastating and unacceptable” rise in deaths on illegal firearms—vowed that the Justice Department would do everything possible to keep police officers safe.

    • Gunfire was the cause of the majority of deaths, claiming 68 officers, a 15 percent increase.

      For the first time, the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund notes that more law enforcement officers died in shootings than in traffic accidents. In 2011, 64 officers lost their lives in car or motorcycle accidents, or by being struck by a vehicle while on the job.

      Florida had the largest number of officer deaths in 2011 with 14. Texas was second at 13, followed by New York with 11 and Georgia and California both with 10.

      • Compare these two articles:

        Rodney Johnson was shot and killed by Juan Leonardo Quintero-Perez, a previously deported Mexican national who had reentered and was living in the U.S. illegally. After reentering the U.S. illegally, Quintero-Perez had multiple interactions with the Houston Police Department before shooting and killing Officer Johnson, including at least one arrest for driving under the influence and citations for failing to stop and give information following an accident and driving with a suspended license.

        (that’s from LOI’s link)

        vs.

        As officers approached the residence, they were stunned by an “explosion, bang or shot fired,” Rouches said. The suspect fired first at officers, and the officer was hit while standing outside of the home, Rouches said.

        Officers returned fire and shot the suspect while he was in the home. Rouches did not know how many shots were fired or what kind of weapon the suspect used.

        Seven people in the area were evacuated from their residences while the Portland Police Department’s bomb squad waited for a search warrant to enter the home. The home was believed to have at least two grenades and ammunition inside, Rouches said.

        Police also saw marijuana growing in the home but did not believe the man shot at officers to protect his grow operation, Rouches added.

        Source, following 4 seconds of googling

        Give up? One of them crossed an imaginary line because he had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place, whereas the other didn’t have to. But, conveniently, the first serves as an example of how “illegals” are dangerous and violent criminals, whereas the second is just a random crazy person.

        —————————

        Because I know this isn’t going to sit well, I’m going to use one of my famous analogies to get my point across.

        When a family of four is murdered viciously by some lunatic with a gun, the (“liberal”) media reports it in graphic detail, complete with talking heads explaining the need for tighter gun control laws.

        When a family of four is murdered vicious by some lunatic with an axe, the (“liberal”) media doesn’t really have much to say about it.

        Now, why is this? Because the former story fits nicely into the agenda of vilifying guns and gun owners, of pushing gun control and showing how dangerous they are, of showing that crazy people and criminals still have access so our current laws aren’t enough. But when it’s an axe, that doesn’t help advance their agenda, so it gets ignored.

        Now, when the media does this, you (of course) see right through it. It’s a hit job. They want to skew a topic a certain way, the reporting is biased and you can easily show dozens if not hundreds or even thousand of examples where people committed atrocious acts with knives, crowbars, etc. So when you see this, you throw up your hands in the air, disgusted.

        BUT, for some reason, when you see that an illegal immigrant commits a crime, rather than pointing at all the legal citizens who ALSO commit crimes, you post the link because it jibes with what you want to believe. You’re just like the anti-gun media, and you probably don’t even realize it.

        • Matt,

          “You’re just like the anti-gun media, and you probably don’t even realize it.” No, I don’t dress nearly as well, jeans is my norm. And if Holder can blame the increase in police deaths on illegal firearms without supporting info, why can’t I wonder if Illegal aliens could be a factor. My point, when politicians decide what and to who laws will be enforced upon, it has unintended consequences. Take out the illegal alien in Huston and wonder if they would have been able to act with such impunity? Ignoring the problem didn’t make it go away. Let me be clear, when I see an illegal immigrant commit a crime, I think they should be treated the same as I, not turned loose because they don’t have insurance and allowed to continue driving without a license. Why do they get to ignore laws that a judge would lock me up over? And if those laws were enforced, would it not have a measurable effect on lives lost? Were any of those 13 Texas officers killed by an illegal alien that was a repeat offender? Biased question? I shouldn’t point out that Holder is also suing several states for enforcing federal immigration law.

          And to review gun control.

          https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/why-gun-control-common-sense-scares-me/

          “Attorney General Eric Holder—blaming the “devastating and unacceptable” rise in deaths on illegal firearms—”
          And why do we have an instant background check system that identifies thousands of felons who commit a felony by attempting to buy a firearm, but hardly any arrests for committing another felony? Why doesn’t Holder use the existing laws to reduce felon gun ownership?

          • Mathius™ says:

            And if Holder can blame the increase in police deaths on illegal firearms without supporting info, why can’t I wonder if Illegal aliens could be a factor

            Because I hold you to a higher standard.

            Because I can talk directly to you and demand that you face the evidence and give a logical account of yourself, whereas I have no such ability with regards to Holder.

            • Matt,

              How many deaths will be traced to our own government? BATF pressured Gun dealer’s to make sales they would otherwise have not made. This includes sales to felons. The federal government said “ignore the law”, we’ve got this…. And the border patrol agent’s death is directly linked to them breaking the law and enabling the smuggling of illegal drugs, weapons and persons.

              http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-fast-and-furious-deaths.html

              • Mathius™ says:

                Are you looking for an exact number here? And, you specified “will be traced to”.. what about the ones that are due to this but won’t ever be traced to the government? Because that’s going to be a larger number.

                And, again, I’d like to ask what makes this “illegal” – the police routinely are able to ignore certain laws in order to prosecute higher priorities. This is why they will buy/sell drugs in order to gain the trust of a dealer who they can then use to get at the distribution network. Same story here only it went south. So how is this different?

                Scenario A: Police permit a drug sale (illegal) in order to build up intelligence against the drug ring in order to ultimately prosecute the leaders.
                Scenario B: BATF premit a gun sale (illegal) in order to build up intelligence against the drug cartel in order to ultimately prosecute the leaders.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Wrong dammit, wrong!

          You just don’t seem capable of getting it. The person murdered by the illegal alien, should not be dead. That person could have been saved had existing laws been enforced. So, in your mind two dead is just fine to prove what…..?

          Your scenario “B” fails on the apparent fact garnered from testimony that there was absolutely no tracing of anything going on. Us paranoids jumped at that since it seemed that the only benefit to DOJ would be eventually pointing out, over dead bodies, that “the weapons used, originated in the United States”. Unfortunately for them, not that it matters, is that they guessed wrong.

    • Of course he is-it’s called deflection-he knows he can’t stop the debate over fast and furious-so he is trying to turn it into a debate over gun rights or racism-smart in a totally slimy way.

  27. Thought this was funny 🙂

    To Soothe the Savage Breast
    December 24, 2011 8:18 A.M.
    By David Pryce-Jones
    Someone I know breeds turkeys on a large scale. The birds have to be fenced behind wire. At any unexpected noise, especially at night, they panic quickly and huddle together in a corner where many of the birds suffocate to death. Music soothes them: A system has been installed and Mozart concertos have been found to be literally life-savers.

    It’s much the same story in Birmingham, a pretty rough place. Assorted yobs have been in the habit of congregating in a particular mall there. All sorts of crimes, including murder, then occur. The police decided that broadcasting Mozart would give this crowd something to distract and pacify them. In fact, Mozart has dispersed them, the mall has become safe, the crime rate has dropped.

    Christmas cheer, is it not?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/david-pryce-jones

  28. Michele Bachmann’s Iowa Chairman Kent Sorenson Abandons Her For Ron Paul

    …interesting….

    • The other thing about that bogus video, Ron Paul advertisements.

      And here I thought (never really) BF was a true anarchist …

      US maternal mortality … we rank #50 … guess how many socialist/communist countries (with all that Obama-like care) are ahead of us?

      Hint: Use your calculators

      • How many Capitalist countries have slaughtered 10 million or more of their own citizens?
        How many Communist? (Collectivist by arms)?

        Kinda telling Charlie.

        • How many did this country slaughter of “their own” (since you love that owning theme so much). Native Americans come to mind … and how many kept “their own” in slave status?

          Not to mention others killed to further expand our influence … keeping the third world down as long as possible … Yeah, we’re real champions of humanity … or maybe it’s champions of profit.

          Kinda telling BF …

          • Charlie,

            How many did this country slaughter of “their own” (since you love that owning theme so much)

            But that wasn’t Capitalism – that was plain old Imperialism.

            Come on, Charlie, get your ‘ism’ right!

  29. With the New Year upon us, pundits are handing out their “best and worst” awards and gossip magazines their “top whatever” lists. Well, on my list, you won’t find Occupy Wall Street or No Child Left Behind drama, but something much more significant to taxpayers, parents, and citizens: the top five underreported education stories of 2011.

    5. The cost of implementing the Common Core. Forty-five states adopted Common Core education standards in 2010 and 2011, largely because the Obama administration required states to do so in order to receive the Race to the Top federal grants and waivers for No Child Left Behind.

    But the latest estimates suggest that completely redoing state textbooks, retraining teachers and administrators, and adopting aligned tests will cost something like $30 billion. Keep in mind that the states are $120 billion in debt and several studies have concluded that the Common Core standards are poor.

    Never fear: The U.S. Department of Education is willing to “help” by overstepping its constitutional and statutory bounds to fund and develop Common Core national curriculum and tests.

    4. Indiana’s school vouchers program has more first-year participants than any other, and most participants are poor and/or minority families. This fall, 3,919 Indiana students received state vouchers to attend private schools of their parents’ choice. That’s 1,206 more than the previous first-year record-holder, Ohio (which is considering adding a fifth voucher program). Eighty-five percent of these kids are below or near the poverty line, and 53 percent are minorities — in a state where 82 percent of the school-age population is white.

    Indiana’s 2011 school choice legislation garnered massive media attention, as has the lawsuit currently pending against it and a handful of isolated incidents where parents put their kids back in public school this year to qualify for a voucher next year. But few people have looked at the data demonstrating that people in the most traditionally disadvantaged groups have lunged at this program, which was not even open for applicants until a few weeks before the start of school.

    Families want school choice, but the public largely doesn’t know it.

    3. New York City may not deserve its reformist reputation. New York’s glitterati includes Joel Klein, the former city schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Both are widely credited with improving New York City’s graduation rate and reducing the white-minority achievement gap after Bloomberg nabbed mayoral control of city schools in 2002.

    Manhattan Institute fellow Sol Stern recently debunked this notion. Stern notes that the city’s education spending has nearly doubled since Bloomberg took office, to $23 billion annually, and that the city’s 67 percent high school graduation rate is belied by a state department of education study marking only 22 percent of graduates “college ready.” A mere 24 percent of current New York City eighth graders, who entered kindergarten after Bloomberg and Klein took over, scored “proficient” in math and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and recent reports show increases in state test scores are wildly inflated.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/the-top-5-underreported-education-stories-of-2011/#ixzz1hxWC7Cmy

    • Libertarians fail to realize that there has never been–and never will be–a government that functions according to their principles because it runs entirely contrary to human nature

      Correct – the “it” being government absolutely runs contrary to human nature, which is why it always collapses and is always massively deadly to humans.

      But because it runs counter does not mean government cannot grow or exist.

      It does so for a simple reason:
      Theft is profitable
      and there is nothing like the profit gained from centralized, organized and legitimized thievery.

      One day, the people may accept this truth for themselves, but right now, the people are gambling that they personally will benefit more from the theft than lost to it.

      But as theft by government is a zero sum game, someone has to lose for someone else to gain – and when the time comes that some percentage of the people figure out they can never win, change will occur.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Educational reform can never work unless the parents care. In most instances in NYC, parents care less. It’s the teachers job exclusively. Those of us who are honest and consider ourselves truly educated know it was because of a joint effort on the part of our teachers and our parents. My parents certainly did not have much education, 10th grade for dad and 6th for mom but they valued it and made me hit the books, Playtime was after the homework was done.

      Talk to some urban teachers sometimes and see who comes to the parent teacher conferences. Surprisingly (hah), its not the kids doing worst, or the truants, or the cut ups, or the thugs but the kids who do the homework, take the tests and suffer through unending abuse at the hands of their classmates.

      The culture has become barbaric. Education is not respected nor something to be proud about except for the elite. In the context of elite I refer only to those who have received and cherish their education. Money, status at birth or whatever does not matter.

  30. Buck the Wala says:

    Posted without comment, as food for thought as I finally get to head out of the office and home for a tasty dinner…

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049619/-Why-Libertarianism-Doesnt-Work?via=siderec

    • Buck,
      Somalia is not a sore spot for Libertarianism, but one for Statism.

      Even the CIA reports the country was better off without a government then with one – and that is the true measure – one of comparison with a before/after, and not one of this country vs that. You do not like when I use N. Korea as an example against you, do you? 🙂

      Freedom does not cure starvation, disease, repair problems of geography or climate, etc.

      But it is merely a man free to do the best he can or wants to do, that’s all, and to do without a gun to his head.

  31. Buck

    Finding an historical example – well the author merely displays his ignorance as we have already demonstrated this in many posts on SUFA.

    To comment even further, let’s look at the examples of Statism – no matter how many times, by how many theories, and how many systems, they all failed – and along with their failure killed millions.

    One better be careful in demanding examples, when the examples for your case are horrific.

  32. Interesting … Here, in timeline format, are some prominent Paul statements tied to the issue drawn from transcripts, video clips, and news reports.

    1985 to 1994

    The controversial statements that have surfaced stem largely from this period. They were contained in newsletters with titles like Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter, rarely under a byline (although many contained first-person references that readers would assume referred to Paul himself).

    Some samples: A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ ”

    Another letter said “I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

    An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Report labeled former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D) of Texas “the archetypal half-educated victimologist,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

    1995 to 1996

    In a 1995 C-Span interview, Paul talks up his newsletter and espouses some familiarity with its contents. He says it deals a lot “with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do.”

    Paul, having been out of office for a decade, ran for Congress in 1996 and the content of the newsletters were raised by his opponent as a campaign issue. Paul’s campaign doesn’t deny authorship of the newsletters, but says the Democratic rival is taking the message out of context.

    In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul said the comment about black men in the District of Columbia arose from his study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.

    Okay, now I’m caught up. I’m very comfortable, if this is accurate (that this was going on for years and based on his “study”), he’s a racist … or at least a political opportunist happy to cash in on racist views. Screw him.

    • Can’t actually watch the video’s -but from what I can read-I don’t see actions that would make me believe Ron Paul is a racist-and actions speak a lot louder than words.

      22 Reasons Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-facts-that-dont-jibe-with-ron-paul-being-a-rac-41xp

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      I don’t know about the rest of it but he was spot on with Barbara Jordan. Of course, you cannot say anything negative about Barbara Jordan or any other black legislator because….well, because….. you would be a racist. Wasn’t there something out there a while back about Guam tipping over. Those who found issue with that congressman’s claim were, well….racists. You see, in the scheme of things, in newspeak, even the laws of physics are trumped by accusations of, or fear of accusations of racism.

      History has conclusively proven that facts are immaterial in a racial context. The only person I know who ever got away with it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Mostly his conclusions were buried by the media which saved him. He was a credentialed liberal with an independent (sometimes) mindset unless it came to voting against party leadership. In those instances, what he thought or had proved mattered little. It was more important to support the party. I just love the honesty of liberals, always have, ever since Vietnam.

  33. The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Federal Offenses: law enforcement teams grow at government agencies” wrote on Saturday of the proliferation of heretofore nonexistent police forces in federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Labor Department, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency, and many others who have the power to conduct investigations, seek indictments, or simply raid violators of even regulatory violations. Cases where armed agents have raided homes and workplaces have included the infamous Gibson Guitar raid for illegal wood; documentation errors on otherwise legal imports, and even the recent batch of a 881 lb. Bluefin Tuna by a New Bedford trawler. “Put the tuna on the ground and raise your hands”.

    The Internal Revenue Service has been strong arming countries around the world to open their bank records not to trace narcotics cash or Russian mobsters, but income tax evaders. The “Stop On Line Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the recent NDAA Act, which is now law, have broadened the policing authority of the Federal government to a never before greater degree at a time when ordinary crime is decreasing. The SOPA Act, in the words of one IT manager, would make our internet similar to China’s. The NDAA allows for the President to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens. The law then becomes a matter of semantics to the unprincipled.

    In the meantime, corruption and cronyism have risen to a level not seen since the 1870’s.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/our_growing_police_state.html#ixzz1i1d1yKe4

  34. NEW YORK (AP) — A television show about members of a Muslim community in Michigan is focusing what may be its second-to-last episode almost entirely on the conflicted feelings that its featured participants have about marking anniversaries of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    The episode of TLC’s “All-American Muslim” airs Sunday (10 p.m. EST). The series attracted attention earlier this month when a conservative Christian group called on advertisers to boycott the series, calling it “propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda’s clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values.”

    That’s at the root of the biggest conflict in Sunday’s episode. One woman talks about how important it was to attend a Sept. 11 commemoration, but her adult-age children didn’t want to go.

    One man, Bilal Amen, traveled to New York City to visit the Sept. 11 memorial because, he said, “I want to see the place that changed my life.”

    Another woman, Nina Bazzy, spoke angrily about the Sept. 11 terrorists and said they weren’t real Muslims because “a real Muslim would not do anything like that.” She said Osama bin Laden made life difficult for many Muslims in the United States.

    “He ruined it for us,” Bazzy said. “He ruined it for our kids. He made us scared in our own homes.”

    “All-American Muslim” ends its eight-episode first season on Jan. 8. Its ratings are considered disappointing for TLC, and the attention caused by this month’s controversy didn’t improve them. Based on ratings alone, a second season would be considered unlikely. Working in its favor is TLC’s pride in a series that spotlights communities that many viewers aren’t familiar with.

    TLC hasn’t made a decision on the show’s future and its executives will meet soon to consider it, Winter said.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/29/tv-show-on-muslims-takes-on-sept-11-attacks/#ixzz1i1guiuDt

  35. Says the author is O’s cousin? Didn’t realize he had any legal relatives here.

    WOLF: In Obama he trusts
    Why our president fails

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/28/in-obama-he-trusts/

  36. One Libertarians view of Why Libertarians Should Reject Paul………………… (that is not mine by the way).

    An interesting article that discusses an old feud in the “Libertarian” party/movement. I suggest those that are interested to follow the crumbs to find out more about the strategists view as opposed to the ideologues.

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

    • Bottom Line says:

      Libertarians should reject Ron Paul because he isn’t Libertarian. A Republican, a statist, perhaps a Constitutionalist, …yeah, sure…but he is no Libertarian.

      Libertarianism is all about respect for the natural inalienable rights of individuals. If you care to look deeper into his positions, the contrast/contradictions/inconsistencies become apparent.

      For example…

      He posits that no one has the right to force you to buy something…like health insurance.

      He advocates getting rid of FEDERAL income taxes and the federal reserve.

      A few years ago, he wanted to fight to prohibit abortion, then switches his position to more recently say that the FEDERAL government has no right, and that it is up to the STATES to decide.

      He advocates for the legalization of currently illegal drugs.

      (…just to name a few…)

      So, using coercion and violence to force someone buy something like insurance is wrong, but not to steal from them and tell them what to do with their body, but only sometimes, IF it’s this or that entity under this or that circumstance?

      What is so Libertarian about initiating coercion/force to steal and tell people how to live? Who has the right to violate others? The state..sometimes, depending?

      Libertarian my ass.

      What annoys me about Ron Paul is that he exploits Libertarian values by twisting them to fit his agenda. He is a very intelligent man, so I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to discerning the difference. However, I can’t dismiss that he may be rationalizing in some way. He IS human. But still, …I’m not buying it.

      It’s funny, …I’ll be somewhere preaching the message of freedom and liberty, …never actually using the words. I get ostracized, ridiculed, criticized and insulted. But when I say Freedom and Liberty enough times while throwing in a little patriotic constitutional propaganda BS, it matters not what I argue, I often receive praise.

      There are a lot of ignorant people out there that have no clue of Rights, Responsibility, Freedom and Liberty. This is how he gets away with it. All he has to do is keep saying Freedom and Liberty in reference to his policies while throwing in a few skewed libertarian arguments, …and herds of desperate liberty seekers follow the statist carrot.

      Sigh—-

      Voting is like trying to decide the best way to dress a turd sandwich. Even a little turd tastes like shit.

      • Bottom Line

        I think you are misunderstanding what “Libertarians” are really all about. This creates the appearance of contradictions in Pauls’ positions when in fact there is none.

        While they state they are for individual freedom and the rights of individuals, they also stand firmly in defense of the Constitution. So Paul is correct to say that he is opposed but it is up to the States to decide. This is the classical “Libertarian” view point.

        The assumption is that the States will more accurately reflect the views of the people. But of course this rejects the notion of individual sovereignty as you point out. However, it is consistent with the Libertarian view on our form of Govt.

        So you can’t say he is NOT a Libertarian. In fact it was this contradiction that put Ayn Rand at odds with Libertarian founders. Something many Libertarians don’t seem to realize as they constantly cite her as their guidance.

        Many people commit a serious error when listening to Paul. They don’t recognize when he moves back and forth between philosophical principles and discussions about our Govt’s current contstruct. This happens mostly due to the nature of the questions he gets, because the interviewers don’t understand the basic differences themselves.

        When the “Libertarian Party” starts talking about the SERIOUS FLAWS in the Constitution relative to principles of Individual Sovereignty, then you will know they have resolved their own contradictions.

        Now for the record, the Libertarians are the party with the least egregious conflicts in their ideology. The R’s and D’s are simply walking, talking contradictions in virtually every respect possible.

        • Bottom Line says:

          ” I think you are misunderstanding what “Libertarians” are really all about. This creates the appearance of contradictions in Pauls’ positions when in fact there is none ”

          Libertarianism holds respect for natural inalienable individual rights above all. Take any intentional act, …if it includes the violation of an individual’s rights, it is not Libertarian(or Classical Libertarianism, or Anarchism for that matter).

          The initiation of force/coercion/violence, for sake of an edict, is a violation of inalienable rights, thus not Libertarian.

          Using coercion to take someone’s property(tax) is theft, a violation of rights, thus not Libertarian. The means or justifications do not change that it is theft, …a violation of inalienable rights, thus not Libertarian.

          Using force/coercion/violence to tell someone what to do with their body(forced birth), for sake of an edict, is denying them the right to self determination, thus not Libertarian.

          So here we have two clear examples of how Ron Paul’s positions are in direct contrast with Libertarian core values.

          Now, let’s move on to how some of his positions contradict each other…

          It is wrong to force you buy health insurance because it is violating your right to self determination and property rights. You have a right to decide what is best for you because you own yourself and your time/life and money. These reasons apply to drugs as well as food and anything else…

          …But not a fetus?…

          In this case, you have no right to your body according to Paul. The state is best suited to decide what you are to do with it. It is up to the state to forcefully determine your belief system and righteous decision.

          …But not the FEDERAL government, …that’s somehow different? Are there any other entities that have/don’t have the right to use force to tell someone what to do with their body, above and beyond the individual? Why? How? Where does this right originate?

          Federal income tax is a violation of property rights, but not STATE taxes? If a big thug robs you, he is violating you…but a little thug..well, that’s different because……why?

          Oh but I forgot, you can move freely to other states. So, one should abandon their home because they disagree with being violated?

          ” While they state they are for individual freedom and the rights of individuals, they also stand firmly in defense of the Constitution. So Paul is correct to say that he is opposed but it is up to the States to decide. This is the classical “Libertarian” view point. ”

          Yeah, firmly in defense of a piece of parchment with ink on it, that conveniently says some folks are 3/5 persons, as to not include them in having their rights ‘protected’.

          ” The assumption is that the States will more accurately reflect the views of the people. But of course this rejects the notion of individual sovereignty as you point out. However, it is consistent with the Libertarian view on our form of Govt. ”

          More accurately reflect the views of the people in what capacity? ….when determining what is best for them and how much money to take? How is that consistent with the Libertarian view?, …and what difference does it make if it is the US Govt. or another Govt? If it is violating individual rights, it is inconsistent.

          ” Many people commit a serious error when listening to Paul. They don’t recognize when he moves back and forth between philosophical principles and discussions about our Govt’s current contstruct. This happens mostly due to the nature of the questions he gets, because the interviewers don’t understand the basic differences themselves. ”

          I have a few questions for him.

          ” When the “Libertarian Party” starts talking about the SERIOUS FLAWS in the Constitution relative to principles of Individual Sovereignty, then you will know they have resolved their own contradictions. ”

          Indeed.

          ” Now for the record, the Libertarians are the party with the least egregious conflicts in their ideology. The R’s and D’s are simply walking, talking contradictions in virtually every respect possible. ”

          Again, I agree.

          …But is still a turd sandwich so long as force is part of the equation.

          • Bottom Line says:

            “The Philosophy Of Liberty”

            • BL

              Only one little problem with the beginning premise.

              YOU do NOT OWN your own life. Your life is not something that can be owned as it is not property.

              • Bottom Line says:

                You don’t “OWN” ‘YOUR’ friends and family either, but you do have a certain right and responsibility toward them.

                You are indeed the one that determines where you want to go in life and how to get there. Your labor is a product of you and your time, your life, which is traded for money.

                Do you not own your paycheck?

                Are you not the one that decides what is best for you?

                What does the state say makes you happy?

              • Bottom Line

                Yes, you own those THINGS.

                But those THINGS are NOT your LIFE. They are the outcomes or products of living in a manner that you choose, or is foisted upon you.

                There is a rational defense of Liberty, BL. All I am saying is that this idea that it is based on “you own your life as property” is a fallacious defense.

                For starters, “life” itself is far to broad a term to build a defense around as a singular entity.

                Life = essence of being alive = NOT dead. I do NOT own my LIFE. I can certainly end it, but it is not property. It is not property. It is the thing that allows ME to exist.

                Life = the totality of everything associated with one’s existence over time = living a xyz life. I would argue that I do not own this either, but recognize there is wider possible arguments. Because the nature of the term has changed.

                You touched on a key point, that of responsibility. At the root, we are all responsible for our own “existence” or “life”, in the material sense. WE must THINK, then we must CHOOSE, then we must ACT or we will die. Thus we are RESPONSIBLE for our ability to live, to stay alive, to continue existing.

                Loss of liberty results in loss of freedom, and loss of freedom interferes with our responsibility, our God given Right, to pursue our existence as WE CHOOSE. It can eliminate our ability to ACT or it can affect our ability to CHOOSE. And if the barriers are evil enough, they can even adversely affect our ability to THINK. And of course THINKING is the prerequisite to our survival. It is the CORE essence of our NATURE.

              • Bottom Line says:

                I don’t disagree.

                I think this is getting a little into semantics.

                You choose how to live, and what makes you happy. What you do with your time is a product of your free will. The product of your time is your property. To take your property is to take your time and free will…your life.

          • Bottom Line

            “Yeah, firmly in defense of a piece of parchment with ink on it, that conveniently says some folks are 3/5 persons, as to not include them in having their rights ‘protected’.”

            That is a completely Bull Shit argument and you know it. Something I would have expected from Charlie but not you.

            You seem to still be mixing up the discussion about principles with the “existing” situation regarding “govt authority”.

            If I tell you I am against Govt interference in your decision to smoke pot, but then say ONLY the States have the authority to regulate pot, I am not being contradictory. Each statement can be true.

            What is missing is the direct question, “do you think ANY Govt entity should regulate pot and if so, under what conditions?”

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” That is a completely Bull Shit argument and you know it. Something I would have expected from Charlie but not you. ”

              Yeah, that does sound a bit ‘Charlie-ish’, huh? Fair enough, …I’ll clarify.

              My point was two fold. First…

              The Constitution has no rights, authority, or special powers. It does not give you rights, nor does it protect them. It is …” just a god damned piece of paper. ” To say that you are a Constitutionalist is to imply you are a paper worshiper.

              Secondly, The idea behind the Constitution is a well intentioned attempt at limited governance as well as a quagmire. If it knew what it was talking about, there would never have been such absurdities as 3/5 persons and protecting your right to not have alcohol.

              It’s not Libertarianism. It’s a train wreck as it has ‘allowed’ for people to be violated the whole time.

              Burn it and start over.

            • Bottom Line says:

              ” If I tell you I am against Govt interference in your decision to smoke pot, but then say ONLY the States have the authority to regulate pot, I am not being contradictory. Each statement can be true.”

              Each statement can be true, but neither would be Libertarian in nature.

              ” What is missing is the direct question, “do you think ANY Govt entity should regulate pot and if so, under what conditions?” ”

              No

              In fact, you could have stopped at the word “should”. It would still be “No”

              • Bottom Line says:

                Correction:

                Each statement can be true, but that doesn’t mean states telling you what to do is Libertarian in nature.

                Is someone’s rights being violated or not?

              • Bottom Line

                As I said, the Political Philosophy of “Libertarianism” is broader than you are alluding. Please note the adherence to the idea that “Liberty” is the “core moral principle” of society. This is flawed from the start. Liberty is supported by something else. Remember the key questions: WHY? HOW DO I KNOW THIS?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

                You can claim that State laws directing behavior is not “Libertarian” all you want. I am sorry, but the history of the “Libertarian” movement and political party in the USA does not support your claim. While espousing the Liberty as a Moral Base they have argued that the Constitution is infallible, only suffering from nefarious interpretation, and that the STATES have most of the power.

                So if I view Liberty as critical but you ask me if the FEDERAL govt has authority to control “abortions” I would say NO, the STATES have that authority. Because BL, they DO have that authority, under the current Constitution.

                If you recall this was one of the first points I made at SUFA. Back when USW was openly exploring jumping to the “Libertarian Party”.

                I would also like to say that the concept of “Libertarianism” as an area of “metaphsysics” (you will find it also on wikipedia) does not address Liberty or Individual Sovereignty. It is a concept addressing the issue of “free will”. But it never addresses WHY free will is important and thus how it is to be supported by other areas of philosophy.

              • JAC

                You really need to write some articles to consolidate your principals-or maybe just a general outline-I realize it might take a few books to really explain your reasoning 🙂 but I have been on here-I don’t know 3 years maybe-and I find myself becoming more confused about what your actual stand is when it comes to government and how it should work.

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” As I said, the Political Philosophy of “Libertarianism” is broader than you are alluding. Please note the adherence to the idea that “Liberty” is the “core moral principle” of society. This is flawed from the start. Liberty is supported by something else. Remember the key questions: WHY? HOW DO I KNOW THIS? ”

                JAC,

                I’m not alluding to anything. I’m going right to the heart of it. You know,…the “Bottom Line” if you will. I am arguing from the perspective of what the CORE of Libertarianism IS.

                Freedom is unbridled, unrestricted. Liberty is freedom governed by respect for the rights of others. Natural individual rights is the core foundation for all of Libertarian philosophy. Respect for rights( life, liberty and property) is it’s basic premise.

                It is to say live as you are free to choose, just so long as you do not violate others. SIMPLY put, Libertarianism is Live and Let Live.

                NO ONE has a ‘RIGHT’ to violate another.

                Anyone or anything that tells you different, any time anyone is espousing anything about violating rights, or not holding them as paramount, it is NOT libertarian. I don’t care if it is the Libertarian Party, the Constipation, Wikipedia, Ron Paul, Federal State Local or Plutonian government, the guy next door, or Jesus Christ…if it/they advocate for violation of rights, it/they are full of shit and NOT Libertarian.

                Anyone can add whatever BS they want. They can bend and twist and morph Libertarian principles all day long. They can state’s rights this and federal that… blah blah blah… till they’re blue in the face. They can say anything they can and want to to try to convince you and I of whatever misconstrued garbage they have..

                …but at the end of the day, it all boils down to respect for life, liberty, and property of individuals.

                ” …Because BL, they DO have that authority, under the current Constitution. ”

                Exactly.

                Burn it – Start over

                ” I would also like to say that the concept of “Libertarianism” as an area of “metaphsysics” (you will find it also on wikipedia) does not address Liberty or Individual Sovereignty. It is a concept addressing the issue of “free will”. But it never addresses WHY free will is important and thus how it is to be supported by other areas of philosophy. ”

                Right on.

                I rather like the “why?” of things. Understanding the why of free will and natural law is what ties it all together and confirms it for me.

                (This is the part of our discussion where my brain goes into overdrive and I can’t type nearly fast enough to cover even a fraction of it.)

                Why are we here? How did we get here? How did the universe get here? What was here before it? How did it get here? Where did it all start? What is the ultimate purpose of it all?

                However you answer these questions, however you define god and the natural order of the universe…we are by order of nature, free willed individual beings. Just as nature says that Light does X and Gravity does Y, it says that natural beings have free will.

                Free will is at the core of what makes us human. It is the origin of rights. It is at the center of who we are as a species. Free is simply who/what we are. Every manifestation of humanity is ultimately rooted in free will, individual choice.

                To deny free will is to deny humanity…which is exactly what coercive government does…or rather attempts to do.

                You can only suppress the human spirit so much and for only so long. The universe always eventually has its way. And the universe says that mankind must be free to thrive and prosper. This is why coercive governance always eventually fails.

                The second that coercive means of adjudication/arbitration are accepted in any social order, the moment you try to conquer free will, it has breached the slippery slope. Kiss it goodbye.

                Left alone, humans will freely and naturally form an appropriate social order. Cooperation for mutual benefit is the catalyst for our instinctual inclination to organize. The dynamics of free will and inalienable rights is the nexus.

                Respecting the rights of others in order to live and coordinate peacefully is cooperation for mutual benefit. Live and let live is Libertarianism is anarchism is our natural order.

              • Bottom Line

                Re your comment: “Freedom is unbridled, unrestricted. Liberty is freedom governed by respect for the rights of others.”

                Sorry but you have things mixed a bit.

                Freedom, that is total and unconstrained is modified by human selected ethics and morality. Freedom describes our relationship to other human beings.

                Liberty relates to our interaction with Govt. Namely that Govt can not impose its will upon us, as we are Free. It is a secondary and not primary concept.

                In fact, your own argument starts to straighten this out as you go along. This is one of the faults of “libertarianism”.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Government can exist independent of freedom, liberty, and inalienable rights.

                Freedom can exist independent of government,liberty, and rights.

                Liberty can exist independent of government, but not of freedom or rights.

                Take government away. Does Liberty no longer exist?

                Can one not freely choose to violate another?

  37. Good Morning, USW and SUFA…….have a little break from the border before getting out again…..record numbers of drugs and prostitution being caught…record numbers of cartels shooting it out and losing……what? You have not heard it on the news???? Amazing…….bet you did not hear about the numbers of weapons from Holder’s Folly being re-captured either….11 at last count At USW…….make no mistake about it….Fast and Furious goes to the top…..Holder knew about it from inception (no, it was NOT started during Bush as some people like to push)….it was a brand new program. IT goes up to the top….period.

    Now this……

    KABUL, Afghanistan – Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday welcomed remarks from the Obama administration saying that Taliban insurgents were not America’s enemies.

    The U.S. outreach this year had progressed to the point that there was active discussion of two steps the Taliban seeks as precursors to negotiations, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

    Trust-building measures under discussion involve setting up a Taliban headquarters office and the release from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of about five Afghan prisoners believed affiliated with the Taliban.

    Ahhhhh…….another kick to the gut…..same kick as 1975 but more offensive.

    Happy New Year to all…..

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      So you too can hear those choppers warming up for the embassy egress.

      The worst is yet to come, the millions of disgruntled Iraqi and Afghan refugees whom we will welcome with open arms. Those who would rather flee than fight. Our “erstwhile” allies with their suitcases stuffed with cash and Swiss bank accounts. If you are all smart, you will crank-up your letter writing campaigns right now to stop this ingress. We neither need nor want that crew.

      • 
        
        Give me your tired, your poor,
        
        Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
        
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
        
        
        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Right, absolutely, without a doubt. These are who will come.

          Somehow methinks that those folks will wind up on the wrong end of a long sword designed for head removal. Give me a break already. We have become big on legal “well connected” immigrants and on illegals that we can cheat and keep at the bottom of the ladder to permanently do our yard work and wash our dishes for $ 1.80 per hour.

          Have no experience with Iranian, or as they prefer to be called Persian ex-pats do you? Now, that’s a crew. Ask me about it some day. I have stories and they are not all about one individual, family or group but rather about a broad spectrum. What they all have in common is that they were welcomed here with open arms by those quoting Lazarus. Starting two generations now into born American and they still have an air of cultural superiority that would make the late Mrs. Astor envious. I only half facetiously say that they would re-introduce slavery tomorrow if they could get away with it.

          • SK Trynosky Sr,

            Starting two generations now into born American and they still have an air of cultural superiority that would make the late Mrs. Astor envious.

            So you have a problem with them being proud of their culture?

            Or is it your “air of superiority” because they’re not bowing down to you?

  38. Now that the bowl games are coming to an end……shortly…..which game actually holds more interest? There was an interesting commentary on ESPN Sports news just a little while ago and they referenced the following……

    It is no secret that the BCS is a popularity contest, they said. Its popularity is specifically east coast based (ie…most of the pollsters are southeast coast based). Before the season got started, it had already made the decision that Alabama was going to the title game even with one loss and no championship conference win. The commentary went on to say that even if the computers put another team ahead of Alabama…..it would be over ruled…by the pollsters. It is simply about money and the hatred of the other conferences…especially the big 12 and the PAC 10….in that order. So,the ESPN commentators….all three of them….have said the game to watch is going to be the Fiesta Bowl. If Oklahoma State blasts Stanford decisively……the BCS championship game is meaningless.

    The claim of strength schedule cannot and is not a factor this year. Consider this……

    • Wins over current BCS Top 25 teams: Oklahoma State: 5, Alabama: 2.

    • Wins over current BCS Top 50 teams: Oklahoma State: 7, Alabama: 5.

    • Wins over FBS teams with winning records: Oklahoma State: 6, Alabama: 3.

    • Conference titles: Oklahoma State: 1, Alabama: 0

    The synopsis……according to ESPN news……………there is no Championship game this year. They even claim that most of the people watching the BCA Championship game….will be LSU and Alabama. Time will tell……

    AT BAMA DAD….please do not shoot the messenger….

    AT JAC….rest easy sir……the BCS contract expires in 2013. It is widely rumored that it will not survive. The bias was incredible.

    Will be returning to the border shortly.

    • Update,,,,NBC Sports just also said the game to watch…….Fiesta Bowl.

      @ BamaDad…in case you missed me the first time…..I am still the messenger.

      • “Wins over FBS teams with winning records: Oklahoma State: 6, Alabama: 3.”
        I must correct you as Alabama played 5 teams with winning records and 2 teams that were 6 and 6.

      • “• Wins over current BCS Top 25 teams: Oklahoma State: 5, Alabama: 2.”
        Need to correct this one: Oklahoma State: 4, Alabama: 4.

    • D13

      I agree, on the bias and that the Fiesta will be one of the most telling. But so have many of the “ignored” bowl games.

      First things first. Let me just say this once;

      Oklahoma State should be playing LSU for the National Championship. Head to head counts, so Oregon and Alabama shouldn’t get to play in that game.

      This looks to be one of the worst years ever for Bowl game matchups. Great opportunities missed due to the bias.

      TCU, Boise St. and Baylor should have been playing top BCS teams, Arkansas, Stanford, and Alabama. Oregon being committed to the Rose Bowl with Wisconsin.

      As I have argued for placing value on head to head play during the year, Baylor should have got the best game, with TCU and Boise State, in that order.

      The missed opportunities were:

      Baylor vs. Alabama
      TCU vs. Arkansas
      Boise vs. Stanford

      One more comment on College Football. The PAC 12 should have taken Boise State instead of Colorado.

      The PAC 12 North would then be Wash., Wash St., Oregon, Oregon St, Boise St. and Utah.

      Can anyone say: PLAYOFF, PLAYOFF, PLAYOFF.

      Happy New Year Colonel.
      Stay safe and give my best to your family.

      JAC

    • D13
      All good points but Alabama lost to an undefeated team whereas Oklahoma State lost to a 4 loss team. We have one other little thing we can brag about, a number one defense.

      • Bama

        I give great discount to Oklahoma State’s single loss, given the circumstances.

        • JAC
          I give great discount to Alabama’s single loss, given the circumstances because in every major statistic except the score we won.

          • Lombardi: Statistics are for losers …

          • Bamadad

            Hopefully you aren’t equating field statistics with the situation at Oklahoma State. I see a big difference.

            But to your point, I have said here before and after that game that I thought Alabama the better team.

            BUT…………HEAD to HEAD counts on the field of play. Until there is a playoff then in my view Teams that faced off in the regular season should NEVER play for the title game.

            If I assume the same position as you then Boise State should have been considered undefeated the past two years.

            After all, they only lost for the exact same reason as Alabama……………..inability to make a field goal.

            • “If I assume the same position as you then Boise State should have been considered undefeated the past two years.”

              You put words I did not say in my mouth for me. I have never said that Alabama was an undefeated team. I corrected D13 on the stats he posted and took your “great discount” comment and applied it to how I think. Obviously we see things different between our teams. I think the teams that are rated 1-4 are definitely correct, we just disagree on the order. Btw a few years back the SEC pushed for a playoff but the other conferences vetoed the idea. I have always supported a playoff system and until we have one, we will continue to have great teams not recognized.

              • Bamadad

                I did not say you viewed them as undefeated. Perhaps I used the wrong word in response and should have just stopped with “discounting” Boise State’s losses because……..

                My original point was that Oklahoma States single loss came immediately after a tragedy that obviously had great emotional affect on the school, including the football team. Yes, they lost. But the circumstances were outside the norm that Alabama or Boise State experienced on the field during their losses. Thus I gave that single loss great discount.

                I don’t think we see things all that differently about the top teams Bama. As I said here many times, I think Alabama is the better team. But I think head to head games should determine who is “crowned” or gets to play for the “crown”. Don’t mistake my comments for the belief that Boise State should be playing for the Title. They are much better than most people give them credit for, but they are not that good. At least not on the basis of a complete season against upper level competitors. Although I do think they could win the PAC 12 and they are BETTER than Stanford. As for their chances against the other big boys……on any given day all bets are off.

                I still think my proposed match ups would have drawn big TV money and crowds. They would have been the talk around all the water coolers. They would have addressed some of the Big vs Little guy stuff and they would have fit better into old “regional” rivalries” that would have had big crowds.

                Yes, the others did oppose a playoff. The PAC 8, 10, 12………. has opposed it because of the History, meaning money, of the Rose Bowl. They were and remain stupid about this in my opinion. But they sure do love that Prime Time game in the middle of the afternoon TV viewing slot.

  39. Happy New Year SUFA! See you in 2012 – what an interesting year it will be!

    Be smart and stay safe celebrating!

  40. Happy New Year !!!!

    The Case for Conservatism (vs. Libertarianism)

    MATT LEWIS
    Columnist
    Author Bio »
    Contact Author »
    Subscribe :
    Anyone who attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last weekend knows that, although Republicans won big in November, the conservative movement is still facing an identity crisis.

    There are many facets to this, but one way of looking at it is to say that libertarian ideas are encroaching on conservatism.

    Of course, social conservatism — which I would argue is an implicit component of traditional conservatism (though many Christian conservatives in America were politically dormant prior to the 1970s) — has been, perhaps, the most vulnerable victim of the political times.

    Most people view the arguments relating to conservative social policy simplistically. They hear the term “social conservative” and think only of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. This perception ignores the fact that conservative social policy has been a fundamental component of traditional conservatism, an intellectual and philosophical movement going back to Edmund Burke (whom most view as the founder of modern conservatism).

    You know the negative stereotypes: Conservatives who embrace both fiscal and social conservatism are either prudes who want to tell you how to live — “bigots” and hate-mongers — or people who derive their policy positions solely from the Christian Bible (which, depending on your views, may seem either admirable or dangerous).

    But what is not widely understood or appreciated is the philosophical rationale for traditional conservatism, especially as it relates to creating a strong and vibrant society. (In may ways, this philosophy actually traces all the way back to Aristotle, whom many view as the father of political conservatism. Though he was a pagan, Aristotle argued that political life requires a moral foundation, and viewed the family as the fundamental political element.)

    But before we get too deep into that, it’s important to note what conservatism is not.

    Liberals tend to set up equality as the highest good. Equality is the end goal of most liberal policy. The conservative asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Equality is certainly good, but as a highest end and goal, it can lead to devastating consequences.

    Likewise, the pure libertarian (as opposed to those of us who have some libertarian leanings) sets up liberty as the highest good. Liberty is the end goal of all policy. The conservative looks to the libertarian and asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Liberty is obviously a great good, but as the highest end goal, it can also lead to devastating consequences.

    The conservative argues that the greatest instructor on what laws should exist in a civil society is human experience. So, it would seem libertarianism hits its own walls when it ventures out of its world of make-believe theories and steps into the world of reality.

    Alternatively, traditional conservatives believe the rise and success of Western society was not merely a lucky accident or the result of a couple Enlightenment period thunderbolts, but rather the product of diligent work, trial and error, and human experience — and in may ways the result of Christian civilization.

    As such, they argue that preserving a strong moral order — an order that took shape over millennia — is vitally important to a functioning society (including a functioning economic system).

    The fact that we have a nation where contracts are honored — where civilized men don’t descend into the anarchy or the “law of the jungle,” where payola and murder are acceptable norms — was not a foregone conclusion but rather the product of a society that was carefully cultivated for centuries.

    The late Harvard legal scholar Harold Berman noted that our legal system is a “secular residue of religious attitudes and assumptions which historically found expression first in the liturgy and rituals and doctrine of the church and thereafter in the institutions and concepts and values of the law. When these historical roots are not understood, many parts of the law appear to lack any underlying source of validity.”

    In some ways, this is humbling, inasmuch as it argues that Western civilization is not great because its people were inherently superior but that it evolved over centuries because its ideas were based on recognizing the realities of human nature.

    Of course, the dire financial situation facing our nation has caused many people to become more libertarian. The argument is that we should put social issues on the back burner. But the traditional conservative would argue that a moral breakdown has financial repercussions.

    After all, the packaging of rotten mortgage bonds — and then betting against them — seems to reinforce John Adams’ notion that “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Benjamin Wiker, an author and Catholic ethicist, asserts that “libertarianism is parasitic upon Christian civilization.” He means that libertarians take for granted the social order of our current society but ignore the moral foundations of that social order. This order is the product of the accumulated moral wisdom of society — a bond that is not immune to being destroyed when we become unmoored from these traditional values.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/16/the-case-for-conservatism-versus-libertarianism/

    • Typical conservative fallacies.

      First, the author sets up his own view of “conservative” and then uses that to judge other systems.

      Simply dismissing the moral arguments associated with “Liberal….ism” because they don’t fit the “conservative” mold.

      Funny how a Libertarian based society does not try to tear down the religious institution among private citizens, but the Conservative must tear down the Libertarians as being anti civilization and then erect their institutions as the ONLY acceptable.

      As I said when I first came to SUFA. There really isn’t that much difference at the CORE between the Socialist and the Conservative, they are both STATIST.

      • I’m thinking, JAC that you are not immune to reacting and interpreting the words as more harsh, than they actually are, because they involve some criticism of libertarianism-something you have told me many times when I reacted to a criticism of Christianity. 🙂

        I think there are some interesting points in the article-that could be discussed -and I have just started a little research on Edmund Burke-to see what I think of his philosophy.

        • V.H.

          I would never claim to be immune to over reacting. I do try to guard against it but it does happen. I am not a robot like BF or Mathius.

          As for this, I don’t think that was the case. I simply find the authors arguments to be clearly faulty and ignorant of historical perspective. Notice that above I challenge Bottom Line on the “popular” notion or defense of what “libertarianism” is itself. So I wasn’t really reacting to the authors attack on “libertarianism” from an emotional standpoint. At least I hope not!!!!

          My biggest goal was to point out the faulty LOGIC of the argument. If I start out with premise A, lets say Objectivism is the only correct answer, then declare that premise B is false because it doesn’t comply with premise A, I am making an ILLOGICAL argument. Because both A and B are a Premise. They are two distinct things from that point forward.

          Also note that the author is basically claiming that MORALITY itself has never existed until Christianity came along. Since we ALL know this to be false, his other claims that rest on this assumption also fail.

          I agree that this article deserves some serious thought and discussion. I certainly did not intend to shut down that discussion. Unfortunately, today is probably not the best for drawing the attention this deserves. So I will try to refrain until the bigger audience comes around.

          It is good that you are doing research. Commendable in my view. I look forward to your discovery and thoughts.

          I mean that in the most complimentary way.
          🙂 🙂

          • Mathius™ says:

            I am not a robot like BF or Mathius.

            Wait, what? I know BF is a robot.. but I’m a real person!

            • No….DPM is real…….you are a figment of HIS imagination.

              Good morning, SIr….and happy new year to you and yours…..You should have been down here yesterday….we burned 4,346 pounds of marijuana in an open pit doused with diesel fuel…..you could have been down wind.

        • @ VH…you obviously have forgotten that JAC and I have expressed written consent to be over-reactive. We also have expressed written consent to be judgmental, obnoxious, non relevant, and politically biased….if the occasion warrants. (We, of course, decide what is warranted). DPM is our sergeant at arms and enforces all relevant penalties, however, we keep him supplied with ample grog, DP, wenches, and an open letter of Marquee’.

  41. Me again 🙂
    Dec 31, 5:42 PM EST

    Obama signs defense bill despite ‘reservations’

    The new law now requires military custody for any suspect who is a member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and involved in planning or attempting to carry out an attack on the United States or its coalition partners. The president or a designated subordinate may waive the military custody requirement by certifying to Congress that such a move is in the interest of national security.

    “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-31-17-42-05

    • Anita

      Happy New Year my dear.

      It would seem that the President’s statement works against the argument that you and I posed from the start.

      He seems to think the law gives him the authority to detain but in his magnanimous position he will not exercise that power.

      Note the absence of a reference to our Constitutional Rights. It is only an issue of traditions and values. GOOD GRIEF!

    • Happy New Year 🙂

      JAC, Anita, Obama was very articulate to ensure that he would not allow indefinate “MILITARY” detention. That is what the law states he he the authority to do. Does this apply to the TSA, CIA or FBI or any other Big Brother agency? Nope! Just get in the big black bus, you are going to be processed at the nearest Emergency Environment Center.

      • Sorry G! I see your paranoia, leaps and connections just as crazy as you see me on this one. Is the law necessary..nope! Does it scare me personally..nope again. Am I scared of another terror attack..even on US soil..yep. Does this bill help with my fear..not really. Do radical Muslims want me dead..yep..Do I want every option available to stop them in their tracks..yep. Is Obama going to stop them with this law..I doubt it..Is GMan still my buddy..of course!

        • Anita,

          You would be surprised that I agree with you for the most part. Maybe i am paranoid, LOL, 🙂 but I’m certainly prepared to deal with it all. I don’t think we will have an attack by any radical Muslims, but I agree we will have an attack on U.S. soil sometime this year. I’ll have more to write about this soon!

          On a better note, we are finally seeing some winter snow. With two more weeks to whack a deer, it is welcome for me. Cheers!

        • Anita,

          No disrespect intended good lady, but – I find it interesting you have no fear of the government coming after you personally, yet you fear those evil Muslims coming for you.

          These types of laws are building blocks of tyranny – such as the Patriot Act and laws like the detention aspects of the NDAA – and do not support liberty or freedom. None of these laws will stop terrorism, yet they will steal rights from the people.

  42. Happy New Year JAC! It’s gonna go like this..

    Henchmen: Ms Anita, you are a terrorist blogger and we’re here to throw you in the FEMA camp.

    Anita: You sorry ass henchmen..I took alot of grief about S1867 and you’re not throwing me anywhere. Per the bill..signed, not vetoed, by Obama himself…sec 1032 states that I must be AQ or affiliated with AQ with intent to harm America or it’s allies. You can in no way prove this to be true.. Your messiah has also stated and signed into law, though he has his ‘reservations’ about it, like maybe the CONSTITUTION, that he will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Your first move better be to get your DEFINITIONS correct, starting with LIBERTY then TERRORIST, and seek them out before we all end up dead. In the meantime, should you remove me from this very spot that I stand, I will use my one phone call to call JUST A CITIZEN to come and set you straighter than I just have. While I await JAC on the Group W bench, I’ll be singing Henry the VIII I am, I am, until you can no longer stand it!

    Henchmen will immediately unhand me because they realize they cannot win vs a scorned woman!

    See? SIMPLE 🙂 🙂

    • Soooooooooooooooooo glad we are on the same side.

      99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer………………….

      Thought you could use a back up song. Bwahahhaahahaa.

  43. Kathy

    Last week I offered up some Montana Huckleberry jam or syrup as my wager on the Rose Bowl.

    You got somethin or are you running scared??

    By the way, didn’t the fine state of Wisconsin get the Div. III or Div II football championship??? Congratulations.

    • Oh, missed that! Yum, I would love some Montana Huckleberry jam – but just in case Bucky can’t play defense against the Ducks, I’ll offer up some of Wisconsin’s finest – cheese and bratwurst!

      UW-Whitewater did win the D-3 football championship again this year. They have quite a dominating program.

      And the Pack finished off the Lions today – with Matt Flynn having an unbelievable game – to finish 15-1. Football is thriving in WI!

      • The Pack just barely got by the Lions at Lambeau today! Great game. Good job by Flynn. 6 TDs for him First game ever where both QBs threw 5 TDs and 400+ yards. If a couple plays went a different way the Lions could have got the W. Congrats to the Pack!

      • Kathy

        OK, the BET IS ON!!!

        Can’t believe I am going to be cheering for the DUCKS.

        Don’t worry. The Oregon coach will try a few tricks that backfire and possibly give away the game.

        It is their Nature and they can’t resist.

  44. This is encouraging. I would even call it an epiphany.

    A Dying Practice
    Elisabeth Meinecke
    Deputy Managing Editor, Townhall.com
    Dec 29, 2011 08:00 AM EST
    The abortion industry is struggling to reconcile its existence with truths about the procedure that even its members find difficult to deny.

    ——————-
    From Townhall Magazine’s EXCLUSIVE January feature, “A Dying Practice”:

    Imagine a young medical doctor. As an undergraduate, she completed a demanding series of prerequisite courses in subjects like biology, physics and chemistry.

    After graduation and months of intense independent study, she took and passed the MCAT standardized test and became one of a minority of applicants accepted into medical school. Then she embarked on four grueling years of med school, alternating between long lectures on topics such as human embryology and clinical rotations through various specialties, including pediatrics, internal medicine and surgery.

    Four years and $150,000 in student-loan debt later, she became a proud doctor of medicine, ready to heal the world one patient at
    a time.

    Next came her choice of a residency program. She felt called to obstetrics and gynecology—four more years of rigorous, supervised training in the two surgical-medical specialties related to the female reproductive organs.

    Now she faces her most important decision: which subspecialty to pursue. She has many options, including maternal-fetal medicine, which would allow her to assist women with high-risk pregnancies and perform innovative fetal surgeries.

    Then she learns about another option: pregnancy termination. She considers herself “pro-choice” but wonders, having toiled so hard for so long, whether she wants to give up so much to be directly and exclusively involved in the taking of human life. What
    will she do?

    The odds are, she will eschew abortion provision.

    In recent years, there have been sharp declines in both the number of medical students training to perform abortions and the number of doctors performing abortions in their practices.

    An August 2011 article in Obstetrics and Gynecology reported on a survey of more than 1,000 practicing OB/GYNs (the specialty
    from which most abortionists are drawn). It found that while 97 percent said they had encountered women seeking abortions, only
    14 percent were willing to perform them. The situation is especially acute for late-term abortionists. A 2008 report in the journal Contraception found that less than onethird of physicians performing second-trimester abortions were under the age of 50.

    The result is an abortion industry in crisis. A comprehensive 2005 study found that 69 percent of metropolitan counties in the United States and 97 percent of non-metropolitan counties had no abortion provider. The American College of Obstetricians and
    Gynecologists has stated that “the availability of abortion services is in jeopardy.”

    ……

    Dr. Joe DeCook, director of operations for the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, explains in an e-mail to Townhall, “Nearly all doctors go into medicine because they want to cure patients of disease, and they want to be part of a life-saving process.”

    “Abortion,” he writes, “is not practicing medicine. It’s as simple as that.”

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/12/29/a_dying_practice

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Unfortunately, there are large numbers of Doctors from other countries who are only too happy to immigrate and continue performing abortions. That good old Yankee dollar is one hell of an incentive.

      • Now don’t bust my hope balloon 🙂 I wasn’t aware that abortion doctors were mostly immigrants. Are they?

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Can’t say about the rest of the universe but in the poorer neighborhoods of Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn they seem to predominate. Lots of Medicaid money to be made in those clinics.

      • Really? Now those horrible foreigners are to blame for abortion? Anything else you want to stigmatize immigrants with?

        I challenge you to provide factual data to support your argument.

        • Plainly,

          I understand your making this complaint. But I wonder about your jumping to this conclusion. Per his statement about the power of the dollar. Makes me believe that his statement is more on the level of immigrants gravitating towards abortion out of need-not as a way to blame them for abortion. I would actually disagree with him based on my opinion,not actual statistical facts, because of the high level of immigrants that come from highly religious countries.

          • I am going to have to disagree. He specifically implies that these immoral doctors are recruited to come here and carry out abortions. Their immorality comes from their willingness to allow money to rule their ethical and moral codes (about the only thing he can’t call them is “illegal”). I don’t see him screaming about the US born, bred and trained doctors who perform abortions.

            He has strongly implied he is, at best, xenophobic – and not just here. he has also said:

            The worst is yet to come, the millions of disgruntled Iraqi and Afghan refugees whom we will welcome with open arms. Those who would rather flee than fight. Our “erstwhile” allies with their suitcases stuffed with cash and Swiss bank accounts. If you are all smart, you will crank-up your letter writing campaigns right now to stop this ingress. We neither need nor want that crew.

            This nation entered their countries and started wars, which many of the natives then chose to side with the US and are now worried about their lives. They will come – LEGALLY – for the most part, yet he wants them stopped. He blames them for their predicament, not the US.

            He’s no better than generations prior that have demonized some group as they came to the USA.

            • Plainlyspoken,

              Well said!!

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              No, no, no. I never said anything about anyone recruiting anyone, though that may happen. I did have one instance where a tenant of ours, a shrink, did go to Argentina and recruit shrinks whom he paid $ 75.00 per hour to and put them up for six months. In turn, he received $ 150.00 per hour from Medicaid. After the working visa ran out, they returned with a pocketful of dollars and new Argentinian shrinks took their place. This was done because the State of NY decided that the Spanish speaking community was undeserved by shrinks. Now, I am a bit biased. The perp, if you will, was a legal Dominican immigrant who had both US Citizenship and a Major’s commission in the NYANG and STILL beat us for a years rent.

              Regarding the abortion doc’s, I am referring to a small but not insignificant sub-group that I have dealt with which serves the mostly poor and immigrant areas of NYC. I do not have stat’s. What I have heard from medical professionals I know is that there is money to be made. in the finest tradition of American money making, these folks are merely taking advantage. It should be relatively easy to research by looking up Medicaid fraud. I’m sure every ethnic group has their share but I guess the best place to start would be the Russian Mob in Brooklyn.

              I am surprised in a way that when I bring up immigrants even here on SUFA I am attacked as if I want to nail the door shut. Nothing is farther from the truth. Yes, I was making an analogy to various Vietnamese Generals and Politicians, and to Iranian politicians, businessmen and technocrats and to each and every scummy two bit con man that wants into this country after the gravy train is shut down in his own. Anyone who has eyes and ears can see what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq and can see the two bit hustlers we have supported who are looked upon as puppets by their own people. When the final reckoning comes, they will be here, or in Switzerland first and you will hear the wailing chorus of “they were our allies”. They risked everything for us. Sure, some did, but they won’t be on the 1st class flights out. I wonder what the Gallup poll would say if Iraqis and Afghans were asked about corruption in their countries.

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                Interesting, stats show that 20% of practicing doctors in the US are foreign born and educated and that they mostly serve in fields under served by US born doctors.Most were from the sub-continent. Seems to me I heard that there was a big problem getting OB-gyn doctors and specifically those willing to perform abortions. A stretch I admit, but I have no doubt that further research would confirm observation.

                Again, having had at least one of my children treated by a foreign born-educated GP while on vacation some 25 years ago in a rural town abandoned by American docs decades before I have no problem. He diagnosed the strep and treated it properly. Merely pointing out certain things. When the tired, poor, words were written, the folks who responded were certainly not doctors, nor professors. They were the powerless and oppressed who started at the bottom and built the country. This is a somewhat different population than we see today. We still have the powerless and oppressed but they are joined by their countrymen who are neither and one might say come from the classes who did the oppression.

              • SK,
                Side notes:

                . I am surprised in a way that when I bring up immigrants even here on SUFA I am attacked as if I want to nail the door shut.

                No, I complain that you are inconsistent in the application of your position.

                You base your primary complaint on the economics of “illegal” immigration, yet, you offer contrary argument regarding the economics of “legal” immigrants – when both of these circumstances offer precisely the same economics – cheap labor.

                You cannot reconcile this.

                . I wonder what the Gallup poll would say if Iraqis and Afghans were asked about corruption in their countries.

                You need not wonder.
                They are utterly appalled at the corruption of their countries – and they completely blame the US for it.

                In the Afghan case – after the Soviets left, corruption was so bad, the Afghan’s installed the Taliban.

                For all their bizarre fundamentalism, the Taliban were not corrupt – which is why they were so hated by the old Afghan establishment that is now in power.

                The Taliban essentially eliminated the Heroin trade; removed the corrupt bureaucrats and established extreme consequences upon such.

                Now, it’s all been undone – heroin trade is bigger then ever and the corruption in the bureaucracy has never been higher. Ever wonder where the billions of “reconstruction” funds disappeared into?

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Plainly,

              “He is no better than generations prior who have demonized some group as they came to the USA”

              Now, that is one hell of a broad statement. Have to check my credentials and see if grandpa stored our cancelled ticket from the “Mayflower” somewhere.

              • Who cares about a “canceled” ticket? You find fault with different groups for wanting to be here – for whatever reason – assigning them the worst of moral character and seemingly angry that they arrive here with more than they “deserve.”

                Yep, clearly demonizing.

                And, again, I will ask you why it’s their fault when the USA invaded those two countries and started wars with them?

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                That was sarcasm, the cancelled ticket thing. Who is demonizing who? I demonize no one other than those who arrive here with stolen goods or bundles of money which stink of opium.

                Yes, we started wars over there. It is, as usual, our fault (only some sarcasm here). They threw in with us. Probably a huge mistake on their part.

                It was your original reference to Emma Lazarus’ poem that kicked this off. How we have become either the refuge or the facilitators for dictators and scoundrels who hide behind the real refugees I’ll never know. At least Khadaffi had the guts to stay and fight it out.

                I have met both the honest refugee and the crook in my time. I have no use for crooks.

              • your original reference to Emma Lazarus’ poem

                :::sound of buzzer::: Not my reference. I believe that was Todd.

                I demonize no one other than those……

                So you do demonize then?

                ….who arrive here with stolen goods or bundles of money which stink of opium.

                Notice how it’s all stolen goods or stinks of opium in your thinking? How do you know this? Why so bitter? You don’t like poor immigrants who steal jobs from citizens (who don’t necessarily want any of the “stolen” jobs) and you don’t like affluent ones because they surely must have stolen the monies they bring, or are recipients of monies from criminal enterprises. Why not just step up and be honest – you just don’t like immigrants of any kind?

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.

                Yes, I confess to being judgmental. I know, they told me last Sunday in church I shouldn’t do that but I’m a sucker for demonizing demons. Hell I guess in ’45 if I saw some guy with a German accent standing at Ellis Island with a bag full of gold teeth, I should just have assumed he was a dentist.

              • You don’t have to be hopeless…..even you can be saved.

          • V.H.

            But I wonder about your jumping to this conclusion.

            Sorry, but you have it backwards. SK Trynosky Sr is the one jumping to conclusions. Until he provides some kind of facts, it’s nothing but a biased opinion.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            VH, Plainly Spoken and Todd;

            My Public Health contact who has both a law degree and an MPH, all earned within the State of NY over the last ten years picked up on the query. He says that there is no way to track the specialty in Ob-Gyn by foreign born and trained. What he does say, and I wish I could just paste on this is that the specialty has probably gone in that direction since Abortionists are more or less treated like pariahs in the medical community. While in the beginning abortion was mainstream , most were done in hospitals, most are now done in “clinics” on an outpatient basis. With the risks associated few hospitals want involvement. There are very few residencies in Ob-Gyn that even offer the training, he says, even as an elective. With fewer and fewer insurance companies providing coverage, it is becoming more of a “cash” only specialty.

            Based on his personal knowledge as a military recruiter specializing in medical professionals, back in the early ’00’s, a number of these Ob-Gyn’s tried to join the Army Reserve. All but one were rejected, “they were the outliers of medicine, a slew of malpractice claims, 20 years of practice without Board certification etc.” the issue of quality, or lack thereof have been discussed at a number of conferences he attended civilian and military.

            I wish I could have come up with something a little better for you. I worked on it for a few hours before kicking it to somebody who knows more but short of knocking on doors and finding out who is speaking what language, this is the best I can do.

            • You didn’t have to bother-as far as I’m concerned-I think you were unfairly attacked based on assumptions- instead of just being questioned about what you actually meant by the statement.

              I simply said, I understood that such a bald statement could cause people to imply a lot-but I didn’t understand the immediate jump to accusing you of blaming abortion on immigrants or implying that all immigrants would go against their principals to do abortions.

              I think it is fairly easy to see that people who are new to the country and trying to succeed might gravitate toward these positions . Not that every immigrant doctor -no matter his personal principals would betray them to make money.

              • Let’s change that to infer alot!

              • I also will add-that if my original article is correct and the trend is that American doctors are rejecting performing abortions-although I figure there will always be some-if the number isn’t big enough to meet the demand-I would not be a bit surprised to hear the next argument for abortion rights to become attached to an argument to allow doctors who are willing to fill this “need”(make me throw up) based on giving doctors who will fill these positions top priority to immigrate.

            • As far as your guys comments-he seems to be saying that the only people in our society who are qualified to perform abortions-are either shunning the practice or supporting it as long as They don’t actually have to perform them. Which is leading to a greater number of the less qualified, less principled, and more desperate, filling these positions. And a few principled, qualified doctors who truly think they are fulfilling a need.(I respect these guys more) but I still want to throw up using the word Need!!!!!

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                That pretty much sums it up. I do not disagree with your seeing the eventual rush on visa’s for these folks. That is only logical. It already exists in a number of professions including nursing. My take on his comments was that we are getting back to something approaching the infamous “back alley” abortion but done legally.

            • SK,

              I would not argue against the thinking that more foreign born doctors – in all specialties – are coming to the US on visas to ply their trade here, especially since I have read more than one article on the shortages of students entering into medical schools. In fact one of the ER Physicians my wife works with is from Costa Rica. In the OB-Gyn field the risks of suffering a malpractice suit are high and many do not wish to accept them.

              One of the moves over the past decade to improve the numbers of health care providers has been the increase in nurses gaining their Masters and becoming Nurse Practitioners (NP) – as my wife is doing. Especially in rural areas you will see more of them becoming the primary care providers. In the closest Emergicare to where I live it is staffed with an NP – no doctors want to work this far out. In the hospital my wife works in there is an NP on staff in the Emergency Department – supplementing the number of physicians. Once my wife graduates and finishes up her requirements to work under a physician to get her prescriptive authority she intends to open a practice in our rural area to help serve the needs of the small communities in our tri-county area. It is sorely needed for sure.

              The outlook for the medical providers in America is not going to be getting better anytime soon either. With the ACA coming on line there will be smaller numbers of practitioners willing to provide care under Medicare/Medicaid or the restricted insurance plans that will likely exist to hold down costs. I foresee America needing to import a lot more trained physicians.

              But, with all of that what got to me was the insinuations about these foreign docs and why they would come here. They just don’t take up practices only in the abortion business by any means and are no more representative of the morality of physicians than native born, bred and trained docs. It seemed they where being defamed just because of the medicine they chose to practice here.

  45. Hope you did your homework, and know now what you are required to do, over and above all the other laws.

    About 40,000 state laws taking effect at the start of the new year will change rules about getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia.

    • @ BF…thought you would appreciate these:

      Dumb Texas Laws:

      The Texas Constitution
      Article 1 – BILL OF RIGHTS
      Section 4 – RELIGIOUS TESTS
      No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

      20.003. Weather Modification and Control Grant Program
      The department shall develop and administer a program awarding matching grants to political subdivisions of this state for weather modification and control.

      In Dallas, Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six “realistic” dildos.

      In Amarillo, It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.

      A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hour notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed. ( This is a new law designed to create an additional charge to lengthen penalties ).

      In cattle domains, Wire cutters cannot be carried in your pocket unless you are the owner of the cattle and it is your property.

      Sec. 24-17. Impeding sidewalk.
      It shall be unlawful for a person to stand or sit on a city sidewalk or city right-of-way so as to impede, physically or by intimidation, free and uninterrupted pedestrian passage. A violation of this section shall be a class C misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).

      In Houston, It is illegal to sell Limburger cheese on Sunday and Beer may not be purchased after midnight on a Sunday, but it may be purchased on Monday.

      In Port Arthur, obnoxious odors may not be emitted while in an elevator.

      Sigh…………….even Texas is not immune.

      Defeated this legislature was a bill submitted to make it illegal to joke, denigrate, or otherwise make fun of any individual from California.

  46. @ Mathius…..

    This is what we captured in 8 days on the border….just my group…..do you have any idea how bulky 4,000 pounds of the weed is? DAMN !!!

    We dug a ditch with a cat…. (Oh, cat=caterpillar bladed machine, for those uninformed)….dumped all that weedy stuff in……doused it and blazed it…….much to the chagrin of everyone…..just sort of stared at it…..pretty fire though. Great smoke cloud…..

    • Side note:……..Had a guy with a harmonica……he played taps at the burning, with a tear in his eye at all that weed being sent to its demise. He said….what a waste.

    • Mathius™ says:

      You didn’t have to bother..

      The people they were selling the drugs to were planning to dispose of the weed by fire anyway.

  47. V.H.

    Re:
    “JAC

    You really need to write some articles to consolidate your principals-or maybe just a general outline-I realize it might take a few books to really explain your reasoning 🙂 but I have been on here-I don’t know 3 years maybe-and I find myself becoming more confused about what your actual stand is when it comes to government and how it should work.”

    That is a fair request and I will soon try to at least clarify my position. It really hasn’t changed.

    I think some of the confusion comes from when I challenge the thinking of others, like I am doing here with Libertarianism. I am simply trying to show that the arguments being proposed in support are out of order, that a solid philosophical defense has not been constructed. So I am really challenging the process, but it may sound like I am arguing against the concepts.

    For example, in BL’s response he is correct in stating that Liberty is the “fundamental principle” of Libertarianism. But from a Philosophical viewpoint, that is NOT a CORE principle. And I am trying to point out that the “Libertarians” never created a “solid defense” of Liberty or Freedom. Now much to BL’s credit he does so in his last rebuttal. At least partially, when he raises “free will” as a basic human condition. This of course would mean that “free will” is part of our “Nature” and thus supported by “The Law of Identity”.

    So the question to be explored, relative to his proposition, is whether “free will” is in fact a part of Human Nature. Is it inherently part of who we are? Or is it something we have deliberately created farther up the philosophical ladder? Or does it describe other “core” principles, such as the requirement to think, choose and act.

    There was one other key point I was trying to make on this subject. That is that BL doesn’t get to declare who is or is not a “Libertarian” because the historical record shows it to be a much more “fuzzy” concept that BL is claiming. That and their defense of Liberty is sloppy. BL expresses what most “Libertarians”, especially the younger ones, believe it means. I am only trying to show that others have differing ideas. This makes it hard to claim one is a Libertarian and another is not.

    I am trying to be consistent here in using the original meaning of terms and concepts to show that OUR understanding has become a little fuzzy on these points. Let me bring up two examples from prior discussions to make the point.

    First, while I claim to be a “modified Objectivist” in my philosophy, I can not really claim I am an Objectivist of any kind. Because I do not conform the to the requirements of Ayn Rand, herself, nor to those “cultist types” who inherited her mission. It was her creation so if I do not meet her definition then I can’t claim the title.

    Second, is the debate we have had about the evil ethic of Altruism. Remember how many howled at this notion because they have an entirely differing view of what it means than the man who INVENTED the concept. I use HIS definition since HE INVENTED the idea.

    Now let me address a point in BL’s last rebuttal that needs to be clarified. At least according to “my” viewpoint. Others may disagree.

    Liberty is in fact the necessary result of Freedom. It is the “political” manifestation or requirement to sustain Freedom. The proper order is as follows:

    Freedom is a state of existence between humans. It is modified by Ethics and Morality. Freedom is essential to living according to our Nature.

    Liberty is a state of existence between humans and Govt. It is the primary modifier of Political Philosophy that must be consistent with Freedom, including the ethics and morality that are tied to freedom.

    Freedom and Liberty, and their attached ethics/morality dictate the form of Govt. It demands VDLG.

    • I am actually glad to hear you speak of this-I have found myself thinking many times that people were saying libertarian but describing anarchy.

      If you look at the arguments-based on State Rights-you are basically saying that “we the people decide what should be law” we simply do it in a less centralized way. I’m not saying they aren’t promoting freedom as the first priority but they are still endorsing the democratic process.

      • V.H.

        You have recognized the “contradiction” of most “Libertarians”. Their arguments actually support NO GOVT but then they claim “limited Govt”.

        One of the key questions that needs to be addressed, by ALL of us, is whether Govt is “required” or if it is simply “desirable” and if it can be “compatible” with the core principles of freedom and liberty.

        VDLG is an argument that some limited govt is in fact desirable and that Govt’ Nature can be contained and made compatible.

        BF and others would argue that you can not keep the beast caged.

        Jefferson, and I, share the view that it can be contained, but not permanently. Thus requiring some type of “revolution” from time to time to reinforce the cage.

        Our current problem is that it has been far to long since the last “revolution” and this the Beast’s Power has grown to a point I am not sure we can put it back in the cage. That is our challenge.

        That is, once we know what the principles are that we will use to construct the cage.

  48. Todd

    Lets look an the entire poem.

    “Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Now lets put it in context of the 18th and 19th century. Huddled masses = Those who are not part of the aristocracy.

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Heh, heh, heh!

    • JAC,

      Huddled masses = Those who are not part of the aristocracy.

      Ok, so what’s your point?

      • Todd

        My point was that I think he was referring to the crooked aristocracy in the first place.

        Those corrupt folks with “swiss bank accounts” and “briefcases full of money”.

        That would be the ones who were in power and corrupt who now run to the USA. That is what happened with Viet Nam and I believe that he was drawing a parallel between the two situations.

        Also just wanted everyone to realize that there was much more to that little verse you posted. Both in words and in contextual meaning.

        • That would be the ones who were in power and corrupt who now run to the USA. That is what happened with Viet Nam and I believe that he was drawing a parallel between the two situations.

          If that is all he was saying, and I don’t believe he was, there will be many who don’t have suitcases stuffed full of money or Swiss bank account that also come to the USA – it was the USA that created these situations completely in the first place (unlike Vietnam).

          Further, why is it that those with suitcases of cash and Swiss accounts are all crooked and corrupt? Maybe they earned it legally under the system of US government regulated commerce in the countries in question.

          Amazing at his prescience that only the corrupt will end up coming here.

          • Further, why is it that those with suitcases of cash and Swiss accounts are all crooked and corrupt? Maybe they earned it legally under the system of US government regulated commerce in the countries in question.

            Oh – no shit!

            You guys babble on and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…

            about capitalism and how great the wealthy are and why they should be able to keep their money – in Swiss Bank Accounts no less!

            But the minute some “foreigner” has money – ooooh, it’s all corrupt and evil and theft!

        • JAC,
          You think the “crooked aristocracy” includes millions of disgruntled Iraqi and Afghan refugees?

          Or is it Iraqi and Afghan refugee / abortion doctors?

          That would be the ones who were in power and corrupt who now run to the USA.

          Are you referring to the puppets we put in power?

          Also just wanted everyone to realize that there was much more to that little verse you posted. Both in words and in contextual meaning.

          What else would “Huddled Masses” mean?
          Do you think someone thought “Huddled Masses” meant the aristocracy?

          Why are you putting up this defense of…?

          I think you’re giving SK Trynosky Sr way too much credit…and I’ll stop there – for now…

          • Todd

            A little distraught and over reacting perhaps???

            I am NOT defending anything. Being the age I am, I simply understood SK’s cross reference to Viet Nam.

            I doubt we will see “millions” running to the USA. But the aristocracy that will fall out of power will certainly be among them.

            Some may be puppets but some will not be puppets. And who are YOU to decide who is a puppet?

            I have no idea what profession they will be. I do know that my own dentist is from Iran. And his entire family, who also emigrated to the USA, are Doctors.

            Re the Poem, “Huddled Masses” included those running from Religious persecution. Something often overlooked by the lefties who love so much to quote the inscription. Again, I was simply showing how the poem connected to SK’s comments/reference to Viet Nam and thus his opinion about who might be running to the USA. I was passing no judgment as to whether his comment is accurate.

            I think it an over reaction, though there is probably a thread of truth in it as well.

            Hope you have some good snow to ski on pretty soon.

  49. If want to understand the Middle East and America, this is a very good video

  50. YES!

    Sparty in triple overtime with a field goal block to win it! Go Green!

    Go BADGERS!

    • Anita

      Now I was exhausted from cheering for Sparty, yelling at the TV and everything then you go and do the Badger thing.

      Well my dear……………… It is ALL ROSES in Oregon. Bwahahahahah

      Proving that Boise State is the top team in the Big 10 and the Pac 12 Bwahahahahahaha

      • DO NOT RAIN ON MY PARADE TODAY. Now I’m forced to say Go Blue just to keep the Big Ten rolling!

        • And there you have it. GO BLUE! Go Wolverines!

          The Great Lake State saves face for the Big 10!

          🙂

  51. Bottom Line says:

    ” Hey, I’m always willing to find middle ground. As I have often said, as long as someone is moving in my general direction- toward more liberty- I will be beside them.

    However, I won’t support their efforts to initiate force or coercion if that is part of their plan, nor will I cooperate if that force or coercion is directed at me. “Middle ground” doesn’t include making me do things I know to be wrong- violating my principles.

    If “you” (in the general sense) reach a point of “enough liberty” for you and wish to stop, we can then part ways as I continue onward. No hard feelings as long as you don’t then try to hold me back or smear my efforts. I know what I want, and I’ll not stop working toward it. ”

    – Kent McManigal May 23, 2010 Stand Up For America – “Anarchy: Truth or Fantasy ”

    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/guest-commentary-anarchy-truth-or-fantasy/#comment-71954

    • I’ve always found this argument hard to follow-even if one lives in a government free society-there is going to be rules that one is going to be expected to agree with and follow-so if one doesn’t agree and refuses to leave or follow them-force is going to be applied. Do you really believe that man can live in a society and each individual can be the sole arbiter of defining what is imposing on his freedom or which of his activities impose on someone else?

      • V.H.

        Actually I do think it is possible. But that is regarding the “norm” or the “normal people”. Most people are capable of determining if they are imposing upon someone else. The easiest tell is to decide if they would want that done to them. The next is when the other person tells you that you are imposing. Keep in mind that we are not just now starting on this exploration of freedom, rights, ethics and morals. We have been at it for thousands of years. Humans have developed a pretty good understanding of what is proper and what is not, relative to building a cooperative and peaceful society.

        It is the outliers that are always the problem. Those who for what ever reason, or lack of reason itself, don’t care whether they violate someone’s freedom or rights. That is the demand for the concept of laws. To create a means of dealing with the violators, the irrational, in ways that do not result in all out chaos.

  52. Anita 🙂 Down here!

    PS is right, the government is not responsible for your protection. All the crappy laws that we have now do not guarentee your safety. How many have given up their ability to protect themselves by allowing really bad gun control laws, all in the name of false protection.

  53. ::: continually banging head on keyboard :::

    You’re in for it now! I totally understand every word you guys have posted over the last couple weeks. I just think you guys are going overboard on THIS law. THIS ONE. THIS.ONE LAW. WHICH ABSOLUTELY EXCLUDES YOU! and don’t try to bring the alphabet enforcement into it either because they are not in THIS ONE either!

    • OK, Fair deal. It’s just one law after all. All it really does is reaffirm the Patriot Act anyway. So, for the sake of keeping the peace, don’t worry about what the government will do, it won’t have any effect on most of us anyway. There is nothing to see here so let’s move along 🙂

      Sucks to be your keyboard today 🙂

      • ::: still knowing these guys are shakin their heads at me :::

        Good deal 🙂 Besides my Spartans won their bowl game today so just let me be happy 🙂

        • still waiting on Cyndi to rip me again though… 🙂

          • Where is that woman? I always thought she was tough-so why did she run away? Did she allow the liberals she is forced to live with, beat her down and make her think her opinions weren’t as important as other people’s or what?????? You hear me Cyndi!-come back and stand up for your opinions. I miss you, sister 🙂

            • I’ll see if I can get her to step in..I miss her around here too. She’s been running a pretty good thing by email 🙂

            • I’m here. The liberals didn’t chase me away. I just decided that trying to reason with them is like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig 😉 Actually, I decided to focus my time and energy on prepping. I’m also closely monitoring economic news as well as what our **cough** representatives are doing on ‘our’ behalf.

              I miss you two also. That’s why I email Anita and am dropping in to reply to you. 🙂

  54. Kathy

    Send me an email at :

    justacitizen1787@gmail.com

    I will send you the address for the cheese and brats…………emmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    Quack Quack.
    🙂

  55. Nice way to start the day 🙂

    U.S. – US
    Passers-By Rescue Children After Car Plunges into Icy River
    Published January 02, 2012
    | Associated Press
    Print Email Share Comments

    SALT LAKE CITY – Former police officer Chris Willden didn’t hesitate when he realized children were trapped in an upside down car in an icy Utah river. He pulled his handgun, pushed it up against the submerged windows and shot out the glass.
    Then he reached inside.
    “I was trying to grab arms, but I couldn’t feel anything,” Willden said. “I’m thinking … what are we going to do?”‘
    But he turned to see up to eight other passers-by had scrambled down the embankment to help after coming upon the accident along U.S. 89 in Logan Canyon on Saturday afternoon.

    December 31, 2011: A car is submerged in the icy Logan River near Logan, Utah, after as many as 10 passersby jumped in to flip it back over and rescue three young children trapped inside.

    Highway Patrol Lt. Steve Winward said that after shooting out a window, the rescuer cut a seatbelt to free one child. He said the rescuers helped turn the Honda Accord upright in the Logan River.
    They lifted the Honda Accord enough to free the three trapped children.
    The driver, Roger Andersen, 46, of Logan, had lost control of the car as he tried to brake while heading northbound in slippery conditions. His 9-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son were trapped along with a second 9-year-old girl.
    “(The driver) was panicked, doing everything he could to get in through the doors, but they wouldn’t budge,” said Willden, who had jumped into the water with his own father.
    “I remember thinking to myself, `You’re going to see some dead kids, get ready. I’ve got three of my own and it was going to be (an awful) start to the New Year.”
    Willden, who jumped into the water with his father, said he tried unsuccessfully to open windows and doors. He then used his firearm just as he had done in training for his current job as a bodyguard and Department of Defense contractor.
    One of the girls had found an air pocket and was breathing fine but was trapped in her seat belt. Willden cut it with a pocket knife and pulled her from the rear passenger window.
    He said the other two children were lifeless, the boy upside down in his car seat and the second girl floating in the front passenger compartment. Both were pulled from the vehicle.
    Buzzy Mullahkel of North Logan told the Deseret News of Salt Lake City that the boy wasn’t breathing and didn’t have a pulse but was revived when another passer-by performed CPR.
    “Emotions started taking over when he started to breathe. Everybody started to cheer. Lots of tears and clapping,” said Mullahkel, a father of a 4-year-old.
    Willden, 35 of Ogden, was wrapping up his bleeding forearms cut by the broken window when he heard cheers.
    “That was awesome,” he said. “I knew that’s where the little boy was.”
    He would later learn both the boy and his sister, who were flown by air ambulance to Primary Children’s Medical Center in Salt Lake City, had survived.
    Bonnie Midget, a hospital spokeswoman, said Sunday both are doing well after spending the night in intensive care. They were taken out of intensive care Sunday but still in the hospital, listed in fair condition as they recover from hypothermia.
    Winward said the father and the second girl escaped injury.
    Mullahkel said the scene reminded him of another heroic rescue in Logan earlier this year. In that case, bystanders lifted a burning car off an injured motorcyclist and pulled him to safety. The motorcyclist survived and is recovering from his injuries.
    “It was eerily similar,” Mullahkel told the Deseret News. “Those men in the river just even now blow my mind. Look at these gentlemen, these men in this river in the middle of winter.”
    Willden said simply there was a mission to be accomplished.
    He noted that both he and his father are both former military/civilian police officers, while his sister and mother are emergency medical technicians.
    “It’s in our family to go out and help others,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/02/passers-by-rescue-children-after-car-plunges-into-icy-river/#ixzz1iOqqG1d1

  56. Bottom Line says:

    JAC,

    Please explain to me how coercion is respecting rights.

    • BL

      Not sure what the point of your question is supposed to be but let me try this.

      When “coercion” is used to protect your rights.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Coercion is using a threat to gain compliance against one’s free will. It is using a threat to control someone. It is ‘obey or else’.

        You can argue that using a threat to force someone to not violate the rights of another is coercion. But I would argue that it no longer qualifies as coercion, but rather an act of defense.

        You are well within your right to use force as an act of defense, …so long as it does not violate the rights of others. No one has the right to violate another. Coercion as a means to control/violate another, or necessarily including the violation of another, is not an act of defense.

        So, WHEN it is just plain old coercion, or necessarily involves/includes violating someone, HOW is it respecting rights?

        • BL

          You need to clean up your definitions and your wording.

          Otherwise I will give you the same answer.

          By the way, if there is NO Govt then there is no need for Liberty. The concept can still exist within the minds of men, but it is MOOT.

          Liberty is NOT freedom constrained by a non violence ethic. Liberty is freedom unconstrained by force of Govt.

          • Bottom Line says:

            So, WHEN it is just plain old coercion, or necessarily involves/includes violating someone, HOW is it respecting rights?

            • BL

              When coercion, or any other kind of force, is used to protect your rights it is “respecting rights”.

              • Bottom Line says:

                …and when it ISN’T used to protect rights, or necessarily includes violating another, HOW is it respecting rights?

            • BL

              When initiating force is used to violate rights then it is not respecting rights.

              • Bottom Line says:

                So, do you agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it is unjustified as it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights?

            • BL

              No!

              It could be used in retaliation of an unprovoked use of force. Such as capturing the guy who stole your car.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Is your car his property? Does he have a right to your car?

                Is your car your property? Do you have a right to your car?

                Do you have the right to defense of your rights (your right to property)?

                Does he have the right to violate your property rights? If so, does it also trump your right to defense of property?

                How are you violating another by protecting your property?

                You are in your right to seek out and repossess your property. You are within your right to use necessary force to repossess your property. If ‘stealing’ your car back means necessarily capturing and/or shooting people in the head, you are within your right to do so.

                Your example qualifies as force used as a means of defense of inalienable rights.

                So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights?

    • Bottom Line

      No.

      My previous answer still applies.

      Defense is NOT the same as Retaliation.

      Preventing theft is NOT the same as doing what is needed to get your property back.

      I am very curious though how you defend your position that you have a RIGHT to kill someone for taking your lawn mower.

      • Bottom Line says:

        You don’t have a right to kill someone for taking your lawn mower – you have a right to your lawnmower. You have a right to protect your lawn mower. You have a right to use force as necessary to own and possess your lawnmower.

        If someone stills your lawnmower, you do not have the right to punish them through retaliation, as you are no god. You do have the right to use force against anyone forcefully preventing you from owning your lawnmower.

        i.e. – If when you go to retrieve your lawnmower, the thief refuses, take it anyway. If he tries to stop you, you have the right to use whatever force necessary to neutralize his ability to prevent you from taking it back. If that means shooting him in the head, so be it. You are well within your right to do so.

        It is an example of force used in the defense of property rights.

        So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights?

        • Bottom Line says:

          steals*

        • BL

          I do not need to shoot someone to defend my “right” to property. I can do that quite well with Logic and words. But that is not the same as defending my property itself. In fact, I don’t need to own any property to defend my right to do so.

          I agree: The intentional use of force for the purpose of violating the rights of another is an intentional violation of their right.

          • Bottom Line says:

            JAC – ” When coercion, or any other kind of force, is used to protect your rights it is “respecting rights” ”

            JAC – ” I agree: The intentional use of force for the purpose of violating the rights of another is an intentional violation of their right. ”

            So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.

            Good…now…

            Does the use of coercive force to steal someone’s property qualify as respecting rights? …or violating them?

            Does using coercive force to dictate a system of beliefs or subjective standards an example of respecting rights? …or violating them?

            Does using coercive force to dictate how one is to treat their own body an example of respecting rights? ….or violating them?

            • BL

              “So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights………..” I do not agree.

              Answer this: If you take my mower and I come to get it back, and if you are stronger and I shoot you in the head to make you let go of it, did I violate your “inalienable” right to your life?

              • Bottom Line says:

                No.

                I have no right to spend my time/life to violate yours. I have no right to steal and/or keep your stuff, nor do I have a right to stop you from repossessing it.

                You are not violating my life, you are protecting yours…which qualifies as force used as a means of protecting rights.

                By your own free will, you choose to spend your time/life in the form of performed labor, in exchange for monetary compensation that you used to purchase a lawnmower.

                By stealing your lawnmower, I have by my own free will, chose to spend my time/life violating your right to property which you invested your time/life to acquire….which I have no right to do. Thus I have chose to spend my life violating yours.

                You didn’t make me refuse to give your lawnmower back. I chose. And If I chose to do so in a forceful way, or in a way that you can only retrieve your property by force., you are in your right to use force.

                JAC – ” When coercion, or any other kind of force, is used to protect your rights it is “respecting rights” ”

                ( unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights )

                JAC – ” I agree: The intentional use of force for the purpose of violating the rights of another is an intentional violation of their right. ”

                ( …includes the willful violation of another )

                So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.

                Good…now…

                Does the use of coercive force to steal someone’s property qualify as respecting rights? …or violating them?

                Does using coercive force to dictate a system of beliefs or subjective standards an example of respecting rights? …or violating them?

                Does using coercive force to dictate how one is to treat their own body an example of respecting rights? ….or violating them?

            • BL

              “So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.”

              Once again, I DO NOT agree with this statement.

              I have given you two statements, the first of which is mushy because I used your phrase “respecting rights”. I assumed that meant as in “protecting”.

              But now I am not sure that is what you meant.

              Your statement includes both “inalienable” rights and “rights” by themselves. Are you referring to one or both?

              Use of force to protect my rights is an action to protect MY rights.

              If enforcing my rights infringes upon your rights, then one of us or both of us is WRONG about what we think our rights are.

              Rights can not be in conflict if they are enforced. My right to my property does not impose or impair your right to your property.

              My Right to my life is no more or less sacred than your right to your life. Your decision to steal my lawn mower does not eliminate this reality. So if I shoot you in the head because you won’t give it back, I HAVE VIOLATED YOUR “INALIENABLE” RIGHT TO YOUR LIFE. The bigger question is So What?

              This of course means that the use of force to defend my property was deliberate and thus was an intentional violation of your rights.

              So lets address your questions as best I can with some common answers in hopes of moving this along. Then I will know where I messed up.

              1. Stealing someone’s property is THEFT, whether force is used or not, and violates your right to your property. Do you consider THEFT as a form of Coercive Force?

              2. Imposing a belief system on others is a violation of their Rights. Imposing a set of standards on another person, without their acceptance may or may not be a violation of rights, depending on the standard. But I would think in most cases is a violation of Rights. The use of coercive force in either case is irrelevant.

              3. Dictating what others can and can not do with their own lives, which includes their body, is a violation of their Rights.

              Caveat: I have provided answers to try and move this along. Your wording and definitions have been a little fuzzy and in some cases in opposition to mine. So you may find that I disagree later depending on what tricks you have up your sleeve.

              • Bottom Line says:

                ” BL

                “So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights, or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.”

                Once again, I DO NOT agree with this statement.

                I have given you two statements, the first of which is mushy because I used your phrase “respecting rights”. I assumed that meant as in “protecting”.

                But now I am not sure that is what you meant. ”

                You can respect rights without protecting them. By respecting rights, I simply mean to not violate them out of respect.

                “So, you do agree that unless coercive force is used as a means of defense of inalienable rights…”

                We’ve established that the only form of coercion that does not violate rights is when it is used as a means of defending rights. It is to say, “respect rights, or else.”…which doesn’t really qualify as coercion in my opinion, but it is reasonable. So, for sake of argument, I’ve agreed to this definition/qualifier.

                ” Your statement includes both “inalienable” rights and “rights” by themselves. Are you referring to one or both? ”

                Whenever I speak of rights, I am referring to natural inalienable instinctive individual human rights. As far as I am concerned, there is only one real type of rights.

                ” Use of force to protect my rights is an action to protect MY rights.

                If enforcing my rights infringes upon your rights, then one of us or both of us is WRONG about what we think our rights are.

                Rights can not be in conflict if they are enforced. My right to my property does not impose or impair your right to your property.

                My Right to my life is no more or less sacred than your right to your life. Your decision to steal my lawn mower does not eliminate this reality. So if I shoot you in the head because you won’t give it back, I HAVE VIOLATED YOUR “INALIENABLE” RIGHT TO YOUR LIFE. The bigger question is So What?

                This of course means that the use of force to defend my property was deliberate and thus was an intentional violation of your rights.”

                That’s all well and good, JAC, but it does not account for the fact that you relinquish/waive your rights when you are violating another. No one has the right to violate another. Your rights end where the rights of another begin.

                If I steal your lawnmower, it doesn’t mean that it’s my lawnmower now, and that I have a right to it as my property. If I prevent you from repossessing it, it isn’t an example of protecting my right to property as it is not my property. It is yours, and you have an absolute right to it.

                Any action that I take to prevent you from possessing what is rightfully yours is an example of violating your rights. And by doing so, I waive my rights. If I am using myself/life/time to violate yourself/life/time, I waive my right to life.

                Take the same scenario and relevant principles, replacing lawnmower with something else like a tooth brush, car, house, your child, friend, etc…

                Further, I would like to clarify what I meant by ” …or IF it includes the willful violation of another, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.”

                I should have stated it as ” …or IF it includes the willful violation of ADDITIONAL PERSONS, that it qualifies as an intentional violation of rights.”

                i.e. – someone takes your wallet and runs off into the crowd. You pull a gun and shoot him along with 3 others. You didn’t violate his right to steal from you, you violated the rights of the 3 innocent bystanders.

                ” So lets address your questions as best I can with some common answers in hopes of moving this along. Then I will know where I messed up. ”

                I don’t see this as messing up by either of us. We are simply trying to establish qualifiers as to what constitutes a violation of rights.

                ” 1. Stealing someone’s property is THEFT, whether force is used or not, and violates your right to your property. Do you consider THEFT as a form of Coercive Force?

                2. Imposing a belief system on others is a violation of their Rights. Imposing a set of standards on another person, without their acceptance may or may not be a violation of rights, depending on the standard. But I would think in most cases is a violation of Rights. The use of coercive force in either case is irrelevant.

                3. Dictating what others can and can not do with their own lives, which includes their body, is a violation of their Rights.”

                Indeed, coercion is not necessary for these examples to be considered a violation of rights. However, adding coercion does not change that it is a violation of rights. Arguably, coercion makes it a double whammy as coercion is a violation in and of itself, independent of the other forms of violations.

                ” Caveat: I have provided answers to try and move this along. Your wording and definitions have been a little fuzzy and in some cases in opposition to mine. So you may find that I disagree later depending on what tricks you have up your sleeve.”

                I am going somewhere with all this. This is just the start of it. I am simply trying to establish a mutually agreeable premise.

                If you’ll just bear with me, I’ll eventually have YOU explaining to ME why and how many of Ron Paul’s policies are inconsistent with Libertarian philosophy.

                Right now, we’re establishing qualifiers and definitions of violating rights. Next is qualifiers of how it relates to personal responsibility.

                After that we’ll seek through comparison thinking to discover and demonstrate whether or not what we have established as violating rights is consistent with Libertarian philosophy.

                Then through even more comparison, we’ll show how many of Ron Paul’s policies are inconsistent with libertarian philosophy/principles/values, and how they are instead consistent with violation of rights.

                Then, I intend to show you numerous examples of others (renowned anarchists and libertarians included) whom are making the same arguments as I.

                …Not really a trick, just steadfast and unwavering support of freedom and liberty. 😉

                (of course it is probably stupid of me to tell you this as it may have ruined my capacity to lead you to the point…errr..um…you leading me to the point. No worries though. It’s all good either way…just another fun filled day of debate at SUFA)

                Ya know, when I first discovered Dr. Paul. I thought ” I LIKE THIS GUY!”, but the more that I looked into his positions and supporting premises, I realized that he was not what he appears to be, not what others make him out to be, and not really a Libertarian.

                I resent ever being fooled in the first place, and I resent it every time I see him or his supporters rationalize violating rights as Libertarian/liberty or freedom.

  57. In 1925 it would have taken you 12 days to read all the United States’ federal laws and regulations if you plowed through about 200 pages per day. Today that same task would take you three years. You can thank the 5,000 pages of Obamacare and Dodd–Frank for the extra 25 days of study.

    And none of this even counts state laws, of which we now have 40,000 new flavors. Utah has banned Happy Hour. Illinois motorcyclists can now run red lights if they don’t change quickly enough. And if you want to drive a golf cart in Georgia, it simply must have a horn.

    Does California really need a law banning the awarding of goldfish as carnival prizes? And apparently Californians weren’t already confident that “criminal profiteering activity” was an apt description of forcing a girl under 18 to perform sex acts for money — so now there’s a law explicitly saying so.

    Taking the LSAT or the MCAT? Can’t provide a photo ID because you’re in the country illegally? No problem: California testing locations are now required to “provide alternative methods to verify a test subject’s identity.”

    The law doesn’t say what those “alternatives” are. I’m betting the fraud rate skyrockets and we have a lot of curiously unqualified medical students next year. Beginning in 2016, if you have a fever in Fresno, you may want to stick with WebMD.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/02/outrages-of-the-week-a-new-state-law-every-13-minutes/#ixzz1iP5K9z3O

  58. An open letter to President Obama:

    Dear Mr. President,

    Iran has called your bluff. Iran has said that if your aircraft carrier goes into the Straight (which is International Waters) that you will pay a price. In fact, Iran has ordered you out of the region. So what are you going to do? Cut and run like the coward I think you are or will you send the carrier back and preserve the integrity of the United States. Just as they have the right to International waters…..so do you. It matters not what region of the world. That is all this is about…..International Waters….not boundaries, not a sovereign nation…..it is about the Straight and nothing more.

    My recommendation is to send the carrier group back in and call Iran’s bluff…..if they even look in our direction….send their navy to the bottom ( all 12 ships )….they probably need some artificial reefs anyway. You better show some back bone because the alternative is worse.

    • d13

      Good mornin Colonel, at least it is still mornin here.

      Do you really think that is necessary?

      It would seem to me there are other ways to let the world know we are no push over. Why play games with Iran?

      Perhaps announce that we view their demands as “childish” or perhaps “provocative and irresponsible”. Then go away and come back some other day………at OUR pleasure.

    • An open letter to President Obama:

      Dear Mr. President,

      The past hubris of the American Empire is bearing fruit.

      The question posed to you now is: do you continue down the path of escalation of the hubris – at a time where the American Empire teeters into strategic and economic collapse – or do you diplomatically deescalation of the situation and do an honorable withdrawal.

      If you force your hand, conflict will be serious – and as the war-games demonstrated, massive losses upon the 5th Fleet is a significant possibility – and not even accounting of the extreme economic turmoil, nor the risk of embroiling the Russians and Chinese into the conflict.

      The warhawks and neo-cons who got you elected will urge you to maximize the hubris, to the doom of America.
      The voters who you have ignored will urge you to proceed diplomatically, and avoid a disaster.

      I am not hopeful you will make the right choice, but I urge you to try.
      Otherwise you risk being the second to last President of these United States.

    • Oh heck, why waste time? Just nuke Tehran and get it over with right?

    • Colonel,

      I have two numbers for you: 6348 and 46542. Our dead and wounded from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more must die just to prove the US is the big boy on the block? Because, while we would likely win in any confrontation, we’ll take casualties too – and for what? To prove we drive ships wherever we damn well please?

      And when one US Navy is sunk shall we then invade Iran for their “act of war” on the US? How many are you willing to kill to be top dog?

      • Oh, my link to the casualty figures I used: http://icasualties.org/

      • oops…I meant to say “one US Navy ship…..”

      • Hi Plainly…..read carefully………if they block the straight…..sink em…..unlike BF….the Chinese and the Russians will do NOTHING. Nothing at all. As far as the fleet…..do NOT pay attention to the Iranian war games, TV accounts are just what they are…showmanship…..they are almost toothless. I know first hand their naval capability and I know first hand their air defense and I know first hand their Army strength and armor capability. I know first hand their resources for sustaining any kind of war….

        Now read this very carefully. I DID NOT support the invasion of Iraq…it was folly. I DID NOT support the invasion of Afghanistan. I do not share BF’s hubris assessment….totally. Some of it is ok.

        I do support the UNRESTRICTED movement of the Straight. It is NOT Iranian property…..I do support the keeping of our Navy right where it is and being there DOES NOT escalate anything. The Straight needs protection and the Russians cannot do it….the Chinese cannot do it. (Caveat here….the Chinese Navy is growing very fast due to the technology given them by this administration).

        Want to pull out of that area? It is easy to do. Become energy independent right here…..and we do not need to be there. We have no other business there other than energy requirements. The whole thing can be de escalated very simply with energy (fossil fuels) independence. Do this…and I will support withdrawal.

        • Any “blocking” of the Strait would be temporary at best – NOT worth the life of so much as one US service member! Since you “know” the capabilities of the Iranian military and call them “toothless”, there is no need to force the start of a war just to “prove” the “rights” of all nations to transit international waters. You’ve said yourself – it’s all showmanship by the Iranians.

          There is no need to “sink em” except to flex a bit of muscle and “show em whose boss.”

          I would love to suggest that all who feel we should sink em should be the ones to load up and go do the sinking.

        • D13

          Hi Plainly…..read carefully………if they block the straight…..sink em…..unlike BF….the Chinese and the Russians will do NOTHING.

          It is too dangerous to assume Russia and China will not engage in someway or another – they are significantly affected by all of the events in Iran, and they will not stand aside.

          . As far as the fleet…..do NOT pay attention to the Iranian war games, TV accounts are just what they are…showmanship…..they are almost toothless.

          They have hundreds of SSM’s … one need only to review the Falklands War – where Argentina had a handful of Exocet’s and the damage they did to the British fleet.

          Iran has more and better.

          I know first hand their resources for sustaining any kind of war

          Unlike the US, they are willing to endure large casualties.
          When the US begins to ship home thousands upon thousands of caskets, the opinion of the People will not be very good.

          I do support the UNRESTRICTED movement of the Straight. It is NOT Iranian property.

          You miss a core point.

          It is the US and its “allies” that are imposing embargo, not Iran. This is an act of war of the US on Iran.

          The use of “International Waters” to impose such an embargo is an affront to international peace and a continuation of an act of war.

          Iran has the sovereign right to enforce itself upon those that embargo – and they will do so.

          • Core point not missed, my good friend……it is not relevant here, If you are talking enforcing economic sanctions. You are a great believer in international law and global courts, if I am not mistaken, but are you not failing to see that these economic sanctions are enforceable? Is this not global, including the Russians and Chinese acceptance of these? (Point of interest….if the Russians and Chinese are so worried about it, why are they not there?) There were no Russian or Chinese ships escorting or providing assistance to the Iranian war games. However, where you are correct, the Falklands were a great lesson to learn about Exocet missiles and the defense thereof and the new missiles that are available now are much better but so are defense mechanisms and the ability to shoot down up to 40 missiles fired at the same time at the same target. (It is very interesting about the Navy defense and pickets even in the confines of the Straight of Hormuz and I can turn you on to a great report, if you are interested, that is not classified). Land based missiles are no threat, even in the confines of a straight. There is no question that the “best laid plans of mice and men”…….do not work perfectly at all times but the question…… is it worth the risk? You know where I fall on that one. It is worth the risk….IF….and ONLY IF…..economic viability is a major concern. In addition, you and I both know that the Russians and the Chinese are content to sit back and let the US do the work. This is where I am saying, become energy independent and let the Russians and the Chinese worry about the mid east….it is their back door.

            Now, when I did my research, the use of International Waters is the ONLY place that international sanctions can be enforced. They cannot be enforced at point of origin and they cannot be enforced at point of delivery. If the International Courts and the United Nations have determined that sanctions are going to be enforced….it must be done in International Waters. Also, research reveals, that even the “intent” of using war games to block International Trade routes is illegal and, therefore, subject to military intervention by any signatory to the approved sanctioning authority.

            Further, brinkmanship, while extremely dangerous and provocative, is a very effective weapon, and when employed properly, is more effective than an actual hot war. Note that in the first war games by Iran, they blustered and puffed their chest and yelled, but they did not close the Straight. The Iranians knew better than to do that. ( I am also willing to lay a wager that the back channels of the Chinese and/or the Russians and/or both told Iran NOT to push the issue further than bluster ). They pushed their ships to the extreme, as do the Russians and the Chinese, in their war games and “bumped” ships and flew within 500 feet or even “bumped” wings in the air as always happens. ( Hell, in the last Chinese war game exercise in the South China Sea, their new submarine and our new submarine “bumped” ). Everyone shadows everyone in brinkmanship and war games…..and it is dangerous….but it is necessary. Like it or not….it IS an effective deterrent. They are huffing and puffing again for their second round of war games…. but I will doubt that the second round will happen soon…they are fuel starved. Their last set of war games expended 14%

            • Sorry…hit the wrong button……I was going to continue….Their last set of war games expended 14% of their fuel reserves and 18% of logistic stores. We do not have to do anything but continue our patrol routes…just as the Russians and Chinese do in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Seas. You and I both know that there are Russian and Chinese warships parked off our coast 24/7 just as we are doing to them. Unfortunately, this type of activity will not stop. Again, energy independence,,,,,will eliminate for the US….the need for the Straight of Hormuz. In the meantime…..brinkmanship….though dangerous….must continue.

            • D13
              Tugging all those hanging threads of yours…. and watching your argument unravel like a knitted sock.

              If you are talking enforcing economic sanctions. You are a great believer in international law and global courts

              No, I am not

              Just like those that proclaim they believe in the “Constitution”, and then argue stuff into the Constitution that does not exist or they misunderstand (…sorry, JAC, your last post notwithstanding, it actually demonstrates my point…), I argue from the Constitution, a document and its history I have studied intently.

              But I do not “believe” in the Constitution whatsoever – it is a dead letter document – if merely a piece of paper worked, we would not have the government we have now. Thus, it either designed this type of government or is completely worthless in preventing it. It’s only place is lining the bottom of a bird cage.

              Same with “international law” et al. I have studied intently the roots and extent and exercise of international law, so those that use it for argument often find that their use is badly misplaced, or they are mess of contradictions – hold it high in this case, and wholly dismiss it in other cases.

              But I do not “believe” in nation states, hence “international law” is irrelevant other than an example on how sovereign entities deal with each other, and thus exists a real world example of how sovereign individuals would deal with one another.

              you not failing to see that these economic sanctions are enforceable?

              Of course an embargo and the subsequent blockade IS enforceable – that does not change the consequences or the act of war.

              Is this not global, including the Russians and Chinese acceptance of these?

              No, they do not accept this.
              The insist in must go through the Security Council and not by unilateral action.

              (Point of interest….if the Russians and Chinese are so worried about it, why are they not there?)

              Check your geography, Russia IS there and the Chinese are only ~800 miles away.

              There were no Russian or Chinese ships escorting or providing assistance to the Iranian war games.

              There were no British or French ships escorting Polish ships prior to WW2 either.

              However, where you are correct, the Falklands were a great lesson to learn about Exocet missiles and the defense thereof and the new missiles that are available now are much better but so are defense mechanisms and the ability to shoot down up to 40 missiles fired at the same time at the same target.

              Same thing the British said – completely unproven by combat – and the failure of these systems – which many smart tactical observers have noted, that the missiles will reach targets.

              (It is very interesting about the Navy defense and pickets even in the confines of the Straight of Hormuz and I can turn you on to a great report, if you are interested, that is not classified).

              Sure, link me up!

              Land based missiles are no threat, even in the confines of a straight. There is no question that the “best laid plans of mice and men”…….do not work perfectly at all times but the question…… is it worth the risk?

              The lesson of history, any war that could have been avoided but was not was never worth the risk.

              Nearly every case, it has always been worse, more devastating, and completely backfires on all the participants.

              You know where I fall on that one. It is worth the risk….IF….and ONLY IF…..economic viability is a major concern. In addition, you and I both know that the Russians and the Chinese are content to sit back and let the US do the work.

              You bet.

              They are more then willing to let the US bleed itself to death in human and economic disasters.

              This is where I am saying, become energy independent

              This is a horrifically dangerous idea

              One, it is an impossible goal.
              Two, it completely ignores TRADE – as if the only way energy can be obtained is by stealing it.
              Three, the denial of both of these facts empowers militarism, imperialism, corporatism, and mercantilism – the great combination of disasters for a nation.

              the use of International Waters is the ONLY place that international sanctions can be enforced

              .

              No.
              International waters is absolutely NOT where such sanctions can be enforced unless you are at war:

              They cannot be enforced at point of origin

              Makes not a difference.
              Attacking a flagged ship of another nation in international water is an act of war.

  59. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Mr. Flag,

    Thanks for your asides above. As always I appreciate them and your positions. Our disagreements tend to come from the fact that you reject “the state” and I don’t/can’t. From that we go on to immigration. If I believe in states then I believe that they have the right and obligation to their citizens to restrict immigration so that it does not create an imbalance. Will they be right? Of course not, but they can try and we as citizens can hopefully urge them on in a manner guided by our sense of what works and what does not. I’ve always been taken by your positions on what constitutes “violence” against others. I see no barrier open doors of immigration to be violence on people already here who are struggling as well as on those who wander in. The constant pressure for more and cheaper cheap labor is nothing but a race to the bottom. There are ways that this can be avoided that have worked historically and they have involved the occasional shutting of doors and the right of workers through free association to agitate for better working conditions.

    I am never exclusively for cheap labor. I remember the Henry Ford story when he was confronted by his contemporaries and told he paid his workers too much. His reply, that they be able to earn enough to buy his cars was classic. In a nutshell, profits were reduced in such a manner that guaranteed profits would eventually increase. Perhaps the first explanation ever of “trickle down”. I suffer from a sort of sentimentality for humankind. Just this past weekend I had a long discussion with one of my sons over the phrase “Gung Ho”. Coined as a motto by Evans Carlson for the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion in WW 2 it reflected the successes of the Chinese Communists he saw in motivating men in the 1930’s. That in turn took us to Smedley Butler, “Red” (not for his hair) Mike Edson and the banana wars of the 20’s and 30’s. I am the first to admit that I suffer from an awful lot of contradictions and often make leftists and rightists equally uncomfortable. I would love to have listened to those three Marines talk about mutual cooperation and respect and what they thought could prevent it from becoming what it did become when the battle was won.

    Donne was right, “No man is an island” . Human nature makes almost all of us run on the principal of self interest however, for our own benefit as well as those who share the planet, it should be enlightened self interest. I’ll use my knowledge to fix your broken leg if you will use your knowledge to grow potatoes and raise chickens to feed me.

    • Sk

      Our disagreements tend to come from the fact that you reject “the state” and I don’t/can’t.

      So, I will set aside that difference, and hypothetically jump upon your “The Good Ship Statist” and all its leaking holes, missing engine parts and desperate crew bailing water in futility for just a moment …. 😉

      If I believe in states then I believe that they have the right and obligation to their citizens to restrict immigration so that it does not create an imbalance.

      Imbalance of….what?

      Economically, even if we assume the State, it still does not make any difference.

      Labor is just another economic good.
      Access to cheap economic goods always benefits the consumer, and you are the consumer here.

      You would agree that access to cheap TV’s is good for you.
      You would agree that access to cheap gasoline is good for you.

      Indeed, every economic good you desire, cheaper is good for you.

      But, for no economic reason, you argue that cheap labor is not good for you.

      The constant pressure for more and cheaper cheap labor is nothing but a race to the bottom.

      There exists no such “race to the bottom” (well, other than the faulty theories of Keynes).

      Labor is an economic good, just like any other economic good.
      It is scarce, as that defines economic goods – that is, there is a limit to its production and its consumption.

      The reason there is an influx of cheaper goods into a particular market is because there is a demand for such goods in that market.
      That means the local production of that goods is too expensive for the quality or the service that good provides. In other words, absent the influx of cheaper goods, the consumer is over-paying for that good or service … in other words, the consumer is being ripped off.

      The influx of labor in lowering costs only occurs where the quality of that labor is a commodity – in other words, anyone can do it.

      This type of labor is low-skill – digging ditches, where any two arms will do.

      So my questions to you:

      There is obviously a huge demand for this labor, or else there would not be a desire of others to fill this demand
      This means Americans are NOT willing to do this labor – even if YOU believe they are desperate enough to do such work, they are not claiming the jobs.

      Do you not believe that if an American applied for the job at the wage a Mexican would do it, the employer would hire the American first??? …and avoid all the obvious entanglements of language, culture and the law???

      OF COURSE HE WOULD.

      But the fact obvious: there are no Americans willing to do the work.

      So, now you want to cut off your nose to spite your face… you want to prohibit the cheap labor – a direct benefit to you because you make faulty economic theory.

      I remember the Henry Ford story when he was confronted by his contemporaries and told he paid his workers too much. His reply, that they be able to earn enough to buy his cars was classic.

      No, both his contemporaries and Ford made root and basic economic fallacious arguments

      Ford paid his workers higher wages, which motivated the workers to stay at his Ford company, and to work at the level and quality Ford demanded for his cars

      With no surprise, his workers became specialized and skilled – and worked to maintain a level of quality that was not found in any other manufacturing process. Ford essentially eliminated his re-training costs, and provided a consistent high level of quality for cheap that completely eluded his competition.

      Do NOT confuse his badly articulated economic theory with his intuition on how the real economics operated.

      Ford did NOT overpay his workers. He bought value and that observance of value was rewarded to the Ford company by Ford’s customers.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        I luv ya, you drive me nuts but I luv ya.

        I think we are both right about Ford. It does work either way. Ford did not think he overpaid them Mott and Chrysler did.

        So, what do we do with the $ 2.00 per hour ditch digger?

        I don’t know that I would agree that access to cheap junk is good for me.

        • Sk,

          I think we are both right about Ford. It does work either way. Ford did not think he overpaid them Mott and Chrysler did.

          Ford’s reason he “overpaid” was in error – it had nothing to do with his employees buying the cars.

          So, what do we do with the $ 2.00 per hour ditch digger?

          Pay him what he asks, if you want a ditch dug.

          I don’t know that I would agree that access to cheap junk is good for me.

          That is your opinion of value.

          The economic fact remains, access to your economic goods that you desire at a cheaper price is a “good” for you.

          And if this is a “good” for you, it is a “good” for other consumers and their desires.

          What you are demanding, in one good, is an economic cartel whose purpose is to enrich a small minority by ripping off the majority.

          If you can claim the use of violence to establish such a cartel for an economic good of your wish – because you may benefit from the over-priced good and its income others will demand the same establishment for their goods and demand that be over-priced….

          …but I read what you post on other topic, SK.

          You are adamantly against such cartels – because you know it costs you money and impoverishes you!!

          So here you are, advocating for cartels that benefit you and against cartels that do not – not understanding that your advocating of your cartel will and must create all those cartels that you despise

          You rage against Obama and his socialism – yet, you do not understand you are the cause.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            I think you lost me. Maybe that is the result of rapid onset dementia from suddenly being of retirement age I don’t know.

            I believe that we all should have our own cartels if we want. Some would call them General Motors or Wal-mart, others the Bank of America, others the United Auto workers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers. The common thread should be that they are all voluntary associations. If one does not agree with another then they are free to go to war with each other until one side prevails or both come to a common agreement.

            I have often suffered from the delusion that what benefits my neighbor, in a general sense, benefits me. Gung Ho?

            Regarding my ditch digger, he wants four bucks an hour but the new guy behind him wants only two because he’s the new guy. So my loyal ditch digger of the past four years gets kicked aside in favor of something that benefits me. I now have two dollars more an hour to spend on infotainment. Of course, I have a disgruntled ditch digger who is ripe for the picking by someone who tells him the dice are loaded against him, No?

            • SK,

              Re-read my posts.

              I am not using complex concepts.

              They are merely foreign to you as you have not considered them

              I believe that we all should have our own cartels if we want.

              But then you resign yourself to being a hypocrite.

              You complain about the cartels used to impoverish you, yet you do not see that it is because you support cartels that you think enrich you.

              Some would call them General Motors or Wal-mart, others the Bank of America, others the United Auto workers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers.

              Those are not cartels.

              They are organizations.

              Cartels are systemic to the entire market – such as the “banking cartel” – not one company but an group or such.

              The common thread should be that they are all voluntary associations.

              But you refuse such voluntary associations!!! This is your contradiction or hypocrisy.

              You do not agree with MY voluntary association with some Mexican!

              Here, you claim you can interfere – while on the other side of your mouth you believe that they should be voluntary!

              Regarding my ditch digger, he wants four bucks an hour but the new guy behind him wants only two because he’s the new guy.
              So my loyal ditch digger of the past four years gets kicked aside in favor of something that benefits me.

              So you are saying you do deals that do not benefit you????

              If you do not value his loyalty, that is your problem. You hire someone else.
              If you value his loyalty, that is your problem. You may keep him.

              But is all what you value.

              My opinion is irrelevant.

              But when the situation is reversed, you claim YOU can interfere with my choices because you do not like Mexicans.

  60. IT’S A PARTY! Message from the deer herd now that the season is over… HAHA YA MISSED ME

  61. Another’s view on freedom and Rights.

    Ludwig von Mises: “This, then, is freedom in the external life of man that he is independent of the arbitrary power of his fellows. Such freedom is no natural right. It did not exist under primitive conditions. It arose in the process of social development and its final completion is the work of mature Capitalism.” –

    Now I happen to disagree with Mr. von Mises, but the point raised is a key one, and captures the differing schools of thought on Freedom and its relationship to “Natural Rights”.

  62. RIGHTS……………..More to digest, from the Stanford Univ. Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    2. The Existence of Human Rights

    The most obvious way in which human rights exist is as norms of national and international law created by enactment and judicial decisions. At the international level, human rights norms exist because of treaties that have turned them into international law. For example, the human right not to be held in slavery or servitude in Article 4 of the European Convention and in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights exists because these treaties establish it. At the national level, human rights norms exist because they have through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom become part of a country’s law. For example, the right against slavery exists in the United States because the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and servitude. When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights. As this illustrates, it is possible for a right to exist within more than one normative system at the same time.

    Enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which human rights exist. But many have suggested that this is not the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many people have sought to find a way to support the idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings. One way that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being God-given. The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) claims that people are “endowed by their Creator” with natural rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” On this view, God, the supreme lawmaker, enacted some basic human rights.

    Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human rights are specific and many of them presuppose contemporary institutions (e.g., the right to a fair trial and the right to education). Even if people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to explain how to get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.

    Attributing human rights to God’s commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people do not believe in the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes.

    Human rights might also exist independently of legal enactment by being part of actual human moralities. It appears that all human groups have moralities, that is, imperative norms of behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (for example, a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (for example, valuing human life.) One way in which human rights could exist apart from divine or human enactment is as norms accepted in all or almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could constitute the human right to life. Human rights can be seen as basic moral norms shared by all or almost all accepted human moralities.

    This view is attractive but filled with difficulties. First, it seems unlikely that the moralities of almost all human groups agree in condemning, say, torture, unfair criminal trials, undemocratic institutions, and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. There is a lot of disagreement among countries and cultures about these matters. Human rights declarations and treaties are intended to change existing norms, not just describe the existing moral consensus. Second, it is far from clear that the shared norms that do exist support rights held by individuals. A group may think that torture is generally a bad thing without holding that all individuals have a high-priority right against being tortured. Third, human rights are mainly about the obligations of governments. Ordinary interpersonal moralities often have little to say about what governments should and should not do. This is a matter of political morality, and depends not just on moral principles but also on views of the dangers and capacities of the contemporary state.

    Yet another way of explaining the existence of human rights is to say that they exist most basically in true or justified moralities. On this account, to saying that there is a human right against torture is mainly to say that there are strong reasons for believing that it is almost always wrong to engage in torture and that protections should be provided against its practice. This approach would view the Universal Declaration as attempting to formulate a justified political morality. It was not merely trying to identify a preexisting moral consensus; it was also trying to create a consensus on how governments should behave that could be supported by very plausible moral and practical reasons. This approach requires commitment to the objectivity of such reasons. It holds that just as there are reliable ways of finding out how the physical world works, or what makes buildings sturdy and durable, there are ways of finding out what individuals may justifiably demand of governments. Even if there is little present agreement on political morality, rational agreement is available to humans if they will commit themselves to open-minded and serious moral and political inquiry. If moral reasons exist independently of human construction, they can — when combined with premises about current institutions, problems, and resources — generate moral norms different from those currently accepted or enacted. The Universal Declaration seems to proceed on exactly this assumption. One problem with this view is that existence as good reasons seems a rather thin form of existence for human rights. But perhaps we can view this thinness as a practical rather than a theoretical problem, as something to be remedied by the formulation and enactment of legal norms. The best form of existence for human rights would combine robust legal existence with the sort of moral existence that comes from being supported by strong moral and practical reasons.

  63. This is just too darn funny not to share.

    From a Univ. of Washington course outline on methods of identifying moral principles. The Moral Discovery Paradigm assumes that Core Moral Principles are not self evident and must be determined by evaluating human behavior and norms and then deducing what moral principle may apply to the moral standards or judgment within the society. And that these principles are discovered over a long period of human trial and error. That at least is my layman’s interpretation. So here you go:

    “On the Moral Discovery Paradigm, how would we rewrite the Declaration of Independence?

    “Although for most of human history it has seemed to most people to be almost self-evident that human beings have very different capacities that justify their being treated in very different ways, we have discovered through a long process of trial and error in human social practices that all normally functioning adult human beings ought to be treated in such a way that respects certain basic and inalienable human rights. Any attempt to list these rights should be understood to be fallible and subject to correction in the future, and the interpretation given to the items on the list should also be understood to be fallible and subject to correction in the future. Our best hope is that, over time, we will gradually make progress in defining the basic human rights that should be guaranteed to all normally functioning adult human beings. Right now, the best we can do is to offer the following list: . . . “

    • So if I understand the reasoning-the word Rights-now means “personal needs of all individual’s must be covered by other human beings”-so there are no Rights-simply enslavement to enforced responsibilities.

      • V.H.

        That is one interpretation of what Rights are but that is NOT the reasoning of the Moral Discovery Paradigm.

        What you describe is the concept of Positive Rights. It is supported by the ethic of Altruism, or it supports Altruism, depending on the view of the relationship between rights and ethics.

        • Well, you need to explain the difference, as you see it-because I read ” self-evident that human beings have very different capacities that justify their being treated in very different ways” as leading to equality based on fairness based on individual abilities -not laws being evenly applied to all.

          • V.H.

            Remember, it is a restating of the Declaration based on the method.

            So the statement is revising “All men are created equal” to recognizing everyone is different and that they are in fact treated differently. But it then goes on and recognizes that there are RIGHTS universal to all men, but we don’t know what they are.

            Re read the entire thing as a single, but very long comment.

            The rewrite is addressing a “method” of identifying Rights, not making judgment on what type (positive vs. negative) nor of their form (natural vs. political/social).

            Two other “methods” of identifying Rights are “Top Down”, which starts with an assumed Right then evaluates it against observed human behaviors. And, “Bottom Up”, which starts with normative behavior and morals and then tries to describe a Higher Order Right that would apply to the norms.

            The KEY LESSON here is that the very idea of Rights in general and Natural Rights, in particular, is not universal among philosophers. So it is little wonder that we live in a world filled with contradictions and conflicting values. If the keepers of our moral, ethical and intellectual standards can’t agree, how can we expect a “common” understanding of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, rights vs. privileges, etc, etc..

            • Okay, I will accept your explanation of their meaning-but I will say that when one starts out talking about a mans capacity and then moves to basic rights and inalienable rights-one should question what they mean by rights.

              I have no idea how to fix the worlds philosophical disagreements. I only know a few things which I see as gospel. Society must recognize a mans individual rights or we have none. And Man must recognize his personal moral responsibility to help his fellow man -if we have any hope of living in a civilized society. These words have very different meanings and can cause very different outcomes-so they are not interchangable.

              Man is also capable of reason, so you would think we would be capable of being reasonable with or without government. 🙂

              • V.H.

                ABSOLUTELY……………..ALWAYS QUESTION WHAT THEY MEAN.

                MAKE THEM EXPLAIN AND DEFEND.

                I’ll dig up some more stuff that will explain the “methods” in order to clear up any remaining confusion.

                I agree with your thoughts that without the concept of Rights we risk a very unhappy future.

                If your head wasn’t hurting enough let me throw one more idea out there.

                What are RIGHTS? What is their essence or function?

                One of the more general views on this question is that Rights form and OBLIGATION on “OTHERS”. Not the person who has the right but on others to respect the right. Under this view, Natural Rights create obligations on ALL OTHER HUMANS while Political Rights create obligations on Govt.

                Now, what if we flip that and say that a Right forms and OBLIGATION on ONES SELF?

                Or, is there a different concept that addresses the question of what is a right.

  64. For my friends who live in Michigan, and in honor of your Wolverine’s victory over VTech, I thought this would be fun.

    Also a chance for some of you to get a small look at Kellen Moore, if you never got a chance before.

    • Wow! Your boys are impressive JAC. I’ll keep my eye on Moore. I like the way they put this video together. But for now we can say Hail to the Victors in the Michigan State! 🙂

      • And, of course, Sparty continues to pester Bucky on the court! Right Kathy? 🙂

      • Anita

        Yes, Hail to the State of Michigan. The Big Ten should send those two schools a Bowl Game bonus for saving the conference from being shut out.

      • Anita

        To be fair to BOTH Michigan teams, just a reminder of how BSU did against GEORGIA. You know, the SEC EAST CHAMPION. Bwahahhhaa (that was not aimed at you if you couldn’t tell). 🙂

        • JAC:

          Just for you, a few facts:
          2010 – 2011 Bowl Bids by Conference:
          SEC: 10
          ACC: 9
          Big Ten: 8
          Big 12: 8
          Big East: 6
          C-USA: 6
          Mountain West: 5
          Pac-10: 4
          WAC: 4
          MAC: 4
          Sun Belt: 3

          All time bowl games
          Bowls Wins Losses Ties Win %
          SEC 375 194 169 12 .533
          Pac-10 215 112 100 3 .528
          Big Ten 244 117 124 3 .486
          ACC 292 147 138 5 .512
          Big 12 326 156 166 4 .485
          Big East 114 56 56 2 .500
          WAC 71 36 33 2 .521

      • Anita

        OK, after this I will stop. I promise. But since you expressed some surprise and interest about Kellen Moore I thought you would find this useful.

        Now remember the Colonel’s comment about Bias in college football? In the article notice that Moore made the cover of Sports Illustrated, but ONLY circulated in the WEST.

        I think you and others will find the character of this kid quite “refreshing”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellen_Moore#College_career_statistics

        • Gotta hand it to him. But then Boise St. is in the farm system of college ball. Let’s put them in the major leagues and see what happens to those stats. 🙂

          • Anita

            Now why did you have to go and do that? Just couldn’t leave a good thing lie still could ya?

            Among those “stats” are wins against.

            Oregon (2 times) PAC 12
            Oregon State; PAC 12
            Utah; PAC 12
            Georgia; SEC
            Virginia Tech; ACC
            TCU; soon to be Big 12,
            Southern Miss
            Bowling Green
            Tulsa
            Toledo

            Next up………..Some SPARTY

            Boise State vs. Michigan State; August 2012.

    • Football is more than just quarterbacks.

  65. I have neither love nor hate for wall street. I differ from Charlie in that I view them making money as a “good” thing. If they are making money, it usually means the rest of us are doing OK. When they lose money, it usually means the rest of us are doing poorly. And last election so many were caught up in that hope and change, but ignored Obama’s street connections. And by the numbers, wall street has Obama as their #2, favoring Romney nearly two to one. But is it wrong to decide against someone because wall street wants them?

    Candidate Percentage of Receipts from FIRE Total from FIRE Rank Among All Sectors
    Mitt Romney 23.4% $7,521,705 No. 1
    Rick Santorum 12.0% $154,500 No. 1
    Rick Perry 11.4% $1,961,535 No. 2
    Jon Huntsman 8.9% $400,723 No. 1
    Newt Gingrich 6.5% $188,000 No. 2
    Barack Obama 4.4% $3,899,122 No. 3
    Michele Bachmann 2.5% $186,878 No. 2
    Herman Cain 2.4% $129,416 No. 2
    Ron Paul 2.3% $288,507 No. 3

    Overall, the FIRE sector has contributed about $16 million to all presidential candidates since the race began earlier this year, according to the Center’s research. That’s essentially the same amount as the No. 1 sector, the general business sector, which has so far donated $16.1 million. No other sector has contributed more.

    The finance sector accounts for more than 23 percent of Romney’s total war chest, more than any other candidate.

  66. Since the accusation of Hubris has been leveled on SUFA several times, at various people, I thought everyone should be reminded of its meaning.

    From Wikipedia:

    Hubris (play /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, means extreme haughtiness, pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one’s own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.

    The adjective form of hubris is “hubristic”.

    Ancient Greek origin

    In ancient Greek, hubris (ancient Greek ὕβρις) referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser.[1] The term had a strong sexual connotation, and the shame reflected on the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist’s fall.

  67. Bottom Line says:

    I think it is unfair for people to say that Ron Paul is a racist or supported racists because someone else used his letterhead. It was just a case of neglecting to be more scrupulous and thorough on the part of his staff.

    I mean, he was in his office letting others take care of the paperwork. It’s not like he was directly associating with racists. It’s not like he was actually physically hanging out and mingling with them. How was he to know?

    http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg?f22064

  68. I find this type of talk-irritates the ……crap out of me-I see no respect for our basic system or freedom when the President is using agencies to by pass Congress-but I do wonder about the arguments based on the separation of powers-they make sense in the general-but much confusion on the specifics. If Congress can overrule the SC-what can the president legally do to by step the Congress?????

    White House: When Congress Won’t Cooperate, Obama Will Take ‘Small, Medium and Large’ Executive Actions
    By Fred Lucas
    January 3, 2012
    Subscribe to Fred Lucas’s posts

    (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama is ready to take “small, medium and large” actions without the consent of Congress, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

    Carney on Tuesday explained further Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” strategy of addressing problems without Congress. This would be done through executive orders and other actions Carney said.

    “We hope to work with Congress to continue to take action on that to continue to grow the economy and create jobs,” Carney said. “Separate from that, and this was the case last year and will be the case this year, we can’t wait for Congress to act. And when Congress refuses to act, and Republicans choose the path of obstruction rather than cooperation, than the president is not going to sit here, this gridlock in Washington is not as excuse for inaction.”

    Carney said the president wants to work with Congress, but if the House and Senate don’t, Obama will.

    “He’s going to take the actions that he can take using his executive authority to help the cause here, to help Americans deal with this challenging economy. And they can be small, medium or large actions and they don’t have to be just executive authority actions,” Carney continued. “They can be things we can do working with the private sector. So he’ll pursue all tracks.”

    Carney added the president still would like to work with Congress.

    “But it is not accurate to suggest that he doesn’t want to engage with Congress and that he won’t engage with Congress,” Carney said. “He wants to continue to work with Congress. He and his advisors believe there will be opportunities to cooperate with Congress this year. We believe, as a purely political matter, that some members of Congress that have pursued an obstructionist path may begin to see it in their political interest to actually demonstrate to their constituents that they can get some things done.”

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-when-congress-won-t-cooperate-obama-will-take-small-medium-and-large

    • V.H.

      Let me just dispel one MYTH.

      Our three branches of Govt were NOT created as Co-EQUALS. And they are NOT uniquely or distinctly SEPARATE.

      CONGRESS was given LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY/POWER. IT is the MOST powerful of all three, as it SHOULD BE.

      I think this announcement is a POLITICAL PLOY. He has had certain authority all along. If he could act then why hasn’t he acted? Just to get along? Bulldookey!!!

      He and his minions are very clever political animals. They are setting yet another trap. My suggestion to Elephants is don’t even go down that path. Take an entirely different trail and let the snakes lie in the bushes, laughing to themselves.

      • Thanks for dispelling that myth-it was causing me a lot of heartburn 🙂 Just not taking my thoughts far enough-I excepted part of the argument-separate power-since I accepted this with one branch of the government how can I dismiss it when applied to another-kept thinking but but but-Congress is the voice of the people and the hoped for voice of reason. But those words NOT Co-equal-helped me clarify why I could accept one but not the other 🙂

        • V.H.

          The MYTH of Co-Equal and Separate seems to have been created by the Progressives and Socialists. This allows them to argue for greater Presidential Power and rationalize Legislation from the Bench. Most Americans believe this MYTH and thus do not react viscerally to over stepping by the Administration of Judiciary.

          Your gut instincts were right on the money.

          Leaving the question, what will Congress do about it?

          • I can’t say I accepted the myth-I just have the same problem as many Americans-I look at what I think I know and then worry about what I don’t know in relationship to the Constitution-so it makes it very hard to be adamant based in fact and much easier to be convinced that maybe you are missing some needed information. Which leads to just indignant yelling “this can’t be right or legal” which leads to the argument “these people are just stupid or reacting solely on Emotion or it has the worse effect of causing some people to simply be quiet. The whole thing is just frustrating.

            As far what they will do-same answer-I’m not sure what their legal avenues are-but I am sure they have them-So my question is more-Why aren’t they doing anything? Or how are their attempts to do something being stopped?

          • Now I ask you-what can they do? Everything I see is just a matter of BS moves-based on disputable and questionable tactics by all sides-leading to an unbelievable but seemingly true idea that they have no real power to force even agreed on rules!!!!

            Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks
            Nominations could provoke constitutional fight
            By Stephen Dinan and Susan Crabtree-The Washington Times Wednesday, January 4, 2012

            President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board — moves Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

            The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for the president to exercise his appointment power. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the argument for the three-day waiting period to the Supreme Court.

            Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, and named three others to the labor board — all of which had been stymied by congressional Republicans who said Mr. Obama is accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

            In strikingly sharp language, Republicans said the Senate considers itself still in session for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments, and the move threatened to become a declaration of war against Congress.

            “Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

            GOP House Speaker John A. Boehner called the move “an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department.”

            “The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement.

            The White House, though, argues Republican senators have been stonewalling his nominees for so long that Mr. Obama had no choice but to circumvent them.

            The president introduced Mr. Cordray during a trip to Ohio Wednesday, telling a supportive crowd that the Senate Republicans’ ongoing blockade of his nomination “inexcusable.”

            “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Mr. Obama said.

            CPFB supporters has said the lack of a top executive has blocked the fledgling agency from taking on a number of tasks in its mandate to police the financial sector and protect consumers from fraud. Mr. Cordray was accompanying the president on the trip, and briefly spoke to reporters.

            He said he would begin work immediately, adding: “We’re going to begin working to expand our program to non-banks, which is an area we haven’t been able to touch until now.”

            The Constitution gives the president the power to make appointments when the Senate is not in session and able to confirm them. Traditionally, that has been understood to mean when the Senate has adjourned for a recess longer than 10 days, and a Clinton administration legal opinion said a recess must be at least three days.

            Mr. Obama’s own top constitutional lawyers affirmed that view in 2010 in another case involving recess appointments. Asked what the standard was for making recess appointments, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices the administration agreed with the three-day rule.

            “The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” Mr. Katyal said.

            Story Continues →

            Mr. Katyal, who is now a professor at Georgetown University, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the president’s move.

            The three-day rule was also the precedent Mr. Obama and his fellow Senate Democrats followed in 2007 and 2008 when they were trying to block then-President George W. Bush from making recess appointments.

            “I am keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said on Nov. 16, 2007, as he announced his strategy of having the Senate convene twice a week for pro forma sessions.

            On Wednesday, though, Mr. Reid reversed course and said he backed the president’s move.

            “I support President Obama’s decision to make sure that in these tough economic times, middle-class families in Nevada and across the country will have the advocate they deserve to fight on their behalf against the reckless practices that denied so many their economic security,” he said.

            CPFB opponents inside and outside of Congress say the agency, whose budget is not approved by Congress, will not be subject to legislative oversight and they have demanded changes in President Obama’s financial regulatory overhaul law before they say they will allow a vote on a nominee to head the agency.

            Senate Republicans last month filibustered Mr. Cordray’s nomination, leaving him 7 shy of the 60 votes needed to get a final confirmation vote. Democrats and Republicans have increasingly turned to filibusters to block a president’s nominees when they are in the majority.

            Consumer and labor groups also hailed Mr. Obama’s moves Wednesday.

            Mr. Cordray’s appointment “was long overdue and is essential to helping restore the frayed sense of confidence that Americans have in many financial institutions and consumer financial products,” said Lisa Woll, head of the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.

            James T. Callahan, general president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, said Republicans “have made a determined effort to cripple the NLRB and other government agencies by refusing to act on President Obama’s nominees, no matter how qualified. Leaving the NLRB without a quorum would penalize both labor and employers.”

            But by abrogating decades of understanding of the recess appointment power Mr. Obama threatened to spark a full legislative war with Congress.

            “Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch,” Mr. McConnell said.

            Part of the confusion is that in the Constitution the word “session” has different meanings. For example, each two-year Congress is divided into two sessions.

            During Tuesday’s pro forma meeting, the Senate officially gaveled out the first sessionn of the 112th Congress and gaveled in the second session.

            And there is a precedent for making a recess appointment then. In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt used the instant one session was gaveled out and another was gaveled in to make a series of appointments. That is known as an “inter-session” appointment.

            But Mr. Obama did not follow that route, instead choosing to make what scholars call an “intra-session” appointment, where the Constitution is far more vague.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/obama-unprecedented-recess-appointment/?page=3

            • Doubling down: Obama follows Cordray recess appointment with three more to NLRB
              POSTED AT 5:12 PM ON JANUARY 4, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

              Ed saw it coming this morning and now here it is.

              Between this and The One waging war in Libya without congressional approval — a move which his own lawyers found dubious, I remind you — I’m thinking the GOP really needs to run a guy next year with a less expansive view of executive authority. How about Dick Cheney?

              The president used his power to name Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin to the board, which arbitrates workplace disputes and federal labor issues. The controversial board — which drew fire from Republicans after its acting general counsel sided with an aircraft workers’ union in a dispute with aerospace giant Boeing — was in danger of becoming inactive when the term of Craig Becker, another Obama recess appointee, expired last month, depriving it of a quorum.

              Block and Flynn are Democrats, while Griffin is a Republican.

              “The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day – whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans,” Obama said in a statement. “We can’t wait to act to strengthen the economy and restore security for our middle class and those trying to get in it, and that’s why I am proud to appoint these fine individuals to get to work for the American people.”

              Labor unions, whose relationship with Obama had been strained recently, cheered the move.

              Why would O risk a constitutional confrontation with Congress over something as minor as the NLRB or his new consumer board? Why, for the same reason he does everything: Because it might help him get re-elected. He’s going to run against a “do-nothing Congress” next year so he needs some dramatic examples of him heroically defying GOP obstructionism to serve the public good. And if that means taking a dump on the Constitution to help labor and impress middle-class voters, well, that’s just what strong, blue-collar presidents have to do sometimes. The legal argument against what he’s doing couldn’t be simpler, as David Freddoso explains. Essentially, Obama’s claiming that he gets to decide whether pro forma sessions of the Senate amount to real sessions for purposes of recess appointments; that sure sounds like a violation of separation of powers insofar as each branch typically sets its own rules, but the beauty of this maneuver from Obama’s perspective is that he probably can’t be sued over it. Federal courts will refuse to rule on certain turf-war disputes between the executive and the legislature on grounds that they represent a “political question” that should be decided by voters, not by judges. I’m not sure if that’ll apply here — what happens when someone ends up suing Cordray on the theory that he was never constitutionally appointed? — but that’s what The One’s counting on.

              So shameless is this power grab, in fact, that even John Yoo, whose name is a curse word on the left when it comes to executive overreach, thinks Obama went too far. Lefty Timothy Noah, who supports Cordray’s appointment, candidly admitted today at TNR that he can’t figure out how this could possibly be constitutional. (If Obama has the power to define when the Senate is and isn’t in recess, writes Noah, then he could theoretically treat every weekend of the year as a recess.) In fact, according to Mark Calabria at Cato, not only does the Cordray appointment flaunt the Constitution, it actually violates the terms of the Dodd-Frank statute pushed through by O’s own party:

              More importantly the “recess” appointment of Cordray doesn’t solve the President’s problem. The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear, even a law professor can probably under this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”. A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation. Now don’t ask me why Dodd and Frank included such unusual language, they could have just given the Bureau the new authorities, but they didn’t. So even with this appointment, the CFPB won’t be able to go after all those non-banks, like the pay-day lenders and check-cashiers that caused the financial crisis (oh wait, those industries didn’t have anything to do with the crisis).

              Meanwhile, Iain Murray at National Review reminds us that the names of the three NLRB appointees were only sent to the Senate three weeks ago. They haven’t been filibustered, so there’s no obstruction — yet. So eager is President Working Class Hero to start off an election year by defying Congress that he picked this fight before he had to.

              Via CNS, here’s Carney warning the press corps yesterday that Obama was prepared to engage in unilateral executive action “small, medium, and large” to push his agenda. Let’s put this power grab in the “medium” category; “large” is reserved for wars like Libya that he’s undertaken without so much as a resolution of good luck from Congress. The more I think about this, the more it smells like O’s version of FDR’s court-packing plan, except (a) this is more constitutionally dubious and (b) this is transparently a cheap election-year pander. Exit question: What will the next Republican president use this exciting new precedent for, pray tell?

              Update: Via Free Republic, enjoy this 2008 AP story describing how Democrats successfully used pro forma Senate sessions to block evil monarchical lawless cowboy president George W. Bush from making recess appointments of his own.

              http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/04/doubling-down-obama-follows-cordray-recess-appointment-with-three-more-to-nlrb/

              • Oh boy..what nerve! I think it was Coburn who threatened him last week one day to not even try this recess appointment. Pass the popcorn!

              • Well, my main question is why do we have a NLRB in the first place? Why do we need a board to represent Union issues specifically? Are our normal system of doing this sort of thing-not good enough-it’s good enough for the private sector.

              • On Bret Baier’s show tonight during the roundtable someone stated that in the Frank/Dodd bill that set up this Financial Overseer position it states, “with Senate’s approval”.

                So besides the constitutional issues, the document that Obama is “following” to even appoint this person says he can’t do it alone. It’s getting more and more ridiculous each and every day.

                Anyone catch any of the clips of Debbie W-S doing Des Moines? She is truly a nutcase. She’ll say anything even if it’s not remotely true. Heck, even Shep Smith was having a hard time with her blatant lies.

            • And should he be reelected to a second term just think of what he might decide he has the authority to do without Congress being involved?

      • But I’m not at all sure how one by-passes this trap in the world of biased media.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Way back, up top, you will find the answers I got on Foreign born/trained Ob-Gyn’s and abortion. Stats are unfortunately unavailable but there is some other interesting stuff from a contact of mine. He’s pro life but very objective. Our side seems to be winning through the collapse of the other side. As I said, interesting and not exactly what I expected.

          Plainly & Todd might want to look also.

  69. Bottom Line (This is going to create major headaches, eyes looking skyward, and voices of “do we have to?” But I say, its 2012 so what the hey.)

    I thought that is where you were trying to go with your questions. Let me save you much time and agony. You obviously misunderstood my comments regarding Ron Paul and whether he is a “Libertarian”.
    I was not passing judgment on whether he is or is not. My primary point was that there is no such thing as a Single, Unified, “Libertarian Philosophy”.
    Without a Single, Unified theory or definition it is impossible to make a definitive and truthful claim that he is or is not. While you have posted one view of “libertarianism” there are others. And there are variations within the variations. While there is a common themed of individual vs. state, the role of the state is not universally described. In fact, Paul would fit very well within some of the definitions. Again, I am challenging the idea that a SINGLE and clearly defined philosophy exists.
    So let us explore some more. The following are various articles about “Libertarianism”, all of which are on Wikipedia. Depending on how you start a search you may or may not find the others. I noticed YOUR definition is part of the “political” meaning. But that also contains variations that seem to allow Paul’s views to exist within the meaning of the term. Articles follow:

    Libertarianism (metaphysics)
    Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that therefore determinism is false.[4] Although compatibilism, the view that determinism and free will are not logically incompatible, is the most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers,[5] metaphysical libertarianism is discussed, though not necessarily endorsed, by several philosophers, such as Peter van Inwagen, Robert Kane, Robert Nozick,[6] Carl Ginet, Hugh McCann, Harry Frankfurt, Alfred Mele, Roderick Chisholm, Daniel Dennett,[7] Timothy O’Connor, Derk Pereboom and Galen Strawson.[8]
    The term “libertarianism” in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[9] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[10][11] Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.[12]
    Overview
    Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.
    Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.
    Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior – theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the “elbow room” believed to be necessary by libertarians.
    Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[13] where he hypothesises that,
    In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposes—a hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.
    Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[14] Quantum Mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality.
    Some metaphysical libertarians, such as William of Ockham and Thomas Reid, believe that the existence or nonexistence of a nonphysical agent cannot be established by empirical or philosophical evidence, because evidence forces a conclusion, destroying the freedom necessary in reaching a belief about the agent.[clarification needed] The decisions and alternatives are taken to be matters of fact, but the agent is considered a matter of free belief. While such metaphysical libertarians believe people have a soul containing love[clarification needed] which does the job of choosing, it would not be inconsistent with their philosophy to say that people don’t have a soul, provided one arrives at the conclusion in a free way. For example one might express a feeling of emptiness in regards to an agent doing the choosing[citation needed]

    Libertarianism (political philosophy)
    Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.[1]
    Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[3]
    Overview
    Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[4] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[5][6][7] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism.[8]
    Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of “liberty” because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as “rights-theorist libertarianism,” “natural rights libertarianism,” or “libertarian moralism”), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to “initiation of force” and fraud.[citation needed] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[9] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[10][11][12] though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[13]
    In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and left-wing positions on social issues.[14]

    Libertarianism (disambiguation)
    Libertarianism, from “libertarian”, an antonym of “authoritarian”), refers to political philosophies or ideologies that emphasize individual liberty and limitation of government.
    Libertarianism may also refer to:
    • Anarchism, an anti-state philosophy for which some use the term “libertarianism” synonymously.
    • Civil libertarianism, a strain of political thought that emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority.
    • Libertarian socialism, a group of political philosophies which aspire to create a non-hierarchical society without private ownership of the means of production or an authoritarian state.
    • Libertarianism (metaphysics), philosophical position supporting free will against determinism.
    • One of several Libertarian political parties and libertarian organizations.
    End of Articles
    Now let’s look at a list of Libertarian Organizations. Please note the variation of views on Government that is represented here.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations
    Also note, I did not cite a reference to the “Libertarian Party” as this included political groups around the world with a variety of platforms. I did not think it worthy at this point because you have focused on the philosophical concepts and not the political institutions.
    So let’s restart the discussion.
    Do you agree that the term “Libertarian Philosophy” DOES NOT refer to a UNITARY and universally understood PHILOSOPHY?
    If not, then please explain what you think it is and how it is defended within the diversity of thought I have provided as examples above. As a reminder, this is where I proposed that the Libertarian view that “Liberty” is the core moral principle of society is FALSE. We don’t need to chase this right now, but I expect it will come up again.

    If you do agree, then we should focus on developing a rational philosophy by which to judge Ron Paul as well as others. In doing so, we must recognize the context of our current vs. our desired condition. It will not serve us well to condemn someone who proposes an intermediate step between Tyranny and Liberty if that step begins us down the path to Liberty.

    • Bottom Line says:

      ” Do you agree that the term “Libertarian Philosophy” DOES NOT refer to a UNITARY and universally understood PHILOSOPHY? ”

      Of course. I’m not trying to make it out as if I am the political philosophy guru. I don’t claim to have the definitive answer as to “what is Libertarianism?”. I am fully aware that I am a student.

      I think one of the things that makes Libertarian philosophy ripe for debate is that it ventures into the abstract. But even when delving into the abstracts of the metaphysical you can find a certain level of clarity. That being the generally accepted ideas surrounding the conflict between freedom and coercion or force.

      It’s kinda like the sky. Ask a whole bunch of people “What color is the sky?” The vast majority will simply answer “Blue”.

      But how can they say that when I can argue the sky is black at night, white to gray when cloudy, ….near dusk or dawn it’s various shades of red, orange, yellow, purple, etc. …When there is a rainbow, it’s all of them…And the northern lights make it florescent colors – greens, yellows purples, etc?

      So the sky isn’t really blue. Right? So why does everyone say “Blue”? Maybe it’s because it IS blue? By default, by generally accepted terms, it is in fact, blue.

      (on an abstract side note…if there is no clear definition, if it can mean anything, then how can it mean anything at all? “What is government if words have no meaning?” makes a lot of sense right now. That crazy MF’er ,Loughner, was a genius.)

      For ME, like most freedom and liberty mongers, what draws the line is coercion/force/violation of rights. That is to say that violation is where freedom stops.

      This is where I have issue with Ron Paul. What I see is clear examples of coercive force in some of his policies, which appears to be in DIRECT conflict with freedom and liberty. Call it what you will. Argue the abstract and metaphysical, …but is it really freedom?

      I cannot wrap my head around the idea that forcefully dictating anything to another is freedom or Libertarian in nature. I completely reject the idea. If I am wrong, if this can be safely argued as agreeable with Libertarian philosophy, then I wholly reject Libertarianism. Burn it along with the constipation.

      ” It will not serve us well to condemn someone who proposes an intermediate step between Tyranny and Liberty if that step begins us down the path to Liberty. ”

      Nor does it serve us well to compromise our rights as it is a grossly inefficient means of pursuing liberty.

  70. I don’t know where Matt is-but this one is for him 🙂 Secular can be and is as dogmatic as ANY RELIGION!!! Of course everyone is encouraged to comment 🙂

    January 4, 2012
    Green Blue Laws
    By Noam Neusner

    Montgomery County, Maryland is the latest locality to impose a 5-cent tax on shoppers or restaurant-goers who need a plastic bag to take their purchases home. Next door, Washington, D.C. imposed such a tax already; environmentalists are pushing localities everywhere to do the same.
    The tax is insignificant as a revenue-raiser — perhaps $1 million a year will be collected, and probably less. The tax is in fact designed not to be collected. Relative to the actual price of producing such a bag — not even 1 penny — the tax is outrageous, at a 400-percent rate. Few people will pay 5 cents for something they value at zero — they will go to significant extremes to avoid it, even if it adds “only” 25-50 cents’ added costs per trip to the supermarket.
    Defenders of the tax say this is exactly the point. They happily gloat that this is a tax which results in a change in behavior that they have long wanted to see. Suffice it to say, it is nice that liberals occasionally acknowledge that taxing something produces less of it.
    But that intellectual victory for conservative principles of taxation is probably a one-off. This is not an ordinary public policy discussion.
    Let’s take the tax’s defenders at their word that their real goal is to eliminate the unsightly waste of loose plastic bags floating in streams and in traffic medians. But there are other forms of trash often found in streams and traffic medians. Beverage containers. Fast food cartons. Political yard signs. Shall we tax people at a rate of 400 percent merely to possess these items?
    We do tax items to capture their “cost” to society. We tax gasoline. We tax cigarettes. The only way you can justify such a penalizing tax rate on a product is if you can say that whatever utility it serves, its external negative features — the problems it causes — are so large that the product itself is profoundly dangerous to life, liberty, and the Republic.
    Are plastic bags that awful? Their production, we are told, involves chemicals and plastic compounds that poison our air and water for eons. Sounds bad.
    But plastic bags are terrific devices. They are feather-light, yet hold several pounds of goods. They can be reused multiple times. Dog-owners are grateful to have them for some disposable protection when they pick up after their pets. Parents of newborns are thrilled to encase a particularly nasty diaper on the fly.
    Compared to these benefits, how awful is the environmental damage plastic bags are alleged to cause? We cause far more environmental damage for far less practical benefit. There are other pollutants of our streams — pesticides, fertilizers, and old tires, for example — but we don’t impose 400-percent taxes on them.
    No, the only obvious reason to impose such a tax is that it is purely symbolic. Those who hate plastic bags hate them so much that they also hate the people who use plastic bags. A 400-percent tax on something is passed not to capture the external negativities of a product. It is imposed to punish the person who might ever want the product.
    Of all the things that supposedly imperil society — cop-killing bullets, unsecured nuclear waste, deadbeat dads, gas-guzzling SUVs, factory farming, just pick your poison — plastic bags alone are targeted for punishing tax rates and, it is hoped, disappearance.
    Is that because plastic bags are worse than the other evils? No. It’s because the use of plastic bags at the store is considered a moral evil by the nags of the retro-puritanical environmental movement. When they can’t change behavior through gentle or annoying suasion, they turn to the powers of the state. So they have resorted to the equivalent of blue laws — a state-imposed ban on otherwise harmless behavior to satisfy the moral urgings of a powerful political bloc.
    Blue laws are a form of publicly sponsored religion. Why aren’t liquor stores open on Sunday in some places? Because someone judged that it’s not moral for the state to allow liquor sales on the Christian Sabbath. There is no practical benefit whatsoever to the law. But to those of a certain faith, it’s just the way things should be.
    The bag tax functions as a blue law: a way to impose one’s definition of moral behavior. I am a religious man, and I recognize state-compelled faith when I see it: the 5-cent bag tax has all the articles of a religious edict, sponsored by the state.
    This isn’t a tax. It’s an act of self-stroking for those who use reusable shopping bags. Who can blame them? All those years of lugging their smelly and sticky reusable bags from their cars through the supermarket and back, while the rest of us freeloaders were happily double-bagging our milk. How frustrating that must have been! Well, here’s their revenge, I suppose. A 400-percent tax on a piece of plastic that starts its life holding oranges and ends its life holding dog poop. If this is a victory for public policy, our Republic is in greater danger than I thought.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/green_blue_laws.html#ixzz1iWsrTGk5

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Funny part is the problem has been solved. The initial issue was plastics made from petroleum products that lasted thousands of years in landfills. Well we have plastics now made from soybeans that deteriorate in months. So, we are passing a tax. The tax is called something else but there is no longer a need for it other than to collect money which I guarantee is not being used for environmental remediation.

      I’m sure that bags come in both types, biodegradable and non biodegradable. Merely mandating the use of one over the other would solve the problem wouldn’t it?

  71. I have to say-I’ve never thought about capital punishment from this angle!

    January 4, 2012
    Crime Without Punishment
    By Lester Jackson

    In common parlance, “getting away with murder” is a metaphor for doing something wrong without suffering deserved adverse consequences. Getting away with actual murder has meant that the killer did not get caught, or else he avoided conviction or appropriate punishment thanks to a good lawyer (often taking advantage of judge-concocted rules favoring guilty defendants).
    In recent decades, however, getting away with murder has been infused with new meaning: purposeful government policy now grants murderers immunity from punishment for new crimes.
    Out of thin air, a right has been officially and surreptitiously created exclusively for select previously convicted murderers: the right to commit, cost-free, further violence, and even further murders. When judges, legislators, and governors make capital punishment impossible in willful defiance of great public support, they liberate those already serving life sentences to fearlessly perpetrate as many additional vicious crimes as they can because they face no greater penalty.
    This shocking reality, known to those few immersed in what passes for the criminal “justice” system, is covered up by our murderer-protective media.
    Governors and Legislators
    A recent vivid illustration occurred when a lone Oregon elected officeholder joined elected officeholders from other states (e.g., New Mexico, New Jersey, Illinois, and potentially Connecticut) in defying the public. (Last July, the Supreme Court fell one vote short of saving a brutal murderer based on a never-enacted law proposed by a solitary legislator.) On November 22, Gov. John Kitzhaber declared a death penalty “moratorium” during his term in office, expressly barring Gary Haugen’s scheduled December 6 execution for a barbarous slaughter while serving a life sentence. In 1981, Haugen raped Mary Archer and beat her to death with repeated blows from his fist, a hammer, and a baseball bat. In 2003, together with another inmate, Haugen murdered a third inmate, David Polin, by stabbing him 84 times and crushing his skull. After humbly seeking expert consultation with “mostly myself,” Kitzhaber found all this insufficient to warrant execution.
    So in order to keep Haugen alive after he savagely murdered his first victim, the life of a second victim was sacrificed, again savagely, this time with no penalty. Because there is no price to be paid for taking them, the lives of additional innocent victims are effectively deemed by the Kitzhabers of the world to be worth nothing — while these people, at the same time, hold sacred the lives of recidivist murderers.
    Decades earlier, another object of abolitionist devotion laid it on the line.
    New York State’s High Court
    In 1981, while serving multiple life sentences for multiple murders, Lemuel Smith beat, strangled, bit off the nipples of, and murdered Donna Payant, a 31-year-old prison guard and mother of three, finally throwing her body into the garbage to be compacted. (This was not the first time he sank his teeth into his murder victim’s nipples.) A 4-3 majority of the New York State Court of Appeals used this case to foist their unpopular moral values upon an unwilling public by declaring unconstitutional the state’s death penalty law. Despite legal window dressing which the minority found specious, Smith himself left no doubt that, at bottom, the bare majority valued his life, but not the lives of the guard or Smith’s previous torture-murder victims, to say nothing of possible future ones.
    Realizing that punishment-free murder had received the court’s seal of approval, Smith boasted at his new “sentencing”: “I got so much time they can’t do nothing to me … Think about it. If I wanted some sex, I could rape, I could sodomize. They can’t do nothing to me!”
    U.S. Supreme Court: Rape
    Smith’s defiant mockery of his be-kind-to-murderers benefactors would not have surprised Chief Justice Burger, who saw it all coming when the U.S. Supreme Court invented a right especially for those serving life sentences: to commit unpenalized rape.
    In 1974, while serving three consecutive life sentences and others for brutal crimes including murder, attempted murder, at least two rapes, and kidnapping, Ehrlich Anthony Coker escaped and promptly raped 16-year-old Elnita Carver, threatening to murder her. In 1977, the Court issued a fiat that there must never be a death sentence for rape of an “adult.” Chief Justice Burger protested that the Court thereby (a) “prevents the State from imposing any effective punishment … for [Coker’s] latest rape,” (b) “bars Georgia from guaranteeing its citizens that they will suffer no further attacks by this habitual rapist,” and (c) assures that [Coker] — as well as others in his position — will henceforth feel no compunction whatsoever about committing further rapes as frequently as he may be able to escape from confinement and indeed even within the walls of the prison itself.” This left “in doubt” the ability of states “to protect innocent persons from depraved human beings.” (In 2008, five justices expanded their solicitude for sexual predators to protect 300-pound rapists of 8-year-old girls, banning capital punishment for “child rape.”) The Lemuel Smith ruling applied to just one state. The 1977 Coker case involved “merely” rape by a life-sentenced murderer. A decade later, six justices extended their ardor for convicted murderers to those who commit new murders, for whom, for the first time ever, the death penalty could never be mandatory anywhere in the country — period.
    U.S. Supreme Court: Murder
    In 1973, fifteen years after committing first-degree murder for which he was serving life without parole, Raymond Wallace Shuman decided that it was time to hone his skills. He doused fellow inmate Ruben Bejarno in flammable fluid and set him on fire. Bejarno died after three days of unimaginable pain; Shuman was convicted, receiving a mandatory death sentence.
    In prior cases, the Supreme Court hinted that mandatory capital punishment was possible. In reality, as Justice Scalia complained, the Court already had “decreed — by a sheer act of will, with no pretense of foundation in constitutional text or American tradition — that the People (as in We, the People) cannot decree the death penalty, absolutely and categorically, for any criminal act, even (presumably) genocide[.]”
    Removing all doubt, the Court now completely seized from the American people and their elected representatives the right to ever provide for their own safety by making the death penalty mandatory — conferring upon Shuman a “constitutional right” to “mitigate” his multiple murders and show why he was worthy of being kept alive to possibly commit yet more murders.
    Justice White dissented: “Until today, the Court has never held that the Constitution prohibits a State from identifying a … category of [murder for which] no combination of mitigating factors … could ever warrant reduction of a sentence of death.”
    Ironically, it was White who wrote the main opinion saving murderer-rapist Coker, holding that convicted murderers could never be executed for new rapes. After all, as White (joined by Justices Stewart, Blackmun, and Stevens) put it, the victim “was unharmed.” However, to bar a mandatory death sentence for repeat murders was going too far. Even White saw harm in additional murders. (The Coker “evolving standards of decency” mutation left Burger incredulous: “This bifurcation of rape into categories of harmful and non-harmful eludes my comprehension.”)
    The Crucial Stakes
    To justify forcing his quixotic values upon a self-governing people, Justice White divined that, “in the end,” the Constitution empowered justices to impose “our own judgment” about death penalty “acceptability.” This claim would have been “laughed to scorn” by the Framers, countered Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts.
    The values, wishes and concerns of the American people do not matter to unelected and unaccountable judicial autocrats. They get away with arrogant usurpation of power primarily because most people don’t know, and the media are not going to tell them.
    The media are not going to disclose the deliberate policy of sacrificing innocent lives to save convicted murderers. The media are not going to reveal the special dispensation granted vicious criminals to freely commit new barbarity — and that this is official government policy imposed by public servants whose primary duty is ostensibly to provide for public safety. The media are not going to question the rationality of eliminating punishment when the number and depravity of a barbarian’s crimes increase.
    Death penalty opponents endlessly moralize that “no civilized society can execute human beings.” But how can a society that considers itself civilized tolerate being governed by power-abusing officials who confer on the most violent and depraved, precisely because they are the most violent and depraved, the right to commit additional murders and other barbaric crimes without fear of any punishment at all?
    When rulers dictate that convicted life-sentenced murderers pay no price for taking or ruining additional lives, they are, despite contrary protestations, actually declaring the additional lives to be worth nothing because they may be taken at no cost — and the lives of convicted murderers have such great value that they may commit any and all new crimes, also at no cost.
    How “civilized” is a society that places so little value on the lives of the innocents that it sacrifices them on the altar of preserving what it deems the precious lives of convicted barbaric murderers?
    Based on the 40-year “guerilla war to make [capital punishment] a practical impossibility,” it must be concluded that many justices have considered the lives of most murderers to be sacred, while placing little or no value on their victims’ lives. Executions of convicted killers have led justices to tears, stress, and “excruciation” — with never a word of concern about victims. There has been denial that many severely traumatized victims are victims at all, combined with extended verbiage lamenting the suffering of brutal murderers on death row.
    Vitally at stake in the next election is whether we will continue to be afflicted by unaccountable rulers so grotesquely contemptuous of the Constitution, the values, and the very lives of “We, the People.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/crime_without_punishment.html#ixzz1iXyJIxed

  72. And this-are they kidding me-you can’t teach anything that reflects adversely on gays or religion-really-free speech anyone! These people are past scary-I officially call them NUTS. They’re worried about Christian views limiting their freedom!

    January 4, 2012
    Whitewashing History for California’s Kids
    By Tricia Owen

    California’s efforts to be inclusive in the classroom could spell disaster for education.
    A new law took effect January 1 requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals in its history lessons. That alone is proving unpopular with some. But the real issue is that the law also bans teaching material that reflects “adversely” on gays or religions.
    That sounds nice.
    However, in effect, what the law is actually doing is quashing free speech. After all, what does it mean for 9/11? Is the fact that the terrorists were radical Islamists off-limits in the classroom? Will the speech police clamp down on any teacher who dares discuss the role religion played in the attacks?
    What about HIV? Is it now illegal to teach in health class that it spread quite notably in the gay community? After all, some people might think that that reflects adversely on gays.
    In addition to the free speech implications, the state is essentially codifying revisionist history. If certain groups don’t look good, their history doesn’t get taught, at least not in its full context. It’d be like glossing over the attack on Pearl Harbor for fear of offending Japanese-Americans, or leaving out portions of the Civil War because it might make Southerners look bad.
    It’s the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, yet it’s now the law of the land in the nation’s most populous state. And it’s more than political correctness run amok — it’s dangerous.
    We used to criticize other countries for doing this sort of thing — Japan for downplaying the Rape of Nanking, Turkey for denying the Armenian genocide, textbooks in the Arab world for their portrayal of Israel — yet here we are, doing it in the U.S.
    Our children need to be taught history as it really happened, not a sanitized version that makes the ever-growing list of protected classes look good. Teaching used to be about discovering truth, not covering it up for fear of offending some person or group. What are we teaching our kids when we tell them it’s more important to make people feel good than to seek knowledge?
    No one group is composed entirely of saints. History is full of horrible behavior on everyone’s part. To ban teaching anything that reflects “adversely” on a group of people is nothing more than whitewashing history.
    It’s understandable — even laudable — to want to teach our children to be accepting of others, but this is not the way to do it.
    Our students lag behind other industrialized nations in math and science, but are way ahead in feeling good about themselves and their differences. But that’s not what’s going to get this country on the right track.
    Schools need to stick to the basics — reading, writing, arithmetic — and steer clear of the sort of dishonest social engineering schemes California schools are now engaged in.
    Thankfully, some in the Golden State agree. A move is now afoot to put a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the law. Hopefully, it will pass. If not, we’re all in trouble. After all, as they say, “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/whitewashing_history_for_californias_kids.html#ixzz1iY1FHepo

  73. Title of this original post, “It Couldn’t be Because You Suck”…..

    Well here we go. You’ve got to read this NYT article.

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/nobody-likes-to-talk-about-it-but-its-there/

    • Nobody likes to talk about it-is he living in some sort of parallel universe-the left likes to talk about it-endlessly. They like to talk about it, invent it, and I think are responsible are causing it’s advancement.

      • Or they start the sh** to begin with like Michelle “kind of likes” being called Your Excellency! WTH?

    • If the examples used by the author are what he considers racist, then by his definition any word spoken in opposition to Obama is racism.

  74. From my inbox this morning.

    We always hear ‘the rules’ From the female side.

    Now here are the rules from the male side.

    These are our rules!
    Please note.. these are all numbered ‘1 ‘
    ON PURPOSE!

    1. Men are NOT mind readers.

    1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

    1. Sunday sports It’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

    1. Crying is blackmail.

    1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work!
    Just say it!

    1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

    1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

    1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 Days.

    1. If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us.

    1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

    1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

    1. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

    1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

    1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

    1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

    1. If we ask what is wrong and you say ‘nothing,’ We will act like nothing’s wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

    1. If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, expect an answer you don’t want to hear.

    1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine… Really.

    1. Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, motor sports, guns, or hunting.

    1. You have enough clothes.

    1. You have too many shoes.

    1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

    1. Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight. But did you know men really don’t mind that? It’s like camping.

  75. The evils of a capitalist society, one that takes from all, ignores those on the bottom and turns you into a slave, right Charlie.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/be-a-kick-butt-entrepreneur.html

  76. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    For those of you with an interest in such things, GLOBAL sea ice is now ABOVE NORMAL! (ZOMG, what are the AGW crowd going to do with that statistic??? Oh yeah, they will ignore it completely, nevermind…)

    Yes, Northern Hemisphere sea ice is below normal at -0.531 million square kilometers,

    BUT

    Southern Hemisphere sea ice is at +0.555 million square kilometers, so globally we are at +0.024 million square kilometers.

    According to the studies I have seen recently, we are in a La Nina, the AMO is negative, the PDO is negative, and after the peak of this relatively weak solar cycle (sometime in 2013), the next two solar cycles are predicted to be almost non-existent (we’re talking Dalton or Maunder type events according to some predictions). Studies by several Chinese scientists and other studies by several Russian scientists are calling for anywhere from 30 to 60 years of WELL below normal temperatures starting in 2014 or so. I don’t think you will see too many such studies from American or European scientists (that isn’t where the grant money is after all….)

    • I don’t know Peter-I’m sure it’s my, not understanding most of what you just wrote-but it sounds more ominous than Global warming. 🙂

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        V.H. Global cooling is always more ominous than global warming. When the planet is warm, people, animals, and plants thrive. When it is cold, plants die, animals die, and people suffer terrible diseases and die. If we get another “little ice age” it ain’t gonna be pretty.

        On the one hand, I hope for 60 years of well below normal temperatures just to put the AGW charlatans out of business forever, but on the other hand, the amount of suffering caused by another little ice age (let alone a “real” ice age) is just horrific to think about.

        • “On the one hand, I hope for 60 years of well below normal temperatures just to put the AGW charlatans out of business forever”

          HAH! You think that will stop them? They will take it as proof that they are right!

          • Mathius™ says:

            It’s January 5th. Still no snow on the ground.

            I could get used to this.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Yeah, it is weird right now, most of the Northern Hemisphere has been above normal in temperatures for a few months running, and most of the Southern Hemisphere has been below normal over the same time period. Somewhat unusual, though not “unprecedented” 🙂

  77. Yea-right-it was all the kids idea-No brain washing here!

    VA school board defends 8-year-olds singing ‘Occupy’ lyrics
    Share
    35

    POSTED AT 12:07 PM ON JANUARY 3, 2012 BY HOWARD PORTNOY
    PRINTER-FRIENDLY

    Give enough monkeys enough typewriters, and you will eventually end up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Give enough 8-year-olds enough “inspiration,” and you will apparently end up with an ode to the Occupy movement.

    That’s the argument being advanced by the Albemarle County (Virginia) School Board in defense of lyrics purportedly written by third-grade students at Woodbrook Elementary School. The title of the song is “Part of the 99.” Here are the lyrics:

    Some people have it all
    But they still don’t think they have enough
    They want more money
    A faster ride
    They’re not content
    Never satisfied
    Yes—they’re the 1 percent

    I used to be one of the 1 percent
    I worked all the time
    Never saw my family
    Couldn’t make life rhyme
    Then the bubble burst
    It really, really hurt
    I lost my money
    Lost my pride
    Lost my home
    Now I’m part of the 99

    Some people have it all
    But they still don’t think they have enough
    They want more money
    A faster ride
    They’re not content
    Never satisfied
    Yes—they’re the 1 percent

    I used to be sad, now I’m satisfied
    ’Cause I really have enough
    Though I lost my yacht and plane
    Didn’t need that extra stuff
    Could have been much worse
    You don’t need to be first
    ’Cause I’ve got my friends
    Here by my side
    Don’t need it all
    I’m so happy to be part of the 99

    The inspiration for these heartfelt sentiments didn’t come entirely from the monkeys’—I mean kids’—inborn sense of social awareness. The effort was guided by professionals at Kid Pan Alley, an organization that helps children write and perform their own songs. The organization’s motto is “Inspiring kids to be creators, not consumers.”

    A video at Kid Pan Alley’s website provides a more in-depth look into the group’s mission. Here is a transcript of the first few sentences:

    Imagine that you are a child writing a song with your classmates guided by a professional songwriter. You would be changed forever. You would learn about teamwork and the value of including everyone’s diverse ideas. You would feel listened to and really proud of your accomplishments.

    So, putting aside the question of whether 8-year-olds working independently would dream up a battle hymn to class warfare, we are to believe that an organization dedicated to “including everyone’s diverse ideas” would not have at least nudged the tykes toward the 99 percent theme? Steve Koleszar, chairman of the school board, doesn’t think so. He tells a local CBS affiliate:

    They don’t censor what the kids write. They don’t shape what the kids write. It all comes out of the kids own mouths and the kids own words…

    The kids choose the topic, this class chose the topic and those are their words.

    Carole Thorpe, of Jefferson Area Tea Party Chair, is incredulous. Of the claim of freedom from censorship, she asks:

    Does this also include religious content of lyrics? Would it include profanity? Does the school at any point say this content is inappropriate for an eight-year-old?

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/01/03/va-school-board-defends-8-year-olds-singing-occupy-lyrics/

    • I know this doesn’t accurately portray the message of the song but couldn’t help notice”

      “Some people have it all
      But they still don’t think they have enough
      They want more money
      A faster ride
      They’re not content
      Never satisfied
      Yes—they’re the 1 percent”

      SO SAY THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE 1%. THOSE WHO WANT THEIR MORTGAGE AND COLLEGE DEBT FORGIVEN. THOSE WHO WANT FREE HEALTH CARE. THOSE WHO ARE NEVER CONTENT, NEVER SATISFIED AND ALWAYS WANT MORE FROM THE 1%.

    • V.H.

      I don’t understand what the issue is here. Is it the claim the kids did this without help?

      Personally I don’t see anything wrong with the lyrics. It is far from an OWS anthem or even support for OWS.

      I find it an interesting and positive twist on the 99 vs. 1 meme that has become part of the public discourse.

      • I object because it is an obvious political message-shown clearly by the use of the 1% and 99% reference, I question the conversation that occurred to reach these words.

        I object because they are obviously using the education system to push their so-called secular values but will not allow others to push their religious values.

        If the Federal government will get out of the education system-I will no longer object-the parents and teachers and the local government can make their own decisions-until then I will point out the hypocrisy in their positions.

  78. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    EPA’s Killer MACT

    By Alan Caruba

    To understand how the Environmental Protection Agency operates, one must first understand that it lies all the time. Its “estimates” are bogus. Its claims of lives saved are bogus.

    It thrives on scare-mongering to a public that is science-challenged, but the science remains and the EPA must be challenged to save the nation from the loss of the energy it needs to function. It must be challenged to unleash the huge economic benefits of energy resources – coal, oil, and natural gas – that can reverse our present economic decline.

    The latest outrage is the MACT rule – an acronym for “maximum achievable control technology” intended to reduce mercury emissions and other trace gases. The rule is 1,117 pages long. Its purpose is to shut down coal-fired power plants that generate over fifty percent of all the electricity used daily in the United States of America.

    The value of the total benefits asserted by the EPA is alleged to be $6 million. Not billion, but million. The MACT rule would force 14.7 gigawatts – enough power for more than eleven million households – to be “retired” from the power grip in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says, “The economic analysis of the Obama EPA�s MACT paints a bleak picture for economic recovery as it will cost $11 billion to implement, increase electricity rates for every American, and, along with the Cross-State rule, destroy nearly 1.4 million jobs.”

    MACT is all about mercury in the environment of the nation. On May 25, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published a brief opinion piece by Willie Soon, a natural scientist at Harvard, co-authored by Paul Driessen, a senior policy advisor for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. It was titled “The Myth of Killer Mercury.”

    Here are a few of the facts it offered.

    “Mercury has always existed naturally in the Earth�s environment. A 2009 study found mercury deposits in Antarctic ice across 650,000 years.”

    “Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment.”

    There is “200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater” that “has never posed a danger to any living thing.”

    “U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons (of mercury) per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.”

    “Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.”

    This is the same EPA “logic” that insists on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere when all life on Earth depends on it as plant food for all vegetation. More CO2 mean more crops for humans and livestock, healthier forests and jungles, and food for the Earth’s wildlife population.

    In a foreword to “Regulators Gone Wild: How the EPA is Ruining American Industry”, Dr. Jay Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland Institute, wrote, “This administration is pushing an unprecedented radical environmental agenda.”

    The EPA, along with major environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and others, have engaged for decades in a massive propaganda effort to convince Americans they are imperiled by the nation�s air and water. It is a lie. As the author of “Regulators Gone Wild”, Rich Trzupeck notes, “Though our world is actually cleaner than ever, most Americans are convinced it is dirtier.”

    “Toxicity,” wrote Trzupeck, “is a matter of dose, as sober scientists have observed since ancient times. A particular compound may kill you if you drink it, but a few parts per billion of the same compound can have no effect at all�one can find toxic air pollutants in the parts-per-billion level in human breath.”

    The EPA’s latest rule, which will no doubt be subject to lawsuits, is a killer MACT. It is not about mercury or other trace gases. It is about deliberately depriving the nation of energy which in turn means less jobs, less growth, and a third world lifestyle being imposed on Americans by the radical environmentalists inside the Obama administration.

    Remember that when you are in the election booth on November 6, 2012.

    • So Peter..assume that I may have in a cabinet in my home…since I was born…a bottle that has about 3 oz of liquid mercury in it. A bottle that I may have personally snuck to my grade school back in the day..and may have actually pored into my pencil holder on the desk and played with during class..then put said mercury back into the same bottle..and snuck back into the same cabinet it started from…and seeing as I am basically healthy to this day…would that be a bad thing?…and how would I go about loosing this bottle without being questioned? 🙂

      • Healthy you say???

        I did the same, and I suspect others have as well.

        Perhaps that is why WE hang out at SUFA. We are all really sick and just didn’t know it, because everyone else is sick as well! Bwhahahahahaa

        • 😆 I really would like to lose it before my son finds it and …well who knows what kind of trouble a teenage boy could find with it!

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Anita,

            It is the vapor from mercury that is toxic. You could swallow a big gulp of the liquid and might cause some liver damage, but the majority of the liquid would pass right through you pretty much harmlessly. The liquid is somewhat volatile, but playing with it for a short period of time won’t expose you to a significant amount. Keeping it in a sealed jar won’t expose you to vapor at all if the jar is well sealed.

            As far as disposal, just call your local health department and tell them you have a small sealed jar of mercury (from an old-style barometer or something) and you would like to properly dispose of it. Believe it or not, you won’t get into any trouble and they should be very helpful. Most likely they will have a site where you can bring the jar locally for proper disposal.

            Yes, a teenage boy could find trouble with it, but I would wager he has found a way to play with liquid mercury at some time or other already 🙂

    • OK, as the guy here who better understands “forests” let me just say that this is a fallacious argument, relative to plant growth and health:

      “More CO2 mean more crops for humans and livestock, healthier forests and jungles, and food for the Earth’s wildlife population.”

      The fallacy is in assuming that CO2 is the only limiting factor to both growth and health.

      Sorry, but it is not.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        CO2 has often been shown to be the LIMITING REAGENT in photosynthesis… that is, CO2 is the first thing the plant “runs out of” so the photosynthetic reaction cannot occur further until more CO2 is available to the plant. This is why greenhouses are often “flooded” with CO2.

        As such, although CO2 is not the ONLY limiting factor in photosynthesis, it is often the primary limiting factor. If the atmospheric concentration of CO2 were to fall to 200PPM, many plant species would simply die. If the atmospheric concentration of CO2 went to 1000PPM (as some scientists claim it was during parts of the Cambrian Era) then plant life would indeed be happy!

        • Peter

          A green house is not a farmers field or a forest or a grassland.

          CO2 is not the limiting factor to plant growth in these “open areas”.

          Raising CO2 levels will only increase plant growth to the point other factors become constraints. In most areas it won’t take much, if they are not already there. That is why farmers must fertilize their fields.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            JAC,

            True, if there isn’t a lot of Nitrogen, and at least some Phosphorous in the soil, the plants abilities to uptake more CO2 do become limited as well. One of the big advantages in the Cambrian Era was lots of volcanism. Provided lots of good soil and lots of CO2 for the plants!

  79. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Many consumers in the dark about dangers of CFL bulbs

    By Kirk Myers, Examiner

    The is the first in a multi-part series of articles exposing the lies and misinformation behind legislation mandating the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with potentially unsafe compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs.

    Most consumers by now are aware of a federal law mandating the phased transition from incandescent light bulbs to controversial mercury-activated compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs, starting this year.

    According to provisions of legislation passed by congress in 2007, the 100-watt incandescent bulb was to be off the shelves this January, followed by a phase-out of the 75-watt version in January 2013 and the 60- and 40-watt versions in January 2014. But last month congress granted consumers a reprieve by including in its spending bill a measure delaying enforcement of the ban until the end of the 2012.

    Mercury – a deadly neurotoxin

    From the time it was first proposed, the ban has run into opposition from consumers who are understandably concerned about outfitting their home light fixtures with bulbs containing, on average, 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water. Mercury is one of the most deadly neurotoxins on the planet.

    According to Wattsworks.com, “Breaking a single CFL bulb in a room can result in mercury vapor levels 300 times in excess of what the EPA has established as safe for prolonged exposure. Serious health effects are associated with mercury exposure. Unborn and young children, elderly and those with weakened health are particularly vulnerable.”

    The EPA continues to downplay safety concerns, but urges consumers to follow these safety precautions if a bulb is broken:

    �Open a window and ventilate the area for 15 minutes

    �Avoid vacuuming the area (to prevent the spread of mercury dust)

    �Use cardboard, not a broom, to sweep up the remains of the bulb

    �While wearing rubber globes use a wet paper towel to wipe the area

    �Seal the contents in a jar with a lid or plastic bag for disposal

    “If clothing or bedding materials come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powers from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away,” the EPA recommends.

    The EPA claims the amount of mercury in a single bulb is not enough to create a health hazard. But according to test data released in December 2010 by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA), mercury levels from broken CFLs were 20 times higher than regulations allow in the surrounding air for up to five hours after breakage.

    The American Thinker reports: “Based on a new method to measure mercury from broken CFLs, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reports that only one-third of the mercury release occurs during the first 8 hours after breakage. During the following two-week period, 17 percent to 40 percent of the mercury is released into the air.”

    In a report last March, Fox News exposed the potentially dangerous health hazards of mercury-laced CFL bulbs:

    “Mercury… is a potent, developmental neurotoxin that can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to mercury’s toxic effects. Even at low levels, mercury is capable of causing a number of health problems including impaired motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional problems. Higher or prolonged exposure can result in much more serious health problems.”

    Mercury Instruments, a Littleton, Colo., firm that specializes in removing mercury contamination, states the following on its Web site:

    “If you break a “CFL” Compact Fluorescent light bulb and attempt to clean it up yourself, there is absolutely no way to know that you have removed the mercury unless you screen the area with a mercury vapor monitor . . . Without the proper equipment, equipment you will never be able to locate where the mercury came to rest.”

    Concerned about mercury contamination, many environmental agencies have adopted strict regulations for the disposal and recycling of CFLs. In California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, it is illegal to improperly dispose of florescent bulbs in trash or landfills. Consumers face stiff fines if they violate the law.

    Investigate Magazine says this about broken CFLs: “The real cost is not one broken light bulb, but how badly affected homes will be after 20 years of amateur attempts to clean up one of the deadliest neurotoxins on the planet.”

    Mercury vapors – another health hazard?

    Toxic mercury from broken bulbs might not be the only danger posed by CFL lamps. During tests last year at Berlin’s Ala Laboratory, scientists discovered that various carcinogenic chemicals and toxins, including phenol, naphthalene and styrene, are released when CFL are switched on.

    Environmental experts in Britain have downplayed the findings, insisting that CFLs are not a danger to the public and that more studies are needed to back up the German research.

    But Peter Braun, who carried out the tests at the lab, claims that CFL lamps emit poisonous vapors when turned on and “should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”

    This report comes on the heals of research by Israel�s Haifa University suggesting that the CFL’s bluer light emissions, which closely mimic daylight, might interfere with the production of the hormone melatonin, contributing to higher rates of breast cancer.

    In addition, the Migraine Action Association is warning that CFLs could trigger migraine headaches, “and skin care specialists have claimed that their intense light could exacerbate a range of existing skin problems,” according to a report in London�s Daily Telegraph.

    Consumer anger

    Many consumers are fuming over what they see as government meddling and are stocking up on incandescent light bulbs before the ban goes into effect. Judging from the pointed buyer comments on Amazon.com, the legislators who voted for the ban might want to update their resumes.

    “You can pry my 100 watt incandescent from my cold dead hand (all apologies to Charlton Heston),” says Dukesuxheelrule. “Only a liberal green weenie would replace a perfectly safe tool of illumination with a much more expensive, lower quality, and highly hazardous product.”

    Jeddy3 chimes in: “Every time the do-gooder nanny state shoves something down our throat “for our own good,” you can bet it’ll be found later that it wasn’t safer/better after all. If it were better, safer, or more economical, it wouldn’t be necessary to legislate its competition out of business.’

    Another incensed buyer bashes the Green movement and defends freedom of choice:

    “They [the incandescent bulbs] work well, shine bright, and – best of all – make me feel constantly proud to be screwing the eco-nazis,” said ahtimsa1970. �Screw you, Al Gore! Keep your hands off my thermostat, light bulbs and recycling bins. I worked hard for my money; I’ll spend it however I choose.”

    During a recent appearance on Fox News, Marc Marano, the founder of the Web site Climate Depot, described the ban as an assault on consumer choice carried out by global warming alarmists and their allies on Capitol Hill.

    “The only reason we’re talking about incandescent bulbs is because of fears of global warming. They’re trying . . . to control every aspect of our lives.”

    As one critic quipped, “We know why GE dropped the ‘We bring good things to life’ slogan.”

    • I am very confused by this move-we are moving towards L.E.D. Lighting-so why is the government insisting on this middle step to flourescents-when they are already pushing L.E.D. Who is benefiting from this move?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Let me ask you this: Do you think it is a coincidence that the word “Illuminati” derives from the Latin illuminatur, which means “enlightened” or “people of the light”?

        • Matt-I already have a headache-I refuse to even try to understand what the heck you are talking about 🙂 Dicipher-in plain English please!

          • Mathius™ says:

            It’s all right there for you to see…

            Who wields tremendous secret power and influence?
            Who could orchestrate a massive conspiracy to manipulate policy like this?
            Who would be very interested in “light”?

            Of course, it can only be “the people of the light”.. the Illuminati are behind it all!

        • …who hide in the dark….

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        100-Watt incandescent bulbs: pack of 16 for $3.75 at the store… (that’s less than 25 cents each folks!)
        CFL Bulb: $4.97 for ONE at the store (and many times they don’t last as long as an incandescent, regardless of what they claim!)
        LED Bulb: $16.95 for ONE at the store; however, well-made LED bulbs use almost no energy whatsoever, and last quite a while!

        If you can afford them, go to LED bulbs NOW, they have made vast improvements in the “quality” of the light from these bulbs, and the “lifetime” of the bulbs is simply tremendous. Any sane person will avoid toxic CFL bulbs completely. By the way, those prices were from my local Walmart on 01/04/12 so they should be pretty current and typical.

        • And if I break one i won’t have to drive 70 miles (one way) to the nearest hazardous materials disposal center.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Yeah, some States will fine the absolute crap out of you if you don’t “dispose of CFL bulbs properly”. I know for certain that at least 7 States already have laws on the books with very stiff fines for simply tossing them in the trash, as well as VERY strict regulations on how to clean them up if you do happen to break one. I never buy the damn things!

  80. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I posted the two articles above in rapid succession in order for you all to note the DRAMATIC IRONY.

    EPA is proposing the new MACT rule to limit TRACE mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Cost approximately 11 Billion (not including lost jobs). Benefit 6 Million.

    EPA/Congress are also eliminating incandescent bulbs to “save energy” which will thereby reduce our need to burn coal to make power, thus reducing mercury emissions. Ok, sounds good….

    BUT WAIT… EACH AND EVERY CFL BULB contains 5mg of mercury, and if you break one, you are poisoning your entire house! Anyone ever hear of “mad hatter’s disease” or “St. Vitus Dance”? Mercury vapor poisoning, especially from exposure to low to moderate levels for prolonged periods of time is HORRIBLE! Trace amounts in the air will not do that to you, but the amount in a CFL bulb certainly will!

    In fact, if there are 80 million CFL bulbs produced, that would equal the entire amount of mercury emitted annually by ALL coal fired power plants in the world!

    How many of these bulbs have already been produced? How much mercury is emitted into the atmosphere DURING THEIR PRODUCTION??? (Conveniently I bet no one ever studied THAT aspect of the situation). How many of these bulbs have already been broken or disposed of in landfills?

    Clearly, this entire thing would be one colossal joke if it were not so painfully true.

  81. Life of Illusion or one of you other page masters.

    Anyone care to start up a new Open Mic page?

    Starting to take a long time to move around on this one, at least for me.

  82. I just solved the immigration problem from Mexico…….Since the incandescent bulb market has now moved to Mexico…they are going to manufacture the bulbs now for 11 cents. At $4.97 per CFL bulb, the profit margin is now big enough to rival guns and drugs and prostitutes. So, DPM and I have set up an incandescent bulb cartel. We will employ all the illegals under a unified green card program and import incandescent bubs to the US…….since the new epa standards disregard foreign entities on US soil.

    What say you DPM????? Gold, grog, DP, and Latin wenches await your decision.

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Y’AARGH!

      Sounds good to me. I have a tunnel from Zihuatanejo to Cheyenne. It’s a half mile underground and well ventilated (and lit with incandescent bulbs). We should be able to move any amount of inventory without too much trouble.

%d bloggers like this: