More Open mic

How’s That Government Meddling Workin’ Out for Ya’?

By Richard N. Weltz

Back in the heyday of the old Soviet Union an agricultural commissar from the Ukraine was summoned to the Agricultural Ministry in Moscow to report on the year’s potato crop. “Ah, Comrade Minister,” said the commissar, beaming, “If all the potatoes harvested this year were put into a single pile, it would reach to the feet of God.”

“What!” exclaimed the minister, “you know that in Communism there is no God.”

“Also,” sighed the commissar, “in the Ukraine is no potatoes.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/hows_that_government_meddling_workin_out_for_ya.html#ixzz1jLrPHuYF

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    👿

    • What, you didn’t like the joke? Let me tell ya another funny, the other day Obama said he needed to borrow 1.2 trillion…….

      http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/12/u-s-debt-approaches-15-194-trillion-ceiling/

      The Treasury Department has begun maneuvers to avoid hitting the debt ceiling, as the Obama administration waits for Congress to return from the holiday break before it can raise the federal borrowing limit.

      The U.S. government was just a hair below the $15.194 trillion debt ceiling on Tuesday, $25 million shy of the limit Congress set last summer. President Barack Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders Thursday, saying the U.S. debt was within $100 million of the ceiling “and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments.”

      Raising the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion is procedurally simple but politically it is much more complex.

    • And do you remember when it was UnPatriotic to raise the debt ceiling?

      http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/01/13/obama-called-smaller-bush-debt-rise-unpatriotic/

      So funny how little the debt was discussed in the last Repug debate, almost as if the moderators didn’t want to discuss the economy under Obama. On FOX this am, they hit on the spending cuts, defense is where most are going to come from due to Obama’s insistence. He has talked about entitlement reform, but has kept the details out of the limelight. Again it’s funny the entitlement reform he supports all comes after he leaves office. Where he to win re-election, no substantial cuts to the primary driver of our debt until someone else inherits the problem.

  2. Carry over from previous:

    DUI/Driving/Law

    …BF Synopsis…

    (1) Speed does not kill, or everyone in jet planes would be slaughtered.
    DIFFERENTIAL of speed kills.
    This is the primary reason for speed limits/control – give the driving public a reasonable speed that all travel together, essentially eliminating the differential between them. The problem is always the guy going 120mph where everyone is comfortable at 60mph and equally the guy going 30mph where everyone is comfortable at 60mph.

    (2)DUI is an argument of skill of operation – but its enforcement has nothing to do with skill – which makes this completely perverted and the reason nothing changes with its enforcement.
    Skill is -without a doubt- the single most significant aspect in driving.

    95% of drivers obtain this skill by experience behind the wheel in everyday driving.
    This means that for 100% of the time in new drivers, they are completely out of their ability if the situation is even slightly out of the normal experience – which is almost all the time.

    10 years of driving, most drivers have obtained by trial and error enough skill so not to die. 25,000 a year did not pass this test.

    (3) Using Law to correct these two things is a serious error, the first reason being it does not work. *You know the second reason … has to do with violence on non-violent people*

    The law here does not work – because those that have done no harm are punished so that they do no harm. This is akin to beating your kid daily to ensure his good behavior continues. Doesn’t make any sense….

    The law must only deal with violence.

    Rules must deal with behavior.

    If a driver is speeding is not a problem …. it is a problem if few others are going his speed.
    The rule is simple, when in traffic, move with the traffic.
    When not in traffic, move with the remaining traffic … which happens to be just you.

    Violating the rule bans you from the road, for a time the rule determines. This is not a crime.

    If a rule is made that one cannot consume alcohol before driving, so be it. The owner of the road can determine whatever he wishes for what ever reason, and if this appears reasonable to improve safety, so be it. Violation of this rule is the same as speeding.

    Until an accident, there is no violence. After an accident, (or Clear and Present Danger) then only does the Law apply.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is very similar to how we are dealing with Iran. The attitude of get them because they “might” get a nuke is stupid.

    • When there is an accident and someone is injured or killed, then what? If as yesterday, I see a young man waving as wee pass, no, he was texting with his thumbs while steering with both hands. If he had hit me it was preventable had he not been negligent. So DUI, texting, provable acts would be criminal negligence.

      • LOI,

        When there is an accident and someone is injured or killed, then what?

        Every house has dozens of very sharp knifes.

        So, what do you do if someone is killed by these very sharp knifes?
        Do you stop people from using knifes?
        Or do you deal individually with those that used the knife for harm?

        If as yesterday, I see a young man waving as wee pass, no, he was texting with his thumbs while steering with both hands. If he had hit me it was preventable had he not been negligent. So DUI, texting, provable acts would be criminal negligence.

        ….only if he hit you.

        If he did not, how is he a criminal?

        • Oh applesauce! Apples and oranges anyway. I said nothing about any law against any behavior. As D13 pointed out, DUI accidents are an issue. If you are drunk and cause injury, you may not have chose to have that accident, but you chose to become inebriated.
          Your deliberate impairment is a factor. If you are distracted, paying more attention to your phone that the traffic around you, I think it stops being a simple, no fault accident and moves into negligence. You text and hit me, you pay 100% for car repairs and medical. You kill someone by negligent behavior that you chose, is that not a crime? You chose to endanger others by your acts, if and when they are harmed, you own the responsibility.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/12/AR2010011202218.html

          • LOI

            . As D13 pointed out, DUI accidents are an issue.

            It is an artificial issue.

            If you are drunk and cause injury, you may not have chose to have that accident, but you chose to become inebriated.

            If you are sober and cause injury, you may not have chose to have that accident, but you chose to remain ssober.

            See?

            With my substitution, you statement remains true

            Therefore, the component that has been substituted is NOT the condition that makes the statement true!

            Your deliberate impairment is a factor.

            Prove it.

            I will have a drink, and you not, and let’s go to the race track.
            You will lose.

            You are making a claim of ability as the measure of negligence

            Therefore, if you claim me automatically negligent after drinking and I BEAT YOU in driving – you are ALWAYS NEGLIGENT AND CRIMINAL if you ever get behind the wheel

            But of course you will say “no way!” – thus, a contradiction.
            You made ability the difference, except when it is applied against you.

            You text and hit me, you pay 100% for car repairs and medical.

            Sure.

            You kill someone by negligent behavior that you chose, is that not a crime?

            If I kill you and I was sober, is that not still a crime too?

            • “If I kill you and I was sober, is that not still a crime too?” No, it is a shame or a sad thing.

              http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/20/ohio-shooting-15-year-old-girl-in-amish-buggy-ruled-homicide/

              You can kill someone and it be a crime or legal. Self defense or accidents are not a crime.

              “Every house has dozens of very sharp knifes.”

              So if I visit and sit by you as you juggle them, if I am injured, it’s an accident. If I’m sitting next door and you throw them up as high as you can and one hit’s me, it is not an accident.
              I did not agree to be endangered. You engaged in behavior that put others at risk. You were reckless and negligent. If you threw them knowing I was at risk, I would say it becomes criminal negligence. If you knowingly drive while intoxicated, you made that choice. I do not agree with where the bar is placed, 0.08, 0.1…, but a very high level vs a very low level should be weighed. And isn’t that why we have juries of our peers? If you have done great harm or are a habitual offender, you should be held accountable.

              “let’s go to the race track.
              You will lose.”

              I’d wager on that one. My car vs your Dodge? You vs me?
              Would love to take your money!

        • And another thing, if you or I am driving at 120 MPH where it is suggested/recommended not to exceed 80 MPH, and we are in an accident, are we not “more responsible” than the other person trolling along at 75?

          • LOI,

            Yes, IF the speed was the cause of the accident.

            But if it was because the other guy motored thru a stop sign (etc.), then no.

            You have to measure the CAUSE, not make up via imagination artificial things as the cause.

            Two cars collide. Why?
            One swerved into the other lane. Period

            Does it matter if the driver was sober? No. He swerved into the other lane.
            Does it matter if he was drinking? No. He swerved into the other lane.

            • I agree on cause being determined. The one that left their lane is at fault unless it’s indicated they had swerved because the other vehicle was in their lane or other cause/effect events. If the sober driver hits the drunk, it has no bearing on the fault. But if a drunk kills because they were blind drunk it is no longer an accident. It has become criminal negligence and manslaughter. They chose to impair themselves. They chose to operate a lethal weapon in that condition.

  3. 8)

    • Happy Friday the 13th!!!! Expect many things to go wrong today!

      • Son in law 360’d into a ditch this icy morning with his beloved Dodge Ram. Luckily he wasnt carpooling as usual with my daughter! He and the vehicle are fine..just bruised ego!

        • Anita

          Just got an email alert from the Boyne Resort in Michigan.

          It said: “snowing and 5 more on the way”.

          So….is that inches or feet???

          That should put Todd in a better mood. 🙂

          • That would be inches. Most years it would be feet. That’s some beautiful God’s country up that way. We may have 1″ on the ground with snow falling right now down here in the ghetto.. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              We have a beautiful fluffy 6 inches (of snow! 🙂 ). It is still snowing and we could get another 3 or so before it moves out of here. It is a very nice sight and I hope to get in some more hunting tomorrow. Two more days of deer hunting left, it has been a good year ( 7 deer to date). We are having deer steaks tonight with baked potatoes, corn and a salad.

              I have finally found a company that sells conversion kits to convert my generator so it can use gas, natural gas or propane. For under $200, it’s a great deal.

              • Good thing about generators.. once you buy them you never need them!. Got mine in 03 after that power grid failure. Only time I ever used it was at my property…before I got electric…..

                Dinner sounds good G!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I plan on hooking up to natural gas and use a relay switch. Start it up and hit the switch, the whole house will be powered up. Out natural gas comes from a local well, and will always flow. With Pops on O2 24/7, have to have a plan.

              • Ah..you’re hooked right into your fuse panel then? Good plan sonny. My natural gas comes from a pipe in the wall…that’s about all I know about that 🙂

  4. Now we have Constitutional power determined by a time limit. Then forever after hold your peace. Or in other words “shut up” “We the People”.

    Why Obamacare won’t work: Reason #4,566
    Rick Moran

    The crisis in health care is manageable – without the radical, extreme measures passed in the Affordable Care Act.
    USA Today reports that just 5% of patients account for 50% of health care spending. And just 1% account for 22% of the spending.
    That’s about $90,000 per person, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. residents spent $1.26 trillion that year on health care.
    Five percent accounted for 50% of health care costs, about $36,000 each, the report said.
    The report’s findings can be used to predict which consumers are most likely to drive up health care costs and determine the best ways to save money, said Steven Cohen, the report’s lead author.
    While the report showed how a tiny segment of the population can drive health care spending, the findings included good news. In 1996, the top 1% of the population accounted for 28% of health care spending.
    “The actual concentration has dropped,” Cohen said. “That’s a big change.”
    About one in five health care consumers remained in the top 1% of spenders for at least two consecutive years, the report showed. They tended to be white, non-Hispanic women in poor health; the elderly; and users of publicly funded health care.
    Other studies have shown that most of this spending is on “end of life” care – that is, patients who have very little chance of recovery but who have numerous hospital stays and even surgeries that don’t extend life, but deal with unrelated symptoms to their primary disease. Someone dying of heart disease getting a kidney transplant, for instance.
    The question is how to manage our eventual demise in a compassionate, but reasonable manner? One thing for sure – government doesn’t have the answer to that. Only families and their physicians should be involved in those decision.
    Of course, insusrance companies will get involved and are likely to balk at paying for more and more treatments at this stage of life. But we can sue insurance companies if they refuse to pay for a necessary procedure. We can’t sue the government.
    In fact, the decisions of the government when it comes to Medicare spending will be above and beyond any legal review. Mona Charen:
    All decisions about controlling Medicare costs will be decided by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
    IPAB is a new thing in American government. Unlike most other boards and commissions, the panel’s 15 members (appointed by the president and approved by the Senate) need not be bipartisan. Also unlike other boards, commissions, and federal agencies, the IPAB’s decisions are virtually unreviewable. IPAB doesn’t have to adhere to the notice and comment rules of federal agencies, which permit citizens to respond to proposed rule-makings. IPAB dictates automatically become law unless Congress itself intervenes. Ah, but they’ve thought of that and made it virtually impossible. The law prescribes that Congress has a limited period of time in which it can modify IPAB rulings and then it must do so by a three-fifths majority. Even ratifying treaties and proposing amendments to the Constitution require only two-thirds majorities. As for the courts, forget it. The judiciary is forbidden to review IPAB decisions.
    The really bizarre part, reminiscent of the “I wouldn’t do that, Dave” scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, is that Congress can only repeal IPAB itself under strict conditions. Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute explains:
    “Under the statute, any bill to repeal IPAB must be introduced within the one-month period between January 1 and February 1, 2017. If introduced, it must be enacted by a three-fifths super-majority no later than August 15, 2017. If passed, the IPAB repeal will not become effective until 2020 – leaving an out-of-control agency in operation for three years after Congress votes to abolish it.”
    A trillion dollar piece of legislation to deal with a problem that mostly affects 5% of health care users? Call it overkill. And call the IPAB a dagger aimed at the heart of our health care system.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/why_obamacare_wont_work_reason_4566.html#ixzz1jMQOAYhk

    • Just saying it seems like the article is saying that it is harder to overturn IPAB then ratify a treaty becuase The law prescribes that Congress has a limited period of time in which it can modify IPAB rulings and then it must do so by a three-fifths majority. Even ratifying treaties and proposing amendments to the Constitution require only two-thirds majorities. As for the courts, forget it. The judiciary is forbidden to review IPAB decisions

      but 3/5 = 60%
      and 2/3 = 66.6%

      • Nice catch-I didn’t notice 🙂 But it still says if it isn’t overturned by a certain date -It can’t be overturned EVER! And even if it is overturned-it will stay in effect for another 3 years. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a bill set up where it by law can’t be gotten rid of-but I will stipulate 🙂 that maybe one exists and I just don’t know about.

  5. Where are the champions of freedom?

    By John Stossel
    Published January 12, 2012

    It’s election season, and so once again people look for heroes. Is Ron Paul one? Maybe. He’s fought a long, lonely battle to limit the power of government. As government grows, I yearn for champions of freedom who fight back. Rep. Paul has done that.
    But it’s a mistake to look for heroes in politics. It’s too ugly a business. My heroes are people like Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and Ayn Rand.

    Darn — they’re all gone.

    Here are some other champions of liberty you might not know about: Alfred Kahn was a bureaucrat who, under President Carter, managed to kill off the Civil Aeronautics Board and Interstate Commerce Commission. By bringing freer markets to transportation, he saved Americans billions of dollars.

    Norman Borlaug saved billions of lives. He invented a high-yield wheat that ended starvation in much of the world. He also criticized the environmentalists who fight the bioengineered food that could end hunger altogether.

    How about Larry Flynt, founder of Hustler magazine? He brought tastelessness to new depths — but by spending his own money to defend free speech in court. He is a champion of freedom. So is musician Willie Nelson. He brought the battle against drug prohibition to the very roof of the White House (where he reportedly smoked weed).

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/12/where-are-champions-freedom/#ixzz1jMYVAa8D

  6. To me-this is where the gay rights and transgender rights arguments go off the cliff.

    Boys’ And Girls’ Locker Room? Calif. Bill Would Blur School ‘Gender Identity’ Rules
    January 10, 2012 12:18 PM

    LOS ANGELES (CBS) — Days after a landmark law went into effect requiring California schools to teach about gay historical figures, a new piece of proposed legislation is likely to spark even more controversy.

    Sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), AB 266 would require schools to allow students to play on sports teams according to their “gender identity” and not their biological sex.

    The bill — which is currently before the Assembly Education Committee — was initially aimed at resolving conflicts among local governments “and other interests” through the creation of a state sports commission.

    However, revised language in the proposed bill would mandate that students “shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records”.

    Under the proposal, a boy who claims a female “gender identity”, for example, would have the right to try out for a girls sports team.

    In addition, the bill would also require opposite-sex access to “sex-segregated facilities” that could possible include locker rooms.

    Ammiano claims to be the first San Francisco public school teacher “to make his sexual orientation a matter of public knowledge”.

    In 1977, he worked with prominent gay activist Harvey Milk to defeat an effort that would have prohibited gay teachers from working in California.

    Assemblyman Don Wagner (R-Irvine) is among those on the Assembly Education Committee set for a hearing on the bill on Wednesday.

    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/more-open-mic/

  7. 😐

  8. Woooooooooooow! Figured this was just another campaign clip. Little did I know this hits very close to home. First, this company they speak of..UniMac..I happen to still have six pieces of UniMac equipment..excellant stuff. Then I needed another couple machines..was told UniMac was out of business..I couldn’t imagine!..Had to get a Maytag from Germany..POS..and a dryer from Switzerland..POS….

    Another piece of the puzzle. When Northwest Airlines filed bankruptcy..they failed to pay me for 90 days..they were very honest with me about their intentions and their plan for repayment in the future..After 90 days they got themselves on firm ground and paid their monthly bills in a timely manner..better than they ever had before. But..these outstanding 90 days had still been haunting me. Anyway, over a couple year span I kept receiving letters from these capital firms offering to buy NW debt from me at say at first…18%..HA! Not a chance! but the letters kept coming from different capital firms..Bain included.. and the offers kept getting higher..I dug through my paperwork to find the highest amount Bain offered..it was 57%…I ended up taking an offer from a different firm for 80% and ran with it. I know of several other businesses around town who are still waiting on payment from Northwest..glad I made the move when I did.

    This clip sure gives me a sour attitude about Romney,,not that he’s ever been my choice to begin with. But how can I argue? This is capitalism at work isn’t it?

    http://www.kingofbain.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email1&utm_campaign=king_of_bain

  9. What I consider a sad testament to what we have become in the US of A. Also a little humorous, in a sick sort of way.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/for-many-latinos-race-is-more-culture-than-color.html?hpw

  10. SUFA, a never ending source of capitalist propoganda …

    First Plan, 1928–1933 — From 1928 to 1940, the number of Soviet workers in industry, construction, and transport grew from 4.6 million to 12.6 million and factory output soared.

    Second Plan, 1933–1937 — The Second Five-Year Plan was the start of the deterioration in the standard of living because the focus of “planners’ preferences” replaced consumer preferences in the country’s economy, with the move to focus on military goods and heavy industry, the economy suffered. This resulted in a much lower quality and quantity of available consumer goods.

    Third Plan, 1938–1941 — The Third Five-Year Plan ran for only 3 years, up to 1941, when Germany declared war on the Soviet Union during the Second World War. As war approached, more resources were put into developing armaments, tanks and weapons, as well as constructing additional military factories east of the Ural mountains.

    Fourth and Fifth Plan, 1945–1955 — By 1947, food rationing had ended, but agricultural production was barely above the 1940 level by 1952. However, industrial production in 1952 was nearly double the 1941 level.

    Sixth Plan, 1956–1960 — Another Plan to improve industry was carried out in 1956 by Nikita Khrushchev, following Stalin’s death in 1953. Some of Khrushchev’s policies included nationalization, the Virgin Lands Campaign, creation of a minimum wage alongside overall wage reform and the production of consumer goods which raised the living standards of the Soviet people in return.

    Seventh Plan, 1959–1965 — Unlike other planning periods, it was a 7-year plan (semiletka), approved by the 21st Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1959. It was the reconsideration of the 6th pyatiletka. This period was marked with a significant economic growth of the Soviet Union.

    Eighth Plan, 1966–1970 — The Eighth Plan led to the amount of grain exported being doubled.

    Ninth Plan, 1971–1975 — Some 14 million tonnes of grain were imported by the USSR. Détente and improving relations between the Soviet Union and the United States allowed for more trade.

    And that was without much effort … slaves to a state vs. slaves to a paycheck … the eradication of the middle class will change the face of American capitalism sooner or later …

    The SAGE has spoken …

    • All for the mere cost of 15 to 20 million lives.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        More, six million Ukrainians alone. I cannot believe what I read, an apologist for the Soviet Union and indirectly for Stalin. I remember in the ’60’s it was estimated that more food was produced on the paltry few acres allotted to collective farmers for their personal use than on the bulk of collective lands. My Russian professor, a fan of the Soviet Union himself, brought it to our attention with the comment that a few things, “hadn’t worked out as well as planned”.

    • Charlie, my long lost Plutonian friend. How are you?

      You left out the 10th plan……..the dissolution and failure of the Soviet Union. It no longer exists.

  11. I guess we’ll never know how many native Americans were killed for “form America” … nor how many were enslaved for years for the same reason.

    Take your pick, brother …

    • Question, Charlie…..you are constantly harping on the American Indian and the government’s mistreatment of same….you constantly harp on past slavery issues….as if all these are coming back….you try to tie slavery to capitalism when socialism is the true creation of slavery.

      But a question…….do you know of any American that thinks the American Indian was NOT mistreated? Do you know of any American that supports slavery of any type? (Please, no IRS statements or such). Why is this such an issue for you. We are so far past this, it is laughable. EVERY single country in this world had to deal with slavery issues as far back as…oh…….since Moses was a corporal. Up until the fall of your vaunted Soviet Union, it was the largest purveyor of slavery….your lovely Venezuela now has labor camps, when it did not before…but you claim it is a great country for the people. (it is about to fold, you know).

      So, I ask this…..we had our growing pains and we have our learning curve…..I think your arguments would be taken more seriously if you drop this mantra…..just MY most humble opinion, sir. I like you and still would share some Canoli with you….and wine, of course.

  12. Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/11/supreme-court-delivers-knockout-punch-to-white-house/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1jXSBxBrA

    Interesting reading. This was a unanimous court ruling, according to this article and not a split court, reaffirming the first amendment rights. This ruling was specifically tailored to the Obama’s administration of employment discrimination to religious institutions and back pay awards. The Supreme Court told the Obama administration to butt out. What is even more interesting was the unanimous ruling in the application of first amendment rights…..even if it pertained only to religious institutions……in this instance.

    In my reading of the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote for the unanimous decision, I can see a myriad of cracks that could trickle down to employers. Granted, they were talking about “ministerial exemptions” BUT…….does the fact that the Obama Administration, attacking the first amendment, our Constitution, and losing in a unanimous fashion, open the door to anything?

    Let’s look at the opinion of the back pay award….. “the Court also took aim at Plaintiff’s Cheryl Perich’s claims for back pay finding that such relief would operate as an unconstitutional penalty against a religious institution for terminating an unwanted minister and exercising its constitutional right to make decisions about internal church governance. Unfortunately, the federal government has become expert in imposing penalties for practicing one’s faith.”

    Again, even though this is clearly aimed at a religious institution, I find the wording very interesting. (NOTE: D13 is not a constitutional lawyer….merely a layman who knows nothing) but points out….”back pay, in this instance, was considered an unconstitutional penalty”….Does this open interpretation to eventually include this wording in civil cases?

    Does the fact that Obama;s open attack on the first amendment and the unanimous ruling say……..careful how you proceed, King Obama? Does this give strength to the fact the Supreme Court, even with its liberal members, actually look at the Constitution and the wording very carefully?

    Does this alleviate the claim that the Constitution is a living Constitution that is subject to the whims of any administration or is the Constitution what it is….. Foundation that is not to be shifted or cracked?

    Is it possible that the Equal Rights Act or even the EEOC is open to constitutional issues in its applications of its own justice? Will this trickle down to employers?

    Interesting, to say the least.

    • “As the new year rolls on, Americans face even greater issues in their desire to retain their religious freedom. The mandates of ObamaCare — with its narrowly tailored if not measly conscience exemptions protecting some religious orders from compliance — will mandate thousands of other religious organizations ranging from educational institutions to insurance companies to insure and/or provide procedures like free sterilization and abortifacients like Plan B known to be violative of many Christians and Jewish faiths.”

      How far will this go in the mandate argument of Obama Care? Will there be so many exemptions so as to avoid mandates…….I will claim such, if necessary. I do not want Obama care.

      • I thought this would be an interesting addition to your posts.

        January 16, 2012

        Is the Court Changing Its Stand on Religious Freedom?

        Posted by David French

        On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a university’s “all-comers” nondiscrimination policy trumped the right of a Christian student organization to select its leaders according to the group’s religious beliefs. According to the Supreme Court, a Christian student group confronted with such a policy could not exclude a Muslim or atheist from leadership and had to give them the same chance to lead as a Christian. It was “surely reasonable,” declared the Court that “the . . . educational experience is best promoted when all participants in the forum must provide equal access to all students.”

        But last week- roughly 18 months later – the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution contain a “ministerial exception” that precludes the application of nondiscrimination statutes (such as the ADA) to claims concerning “the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.” In other words, a religious employer’s right to select its leaders trumped the state’s nondiscrimination statutes. In its ruling, the Court waxed eloquent about the special need for religious institutions to choose their ministers according to the dictates of their faith:

        The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

        So what happened between June, 2010, and January, 2012? Did the Hosanna-Tabor court overrule Martinez? Did it change its view regarding the importance of religious leadership for religious organizations? The short answer is “no” and, well, “time will tell.”

        What are the differences between Martinez and Hosanna-Tabor? There are many, but the key distinction – I believe – was quite simple: The Court framed Martinez as an “access to benefits” case while it viewed the nondiscrimination statute in Hosanna-Tabor as an inescapable imposition on the school’s very existence.

        In other words, the Court viewed the Christian Legal Society as trying to access on its own terms various state benefits (such as a share of student activity fees, access to empty state-owned classrooms, and space on state communications resources like bulletin boards). If the Christian Legal Society wanted autonomy, it could simply opt out of the state benefit scheme, use alternate means to get its message out, and meet on campus through existing permissive access rules.

        Hosanna-Tabor could not, by contrast, escape the reach of nondiscrimination statutes. If it wanted to exist at all, it would exist under the jurisdiction of the Americans with Disability Act, or of Title VII, or of the various state and local versions of these statutes. Without a ministerial exception, the very ability of a neighborhood church to select its pastors according to the dictates of its faith would be under threat from rogue governments. The First Amendment’s religion clauses would be essentially gutted.

        The problem, however, with this distinction (which seems sensible at first glance) is that it begins to break down in the face of an ever-larger and more expansive government. For the Christian Legal Society in Martinez, the question really was one of existence – existence in a government-dominated, government-owned community. If one lives and works on government-owned property, is access to that property truly a “benefit?” What if that person is paying handsomely (through tuition and fees) to live in that community?

        Off-campus we see the government assuming increasing control of a number of fields traditionally dominated by religious institutions. In other words, it is transforming the private into the public. Take adoption and foster care, two areas where the church’s involvement has long predated even the existence of the United States. If the government occupies the field and exercises total regulatory authority over a child’s life, is, say, the Catholic Church’s continued involvement to be analyzed under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses or is the Catholic Church merely accessing a government benefit – the ability to participate in a government program?

        The Hosanna-Tabor case is a welcome triumph for liberty, and it’s notable for its historical analysis and ringing, common-sense defense of religious autonomy. But one can’t help but wonder – as the governmental leviathan continues to gorge – if our churches and religious institutions will exercise sovereignty over an ever-shrinking domain.

        http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2012/01/is_the_court_changing_its_stan.html#more

    • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

      Even more interesting is that the woman was let go by the church for a disability. The court has found that the exemption for religious institutions is very broad. In her suit, she claimed that she was acting more in the capacity of a teacher than a minister but court still held that the church was exempt from being sued under ADA.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Isn’t this what charlie is wanting?

  14. Canine Weapon says:

    • If you thought all the news reports that wine was good for your health were too good to be true, you could be right. Some of the research was faked, says the University of Connecticut.

      After a three-year investigation, the university concluded that Dipak Das, a professor of surgery and head of the university’s cardiovascular research centre, “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data.”

      An anonymous tip of possible fraud in 2008 triggered the investigation. The result was a massive report, totalling nearly 60,000 pages, that documents the case against Das. The report was drawn from examination of more than 100 papers and a summary is available online.

      The university has notified 11 journals in which Das published suspect papers and has begun dismissal procedures.

      The university says it is also investigating the possible involvement of former members of Das’s lab.
      Das gained public attention in recent years with research into the health benefits of drinking wine. Much of his work has been on resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, but in 2008 he published results showing that white wine also improves heart health in rats. “Beer is also cardioprotective,” Das told New Scientist.

      However, Das was not the first to publicise the health benefits of resveratrol – many other labs have reported promising results.

      The investigation began after the US Office of Research Integrity told the university that it had received an anonymous allegation of falsified data in one paper published in 2008.

      According to the Connecticut Mirror, the board concluded that Das had manipulated figures showing results of western blot protein analysis. The board also reported extensive evidence of other fraud, including files on Das’s computer indicating that images had been manipulated. Faked images have been prominent in other research fraud.

  15. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

    He has never apologized, said he was wrong, asked for forgiveness, articulated his understanding of the right to keep and bear arms or sworn to never again betray freedom.

    No matter. If his momentum holds, we’ll no doubt see a move to bestow “favorite son” status on him once more. As a way to celebrate “American Values,” NRA Leadership-style…

    “But if we don’t vote for Mitt, Obama will win!” we’ll no doubt be told.

    “We’re one Supreme Court vote away from a reversal of Heller!” we’ll be warned. “We’ll lose our Second Amendment rights!”

    A couple things—if Republicans realized we are in a cold civil war against ideological enemies and stopped acting like…nah, no use even going there. For the most part, they are, always have been and always will be the party of negotiable “principles.”

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/romney-should-make-conservatives-squirm

    • I am so angry about Obama making those unethical, unconstitutional, flat out wrong and totally unprincipled appointments-I want to scream-I continue to read how wrong he his-but I have yet to read where anyone in Congress is going to do a damn thing about it but talk.

      So I am wondering if any of them on either side of the aisle have any real principals to negotiate.

    • Nine Euro Countries’ Ratings Are Cut
      On Friday, Standard & Poor’s cut the ratings on nine of the 17 European countries that use the euro currency. France and Austria lost their coveted AAA ratings, which were lowered one notch to AA+, and Italy and Spain had their ratings cut by two notches. Germany, Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands all retained their AAA status, while the ratings of Portugal and Cyprus were cut to junk.

    • I’d say it’s about time-if the ratings have any meaning at all.

  16. @ Buck…….I know that your time is limited but….if you can, review Judge Roberts writing as it pertains to the back pay award issue on the recent Supreme Court Ruling….I see some potential issues brewing in interpretation.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Colonel,

      No time at all today to read the opinion. Based on what I have read though, before and after the ruling, despite the unanimous decision, this was not a slam dunk open and shut case. There was a real issue as to whether or not she fit the ministerial exemption based on her actual functions. As to the pay award issue, I’m not all that familiar with the precise issue nor the Ct’s holding. Will try to take a look into it, but no promises this week. Going to be in and out of meetings (both in and out of the office) most of the week.

      How’s all else going down your way?

  17. Somebody just shoot me would ya…..

    “Michelle Obama will run for the United States Senate in 2016 and she will be thereby mimicking, if that’s not the right word, duplicating the career of Hillary Clinton.” – John McLaughlin…by way of Breitbart

    • Wonder if she’s gonna run as the “angry Black Woman”, so irritated that she insisted on including the word Black in her complaint on how she has been treated.

  18. This is hard to believe!

    VA AG Fears DC Law May Relocate Rat ‘Families’ to Virginia
    By Christopher Goins
    January 13, 2012
    Subscribe to Christopher Goins’s posts

    (CNSNews.com) — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he is worried that a new District of Columbia law that governs how pest control operators must handle rats may result in entire rodent “families” being relocated across the Potomac River into Virginia by D.C. pest control personnel.

    Lately, there have been reports of growing rat infestations around the Occupy DC protests at Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square.

    Cuccinelli said D.C.’s new rat law–the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010 (Wildlife Protection Act of 2010.pdf) –is “crazier than fiction” because it requires that rats and other vermin not be killed but captured, preferably in families; no glue or snap traps can be utilized; the rodents must be relocated from where they are captured; and some of these animals may need to be transferred to a “wildlife rehabilitator” as part of their relocation process.

    The law does not allow pest control professionals “to kill the dang rats,” Cuccinelli told CNSNews.com. “They have to capture them–then capture them in families. [Not sure] how you’re going to figure that out with rats. And then you have to relocate them. That brings us to Virginia. Now, if you don’t relocate them about 25 miles away, according to experts, rodents will find their way back. Well, an easy way to solve that problem is to cross a river, and what’s on the other side of the river? Virginia.”

    Deer mouse. (AP Photo)

    “So we have real concerns about this ridiculous–ridiculous!–law and we’ve been pretty genial about dealing with D.C. on it,” said Cuccinelli. “But when you see an article like the ‘Rats Occupy Occupy DC,’ it points up the problem that we’re going to have in Virginia because of that–and because D.C’s really outrageous–outrageous!–treatment of these varmints who, for those who don’t remember their history, carried things like bubonic plague. I mean, these are true vermin.”

    While the law exempts “commensal rodents”–varieties of which most people know (or have seen) as common rats or house mice–the rice rat and deer mouse, which are found in the District, are not defined as commensal and apparently are not exempt from the law. In addition, the new law expands the definition of wildlife and sets the rules for handling it to include raccoons, squirrels, skunks, and other animals that can carry disease, such as rabies. The law applies to trained animal control officers, not to homeowners.

    The law (Wildlife Protection Act of 2010.pdf) specifically says that wildlife “shall include any free-roaming wild animal, but shall not include: (A) Domestic animals; (B) Commensal rodents; (C) Invertebrates; and (D) Fish.” Commensal rats include the House mouse (Mus musculus), the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and the Roof rat (Rattus rattus).

    White foot mouse. (AP Photo)

    In an e-mail to CNSNews.com, Brian Gottstein, communications director for Attorney General Cuccinelli, said, “While certain commensal rodents are exempted from the law, the rice rat and the deer mouse are species that wildlife control experts note are within the District that are NOT defined as commensal rodents, so they would appear not to be exempt from the law.”

    “In addition to these particular rats and mice, raccoons, squirrels, skunks and other animals known to carry rabies, Lyme disease, and other diseases are not exempt from the law,” said Gottstein.

    Gene Harrington, governmental affairs director for the National Pest Management Association, told CNSNews.com in an e-mail that he could not say “with any degree of accuracy how prevalent the deer and white-footed mouse and rice rat are in the District” but “that the largest deer and white-footed mouse populations likely live in Rock Creek Park, and that during the colder months they make their way into homes and other structures near or adjacent to the Park.” He later said that the deer and white-footed mice would likely be found in Ft. Dupont Park, the National Zoo, and the surrounding properties in D.C.

    Harrington further said, “I suspect once the Occupy DC protesters eventually leave there will be an overly aggressive squirrel population that has gotten too used to being fed by humans. Under the Wildlife Protection Act, the only legal method pest and wildlife management professionals can use to manage these squirrels will be to live-trap them. Since the squirrels will associate humans with food there is really no place to relocate them where they would not eventually become a nuisance.”

    Raccoon. (AP Photo)

    “Also, keep in mind that a pest management professional’s use of snap traps at the Occupy DC camps to control the rats comes with its own legal pitfalls because squirrels or chipmunks could be attracted to the same peanut butter put out for the (Norway) rats,” said Harrington.

    He continued, “Basically, federal and local government regulations have tied legal District rodent control practices in knots and made the management of such a problem much more complicated than it should be.”

    The Wildlife Protection Act was sponsored by D.C. City Council Member Mary M. Cheh. It was introduced in 2009, passed in December 2010 and went into effect in March 2011.

    Some of the law’s rules state (Wildlife Protection Act of 2010.pdf):

    … (c) Traps used by a wildlife control services provider shall be set in a manner designed to catch the target animal and in the manner likely to avoid capture of and harm to non-target animals.
    (d) Wildlife shall be captured, handled, and, when permissible, transported, in a manner to ensure against causing unnecessary discomfort, behavioral stress, or physical harm to the animal, including providing protections against weather extremes.

    … (f) Captured non-target wildlife shall be released immediately at the site of capture. Captured non-target wildlife that pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety to persons or domestic animals or that are injured and need veterinary care and rehabilitation shall:
    (1) With permission of the property owner, be relocated to a suitable location where nuisance problems are unlikely to occur;
    (2) Transferred to a wildlife rehabilitator, if the animal is sick, injured, or abandoned; or
    (3) Euthanized if relocation or rehabilitation are not feasible.
    (g) Captured target wildlife shall be:
    (1) Released at the site of capture;
    (2) With permission of the property owner, be relocated to a safe location where nuisance problems are unlikely to occur;
    (3) Transferred to a wildlife rehabilitator, if the animal is sick, injured, or
    abandoned; or
    (4) If none of the other options are feasible, euthanized.

    … (i) A wildlife control services provider shall make every reasonable effort to preserve family units using humane eviction or displacement and reunion strategies and shall not knowingly abandon dependent young wildlife in a structure.

    … (k) Captured wildlife shall be transported in covered, secure containers in such a way as to:
    (1) Minimize stress to the animal and its exposure to the elements by covering the trap or vehicle with appropriate material;
    (2) Ensure that the covering is of such material that the animal has an adequate supply of air to prevent overheating; and
    (3) Minimize potential hazards to the general public.
    (l) A wildlife control services provider shall not use sticky or glue traps to control any wildlife.

    Skunk. (AP

    “This is one of those real-life-is-crazier-than-fiction laws D.C. has passed,” Cuccinelli told CNSNews.com. “I found out about it because our pest control people in Virginia were very concerned …. [A]nd I’ll tell you, the order of required dealing with these rats, raccoons, and various vermin of all types is you are now only allowed to trap them alive. No more glue traps. No more crushing traps. No more snap traps. Nothing like that. Now remember, these are mice, rats, raccoons, vermin.”

    “And then your options are to release them on site,” he said, adding, “Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.”

    Or animal control can “relocate” the rats, said the attorney general, or “transfer them to a wildlife rehabilitator–I kid you not!–a wildlife rehabilitator, or last and least, you can kill them but only with things like a relatively high-tech gas chamber, other nonmembers, methods– excuse me–that are just outrageously expensive.”

    When asked what a wildlife rehabilitator is, Cuccinelli said, “That’s a darn good question! But I understand, if there are any functioning in D.C., there are darn few of them. And I’m not aware that there are any.”

    “These are creatures [rats, mice] that carry pestilence,” said Cuccinelli. “And in Fairfax and in Loudoun, Prince William, we have a really bad, really long-term and tremendous outbreak in Lyme disease. And that’s something you get from ticks carried on deer, as well as these other vermin. I wouldn’t put deer in the vermin category but those are the kinds of public health hazards that come along with these creatures.”

    Squirrel. (AP Photo)

    Commenting on further aspects of the law, Cuccinelli said that D.C. Councilwoman Mary Cheh had “sided with rats over human health.”

    CNSNews.com also asked Cuccinelli, “Are you concerned at all that rats are pretty much a protected species in D.C.?”

    He said: “Absolutely. And that’s a good way to put it. So are raccoons. So are squirrels. I’m not as worried about the squirrels as I am the rats and the raccoons because they’re—the rats in particular breed like crazy and they carry such pestilence and disease—it’s a very bad situation not just for D.C. but for those of us, given how small D.C. is, that border it.”

    When CNSNews.com called the attorney general’s office for the District of Columbia, the communications office there said it was unfamiliar with the new rat law.

    D.C. Council Member Mary M. Cheh (AP Photo)

    In another e-mail to CNSNews.com, Gene Harrington, with the National Pest Management Association, said D.C.’s Wildlife Protection Act “is the perfect example of lawmakers putting special interest concerns and goals above those of its citizens. It is not as if there was an issue with cats getting caught in rodent snap traps or on non-toxic snake glue boards. Rather, the law was passed in the form it was because it had to meet the pure doctrine of the Humane Society of the United States and that ideology dictates that lethal control methods should never be utilized, regardless of whether the animal in question is Willard the Rat, Carl the Copperhead, or Bambi the Deer.”

    In addition to the practical challenges that the new law poses, Harrington said that EPA regulations on rodent pesticides could conflict with the Wildlife Protect Act.

    “As for the rat infestations at the Occupy DC camps, treatment of those problems is also made more difficult by new EPA restrictions prohibiting the use of rodenticide products further than 50 feet from buildings,” he told CNSNews.com by e-mail. “The new EPA restrictions also limit the use of rodenticides to commensal rodents, so the only [way] pest management professionals can legally manage non-commensal rodents, such as deer and white-footed mice in the District, is to live-capture them or build a completely rodent-proof structure.”

    “Live capturing these mice species brings its own risks for pest control operators because of diseases transmitted by such rodents and having to handle the pests,” said Harrington.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/va-ag-fears-dc-law-may-relocate-rat-families-virginia

  19. January 15, 2012

    Look Who’s Endorsing a Race-Based View of Knowledge

    By Robert Weissberg

    The campus diversity warriors are once again pounding at the gates. This time the pounding comes from on high–the American Political Science Association (APSA) itself. It is a serious clamor: a 76 page report called Political Science in the 21st Century authored by fourteen professors, many from elite research-oriented schools such as Berkeley and UCLA. The report received National Science Foundation money plus ample professional funding.

    It is a curious document since nearly every university, top to bottom, has for decades sought diversity, and has even been willing to over-pay and compromise traditional academic standards. The Task Force includes Diane Pinderhuges, past president of the APSA and my former colleague (and friend) for 20-plus years. The two of us regularly sat in the same room discussing how our department could be more inclusive and heard all the administration entreatments to hire yet more blacks and Hispanics.

    The obvious question, then, is why yet one more plea is necessary, given that scores of university bureaucrats are already striving to admit more minority graduate students and hire more black and Hispanic professors, and once hired, help them get tenure. Moreover, since many those currently admitted to graduate school or hired are barely qualified, the additional recruits will bring even more problems (many of these potential recruits will also have ample better-paying private sector opportunities). What can possibly necessitate yet more inclusionary vigor? Have these fourteen academics discovered a better solution to a seemingly intractable problem?

    Nothing in the real world justifies the report, but that said, Political Science in the 21st Century is still worth scrutinizing for informing us about the latest wrinkle in what might be called, “The Life of the Diversity Mind.” Most important, for those uncomfortable with incessant demands for inclusion über alles, the report provides advance warning in what seems to be a long war of attrition.

    Why should any department double or even triple its efforts to hire more blacks and Hispanics when demand already outstrips supply? Might the reason be that newly emerging problems requiring expertise are currently in short supply, for example, hiring Middle Eastern experts in the wake of 9/11? The report’s justification is remarkably vacuous: demography is altering the political landscape, and the profession must adjust. In their words, “Is political science positioned to embrace and incorporate the changing demographics, increasing multicultural diversity, and ever-growing disparities in the concentration of wealth present in many nation-states? Can political science do so within its research, teaching, and professional development.” A bit further on, “Task Force assessed the practice of political science to determine whether it is living up to its full potential as a scholarly discipline to enrich the discourse, broaden the understanding, and model the behavior necessary to build strong nation-states in a rapidly changing world where population shifts and related issues regarding race, ethnicity, immigration, and equal opportunity structure some of the most significant conflicts affecting politics and policymaking.”

    Professional sounding verbiage aside, this is an unmitigated race-based view of knowledge. In effect, the world is increasingly dominated by people of color, and only people of color can understand the transformation. Let there be no misunderstanding, whites are inherently unable to grapple with this altered new world order, the scholarly equivalent of saying that since whites lack “soul” they cannot relate to Hip Hop or Rap. Again, in their own words, “Moreover, who does political science does not currently include scholars with backgrounds from the full range of positionalities (sic) including race, class, gender, and sexual orientation that are often the most marginalized in societies.” So forget about whites becoming experts on black politics as home-grown Americans once mastered Soviet politics. Race may be socially constructed but not when it comes to employment. Whites are disqualified since they lack the “positionalities.”

    To appreciate the absurdity of this view, imagine if black or Latino/a political scientists were told that they could not, say, study Swedish politics since only Nordic types could relate to fellow Norsepeople? Might a single homosexual experience qualify one to study gay politics? We are not being sarcastic–this is intellectual biology-based apartheid.

    It gets worse. Not only are whites, males and heterosexuals unqualified to understand blacks, women and gays, but not even science can overcome this limitation. Yet again, in their own words, “The tendency to accept its approaches as ‘objective’ science, for example, tend to inhibit the development of a more critical debate about the potential phenomenological bases of much empirical social science.” In the search for truth the researcher’s genes (or for gays, just preference) trump the scientific method. Truth is a matter of authenticity, something that comes with certain chromosomes and enzymes, not something uncovered by experiments and statistical analysis. To paraphrase Descartes, “I know because of who I am.”

    But, obstacles arise in today’s intellectual climate–top graduate schools demand rigorous training in the scientific approach, including statistics, and these requirements can be barriers to black and Hispanic students despite their otherwise vital inborn abilities. The report’s solution is to expand the definition of “training” to include approaches seldom found in research-oriented Ph.D. programs. “Methodological training must also be much more inclusive of critical analytical approaches and more self-reflective of potential biases in the use of accepted methodological categories.” In practice this new training will resemble Critical Race Theory–the endless search and destroy missions to expose unearned “white privilege” everywhere. Now while white graduate students master Intermediate Statistics, students from historically disadvantaged groups pass the methodology requirement by learning about the inherent racism of the SAT.

    And what happens when the freshly minted faculty are hired and must compete with “privileged” professors skilled in the latest scientific skills? This is especially troublesome since top journals use anonymous reviews and accepting race/ethnic screeds will inevitably lower the journal’s prestige. Again, no problem: “Departments should also be more inclusive of the types of journals valued in the assessment of scholarly productivity.” And these alternative approaches should also be amply funded–“Faculties must receive substantial technical, institutional, and departmental support if alternative strategies are to be widely developed, implemented, and assessed.” As an academic lifer, let me translate: the MasterCard approach to research funding–you cannot be turned down.

    Let me be blunt. More than access is involved here. The report is an attack on the very essence of the modern university, at least those precincts committed to the pursuit of objective scientific truth. These academics are putting jobs for fellow tribe members ahead of the search for truth. The Rev. Al Sharpton in a tweed sport coat. Perhaps a decade-long frustration of receiving what appears to be only crumbs from the table has instilled a smoldering tribe-based hatred for those who have succeeded in ways that these self-defined outsiders do not grasp. They want to replace “The data show….” with “I feel this to be the truth and don’t contradict me since my genes tell me that….”

    That the American Political Science Association legitimizes this profoundly anti-scientific and racialist (“white knowledge, black knowledge”) view, and the National Science Foundation funds it, is remarkable. Alas, this is not one more crackpot idea destined to fade once the adults catch wind of it. Those committed to biology diversity hardly need much encouragement. In fact, almost immediately after the report’s release, Wheelock College, in Boston, Mass., announced a new Political Science major based on the report to put “the voices, experiences, and struggles of marginalized groups at the center of scholarly inquiry.” According to the Chair of the Political Science Department, “For us, the major will take the issues they say are ignored — race, inequality, gender, marginalization — and make them front and center.”

    Needless to say, Wheelock will not set the standard for Yale or Harvard. Traditional political science will be safe at top schools. But, far more likely will be the spread of this new approach to third- and fourth-tier schools, schools that often attract large numbers of black and Hispanic students. Now, rather than learn traditional political science, even a bit of the scientific method, they will just have their victimhood certified and legitimized. Replacing “How a bill becomes a law” will be, “How white-dominated institution pass laws to sustain institutional racism and inequality.” Yet one more time, the substitution of ideological claptrap will further debilitate youngsters who need real knowledge, not just empty slogans.

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2012/01/look_whos_endorsing_a_race-bas.html#more

  20. Yet, the dems . will still vote for him.

    Obama’s model: Cronyism and corporate welfare

    byTimothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist
    posted21 hours ago at5:18pmwith15 Comments

    President Barack Obama, center, takes a tour of the Siemens wind turbine plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, on Tuesday, April 27, 2010. Plant manager Robert Gjuraj is at right. “Siemens is an ally of Obama administration on energy regulation, having lobbied, through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, for mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions,” writes Examiner columnist Timothy P. Carney (Kevin Sanders/AP Images for Siemens)
    President Obama’s export initiative, his “insourcing” campaign, and his agency-consolidation plan all hinge on a little-known export financing agency that used two-thirds of its loan-guarantee dollars last year to subsidize one company: Boeing. Under the radar, that same agency also gave a $10 million subsidy to Solyndra, the bankrupt manufacturer of solar panels.

    Obama’s increasing reliance on the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which is backed by American taxpayers, highlights how his industrial policy is inextricable from corporate welfare and crony capitalism, with subsidies seemingly designed to appeal to swing-state voters.

    Obama played blue-collar populist last Wednesday when he hosted a thinly veiled campaign rally under the guise of promoting “insourcing.” Of manufacturing jobs, Obama said, “I want them taking root in places like Michigan and Ohio and Virginia and North Carolina,” conveniently naming four swing states.

    To help these jobs “take root,” though, Obama is not proposing to clear the land and till the field — by cutting tax rates, reducing regulation, tethering the out-of-control National Labor Relations Board, or allowing businesses to deduct up front the full cost of their capital investment. No, Obama wants Washington to be the landscape architect, relying on subsidies and targeted tax breaks for favored businesses — while also doling out some punishment for those companies that dare move jobs overseas.

    Simply getting government out of the way of manufacturing would provide more economic benefit, but less political benefit. The free market might choose less-favored companies (like those that support Republicans) or put new factories in non-swing states like South Carolina (where Obama’s NLRB forced Boeing to kowtow to his union supporters). The Obama model (regulate, tax and subsidize) allows for a more strategic — that is, more political — development of manufacturing: Put new factories in right-to-work states, helping the pro-Democratic unions; support the “green industries” that Obama constantly celebrates; reward the businesses that play ball with the administration; and subsidize new plants in the states crucial to Obama’s re-election.

    On the day Obama gave his “insourcing speech,” North Carolina’s Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan unveiled a $635 million direct loan from the Ex-Im to a Saudi power company that has agreed to buy gas and steam turbines from Siemens, which will make the turbines in Charlotte. Charlotte happens to be the site of the Democratic National Convention, and North Carolina happens to be the state Obama won by the smallest margin in 2012. If the Saudi company fails to repay the loan, Ex-Im pays Siemens, ultimately with the backing of U.S. taxpayers.

    Siemens is an ally of Obama administration on energy regulation, having lobbied, through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, for mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. David McIntosh, Siemens vice president for federal lobbying, is an alumnus of Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, as well as his presidential transition team. McIntosh is an Obama donor (he gets around Obama’s “ban” on lobbyist donations by not being registered to lobby, meaning that Siemens’ veep for federal lobbying supposedly spends less than 20 percent of his time on lobbying).

    Obama’s subsidy-reliant industrial policy not only fosters cronyism and politicization, but it also opens the door for exploitation by the biggest corporations, who tend to have the biggest lobbying budgets. Consider Ex-Im’s loan-guarantee portfolio. According to the agency’s recent annual report, Ex-Im issued $10.2 billion in loan guarantees to benefit Boeing last year alone, which is 66.8 percent of all the agency’s guarantees in that time period. Yes, more than two thirds of Ex-Im’s guarantees benefited one company, and that doesn’t even include Ex-Im’s $700 million direct loan to the United Kingdom to subsidize a Boeing satellite sale. This is Boeing’s standard share. The South Carolina standoff was just a lover’s spat.

    Boeing Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney chairs Obama’s Export Council, and the nearly $200,000 Obama received from Boeing executives and employees in 2008 is easily the most any politician has ever raised from the jet maker.

    Ex-Im’s 2008 annual report tells other interesting stories about Obama’s industrial policy. Solyndra, which went bankrupt in August after benefiting from a $500 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department, pocketed an Ex-Im subsidy last year too: As Solyndra stumbled in February 2011, Ex-Im leant a hand by approving a $10 million loan guarantee to help Solyndra sell solar modules to Belgium. (Solyndra delivered the product to Belgium, and so the $10 million taxpayer exposure is not affected by the company’s bankruptcy.)

    Create taxpayer-subsidized jobs in a politically important state, win the loyalty of a huge and vulnerable company, and try to bail out a failing green-energy poster child — Obama couldn’t do any of these things if he took a laissez-faire approach. That’s why, for politicians, agencies like Ex-Im are so crucial.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obamas-model-cronyism-and-corporate-welfare/314601

  21. Long but good newsletter. Note the waiver of copyright with permission to share.

    http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pub/reports/201112PSI_issue.html

    • Hmmmm-Many good points, he’s real critical of States and Corporations but seems to give the Federal a little too much slack.

  22. Well, football is officially over this season, I guess.

    NOT HAPPY!

    Had tickets to yesterday’s play-off but sold them to friends because we were pretty confident we would win and then we could use next week’s tickets!!!!! Knew our defense was a sieve but did not expect Rodgers and Co. to come lay an egg.

    Discount Double Check = Discount Double Choke!

    PLUS, our tickets were drawn for the Super Bowl – a very drivable distance to Indy so was cautiously looking forward to that experience too!

    Not happy at all.

  23. Lively Debate!!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      And here I feel like I completely lost 2 hours of my life that I will never ge back.

      • Double down, spend another two discussing it here! Hehehe, So did you think anyone “won” or is there one you may support instead of Obama? Consider, you might sway me and my/our votes you way. Wouldn’t that justify the time as well spent then? Maybe you wil save the country by showing us the true path……

        http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/17/transcript-fox-news-channel-wall-street-journal-debate-in-south-carolina/

        • Buck the Wala says:

          If only I had the time. Would I support someone instead of Obama? Definitely. Will it be one of these candidates? Nope.

          Each one is worst than the next. A few years ago I may have been able to support Romney, but not now. He’s double downed on the crazy to try to appeal to the far right. I don’t know what he stands for anymore, if anything other than being elected. I know this is a criticism that can be lodged against pretty much any politician, but Romney has taken it to a new level.

          • Funny, he’s too far left for me. I may “throw away” my vote and go libertarian.

          • Buck,

            I always find it interesting that a guy who mouths support for the Constitution, such as yourself, cannot find himself able to vote for the only candidate that actually obeys the Constitution.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I’m assuming you mean Paul.

              You find he obeys the constitution? In a very strict constructionalist interpretation, sure, I guess he does. And I do agree with him on several issues. But I find him disastrous in others. Regardless, I give him a lot of kudos for sticking with his principals regardless of the issue at hand. Not many people (especially in politics) are willing to do this.

              • Buck,

                Sorry, but people like you make me laugh.

                In a very strict constructionalist interpretation, sure, I guess he does.

                …as if there is any other interpretation!

                Otherwise, you’d be a loosei-goosie leftist where words change their meaning depending on who speaks the words….
                …oh… 😉

                And I do agree with him on several issues. But I find him disastrous in others.

                Such as?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Agree: Illegal Drugs, Terrorism/Homeland Security/Patriot Act issues, certain aspects of foreign policy

                Disagree: Education, Foreign Policy, Economics, Federalism, Health Care, Welfare, Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc.

                Now that I’m being forced to list it out, there really isn’t all that much I agree with him on. Thanks for straightening that one out!

              • Buck

                Disagree: Education

                Where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the power over Education?

                , Foreign Policy,

                Where in the Constitution does the President have the power to make war unilaterally?

                Economics,

                Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to form a central bank?

                Health Care,

                Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to manage Health Care? Social Services? Regulate Marriage? Determine Abortion law?,

                As usual, the Constitution is meaningless to the socialist/liberal “left” as equally as it is meaningless to the war party “right”.

              • And Obama-agree-disagree list. Based on his actions the last 3 years-not his words.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, I disagree with a lot from the Obama administration these past 3 years, but my disagreement comes mostly from the left. For instance, health care did not go nearly far enough.

                BH, I’m not going to get into every issue here, as it is utterly pointless. You know that my view is that much of this is constitutional under the commerce clause, and the funding for much of this is constitutional under the taxing and spending clause. That the word ‘education’ does not appear in the constitution itself is utterly meaningless. On social issues, the federal government has the right to get involved based on privacy rights and equal protection. Beyond that, I’m just not getting into it today.

              • Buck

                That the word ‘education’ does not appear in the constitution itself is utterly meaningless.

                The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                And there you have it, folks, to why a piece of paper can never constrain the powers of violence:
                – words are utterly meaningless.
                – that such a statement that does not exist is proof that the statement does exist and has force.
                – that such a statement that does exist is proof that the statement does not mean what it says nor that it has any force.


                If words be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

                If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

                When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties do not flourish.

                When proprieties do not flourish, punishments and rewards will not be properly awarded.

                When punishments and rewards are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

                Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the words he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately.

                What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

                To reverse the collapse of society, this first step is that words must have meaning”

  24. LOI,

    re: DUI/Throwing Knifes

    Your understanding of your analogy (“throwing knifes”) is flawed.

    Me tossing knives at you is the harm – and whether I do so @ 0.08% BAC or 0% matters not one wit.

    Again, as I posited before, if you take a statement that is true, modify a part of that statement and it remains exactly the same true – that which you modified holds no force in making the truth.

    “2+2=4, and I am drunk”
    “2+2=4, and I am sober”
    …. 2+2+4 remains true in both statements.

    It is the act that determines the harm – the state of mind of the person does not alter this fact.

    We can only judge against the act, not the state of mind.

    • Flag,

      Sorry but we just disagree. I think it is very important when you consider alcoholics, who refuse to alter their behavior. While I agree up until they have harmed another, there is no crime, after harm is done, I think they have a different responsibility than an accident without negligent, preventable behavior.

      Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die.

      Negligent Homicide is a lesser included offense to first and second degree murder, in the sense that someone guilty of this offense can expect a more lenient sentence, often with imprisonment time comparable to manslaughter. U.S. states all define negligent homicide by statute. In some, the offense includes the killing of another while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Examples of such cases include the crash of Aeroperu Flight 603 near Lima, Peru. The accident was caused by a piece of duct tape that was accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft, which led to the crash. Employee Eleuterio Chacaliaza left the tape on by accident[1] and was charged with negligent homicide.

      • LOI

        Sorry but we just disagree. I think it is very important when you consider alcoholics, who refuse to alter their behavior.

        Yet, you do not know nor consider alcoholics that have caused you no harm… because they have done nothing to you.

        You focus on the harm (which is the correct focus), but attribute a FALSE cause.

        Harm -whether caused by sober or drunk – is harm.

        NO harm – whether “caused” by sober or drunk – is NO harm.

        I think they have a different responsibility than an accident without negligent, preventable behavior.

        Bullcrap.

        IF an accident is merely circumstantial – it matters not one wit the sobriety of the individual

        Getting hit by a falling space station when I am sober is not my sobriety’s fault but equally neither would be my drunken fault!

        If the accident happens due to my action being negligent –it remains negligent whether I am sober or not

        It is -frankly- ignorant to claim “if he was sober, this accident changes from “negligence” to the be instead the work of God”

        • Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

          • LOI,

            Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

            …and is precisely the same measure on a person, whether that person is sober or not.

            If I drive on the wrong side of the road @ 120mph – and sober – does not mitigate the recklessness. You agree here, no question.

            The case with “not sober” does not change nor magnify this, as the case of being “sober” does not mitigate this.

            But you argue that if I drive on the right side of the road @ 45mph – but @ 0.08% BAC actually causes the recklessness – yet, if I do the same thing sober, you claim not reckless

            Utterly bizarre.

  25. Buck

    I understand your position-but Ron Paul isn’t your standard Republican. Just pointing out that Paul would leave all these items to the States. Obama-whether or not his health care bill went far enough isn’t the point-his plan is a disaster from anyone’s honest perspective-on abortion-he isn’t just for abortion -he’ll go all the way to infanticide-gay marriage-I don’t see him standing up for a Constitutional amendment to allow it. His other policies on war, bailing out big business, terrorist legistration? What exactly do you like about them? Now Paul, even under the Republican banner-he’ll leave it to the people to decide on social issues and he seems to be more with you than against in all the other issues.

    • And I thought liberals were big on Republicans being war prone. Paul would be the most anti-war president in our history.

      • LOI,

        And I thought liberals were big on Republicans being war prone. Paul would be the most anti-war president in our history

        No, historical fact is that the “liberals” are the just as much the war mongers as any of them.

        FDR got the US into WW2.
        Truman got the US into Korea.
        It was Eisenhower, a Republican, that ended the Korean War.

        Kennedy and Johnston got the US into Vietnam.
        It was Nixon, a Republican, that ended the Vietnam War.

        Clinton got the US into the Balkans and bombing Iraq.

        • Now you know I know that, or was that for Buck’s attention. And you know liberals view themselves as “peaceful”. Like Obama’s attacking Libya was for humanitarian reasons.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      VH,

      Paul would leave everything to the states. And I disagree with this ‘solution’. I don’t think a lot of these issues should be left to the states. So why would I support him in this endeavor?

      As for Obama: With healthcare, no he has not gone far enough and no, the ACA is not a complete and utter failure either. With abortion, no, he is not for infanticide. With gay marriage, no he has not come out in support of an amendment allowing for gay marriage, but neither is such an amendment necessary; gay marriage should be allowed to provide for equal protection. With the bail outs, the stimulus plan I feel did not go far enough, and much more should be done for ‘main street’ and underwater homeowners.

      • Buck

        VH, Paul would leave everything to the states. And I disagree with this ‘solution’. I don’t think a lot of these issues should be left to the states.

        Why?

        Is the desire to force everyone into your nefarious scheme so necessary?

        If a State enacts your nefarious scheme, and people avoid such a scheme by moving to another State – makes you upset?

        Indeed, that is the wisdom of the Founders that is attempted by the Constitution – people can vote with their feet and leave (or join) which and whatever State and its laws that those people agree.

        Only those that demand Empire does the desire of massive centralization of all force and power find itself necessary.

        With the bail outs, the stimulus plan I feel did not go far enough, and much more should be done for ‘main street’ and underwater

        The total bailout – publicly claimed and, now, exposed from behind the curtain, exceeded $14 trillion dollars.

        Clue in: the money supply of the world -created over a period of 300 years – doubled overnight.

        For Buck, this was not enough.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Ah yes, people can simply move. But remember, the Constitution does not allow one state to infringe on another’s constitutionally protected rights. Case in point: gay marriage and equal protection.

          • Buck

            Ah yes, people can simply move. But remember, the Constitution does not allow one state to infringe on another’s constitutionally protected rights. Case in point: gay marriage and equal protection.

            So you now do agree that the State is where such decisions should be made, and not at the Federal level.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              No, in my view, the States have zero right to prohibit gay marriage as that would be an infrigement on equal protection under the constitution. With other issues (such as health care and education) there need to be national standards/guidelines/solutions because of the nature of the issue and problem presented.

              • Buck

                No, in my view, the States have zero right to prohibit gay marriage as that would be an infrigement on equal protection under the constitution.

                Not “no”… because your “no” infers the Federals must make a law, but that law is unconstitutional

                I agree – the State making such a prohibitive law against marriage is unconstitutional – but that does not mean the Federals must make a law!

                However – the State CAN make a law about its certification of Marriage to its hearts content – the State can choose to recognize a marriage or not.

                You cannot disagree, since you will agree the State has a right NOT to recognize a marriage between an defined “adult” and a defined “minor”.

                Therefore the State has no right to ban marriage – in fact, it cannot.
                The State, however, has the right to choose which marriage meets its criteria for the State’s recognition of certification.

                With other issues (such as health care and education) there need to be national standards/guidelines/solutions because of the nature of the issue and problem presented.

                Bulllcrapazoid.

                The Constitution explicitly prohibits such an argument to be valid.

                If you claim such an argument, such an argument can be made about anything, and the point of separation of powers is utterly irrelevant.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wrong again. The State cannot (in my view of the federal constitution) refuse to recognize a marriage between two consenting adults. Doing so would infringe upon those individuals’ equal rights under the law. The State can refuse to allow/recognize/whatever word you want to use a ‘marriage’ between an adult and a minor because the minor lacks capacity to enter into said marriage. I am not proposing a federal law here, I am proposing that the constitution actually be applied.

                By the way, Mathius’ post gave me a thought — why is the argument of ‘vote with your feet’ limited to the states and states rights? If one doesn’t like where the federal government is going, that individual can vote with their feet and move to another country just as easily, no?

                As for the other issues, absolutely not. This does not mean the Constitution allows anything and everything under the sun. There are clear limits. But to say that health care is not a national issue? That seems a bit of a, in your words, bullcrapazoid argument!

              • Buck
                The requirement to be a “leftist liberal” must be that you have to be inconsistent and contradictory.

                I am sure the liberal left tests for such a thing before you become a “member”….

                Wrong again. The State cannot (in my view of the federal constitution) refuse to recognize a marriage between two consenting adults.

                Therefore:
                State law banning polygamy is unconstitutional?
                State laws regarding marriage between minor and adult are unconstitutional?
                State laws regarding marriage just to obtain citizenship is unconstitutional?

            • Mathius™ says:

              As far a gay marriage is concerned (and several other such “issues”), the decisions should not be a the state level.

              The decision should not be made because there is no decision.

              There is no decision because it is not a question. It is not a matter of legislation. It is not a matter of public concern. It is not a question of greater good or liberty or religious principles or anything else that might ever be legislated. It is a private issue which affects two consenting adult individuals, and is therefore none of the government’s business.

              Should they make the “decision” at state or federal level whether to allow you to breathe oxygen? Of course not. Because it’s none of their damn business. State OR federal. Or local, either.

              If they feel they must, for whatever reason, stick their noses where they don’t belong, they should err on the side of the federal government forcing the states to stay out of it. Just like a law preventing states from using racially-biased laws, there should be not federal law because the states should never have infringed on the liberty of African-Americans in the first place. But since the states did overstep (or local communities), I have no problem with the feds stepping in and making them butt out.

              Did the feds get everything perfect – nope! Did the feds overreach – yup! They sure did. And if the states had stayed out of it, the feds could have too, and everything would be better off.

              But the “vote with your feet” argument is invalid. It’s invalid because you SHOULDN’T HAVE TO vote with your feet because there should be no “vote” in the first place. You shouldn’t have to give up your home, your job, your friends, your settled life because some bigoted idiot with delusions of grandeur and no respect for a minority subset of the population got himself elected and decided to infringe upon you. You shouldn’t have to vote on whether you can breathe oxygen by abandoning your life and crossing some imaginary line.

              Just because it’s easier to leave one state for another than the country doesn’t make it ok. Just because it’s easier to move to one neighboring town than another state doesn’t make it ok. It’s not about how far or how costly it is to “vote with your feet” against oppressive / invasive laws. It’s about the fact that there should be no laws like this in the first place. There is no decision to be made because it’s nobody else’s business. So, no, the “decision” should not be made at the state level.

              • Just because it’s easier to leave one state for another than the country doesn’t make it ok. Just because it’s easier to move to one neighboring town than another state doesn’t make it ok.

                This is true.

                However, the ability to avoid evil is as important as to end evil.

                Evil gains strength by participation, active or passive.

                The ability to move away from it – deletion of passive support – is effective.

                The improved ability to avoid evil dis-empowers evil – and is maybe arguably better then direct confrontation

              • Mathius™ says:

                A law, by the government, binding upon the government, which restricts the state’s ability to infringe upon your rights is not evil.

                Requiring that a state recognize a gay marriage marriage between gay individuals does not mean oppress anyone. (I don’t like the term gay marriage – it implies that there is something different about the marriage itself rather than the individuals who choose to participate in it).

                The ability to flee evil is, of course, important in fighting evil, but the point is that there should be no fight. And if the big government wants to bind the small government with a restriction that it cannot suppress your rights, then that’s fine with me.

                For laws which SUPPRESS freedoms, such as a tax or health care law or speed limits or drinking ages or drug laws or prostitution laws or blah blah blah blah blah, these should be made at the smallest possible level. This enables the “vote with your feet” philosophy to come into play with the lowest possible cost to the unfortunate individuals who are bound by such laws and are forced to move. Hopefully these people can just move across the street, or a mile up the road, and this will have the free-market affect you seek of forcing the town to back down. But living in LA, if the law is state-wide, you would have to move hundreds of miles to get away, and that means giving up your whole life. States are too high a level if you can’t get away without abandoning your life. Living where I do, I can move two miles and be in Connecticut – the cost is still high (I have to give up my home), but it’s doable.

                But for laws which “suppress” the states, but which ensure the avoidance of suppress to individuals, these laws should be made at the highest possible levels. A law which says that the states have to do X, which means that the states can’t do Y (which impinges on your freedom) is a good law. It is objectively from a libertarian standpoint a good thing. It caps the power of the government at all subordinate levels, and should be passed in such a way as to bind as broadly as possible.

              • Mathius

                A law, by the government, binding upon the government, which restricts the state’s ability to infringe upon your rights is not evil.

                To believe an entity that makes and enforces law will make and enforce law upon itself is folly.

                Law is the use of violence to enforce an edict.
                If the edict is the prohibition on violence, just edict as law is just.
                If the edict is the enforcement of violence on the non-violent, it is an unjust edict and is evil.

                Who exercises such matters not one wit in the measure.

                Requiring that a state recognize a gay marriage marriage between gay individuals does not mean oppress anyone.

                Yes, it does, as it such certification automatically creates impositions upon people.

                Certification of Marriage creates entitlements.

                You are forcing the provisioning of these entitlements from other people who may not agree to these entitlements.

                Forcing people to pay for things they vehemently disagree with is evil and immoral.

              • Mathius

                “But the “vote with your feet” argument is invalid. It’s invalid because you SHOULDN’T HAVE TO vote with your feet because there should be no “vote” in the first place. You shouldn’t have to give up your home, your job, your friends, your settled life because some bigoted idiot with delusions of grandeur and no respect for a minority subset of the population got himself elected and decided to infringe upon you.”

                So does this also apply to those ass-hole Progressives who got control of the county and city and then passed many laws imposing their view of Utopia upon me? Including the ability of transgenders to use opposite sex bathrooms. Forcing me and my neighbors to live like rats in high density housing so they can have their “green belts” that nobody maintains. Although they make great camp spots for all the homeless people who beg at ever corner, ever day, of every year. They raise my property taxes to pay for paved bike paths so a few hundred can use them a year.

                Those guys, right?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I see where we’re disconnecting here:

                Certification of Marriage creates entitlements.

                You are forcing the provisioning of these entitlements from other people who may not agree to these entitlements.

                Forcing people to pay for things they vehemently disagree with is evil and immoral.

                Yes.. I suppose. But there should be no requirement by the states that anyone be bound by such certification. Such certification should only be binding upon the states themselves and the subsidiary smaller governments. To that end if, say, a health care company didn’t want to pay for your husband’s (same-sex) benefits, they shouldn’t have to enter into a contract where they have to. But then you can vote with your money by selecting a different provider and allow market forces to take care of it for you. That said, you’ll note that the cost – to you – of avoiding the discriminatory ills does not necessarily include selling your home and moving hundreds of miles to start a new life.

                Does this make more sense?

              • Mathius

                Yes.. I suppose. But there should be no requirement by the states that anyone be bound by such certification.

                So, are you saying that if I advertise “For Married Couples Only”, and I define such marriage by a State Certification, but you present your Certification from the State, but you are a gay couple, I can reverse my advertisement and decline your attendance and business?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I don’t know about reversing your advertisement. I think that a valid offer and acceptance constitutes a contract. That is, your advertisement is basically saying “call this number and if you are married according to the state, you can have this service” and I called to accept, you can’t reneg on your offer because you stated it wrong/poorly. That’s your problem, not mine. You have an offer and acceptance to enter into a service. If you say I’ll bet you 10 bucks that the Giants lose and I call you up and say “I’ll take that bet!”, you can’t then change your mind and say “oh, I meant lose, not win.”

                But I don’t think that’s really what you’re saying. Your question, if I understand correctly, is this: can you offer a “for opposite-sex couples only” service. And my answer would be yes. BUT your decision would probably cost you my business and the business of many other individuals. And the invisible hand would slap you upside the head until you changed practices.

                Likewise, and I think this may surprise people, I think you should be able to offer a whites-only restaurant, free of government interference. HOWEVER, I will never eat there. And you will probably (and justifiably) go out of business very quickly. And no one will shed a tear. I wasn’t around in the civil rights era, I don’t know that I agree with mandating integration in the private sector, but I sure as hell believe they needed to end the laws mandating segregation. Does this distinction make sense?

              • Mathius,

                But you said above that if the statute is applied in a manner that he does not agree, he is not bound to recognize this.

                Stop flip/flopping.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m not flip flopping.

                I’m saying that if he doesn’t want to offer a service to same-sex couples, then he shouldn’t have to. Making a mistake on your advertisement by defining it as state-recognized is a different and irrelevant issue. If the statute is applied in a way he doesn’t like, then he should change his advertising to reflect this fact, or he shouldn’t be stupid enough to base his offer on a government definition. He doesn’t have to follow the state statute if he doesn’t want to, but if he says “For Married Couples Only”, and I define such marriage by a State Certification, then it’s his own fault for defining it that way.

                But I see now there was another side to your question which I missed, and maybe this is the confusion. You said, if I present my CALIFORNIA gay-marriage certificate do you have to recognize it since your offer was predicated on being certified by the state (which I’ll assume is a different state than CA). Then the answer is “I wouldn’t think so.” I don’t think that you are offering a service based on “the state” definition, it’s implied that you are referring to the state in which you are advertising. This is really off topic, but as a private person and/or business, you are the master of your offer. So you really ought to be more specific so as to avoid confusion. But if your advertisement said “based on Texas marriage certification,” and I had a CA same-sex certification, then no, you should not be bound to accept it. That wasn’t your offer.

                If you bet me on a football game and I call up and say “I accept your bet on the baseball game,” well no.. that wasn’t the offer you made. Now, of course, there are federal laws which are applicable to recognizing certifications of other states. I don’t really have an opinion on this as they apply to state-by-state / county-by-county governments, but I don’t think they should have any impact on private individuals and businesses. So if you want to accept only certain certifications, that’s your prerogative.

                The STATE should not have the discretion to determine what is and is not a marriage. If I say it is, then it is. A PRIVATE BUSINESS, should have the discretion to determine for itself how it wants to offer its services. If you, Joe Businessman, want to say “no gays,” then that’s your choice. But if Bob the Mayor wants to say “no gays,” that is not his choice. The government shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate, but neither should the government be allowed to stop you from discriminating – no matter how much I may personally dislike your PRIVATE choice to do so.

              • Mathius,

                If the statute is applied in a way he doesn’t like, then he should change his advertising to reflect this fact, or he shouldn’t be stupid enough to base his offer on a government definition.

                Nonsense.

                A free man is never required to a priori define his acceptable or unacceptable associations

              • Mathius™ says:

                A free man is never required to a priori define his acceptable or unacceptable associations

                You’ve skewed off-topic. But we can get into this (briefly) if you like..

                An advertisement is an offer.

                If you advertise selling a new Ferrari for $500, that is an offer. If I show up to accept, and you say you meant used Hondas, that is not my problem, it is yours. You still are obligated to sell me a new Ferrari for $500 because that was your offer and I accepted.

                If you stand on the street corner and challenge anyone within earshot to a chess match for $1,000, but then turn around to find a grand master accepting your challenge, you don’t get to say “oh, but not you.” You made an offer and he accepted. You should have been clearer if you didn’t want to play him. It’s your fault, not his, that you made an incorrect/flawed offer. And the obligation to honor it is yours. It’s your fault for not saying “as long as you aren’t a grand master.”

                Now, if you offer to provide health insurance and your offer says “to married couples based on state certification,” and I call up and accept, you don’t get to then say “oh wait, we meant opposite sex marriages only – we don’t like the way the state is doing it.” Well that’s not my problem. Your offer should have been clear. You messed up, not me.

                So if you wanted to offer your health insurance to only opposite sex, you shouldn’t have been stupid enough to say “based on the state definition” if that’s not what you meant. If you meant opposite-sex couples, you should have said opposite-sex couples, or at least said “subject to approval,” and left the door open to yourself to determine whatever standards you want to use.

              • Mathius,

                A free man is never required to a priori define his acceptable or unacceptable associations You’ve skewed off-topic. But we can get into this (briefly) if you like.. An advertisement is an offer. If you advertise selling a new Ferrari for $500, that is an offer. If I show up to accept, and you say you meant used Hondas, that is not my problem, it is yours.

                First, we are talking about human associations, not cars.

                As far as cars, you are trapped in the paradigm of government and violence.

                As no transaction has occurred, nor agreed – the man can change his mind as easily as you can yours about the deal.

                Thirdly, even within the paradigm of government and its violence, no law forces a man to sell any goods at a loss – if you dared complain you did not get your Ferrari at $500, the judge will laugh at YOU, not him.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Mathius, you are absolutely correct in what you are saying, and I fear BF has lost himself in his own argument, but to clarify, an advertisement is NOT considered a legal offer. It is too general.

                So, while BF may be legally correct that the owner can ‘change his mind’ and refuse to accept you, your actual point still stands. It is the individual owner that chose to abide by the state’s requirements; if the state recognizes gay marriage and he does not want to, he would need to change his sign (which, legally, he would be allowed to do in your hypo).

      • Liberal utopianism is a fantasy of arrogant philosophers and philosopher kings who believe their vision is superior to those of other lowly mortals. Levin calls them the “masterminds” — the latest and most prominent being President Barack Obama and his cadre of utopian elitists. They believe they are proponents of enlightenment thinking and rationalism who could construct the ideal society if deniers and other obstructionists would just get out of their way.

        In reality, however, they couldn’t be more irrational, as they reject human nature, history and all empirical evidence that contradicts their vision. Indeed, writes Levin, “utopianism is regressive, irrational, and pre-Enlightenment.”

        History and the whole of human experience be damned; utopians can achieve the ideal society even if all similar utopians who preceded them failed. As Levin says, they always believe that “what went before them” was “piecemeal and therefore inadequate. The steps necessary to achieve true utopianism have yet to be tried.”

        As modern examples, consider the American left’s refusal to accept that the welfare state has failed despite $5 trillion being thrown at it, that federal money and control are not a panacea for education (there will never be enough to satisfy leftists) and that our health care system has been severely damaged by federal intermeddlers and enemies of the market. The left doesn’t even believe that the colossally wasteful trillion-dollar stimulus package was big enough.

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/david-limbaugh/2012/01/17/mark-levin-proves-leftism-predicated-utopianism-new-masterpiece-amer#ixzz1jk0GGE9L

      • I don’t see how you can say the healthcare bill isn’t a failure-parts of it-the Class Act or whatever it’s called and it was supposed to cover those hardest to cover is gone-the 1099 part is gone which was supposed to help pay for it,etc., etc, ect,-and that’s not even discussing the totally out of control, control the bill has written into it.

        He said(not exact words but close) if a baby is born alive it shouldn’t be given medical help because it would be going against the desires of the mother-is that not infanticide to you.

        If you don’t think a Constitutional amendment is necessary-okay-he hasn’t even said he was for gay marriage-he has actually said marriage should be between a man and a woman. Lately, I think he is using the line that he is confused.

        We have discussed whether or not the Federal government has the right to do certain things-but not a whole lot on why the Federal government should or shouldn’t even if we agreed for argument sake that they can.

        So what issues and why?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          1) The healthcare bill has its flaws, but it also has some very good components. In the end, I attack Obama from the left on this issue – if there is any reason why the bill is a failure it is that it does not go far enough towards universal coverage and, ideally in my mind, a single payer system.

          2) Would need his exact statement and context on this issue.

          3) A constitutional amendment for gay marriage is not necessary; all that is necessary is for equal protection under the current constitution to be properly applied. I’ve always attacked Obama from the left on this specific issue; though on gay rights in general he has my support — Obama has sought an end to both DADT and DOMA.

  26. Matt,

    I’ve found the perfect baby gift for you…..

    http://righteousrowdygirls.com/

    • LOI YOU ROCK!!!! Just in time!. All eyes on my daughter this weekend for her baby shower. She’s forcing the dad to attend. He wanted a boy so bad but he loses this time. Following that link there’s also Girls Just Want to Have Guns site. I’m going to order the book for him and show him these couple links. I hope my granddaughter turns out like these girls. 🙂

      • Glad I could help. And I’m sure with you for a Grandma, they will be OK. I feel sooooo bad for Matt though, liberal daughters like those that made that pregnancy pact…. Or sons that live at home until their 40-50???

    • Mathius™ says:

      Is there a liberal version of this book?

      Also, no word yet on the gender. I’ll keep you posted. We should know at the end of the month.

      … man, I am going to mess this poor kid up so badly…

  27. Buck,

    If one doesn’t like where the federal government is going, that individual can vote with their feet and move to another country just as easily, no?

    No, for numerous reasons:
    1) It is orders of magnitude to move 3,000 miles then 300 miles.
    2) Most national governments still demand imposition and jurisdiction upon its citizens regardless of residency.
    3) Most national governments actively resist citizens from disavowing residency and/or citizenship.
    4) All national governments demands that a person be a citizen and a resident of some nation – you cannot disavow a citizenship nor residency unless you declare a citizenship or residency.

    Further, the extent of law of federal systems is massive vs. the extent of law of a State – one may enjoy the political gains of 90% of a nation, but resent 10% — to abandon all of the nation for the 10%, vs. merely moving to an adjacent jurisdiction to solve that 10%?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      3,000 miles versus 300 miles is not really all that much of a difference in terms of affects — both would require giving up one’s home, job, leaving behind friends, family, connections made, etc. etc. etc.

      And this still goes back to the question of why should anyone be forced to move to avoid having their rights violated? Returning to gay marriage — the federal constitution demands equal protection. Why should one state have the ability to infringe on its citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection and force that citizen to move to a different state?

      As to questions 2-4, the exact same can be said of states.

      So I ask again — why is it ok to force someone to move to a different state? Why do you draw the line here? Because it is marginally easier on the individual?

      • Buck

        3,000 miles versus 300 miles is not really all that much of a difference in terms of affects — both would require giving up one’s home, job, leaving behind friends, family, connections made, etc. etc. etc.

        I laugh at your inexperience!
        You obviously have no clue about this!

        As a man who has moved internationally, I know it makes a huge difference.
        Decade and a half of international living:
        -my parents visiting me – 0 times
        -my in-laws visiting me (and wife) – once, for 5 days.
        -friends visiting me – once for 2 days.
        -years my wife/child lived in different place then me – 5+ years.

        Often, family is unable to afford visitations, unable to obtain government documents of travel, unable to travel long distances due to health, etc.

        And this still goes back to the question of why should anyone be forced to move to avoid having their rights violated?

        They should not be – but that is not the debate unless you equally agree with the prohibition of government – and you do not.

        Given you do not agree with the prohibition of government and its evil, nor the likelihood such government will evaporate anytime soon, you are faced alternatives – active/passive resistance or active/passive avoidance.

        Returning to gay marriage — the federal constitution demands equal protection.

        Why should one state have the ability to infringe on its citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection and force that citizen to move to a different state?

        Why should the marriage laws of Montana not apply in Nevada?
        Why should the divorce laws of Nevada not apply in Montana?

        No, equal protection DOES NOT work that way.

        It works this way:
        If you are a New Yorker, and go to Vegas to get married, the laws of Nevada apply to YOU equally as it would a resident of Nevada.

        It does not mean that the laws of New York apply in Nevada

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Sorry BF, but you’re losing me here.

          NY must recognize a marriage performed in NV, and vice versa, constitutionally speaking. Similarly, NV must recognize a divorce obtained in MN, and vice versa, constitutionally speaking. DOMA is a federal law that seeks to permit one state from refusing to recognize a valid marriage performed in another state to guarantee that state the right to discriminate against a homosexual couple. This is an abomination. DOMA should be repealed, all consenting adults should have the same rights to marry who they choose, and that marriage should be recognized in all 50 states, regardless of where it is performed.

          No, I have not moved abroad, but I have travelled abroad. I know the difficulties in keeping touch or seeing family and friends. And I agree that moving 3,000 miles is more difficult than moving 1,000 or 500 or even 300 miles. But both require you to give up the life you have created for yourself where you currently reside. And that doesn’t mean that, because it is marginally easier to move to another state, as opposed to another country, it should be expected of someone as the only means available to not have their constitutionally protected rights infringed upon.

  28. Best of:

    • No Juan, this is not insulting to Americans at all:

      • I thoroughly enjoyed this debate 🙂 When Breit said it was over-I said outloud-already, seems like it just started.

      • sigh!!!! A group of White people so of course every word they say MUST be based on some type of racism-What is wrong with these people??????????????

        MEDIA
        CHRIS MATTHEWS: GINGRICH’S PRONUNCIATION OF ‘JUAN’ SUGGESTS RACIST LEANINGS
        Posted on January 17, 2012 at 5:21pm by Tiffany Gabbay Print »Email »
        Comments (49)
        It is no secret that liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews has played the race card during various broadcasts of his program. In this most recent instance, the Hardball host suggested that Newt Gingrich’s pronunciation of the name “Juan” during Monday night’s debate, revealed what could be seen as a kind of animus towards minorities.

        Matthews stated:

        “That use of the name ‘Juan,’ the way he did it. You can’t argue these things. You either see them or you don’t. It’s just the way he did that. I sensed a little applause when he said ‘Let me help you’ when he answered the Juan question. It’s in the eye of the beholder. And, by the way, calling someone a racist is the worst way to get them to stop being racist because everyone gets defensive. … So it’s stupid to say it but, honestly, if you notice it, you sort of ought to blow the whistle. Because there is a dog whistle going on here.”
        The Hardball host did, however, defend Gingrich’s suggestion that no employment is “beneath” anybody, and that kids would be well-served by taking on roles such as janitorial work early on in their lives.

        It is an interesting segment in which Matthews seems to go back and forth between agreeing with Gingrich on certain positions and conversely suggesting that the former House Speaker looks down on minorities because of the way he pronounces a name. Watch the clip below, courtesy of Mediaite:

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-gingrichs-pronunciation-of-%E2%80%98juan%E2%80%99-suggests-racist-leanings/

    • Buck the Wala says:

      sigh….

      Because everyone who has been unemployed for 99+ weeks is a lazy, unmotivated, mooching-off-my-tax-dollars, piece of scum. Great line to throw fodder for the primary, but seriously? This is who you want as president?

      By the way, who is going to pay for this associate’s degree? And what about those who already have an associate’s/graduate’s degree? Do they just get the next degree in line?

      • First of all-don’t put your preconceived beliefs into the mans mouth-second what good does it do to keep giving people just money, when what they need is help getting a job.

        He also didn’t say he was going to pay for an associate degree-he said a work program.

        What is more important to you Buck-you thinking a republican is criticizing people-or actually helping people get a job.

      • If their previous degree was in Sociology or Womens Studies then YES. They should get another degree.

      • oh sigh…

        You don’t understand the difference between a hand-up and a handout?

        You think it no harder/different to move from state-to-state than country-to-country?

        Really?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No, I do see a difference. But both are a huge imposition on the individual.

          And I ask again, why should someone ever be forced to move due to a state infringing on their constitutionally protected rights?

          • Buck

            No, I do see a difference. But both are a huge imposition on the individual. And I ask again, why should someone ever be forced to move due to a state infringing on their constitutionally protected rights?

            No one says they should.
            The question is the debate: What is the “Right” that is infringed?

            As pointed out, you argue that the State has a “right” to regulate its recognition of marriage.

            Then you counterpoint your own point by saying it has no right to regulate its recognition of marriage.

  29. Mathius™ says:

    Jac, Down here!

    “But the “vote with your feet” argument is invalid. It’s invalid because you SHOULDN’T HAVE TO vote with your feet because there should be no “vote” in the first place. You shouldn’t have to give up your home, your job, your friends, your settled life because some bigoted idiot with delusions of grandeur and no respect for a minority subset of the population got himself elected and decided to infringe upon you.”

    So does this also apply to those ass-hole Progressives who got control of the county and city and then passed many laws imposing their view of Utopia upon me? Including the ability of transgenders to use opposite sex bathrooms. Forcing me and my neighbors to live like rats in high density housing so they can have their “green belts” that nobody maintains. Although they make great camp spots for all the homeless people who beg at ever corner, ever day, of every year. They raise my property taxes to pay for paved bike paths so a few hundred can use them a year.

    Your view of transgender people using “opposite” sex bathrooms is irrelevant. It is based on a view of gender roles which you wish to force upon people who do not necessarily share them. If a private business wishes to allow this practice, they should be free to. If they do not, they should be free to, though they may suffer the consequences of a “vote with your money.” In my opinion, the government should stay out of it. As far as government facilities, I think they should be neutral to the issue – if they want to duck it, they should have one-person bathrooms (unisex) only. But if they are going to weigh in, they should err on allowing people to determine for themselves which gender they identify themselves as – not you. If Buck considers himself to be a female, who are you to tell him otherwise? He She should use the appropriate self-selected restroom. And if you don’t like it, you should not be able to force HER to change, it is YOU who should abstain from sharing. Why should you be entitled to create an imposition on someone else because of your opinion of their body? Don’t want to share? Don’t share. But don’t tell someone else what they can and cannot do.

    I’m afraid I don’t know anything about your “green belts” – so I won’t weigh in here.

    They raise my property taxes to pay for paved bike paths so a few hundred can use them a year.

    Great, so vote with your feet. Taxes are a “necessary evil” which the liberal in me recognizes. They should be imposed as narrowly as possible, so in this case, they are on your local level. Don’t like it? Vote against it? Lose the vote? Move. At least you (probably) won’t have to move far. The costs are high – you’ll have to sell your home – but at least you can keep your job and friends. If this law was at the state level, you might have to give up everything.

    Laws which suppress liberty – such as taxes – should be at the smallest possible level, where the power of the individual to fight back against them (via fight or flight) is at its greatest.

    • Mathius

      So now YOU want ME to vote with my feet. When it doesn’t fit YOUR view of what I should have to tolerate.

      Transgender. Imagine your 12 yr old daughter using the public restroom in the park. Any MAN who decides to call himself a “girl” can use that bathroom at the EXACT same time. HE can drop his pants/skirt right there in front of your daughter. And HE/IT is protected by the law. NO CRIME COMMITTED. Now YOUR choice is to MOVE away????

      The size of the tax is irrelevant Matt. The issue is that one group decided to IMPOSE THEIR WILL upon others and in so doing, restrict the rights of the others. Unless of course you say I have no right to expect my young daughter to use a public bathroom without being exposed to a half naked man. And of course, I have no right to defend her against the same. It would be considered a “Hate Crime” to beat the SOB, thanks to ITS protected status.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Firstly, I have never been in a restroom where someone just dropped trau right in front of me as you describe it.

        Second, if I am uncomfortable allowing my daughter to see a genetic male in a skirt walk into the stall next to her, then I have the right to go elsewhere – I do not have the right to impose on this other person because I don’t like their choice.

        Third, your puritanical view of gender rolls is dying. Slowly but surely. And you wish to use the government to uphold the rolls which you like while oppressing others.

        Fourth, I don’t want you to have vote with your feet. But if the government is oppressing you, and you can’t win, and you feel you must flee, then you should have to move as little as possible in order to escape. That is, moving 2 miles is better than moving 300 miles which is still better than moving 3,000 miles. Again, the view is that any law which oppresses individuals should be made at the lowest possible level so as to be the easiest to avoid and/or overturn. Whereas any law which guarantees freedom/liberty/etc should be made at the highest possible level so as to make it the hardest for lower governments to violate those rights.

        Fifth, Unless of course you say I have no right to expect my young daughter to use a public bathroom without being exposed to a half naked man. You have no such right. You have a right to not have her use that restroom. You have the right to hold it until you are alone. You have the right to ask the other individual to please use the other room. But you do not have the right to tell HER what she can and cannot do.

        Sixth, The size of the tax is irrelevant Matt. The issue is that one group decided to IMPOSE THEIR WILL upon others and in so doing, restrict the rights of the others.. Yes, I agree the size is moot. Are they right to pass this law? The liberal in me says that there may or may not be a greater good argument here. I don’t know enough to weigh in. But the point, again, is that the violation of your right to property (that is, the taxation) is done by the entity with the narrowest geographical area (lowest cost to move away from) and the smallest base (your voice/vote are at their most powerful relatively). I’m not saying such laws are necessarily good at the local level. What I’m saying is that it’s better that such laws be local (if they are going to exist at all) rather than state or federal where you have almost no ability to fight or avoid them.

        Seventh, It would be considered a “Hate Crime” to beat the SOB, thanks to ITS protected status. Why is SHE an SOB? Why is a person’s decision to regard themselves as a different gender such an affront to you. Why does this make HER an SOB because she feels more comfortable considering HERself as a female. I just don’t understand this.

        • Mathius

          How do YOU know if the person is Transgender or just a pedophile in a dress????

          That my friend is why certain NORMS exist within a Society, regardless of what we may think about that person’s view of their identity.

          Boy parts…………….use the Boys Bathroom. Boys dressed like girls who use the Boys Bathroom should not be harassed or beaten. THAT would be a true violation of their rights.

          Since you established I have NO right to use a public bathroom, then NEITHER do they.

          • Mathius™ says:

            How do YOU know if the person is Transgender or just a pedophile in a dress????

            And how do the POSSIBILITY of such grant you the right to use the force of government to control the non-violent actions of others?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Since you established I have NO right to use a public bathroom, then NEITHER do they.

            I have established no such thing.

            I have established that a public (ie government run) restroom is open to whoever wants to use it and they may self-determine which one to use.

            Your confusion seems to be that you think you have a right to tell someone else that they cannot use a specific restroom because their decision to do so makes you uncomfortable. And because I am denying you that authority (to tell a non-violent private person what they can and cannot do), you feel that I am telling you that you have no right to use the restroom. But that is not true. You have just as much right to use the restroom. And, further, you have just as much right to determine which one you feel is more appropriate for yourself and your gender-identity.

            Try this analogy. I’m telling you that you can’t tell other people what religion to practice. But this in no way means that you aren’t free to practice your own. Just because you’re uncomfortable that you have to share a common area with a Muslim doesn’t mean that he should have to change his way of life. But neither does it mean that you have no right to be Christian. To you your way, to him his. If you are extremely uncomfortable and just can’t get over it, then you can move – but why should this discomfort give you the right to tell him he has to move?

            Is that clearer?

            • Where do you come up with this stuff-in order not to discriminate or deny another human being their rights-I must dismiss truth(actual gender) and accept a lie(gender identity) as the foundation for our public policies-based on what someone wants to be instead of what they actually are.

              So per you-privacy isn’t allowed in the public sphere based on ones gender. So girls at school can be forced during gym class to change and shower with boys who aren’t girls but identify as girls.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ok, first, no one – boy or girl -should ever be forced to change and/or shower in front of someone else if they are not comfortable. I understand practical considerations of gyms at schools, but I think they need to find a way to avoid this. So, no, I do not think girls should be forced to change with (genetic) males who self-define as female, but neither should they have to change with anyone else either.

                Where do you come up with this stuff-in order not to discriminate or deny another human being their rights-I must dismiss truth(actual gender) and accept a lie(gender identity) as the foundation for our public policies-based on what someone wants to be instead of what they actually are.

                Public policy should be BLIND to gender. 100%. Just as it should be blind to race, creed, language, weight, height, sexual-orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc. 100%.

                The government should not base any policy upon any of these. If a person is treated a certain way, another person should be treated EXACTLY the same way by the government.

                So, I don’t think there should be any specification of “husband” and “wife” in terms of government-recognized marriage. It should be “spouse1” and “spouse2,” and if both are male or both are female, that’s no business of the government. (of course, I think there should be options for spouse3 and more, but that’s a different argument) (and more to the point, I think there should be no government recognition of marriage at all, but that’s also a different argument).

                So why should public policy have to accept (as you put it) a “lie” about gender? Because it’s none of the government’s business what gender you are. And gender roles are complicated, especially with surgical options blurring the boundaries. What does it mean to be “male” or “female”? Does it make a difference if you are East Texas or San Francisco? Does it mean wearing a dress vs a suit? Does it mean wearing makeup or not? Does it mean being attracted to men vs women? Does it mean having to pick up the check when you’re on a date or having people buy the drinks for you? Does it mean going shopping vs watching the game on TV? Does it mean cooking dinner and cleaning the house vs going to a job and bringing home the bacon? Why do you place so much stock in an X vs Y chromosome?

                These are not the 50’s. Leave It To Beaver is over and done with. It’s gone. So why are you so hung up on who gets to use a bathroom? It’s not like the person next to you helps you wipe – they’re in a separate stall. You have privacy, they have privacy.

                There shouldn’t BE gender specific rooms in public facilities. It should be unisex and private. What would you say about a courthouse which had separate courtrooms for males and females? Would you tolerate the segregation? What justification could they possibly have for this? None, right? It’s ridiculous and, of course, everyone should use the same courtrooms.

                So what justification do you have for telling one sub-set of people that they have to use one room and another sub-set that they have to use another? It’s not like men walk around the public restroom naked.

              • American’s still consider themselves as conservative no matter how loud you yell that the days are gone. Google it.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I didn’t say conservatism is gone.

                I said that the days of Leave It To Beaver are gone. American Puritanism is still lingering, though it’s in it’s death throws and it doesn’t even know it.

                But the real point is this – if you want to be a puritan, that’s your prerogative. Be a puritan in your own home or at your private business. But don’t you dare use the government to try to foist your views on people who aren’t doing you any harm.

                If I were an orthodox Jew, and I felt that women should have to enter a government building through a separate entry (based on ultra-conservative beliefs!), would you acquiesce and use the door at the back of the building? Of course not. Because there is no reason that you should have to behave a certain way based on my opinions.

              • Oh Please, stop with the your just old and should get with the program BS. Or I’ll start the your just young, inexperienced and still stupid line. 😛 Leave it to Beaver was never a true representation of American life-I’m surprised you believe it ever was.

                Now if you want to tell me that there is a problem with people who don’t identify with their actual sexual gender to fit in, find a bath room, or not be bullied and we need to try to help fix that problem -You would get my complete agreement. But making our society gender neutral in order to accomplish this goal is a step wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to far.

                We aren’t just talking about unisex bathrooms and you know it. Government has it’s tentacles in just about every aspect of life-through money or discrimination laws-one can’t go to school, work almost anywhere except maybe-Church-and they are trying to get their tentacles in there too, without the government rearing it’s oppressive little head. So the private vs. public debate is almost worthless anymore.

                You cannot promote freedom, acceptance, and individual rights by stripping away everything that makes us individuals. You cannot force respect by not respecting those differences. I don’t see many important differences between the races but there are many significant differences between the sexes. And those differences need to be respected not ignored or thrown away as unimportant -in order to look at and respect the differences of another subset of people. The answer isn’t to neuter society-The answer isn’t to ignore human nature and reality. The answer isn’t to disrespect everyone in order to not disrespect some.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Of course I never thought Leave It To Beaver was accurate.. but, then again, I do think that many of it’s expressed views are indicative of the time in which it was aired. These were the values of the day.

                You cannot promote freedom, acceptance, and individual rights by stripping away everything that makes us individuals. You cannot force respect by not respecting those differences. I don’t see many important differences between the races but there are many significant differences between the sexes. And those differences need to be respected not ignored or thrown away as unimportant -in order to look at and respect the differences of another subset of people. And what are those difference? Anatomy. One group has a penis and can pee standing up at a urinal. The other group cannot. One group is (generally) taller and (generally) stronger. Tell me, what about these differences means that you should use one area and I should use a different one?

                Make the logical case, I’m listening. Honestly, I am.

                Your case is.. what? No sarcasm, I swear, I just don’t understand it.
                – (biological) males and (biological) females have different anatomy – check.
                – male / female psychology and behavior broadly overlaps such that there are “masculine” women and “feminine” males.
                – There are men attracted to other men, there are women attracted to other women, so keeping men out of the woman’s restroom does not eliminate the concept of sharing the room with someone who is attracted to you.
                – Individuals do not expose themselves to others in a shared restroom, and you can be extra cautious about exposing yourself by using a stall.
                – It would still be unacceptable to harass individuals of the opposite sex (just as it is in any other place or time)
                – There is nothing about the shared space of a restroom (ie, the sinks) which is intrinsically private.. you’re just washing your hands (or not washing!)

                So, to me, there is nothing about a restroom which merits sex-based segregation at all. And, if we are to defer to the cultural standards of male-female, it seems to me that it is more logically to utilize a standard of behavior/personality/self-identification rather than anatomy. The only affect of anatomy in this situation is the position in which you urinate, whereas the behavior/etiquette of individuals is better segregated by the gender ROLL than the biological gender.

              • You list the differences between men and woman and then dismiss them as unimportant. Anatomy, strength, sexual desire, pregnancy-all these things make the government not being gender blind important, when government is involved in almost all avenues of our life. Again this discussion isn’t solely based on which bathroom someone uses. Bathrooms, showers at school, athletic activities, maternity leave, safety-the differences aren’t trivial-ones gender isn’t trivial-If it was- we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You list the differences between men and woman and then dismiss them as unimportant.

                and

                -the differences aren’t trivial-ones gender isn’t trivial-If it was- we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

                I don’t dismiss them as unimportant or trivial. I dismiss them as irrelevant.

                There are lots of things which are important, but which have no bearing on the way in which you are treated and differentiated by the government.

                It is important that my name is Matthew.

                However, with regards to the government, it is irrelevant. Nothing about the way they treat me, what services I am offered, what taxes I pay, or what rooms I may enter should be impacted in any way by this important fact. Because, while it is important, it is also irrelevant.

                I’m not saying it doesn’t matter what your (biological) gender is. I’m saying that the government shouldn’t distinguish how it treats you based on it. Whether that is how much you are paid, how much you are taxed, or what rooms you may enter. It is important, but also irrelevant.

                Again this discussion isn’t solely based on which bathroom someone uses. Bathrooms, showers at school, athletic activities, maternity leave, safety

                Any public (such as at schools) showers should be individual – there is no reason you should have to shower with other same-gender individuals. Ever. You should have a private stall or nothing. No child should ever be put in a situation where they are compelled (or even pressured) to allow another person to see them in a state of undress. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s teammates or a Penn State coach.

                School activities should not be segregated by gender either. I’m sorry if you are (generally) weaker than me, but if you aren’t as good at a sport, you shouldn’t make the varsity team – you can join the JV team, or the 3rd string team. Just because you have different body parts doesn’t make you special. (Private schools, of course, should be free to do whatever they want in this regard). This is easy to see, just replace gender with religioethnicity – if the Jews as a school aren’t very athletic, they don’t get to insist that the school forms a special program just for Jews – they just don’t get on the team. Why is having female anatomy any different?

                Maternity leave should not be mandated by the government. Insofar as it exists, it should be treated the exact same as paternity leave. Or perhaps it should just be treated like any other sick day. Why should you get a special time off that I don’t get because you have a uterus and you contracted and expelled a fetus? If I adopt a child, do I get special time off? If I have a kidney stone, do I get special time off? Or are these just personal/sick days like any other? Why is the nature of your disability (temporary infirmity, etc) relevant to the government? (again, private companies should be free to handle this however they want)

                Safety – what do you mean in this regard? Yes, we are (generally) stronger. But, surprisingly, women are far more durable. You can recover more fully from greater harm. That said, everyone should be careful where caution is required – but I’ll let you clarify what you meant before weighing in on this.

              • (Again this discussion isn’t solely based on which bathroom someone uses. Bathrooms, showers at school, athletic activities, maternity leave, safety
                Any public (such as at schools) showers should be individual – there is no reason you should have to shower with other same-gender individuals. Ever. You should have a private stall or nothing. No child should ever be put in a situation where they are compelled (or even pressured) to allow another person to see them in a state of undress. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s teammates or a Penn State coach. “)

                Maybe it shouldn’t but it does-one of those realities I’m been talking about-so as soon as you figure out away to insure that individual privacy-let me know. Until then my daughter or son shouldn’t be forced to use the bathroom, change clothes or shower with a member of the opposite sex. It’s a matter of respecting THEIR gender identity.

                (School activities should not be segregated by gender either. I’m sorry if you are (generally) weaker than me, but if you aren’t as good at a sport, you shouldn’t make the varsity team – you can join the JV team, or the 3rd string team. Just because you have different body parts doesn’t make you special. (Private schools, of course, should be free to do whatever they want in this regard). This is easy to see, just replace gender with religioethnicity – if the Jews as a school aren’t very athletic, they don’t get to insist that the school forms a special program just for Jews – they just don’t get on the team. Why is having female anatomy any different?)

                Claims of discrimination is what has caused all the female teams to be created-but if you are going to have teams based on gender-than to be fair -the members of the team should all actually be of that gender. Now you want to create more discrimination laws based on gender neutral policies-can’t you just see those court cases. How will they determine which type of discrimination is the most important?

                (Maternity leave should not be mandated by the government. Insofar as it exists, it should be treated the exact same as paternity leave. Or perhaps it should just be treated like any other sick day. Why should you get a special time off that I don’t get because you have a uterus and you contracted and expelled a fetus? If I adopt a child, do I get special time off? If I have a kidney stone, do I get special time off? Or are these just personal/sick days like any other? Why is the nature of your disability (temporary infirmity, etc) relevant to the government? (again, private companies should be free to handle this however they want) )

                Again government is involved in determining maternity leave in the private and public sphere-that discrimination thing again. But maternity leave was the wrong term-I should have said the ability to get pregnant-and this also goes to safety issues-as much for little girls trapped in school restrooms and showers with boys who may not actually identify as a female but come visit anyway. Being put in danger in these situations isn’t limited to only those who don’t identify with their own gender.

  30. Buck and Mathius

    I have to chuckle at your arguments for FEDERAL protection of Individual Rights against the STATES.

    Such a notion can ONLY be defended from the viewpoint that Natural Rights exist that SHOULD be protected at any jurisdictional level.

    This seems to me to be the opposite of your prior arguments that Rights come from Govt.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Just out of curiosity, can you tell me where I contended that rights come from government?

      I have said that rights may – MAY – come from society – that is, We The People. But that is a very different thing from “the government.”

      —————–

      My view of government is, well, complicated, I know. But there is a subset of laws which I believe are beyond it’s “rightful” jurisdiction. That is, any law which prohibits actions by consenting adults which does not affect others has no business being legislated. So, for example, drug use, prostitution, marriage between same-sex individuals, sodomy laws, euthanasia, etc etc etc. My choice in these does not affect you, so you should have no say in it. Period. And by extension, society should have no say in it.

      If I want to light up a doobie in the privacy of my own home, why should somebody in Albany or DC have any say in the matter? Am I hurting them? But if I want to then drive impaired, well now.. now we may (again – MAY) have grounds for legislation since my actions affect others when I operate a 3,000 lb kinetic missile at freeway speeds.

      So, “gay marriage” – I think the government should butt out entirely. ENTIRELY. If I want to marry two women (god forbid!) or three or twelve women and two husbands. That is my prerogative. It does not affect anyone other than the willing participants. But since government is in the business of taxing and providing benefits based on this concept of marriage (I don’t think they should, by the way) – I think the government should be bound to hold as broad a definition of marriage as possible so as to respect the freedoms which are a private choice. So if you want to marry another man, good for you, but the government should not be free to decide whether it wants to recognize that or not – if it is going to recognize any marriages, is should have to recognize all marriages. I happen to think it should recognize no marriages and treat all people as people and leave marriage up to the individual and his/her private beliefs.

      And if it takes the jurisdictional power of the feds to force the states to get uninvolved less involved in determining how private people are allowed to live their private lives, then so be it.

      • “That is, any law which prohibits actions by consenting adults which does not affect others has no business being legislated”

        And by what Power did you derive the right to decide what does and does not affect others. There is no way-under a government-to follow your line of thinking-because you do not have the right to make these decisions for all of society-we use democratic voting because it is the best answer anyone has come up with unless you want to cease to have a government at all.

        And what makes you feel that the Federal is the protector-you are for gay marriage-do you see the Federal government standing up for gay marriage-NO-the movement towards gay marriage is coming from the actions of individual States.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Does my decision to marry a man affect you? Nope. Not unless you are forced to recognize that marriage by the state (I disagree with the state forcing you to recognize my marriage, by the way).

          Does my decision to smoke some pot and eat an entire tube of Pringles affect you? Nope.

          Does my decision to engage in sodomy affect you? Nope.

          Does my decision to hire a prostitute (presumably to engage in said sodomy) affect you? Nope. It affect me, and her. Not you.

          It’s not always easy to tell what is a “private” action and what is a “public” action. The line blurs at a certain point – what if I want to paint my house pink with polkadots? Well that affects my neighbor’s resale value… so maybe..

          But you tell me, what right do you have to tell me I can’t marry someone I love. Or more than one someone. Or, for that matter, someone I don’t love. How does it affect YOU?

          And what makes you feel that the Federal is the protector-you are for gay marriage-do you see the Federal government standing up for gay marriage-NO-the movement towards gay marriage is coming from the actions of individual States.

          The federal government is not doing a good job. I haven’t said they were. I’m saying they SHOULD be the ones to pass a law AGAINST states refusal to recognize same-sex couples. They haven’t – yet. And this is shameful.

          The states are in a tug-of-war. The SCOTUS (note, federal) had to strike down several states’ laws which criminalized gay-sex as sodomy. Those states are oppressive to the private individuals in that way. Other states are trying to do the opposite and the federal government is in their way.

          Neither state nor federal are “right” in this. All I’m saying is that “protection” should come from the Feds, and “oppression” should be as local as possible. Again, SHOULD, not IS.

          • Mathius,

            I’m saying they SHOULD be the ones to pass a law AGAINST states refusal to recognize same-sex couples.

            Doing such a thing is unconstitutional – you are demanding the Fed’s overrule the basics of the Constitution….

            ..oh, I forgot. You’re a liberal – your ilk demand this all the time….

            • Mathius™ says:

              I favor a Constitutional Amendment to codify that the STATES cannot discriminate based on gender roles / gender identification / same-vs-opposite sex pairings / etc. Further, private businesses/individuals should freed from any obligation to recognize state-recognized statuses. Obviously, the wording is critical, but I don’t think we need to get into that here, just the concepts.

              But again, importantly, it should not bind the private individuals nor their businesses. Though I find such discrimination to be abhorrent, there should be no additional burden placed upon them – only on the governments.

              So the government can’t offer benefits, say, only to heterosexual couples while denying them to homosexual ones (nor can it pass a law against one group which is not binding on the other – it’s all or nothing). Conversely, your private business could do exactly that if it wanted to – you could, for example, pay your straight employees more if you so choose. And I, as an employee, am free to quit if I don’t like it.

              • Matnius,

                I favor a Constitutional Amendment to codify that the STATES cannot discriminate based on gender roles / gender identification / same-vs-opposite sex pairings / etc.

                Good luck with that!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Pipe dream, I know. Pity..

                Out of curiosity, though, would you support such an amendment?

                If not, I’d be very interested in your reasoning.

              • Mathius,

                No.

                1) I do not believe in “Constitutions” – they are pointless and irrelevant except for an excuse to roll up the document into a tight club and beat Buck over the head with it.

                2) IF I WAS a Constitutionalists – Government has no right or say whatsoever over the associations of free men. Period.

          • It doesn’t matter why I think or anyone else thinks what they do-whether I argue an action doesn’t affect you or I argue on the grounds of a greater good. I nor you, have the right to decide for everyone else. And if the people decide that we are taking away individual rights we have this little thing called a Constitutional Amendment that has the power to stop the action. But that power, right or wrong, comes from the people-and when enough of us agree-we will possess enough power to stop the action.

          • Mathius

            At least you FINALLY admit that Government is OPPRESSIVE.

      • Mathius

        “I have said that rights may – MAY – come from society – that is, We The People. But that is a very different thing from “the government.””

        Actually it isn’t very different at all. How can SOCIETY determine WHAT Rights are Rights and which are not? How does SOCIETY, one of 300 million plus, IDENTIFY and ENFORCE those Rights? I believe that is called Government.

        I don’t disagree with your idealist view of “governments” proper role, but your many positions contradict your stated “rightful” jurisdiction. For example, it seems you now want the FEDERAL to dictate the health insurance for everyone. How is this a “rightful” jurisdiction? It has nothing to do with your stated view of “governments” proper role.

        You fail to account for those who DISAGREE with your view. Why should they be forced to adhere to YOUR view in every state within the country? Why can they not move to a state and have their own view of govt’s proper role?

        In essence you are saying that the Federal should not be involved but IF there is going to be a law, then the law should be Federal. By allowing the caveat, you negate your position.

        If you oppose the Govt’s role in these matters then you should stand against its intrusion. In all such matters, all the time, no exceptions.

        • Mathius™ says:

          it seems you now want the FEDERAL to dictate the health insurance for everyone.

          Can you point out where I said this? (hint, you can’t, because I never did).

          You fail to account for those who DISAGREE with your view. Why should they be forced to adhere to YOUR view in every state within the country? Why can they not move to a state and have their own view of govt’s proper role?

          Because the you have no right to pass laws binding on me which do not affect you. If you wanted to have such a law, you could start your own town with like-minded people and pass that law. (see: lowest possible level). But you don’t get to use the state to oppress other people’s private lives with your personal views.

          In essence you are saying that the Federal should not be involved but IF there is going to be a law, then the law should be Federal. By allowing the caveat, you negate your position. Close. I’m saying there should be no law (check). But if, in the absence of such a law, the states are violating people’s rights, then a law TO STOP THE STATE from doing so should be passed by the more powerful entity.

          There’s a big difference, and to clarify, here’s what I mean: Imagine that the state of Texas has outlawed gay sex.
          Option A: The Federal government says that the states can’t make such a law.
          Option B: The Federal government says that everyone has to be ok and accepting of gay sex.

          See the difference? I support A. Simply push the states out of being involved. (good). I do not support B. Create a requirement and imposition on everyone else to act a certain way. (bad). Society can judge for itself how it feels about gay sex, but it doesn’t get to tell two gay people what they can and cannot do privately.

          If you want to run your business as heterosexuals-only, you should be free to do so. And I should be free to boycott until you collapse. No law should make you open your doors to homosexuals, which seems to be what you think I’m saying. As abhorrent as that view might be to me, it’s your business, not mine and I have no right to tell you how to run your private business.

          If you oppose the Govt’s role in these matters then you should stand against its intrusion. In all such matters, all the time, no exceptions. Yes and no. There is a Greater Good argument where I permit government intrusion into PUBLIC matters. So, for example, national defense. While I disagree with the size/scope/aggressiveness of the military, I agree one is necessary to some extent. As a country, we have determined how big and necessary it is. So the government reaches into my private life – into my pocket, and takes some money to pay for it. Greater good, I guess. But it affects everyone – it affects society, not just Adam and Steve (as opposed to Adam and Eve). Conversely, if Adam wants to have sex with Steve, it doesn’t affect anyone else, so why do you think you have standing to tell them what they can and cannot do?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Why in all of your posts today am I either transgendered or homosexual?

            Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.

          • Okay, I’m confused-You Said the law comes from we the people-but you believe the Federal government should just stop certain actions based on what? Your personal opinion, Constitutional amendment process, someone bringing an action and it going through the courts-what?

            • Mathius™ says:

              What actions have I said it can stop?

              I’ve said it can stop all kinds of actions – by the state.

              But, generally, it’s authority to stop (or require) actions – by private people and/or business – is/should be very limited.

              • Maybe I’m misunderstanding this conversation-but we aren’t so much taking about what we think is right-but how the government should enforce what “we the people” think. So how is the Federal supposed to just stop the states from stopping gay marriage-With what power, by what process? etc.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Amendment, I think. I don’t see any Constitutional authority for this otherwise.

                And, yes, I know this will never happen.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Equal Protection.

                You don’t need an amendment.

              • Hopefully someone else will discuss this with you-but feel free to expand on your reasoning. 🙂

              • Matt

                Actually, I suspect it will in time-course they will leave out, all that private entities not being affected part.

  31. Buck,

    NY must recognize a marriage performed in NV, and vice versa, constitutionally speaking.

    Absolutely untrue.

    NY must apply its laws on any citizen of the US regardless of residency of State while in NY

    ..or now, you would have to agree that one State’s laws regarding concealed weapons would automatically be “ok” in another State?

    That the fellow who had a CCW permit when he went to another State and was arrested – that State operated unconstitutionally as they are required to recognize the law of his home State?????

  32. Buck
    To help you out…

    It is not anything to do with Constitution that recognition of marriage certification of one State in another State.

    All states, however, recognize a marriage that was validly contracted in another state under the principles of comity and their choice of law/conflict of laws rules.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I was just going to direct you to the ‘full faith and credit’ clause. So yes, NY must recognize a validly performed marriage in another state.

      • Buck

        So yes, NY must recognize a validly performed marriage in another state.

        Absolutely WRONG!
        It has no “must” at all!

        It can deny such recognition as it chooses.

        There is NO law that says it “must” recognize anything of another State!

        It does so by reciprocity – that is recognizes another State marriage law so that the other State recognizes NY marriage law.

        This a matter of expedience – NY simply says:
        “I don’t need to judge the validity of this marriage made in NV … if NV say its “ok”, then NY will accept that NV have done their diligence and it is “ok” to them, so it is “ok” for NY too”

        But it can revoke this any time it wishes by simple decree

        For example, some States do not recognize common-law marriage, but other do. But States that do not recognize common-law of their own citizens do accept the legalization of common-law marriages of other States – this is the reciprocity at work.

        BUT where some States recognize marriage between a particular circumstance between minors, other States do NOT recognize this whatsoever in their State – they ,by decree, say “nope, not here”.

        It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution whatsoever.

  33. A Puritan Descendant says:

    In last evenings debate, one exchange between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul stood out to me.

    Rick had voted to protect Gun Makers from law suits when all they were guilty of is making and selling a gun. The idea being to protect gun makers from frivolous lawsuits.

    Ron Paul voted against this, on constitutional grounds. Stating it must be left to the states.

    Rick pointed out that gun makers would still be exposed by simply filing lawsuits in a state like Massachusetts. (Rick supporting “the ends justifies the means”)

    Ron Paul, then pointed out that is how we erode our constitution.

    All I can think is, ‘way to late now’, but where were the ‘Ron Pauls’ the last couple hundred years. I also doubt the founders forsaw this sort of thing coming in the future. Back then would anyone even dream of such frivolous lawsuits………..

    It reminds me again what John Adams had said about our constitution working only for moral people. People who could not bring such a lawsuit with a straight face.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      As I have been reading along here, our resident liberals want to have gay marriage legalized, saying it’s protected by the constitution. I say fine, in return, all able bodied citizens of sound mind are hereby legal to carry any firearm of their chioce, conceled or not, anywhere they travel. Since this right IS protected by the constitution, in plain English, it should be the end of gun control as we know it.

  34. How do you enjoy your day? Have the vet out to the homestead and work through physicals and shots on four cats (one of whom took great offense to those needles)! 🙂

    All passed their health checks though. Good for another year.

    BTW – Quite good discussion y’all have been having today.

  35. Buck the Wala says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      OMG ! 🙂

      Obama
      Must
      Go

    • Buck

      This is the new narrative. It was first tested on the internet blog sites around the end of summer.

      It is now being spread by those who support Mr. Obama. Which the author admits to being.

      The narrative is summarized as Mr. Obama’s accomplishments in reality do not resemble the story line of the Right or Left.

      Of course the goal is to make him appear as a Moderate. Sorry my friend, that is pure Bulldookey.

      What many of these “narrative” story tellers don’t ever look at is the inner workings of Govt. What are the various agencies up to and WHO is running the show.

      The author is NOT a Conservative by any stretch. Not given the nature of his defense presented. His article contains many errors and misleading comparisons, which can only be deliberate. For example, comparing jobs created during Bush’s entire 8 years to Obama’s first 3 years is not appropriate. Especially when using it to defend actions taken in response to a downturn.

      The absolute worst is near the end where he tries to spread the LIE that Mr. Obama first starts out by offering a hand, to work with the Republicans. The mans started the very first meeting of his administration with “I won, so get used to it”. This was at the exact same time the Republican leadership was pushing its members to keep a civil tone and open mind.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I wouldn’t go so far as to say this is a new narrative, it is one analysis of Obama’s record. Is it spot on accurate? Completely free of any cherry-picked numbers or misleading comparisons? Of course not; no analysis is or can be. But it is one look at the record and, more importantly to me, one analysis of the criticism coming from the right and left against Obama. I dont’ think the goal is to make him appear as a Moderate – that’s not how it came across to me. Take a look at this analysis as what it is — one man’s look at Obama’s record and what he has (and has not) accomplished over the past three years.

        Sullivan may not be a conservative by your standards, but by his own self-identification, he is a conservative-leaning independent. He certainly isn’t a liberal, nor does he identify as such.

    • Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative.

    • Buck

      Here, try out the complete list of “PROMISES”.

      http://blatantreality.com/2009/05/22/complete-list-of-obamas-campaign-promises/

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    Here is a question. Is what occurs in this video OK with you?

    http://visiontoamerica.org/7315/congressman-has-police-confiscate-all-cell-phone-cameras/

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      How’s that different from having a news media camera there? Either way, his face is shown. No, not fair, if a news camera is there, then, nothing wrong with someone filming it with their cell phone camera. Again, how’s that any different?

  37. Bottom Line says:

    JAC,

    I’ve been doing some thinking about our conversation a few weeks ago, in addition to further exploring the metaphysical aspects.

    While you reserve the right to defend your rights, while it may be justified to act violently, …aggression may not be the best solution.

    Fear is a big part of what makes evil.

    When people are scared, sometimes they act badly in the interest of finding security in whatever the situation may be.

    Perhaps the best solution is to try and find a way to share the lawnmower.

    I think that’s what it means to turn the other cheek. It is about extending a gesture of good will to alleviate fear and insecurity.

    ” All you need is love ” – John Lennon

    • BL

      I think of evil more as the CAUSE of fear, rather than its byproduct.

      Yes, fearful people can inadvertently fuel evil, but the core problem is what causes the fear.

      That is usually the inability to conceptualize and then act upon rational thought.

      Evil is the deliberate act to confuse the mind. To create an inability to Think, Choose and then Act in a rational manner. Fear is usually the result of this deliberate muddling of the mind. Whether done by oneself or by others.

      Re; sharing. Negotiating with a thief will get you what??

      But the response to theft should not first be violence. That is why we invented laws and police. To eliminate the randomness and arbitrariness of the response. To address our inability to deal with the threat via shunning or ostracizing the thief.

  38. WAY TO GO RUBIO !!!

    Senator Marco Rubio
    A Better Way to Fight the Online Theft of American Ideas and Jobs
    By Senator Marco Rubio

    In recent weeks, we’ve heard from many Floridians about the anti-Internet piracy bills making their way through Congress. On the Senate side, I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.

    However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.

    Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we’ve heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government’s power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.

    Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.
    Like · · Share · about an hour ago ·

  39. BF

    A Constitution is not a magic wand. It was never conceived as a wall against govt intrusion that could stand by itself.

    It is only as strong and effective as those who demand it to be so.

    It serves a most useful purpose, however. It establishes the expectations in a form that can more readily be understood and perpetuated as part of the cultural norms of a society. It is to politics what the tablets were to the Israelites. I agree that NO document can protect us against abuse of Govt power. However, a well constructed document, revised to deal with new attacks on Liberty, supported by Citizens who cherish freedom, will serve us better than nothing.

    Problems with the document are not in the concept of its form but in the ideas or philosophy that supports its content.

    • JAC

      BF A Constitution is not a magic wand. It was never conceived as a wall against govt intrusion that could stand by itself. It is only as strong and effective as those who demand it to be so.

      I know this.

      The Constitution is an illusionary device used to legitimize and justify unjust action upon other men for the cause of a greater good (which is often confused to be the same as Social Order).

      It embeds a natural and unmitigated contradiction – it demands that the entity that is created to make and enforce law shall make and enforce laws which limit such an entity upon the entity itself.

      Of course, this will never happen in areas of action where such law is of vital interest to safety and freedom of the People are against the government and will only happen in areas of action which are trivial and irrelevant or aligned with increasing the extent and power of the government – the latter as a method to proclaim and (falsely) prove that the entity is legitimate in making laws over all People and things.

      As such, Constitutions are a contradiction, a lie and a great deceiver of the People as a tool that is used to enslave them.

      • BF

        It seems that once again you simply insert your own meaning of a thing to negate its accepted meaning. In this case to the point of undermining the original meaning of words. The very thing you condemned the other day.

        First:

        “The Constitution is an illusionary device used to legitimize and justify unjust action upon other men for the cause of a greater good (which is often confused to be the same as Social Order).”

        The Constitution is not an illusion. It exists on parchment and has been reproduced in millions of booklets, books, letters, etc. I find no where in the document where it “legitimizes” nor “justifies” UNJUST action. The only way to reach such a conclusion is to adopt a meaning of Justice that is not consistent with the one used in its construction.

        While the document does not legitimize or justify “UNJUST” action, the action of men who twist the purpose and meaning of the document to meet their purpose do in fact try to use it in this manner. The document is not the action here, it is PEOPLE. Again, the concept of a Constitution is not the problem. It is the actual content and the moral strength of those who enforce it.

        Second:

        “It embeds a natural and unmitigated contradiction – it demands that the entity that is created to make and enforce law shall make and enforce laws which limit such an entity upon the entity itself. ”

        You make an error in the actual relationship between a Constitution and government which leads to an false conclusion about its role and possible effectiveness.

        The Constitutions does NOT demand that Govt make laws to limit its own power. It demands that Govt be LIMITED to making and enforcing those laws within the confines of the power GIVEN to Govt.

        Before you go off listing examples of failures within OUR Constitution please review my first comment. I am talking about the Concept of a Constitution.

        It was the concept you condemned yesterday out of hand. Yet there is no other more useful mechanism for constraining the power of Govt., to my knowledge. If you have something better then NOW is the time to lay it on the table.

        • JAC

          The Constitution is not an illusion.

          It is an illusion because you see that it as a piece of paper having some sort of force and legitimacy over men.

          I am not clouded by such an illusion, nor deceived by the color of the paint surrounding it.

          . I find no where in the document where it “legitimizes” nor “justifies” UNJUST action.

          I quote:
          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes
          To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
          To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
          To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
          To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
          To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
          To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
          To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
          To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
          To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
          To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
          To provide and maintain a Navy;
          To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          All of these things are unjust if forced upon free men – all of them.

          The Constitution justifies such force – simply due to the grand illusion that such words on paper written by some men, canonized by prayer and grand proclamations of other men – legitimize such force and violence on more men.

          The Constitutions does NOT demand that Govt make laws to limit its own power. It demands that Govt be LIMITED to making and enforcing those laws within the confines of the power GIVEN to Govt.

          Government is the only entity so charged in making law.
          Government is the only entity so charged in enforcing such law.

          There is nothing you can do to stop government from making any law it wishes.

          There is nothing you can do to make government enforce any law it wishes not to enforce.

          To believe anything else is naive.

          It was the concept you condemned yesterday out of hand. Yet there is no other more useful mechanism for constraining the power of Govt., to my knowledge. If you have something better then NOW is the time to lay it on the table.

          I have, constantly, and consistently.

          Remove consent.
          Do nothing with it, for it or against it.

          Thoreau is one who articulated this many times in many ways.

  40. Obama to say no to Keystone pipeline….

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/46041908

  41. several points. First, should we really expect that having the students take 15-hour online pre-remedial classes will really prep them for regular college classes? As one professor (Professor Sally Murphy) put it, “I’m not optimistic that it’s going to help … [a] 15-hour intervention when it comes to skills that should have been developed over 12 years.”

    Second, why are these students even admitted to the CSUF to begin with? Why not simply require them to go to community colleges until they are college-ready? The citizens of California are already taxed to the max, in part to support a huge, sprawling community college system — the biggest in the country by far. And one of the main purposes of for the community college system is precisely to provide remedial education.

    Third, when will the faculty and administration in the CSUS finally realize how much the K-12 teachers’ unions are screwing them? When will these entities finally break with the teachers’ unions to support deep, meaningful structural reform in K-12 education — specifically, school choice?

    This brings up another piece — this one on the continuing success of charter schools. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the most recent New York State Assessment Program test results show decisive evidence that one of the charter school chains most viciously attacked by teachers unions is beating the pants off the public schools.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/confirmed_charter_schools_beat_the_daylights_out_of_public_schools.html#ixzz1jq4lj8l8

  42. This is crazy-but from what I have been reading-it is becoming the NORM not the exception. It will at least be a sign of hope-if they shoot the EPA down and declare this crap unconstitutional.

    Audio: Justice Alito oddly unimpressed with EPA procedures
    POSTED AT 12:45 PM ON JANUARY 18, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

    A month ago, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision to take a close look at the EPA and the lack of due process afforded to property owners who run afoul of arcane regulations, regarding wetlands in this specific case. Sackett v EPA pits an Idaho couple who wanted to build their dream house on property they bought for that purpose, and which had been zoned and properly permitted for it as well — until the EPA declared it “wetlands” and insisted that the Sacketts had to dismantle their construction at their own expense. Thanks to the convoluted rules of the EPA, the Sacketts couldn’t challenge the ruling in court unless the EPA decided to let them, and the EPA could fine them $32,500 a day while they argued it out.

    Oral arguments started last week at the Supreme Court, and ABC News reported yesterday that the EPA came in for some rough treatment at the hands of Justice Samuel Alito:

    video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

    JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Stewart, if you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States? You don’t — you buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to. You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.

    MR. STEWART: Well, the first thing I would say is as a matter of standard EPA practice the compliance order would not be the first communication from the agency that would alert the landowner to the belief that there was a violation. The record in this case does not make clear whether that agency practice was followed in this case, but EPA’s typical practice is to alert landowners through prior communications that a violation is existing.

    JUSTICE ALITO: Well, so what? Somebody from the EPA says we think that your backyard is a wetlands, so don’t build. So what — what does the homeowner do, having bought the property. Well, all right, I’m just going to put it aside as a nature preserve?

    MR. STEWART: At the time that that sort of letter is issued, there is no compliance order and there is no impediment to an after-the-fact permit. That is, at that point the landowner could ask for a permit.

    But actually the biggest hit to the argument came from Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court’s liberals, who forced the EPA’s attorney to acknowledge the catch-22 that the EPA has built to keep people like the Sacketts from gaining their due process:

    JUSTICE BREYER: How can they bring an action — I would like some clarification here. The Corps’s regs say the Corps will accept an after-the-fact permit. I mean one after — if they applied tomorrow, the day after getting this order, you would run up against the reg, which says we won’t give you any after the fact, we won’t even consider this matter, until any required initial corrective measures are made. And then, just to be safe, they say that no permit application will be accepted unless the Corps determines that concurrent processing of an after-the-fact permit application is clearly appropriate, “clearly.” So I looked at those two things and said: Of course you can’t apply to the Corps of Engineers; they are not going to accept it unless you have a very unusual case. So I expect you to tell me why I’m wrong about that, if I am, or how many after-the-fact permit applications has the Corps of Engineers accepted. Maybe there are a lot.

    MR. STEWART: It’s not precluded, but I would agree with you: It’s very unlikely that without complying with the order -­

    JUSTICE BREYER: All right, I agree. If we agree then, look, for 75 years the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite. And yet — so here you are saying that this statute that says nothing about it precludes review, and then the second thing you say is that this isn’t final. So I read the order. It looks like about as final a thing as I have ever seen. So tell me why I am wrong on those two points.

    And this is where the rest of the court began to chime in:

    MR. STEWART: Well, we are not arguing that the statute precludes all judicial review. That is, the question whether the Clean Water Act applied to this tract could have been keyed up for a court in either of two ways.

    JUSTICE BREYER: You’re arguing on the final part -­

    JUSTICE KAGAN: You are arguing that the presumption of reviewability does not apply.

    MR. STEWART: To this particular order.

    JUSTICE KAGAN: And that seems a very strange position. Why would the presumption of reviewability not apply?

    MR. STEWART: First because the order doesn’t express the final — the agency’s final view both in the sense that it invites the Sacketts to provide further comment –

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: But they asked for a hearing. Didn’t they ask EPA for a hearing on whether their lands fell within the statute? They did ask for a hearing and the EPA said no.

    MR. STEWART: EPA said no to a formal hearing, but I think that would be characteristic agency practice.

    Yes, it’s that characteristic practice than denies due process and intimidates people into silence and compliance, whether or not they’ve actually violated any regulations at all. Later in the transcript, Scalia explicitly lays out how the EPA can avoid any kind of review:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: So they can just dispense with this compliance order and tell the Sacketts: In our view, this is a warning; we believe you are in violation of the act; and you will be subject to — you are subject to penalties of 37.5 per day for that violation; and to remedy the violation, in our judgment, you have to fill in and you have to plant, you know, pine trees on the lot. It could do that.

    MR. STEWART: They could use the letter for that mechanism. And -­

    JUSTICE SCALIA: And there would be no review of that.

    MR. STEWART: We would certainly argue there would be no review of that.

    It sounds as if the EPA may be fighting a losing battle in Sackett, and that could have wide-ranging implications in agency law for the US. It’s also quite an eye-opener for those unfamiliar with the lack of recourse available for citizens who run afoul of agencies like the EPA, and a pretty good indication of why American capital hesitates to invest in American economic expansion. Let’s hope that the Supreme Court uses Sackett to restore the proper role of due process in agency law.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/18/audio-justice-alito-oddly-unimpressed-with-epa-procedures/

    • I posted something about this in the last open mic. It is a strange case because if the court sides with the land owner and forces the EPA to review their findings, then the review could still determine wetlands. In my experiance dealing with wetlands you can build within them if you satisfy permit requirements.

  43. Mathius™ says:

    V.H.

    Down here!

    (Again this discussion isn’t solely based on which bathroom someone uses. Bathrooms, showers at school, athletic activities, maternity leave, safety
    Any public (such as at schools) showers should be individual – there is no reason you should have to shower with other same-gender individuals. Ever. You should have a private stall or nothing. No child should ever be put in a situation where they are compelled (or even pressured) to allow another person to see them in a state of undress. Ever. It doesn’t matter if it’s teammates or a Penn State coach. “)

    Maybe it shouldn’t but it does-one of those realities I’m been talking about-so as soon as you figure out away to insure that individual privacy-let me know. Until then my daughter or son shouldn’t be forced to use the bathroom, change clothes or shower with a member of the opposite sex. It’s a matter of respecting THEIR gender identity.

    It’s easy. Individual shower stalls and changing rooms, shared locker space. Everyone gets what they need from their locker, then goes into a stall to shower/change, and does anything else which needs doing in the public area of the locker room. Does it take more space? Yup? Is it more expensive? Yup. But so be it.

    You say, your daughter should not be forced to use the bathroom with a member of the opposite sex.. why? Because they might be attracted to her and stare or some similar harassment-based scenario? But there are lesbians, also, and just because your daughter is in a room full of only girls doesn’t mean that one of these girls won’t behave exactly that same way.

    (School activities should not be segregated by gender either. I’m sorry if you are (generally) weaker than me, but if you aren’t as good at a sport, you shouldn’t make the varsity team – you can join the JV team, or the 3rd string team. Just because you have different body parts doesn’t make you special. (Private schools, of course, should be free to do whatever they want in this regard). This is easy to see, just replace gender with religioethnicity – if the Jews as a school aren’t very athletic, they don’t get to insist that the school forms a special program just for Jews – they just don’t get on the team. Why is having female anatomy any different?)

    Claims of discrimination is what has caused all the female teams to be created-but if you are going to have teams based on gender-than to be fair -the members of the team should all actually be of that gender. Now you want to create more discrimination laws based on gender neutral policies-can’t you just see those court cases. How will they determine which type of discrimination is the most important?

    You shouldn’t have teams based on gender – that’s exactly what I’m saying!

    Sports are about athletic ability. If you do not have enough athletic ability to compete at one level, you compete at a lower level, or not at all.

    You are saying that, since they’re doing something wrong, this is the better way to do it. Well, who knows? But does that make it right? No one – NO ONE – should get special treatment. If I am a 90lb weakling, I won’t make the men’s team. But you, who are 6’2, 270lbs and built like a refrigerator, could make a great linebacker on the men’s team, but are instead relegated to the girl’s team. Why? How does this make sense?

    Claims of discrimination are important. But discrimination, is what this is all about. You’ve opted to avoid discrimination by using segregation. That’s like saying, black people don’t get treated fairly in the job market, so we’re going to ship them all off to form their own country where they won’t be discriminated against. Huh?

    (Maternity leave should not be mandated by the government. Insofar as it exists, it should be treated the exact same as paternity leave. Or perhaps it should just be treated like any other sick day. Why should you get a special time off that I don’t get because you have a uterus and you contracted and expelled a fetus? If I adopt a child, do I get special time off? If I have a kidney stone, do I get special time off? Or are these just personal/sick days like any other? Why is the nature of your disability (temporary infirmity, etc) relevant to the government? (again, private companies should be free to handle this however they want) )

    Again government is involved in determining maternity leave in the private and public sphere-that discrimination thing again. But maternity leave was the wrong term-I should have said the ability to get pregnant-and this also goes to safety issues-as much for little girls trapped in school restrooms and showers with boys who may not actually identify as a female but come visit anyway. Being put in danger in these situations isn’t limited to only those who don’t identify with their own gender.

    Just because government IS involved in something doesn’t mean it SHOULD BE. It shouldn’t be. A private company should be able to offer whatever benefit packages it sees fit, whether racist, sexist, homophobic, specieist, ageist, etc, and the market should be able to beat them to death with the invisible hand if they make poor decisions. But the government should not be able to behave this way.

    I’m still not getting what you’re saying though. Are you saying that your concern is that girls will be using a restroom and that boys will take the opportunity to self-identify gender and join them in the room. From your comment about safety, I assume you’re actual concern is that, from this point, the boy will harass or rape the girl. Am I correct?

    Harassment and rape are serious issues, and merit serious concern. It is worth noting that a restroom is not the only place where this can happen, though I recognize the concern of it seeming like a prime location in the eyes of a predator. I get it – I do. And I’m not minimizing such concerns.

    If a location is risky, then extra caution is merited. Merited by the individual. Merited by the school security. Potential victims should take steps to protect themselves (pepper spray or tasers are good ways, as is self-defense training – and, no, schools should not be able to stop this). Schools should take steps to make sure that a coach is always close by in case of trouble (my high school coach’s office was actually IN the locker room).

    But a girl can be raped in a parking garage late at night – does that mean we should have separate garages for men and women? I’m not being glib, but the solution doesn’t fit the problem here.

    There is nothing about male or female ANATOMY which merits segregation. If any such segregation has to exist (it doesn’t), it should be based on who the person is, not what body parts they happen to have been born with. Surely, there are effeminate gay boys who would feel safer and more comfortable in the girls locker room, and whose presence would not discomfort the girls – why should they have to find themselves in a position to be harassed and, yes, frequently assaulted in a boys-only locker room? Why should you get to feel safe, but not him?

    As Black Flag likes to say “freedom for me, but not for you.”

    • Strange how this was never an issue 30-40 plus years ago. Everyone seemed to know what they were back then. Now that all this liberalism has come to be, seems the kids don’t know what they are or who they should be. 👿

      • Of course that was back in the simpler days 🙂

        The more Matt talks the more wacked out he sounds. No I’m not going to argue with you Matt..there is no point.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Of course there’s no point – because you don’t have a case. My argument makes you uncomfortable because it goes against the societal norms to which you are accustomed. But that doesn’t make it wrong. Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right or optimal. And change is hard.

          But I know you won’t agree with me (until 50 years from now, you look around and suddenly realize I was right all along).. but rather than just saying I sound “wacked out,” why don’t you tell me, specifically, what about having a specific piece of anatomy means that the government should treat anyone differently than anyone else.

          • If government should stay out of the issue then businesses are free to decide how their bathrooms that they provide “for the convenience” of the people patronizing their establishment. If that business wishes to segregate by sex (the cultural norm) then they can, and the person who believes they are female when their physical sexual identity is male will have to deal with it or not patronize that business.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Now THAT I agree with.

              Government should stay the hell out of it, and use unisex bathrooms. Businesses should do whatever they want. Individuals who don’t agree with those businesses should be free to beat that business to death with the invisible hand.

              • I will agree with you that privacy in a public restroom is not based upon the sex of a person but on the physical design of the restroom.

                I believe you would not find so many disagreeing with you if that physical design was geared to individual privacy.

              • Mathius™ says:

                And it should be.. there’s no reason the design should rob me of privacy just because the only other people there share my gender.

                But still, if I am not comfortable, I can always use a stall and get all the privacy I need. From the second I am exposed to the time when I am again decent, I can be in a walled stall and have complete and total privacy. The only time in the bathroom when I can’t be assured of my privacy is when I’m at the sink. What are SUFA-ites doing at the sink that they don’t want members of the opposite sex seeing? Are they not washing their hands with soap and water?

              • Sometimes the ladies are venting about their stupid ass husbands..how can we vent if you’re right there in our face? Or they may need to borrow or buy some LADY things from each other..real fun to do in front of men.

          • If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

            There is a big difference between race and gender. Your wife , a teacher, is a govt employee I assume. You won’t even allow her a maternity leave. Or you want your own maternity leave..whatever..so for every child born..both parents should be off for leave? That makes for a productive environment..

            • Mathius™ says:

              My wife is a teacher. In a private school. He gets maternity leave in excess of what the government requires because the school sees fit to try to attract superior talent such as hers by offering benefits like that.

              I don’t think her school should be required to offer her leave. They are free to do so of their own accord (and do!). But it is not the government’s job to tell a private business that they should have to pay a woman her salary for two months when she isn’t working. It’s ridiculous from a business standpoint – you aren’t working, you don’t get paid. If they want to offer it as a perk, that’s their choice, but no one should require companies to pay people who aren’t helping them.

              That’s like saying, that if you hire someone to cut your lawn, you have to pay them whether they show up or not. Huh? Who cares WHY they didn’t cut your lawn. The point is that it didn’t get cut. So you shouldn’t have to pay for the service. If I am nice and want to pay anyway, that should be MY choice.

              You won’t even allow her a maternity leave. Of course I want her to have a maternity leave – but I don’t think the government should be the ones requiring it.

              Or you want your own maternity leave My firm offers paternity leave of 1 week. I will be taking this. I don’t think this is required by law, but my firm has decided that it wants it’s employees to have this perk. I’m happy about this. But as always, the choice should be my company’s – they shouldn’t have to pay me for time I’m not working if they don’t want to.

              whatever..so for every child born..both parents should be off for leave? That makes for a productive environment.. Whether both parents or neither parent or one or the other are on leave is irrelevant. The private contract between an employer and a worker is none of your business. It doesn’t affect you. If you can’t get the benefits you want from your employer, go elsewhere, and they will learn. But you have no right to tell me what contracts I can form with other private consenting adults.

    • Strange how this was never an issue 30-40 plus years ago. Everyone seemed to know what they were back then. Now that all this liberalism has come to be, seems the kids don’t know what they are or who they should be. 👿

      • Mathius™ says:

        How dare people forget their place! Strange how this was never an issue 50-60 years ago.

        Why, back in those day, everyone knew their place too! Everyone knew which water fountain they were supposed to use. Now that all this liberalism has come to be, seems they don’t know what they are and who they should be.

        • Mathius,

          Claiming racism where it does not exist has totally lost it’s effect when coming from liberals. It’s lame at best, at worst, shows a lack of intelligence. So are you just being lame?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Not quite. I’m drawing a comparison. I don’t think there’s any racism here (gender-orientation isn’t a race!). But the comparison I’m making is this: it is not your right to determine for someone else what their proper “place” is.

            If Black Flag has a penis, but considers himself to be female in terms of gender roles, then it should be his choice – not yours – to determine if he is more comfortable using the “woman’s” restroom. The fact that he can stand up and urinate without making a mess, while doing so in a stall where no one sees his genitalia or what he is doing, does not affect anyone else using that restroom. So, as is the perennial question here at SUFA: how is it any of your business?

            • It is my business as a parent and grandparent. I do not want my daughter/granddaughter privacy invaded by someone playing make-believe and dressup. Am I being prejudice? Fu#%ing right I am.

              • Mathius™ says:

                But you’re ok with it her privacy being violated by someone who is a genetic female, right?

                As long as we’re being clear that you’re being prejudiced.. admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.

        • Penalty Flag

          15 yards for major Fallacy of deflection and false association.

          The discussion is about “Sexual Identity”.

          To be on even ground your commentary should focus on those black people who self identify as white people.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Fine.

            Was Michael Jackson black or white? 😛

            ————-

            My point isn’t about black people who identify as white – it’s about the fact that (A) it’s not your place to determine what someone else it and (B) if the difference has nothing to do with the distinction being made then there’s something wrong.

            To be clearer on (A), there is a question of genetic, chromosomal, gender vs physical gender (ie, post-surgical) vs gender-roll vs sexual orientation. What it means to be “male” or “female” is not as simple to some people as “I was born with an XY chromosomal pair.” And it isn’t up to you to determine for someone else what that means.

            To be clearer on (B), it is wrong to discriminate on, say, attractiveness, for a job answering the phone. It doesn’t matter if you’re good looking or ugly – it’s irrelevant. But if the job is as a model, it makes perfect sense to discriminate on appearance (of course it does!). So, as this applies to gender-roles and bathroom use, while there may be a legitimate difference in the anatomy of (genetic) males and females, those differences don’t affect anything about how we use bathrooms that justifies treating people differently.

            • Can I take from this the belief then that you are against penalties being applied to obese individuals because they are considered unhealthy (as an example)?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Penalties for what?

                To my knowledge nobody fines you money just because you’re fat.

                I’m just fine with health care companies charging more – you’re a higher risk.

                I’m just fine with airlines making you buy a second seat – you take more space and use more fuel.

                I wouldn’t be ok with the government levying a tax on you for just because you’re higher risk, though as always, I’m open to listening to arguments.. but I don’t see a valid case.

              • So let me rephrase then.

                You are against the government mandating a person have health insurance or be penalized through taxes for not doing so?

              • Mathius™ says:

                You are against the government mandating a person have health insurance or be penalized through taxes for not doing so?

                In truth, I haven’t given this much thought. I see the greater good theory.. but no.. I don’t think the individual mandate is justified…

                BUT!

                But, at the same time, it should be noted that I am militantly against the idea that hospitals should be forced to treat people who cannot afford treatment. These are two halves of a whole (ie, I have to pay for your emergency care, so I should have a say in making you have insurance so I don’t have to pay.. goes the argument).. But I don’t think I like the argument that a business should be forced to provide a service which it doesn’t want to provide, and to do so at a loss.

                So, if you remove the second half (“I have to pay for you if you don’t have insurance”), then you lose the justification for the first half (“you have to have insurance so I don’t have to pay for you”). And the whole thing collapses.

                But again, I reserve my right to change my mind if someone makes a convincing enough case.

                ———–

                ok.. now seriously.. I have to get some work done.

            • Mathius

              Jackson was black.

              A. It is absolutely my place to judge things for what they are. That is to recognize REALITY. Boys have boy parts. Girls have girl parts. People with black skin are black. People with pink skin are white.

              B. The difference has everything to do with the distinction, or judgment of reality.

              This would include the fact that humans for a very long time have treated men and women differently in society. And you know as well as I that the segregation of restroom facilities by sex was NOT driven by some male chauvinism. It most certainly was driven by women.

              This NORM is far wider and much longer than anything associated with RACE. In fact, RACIAL segregation or discrimination appears to be more a Modern Man convention. Prior to that it was more about whether you were of the same family, clan or tribe.

              We are not talking about what is right or wrong from some general position. But at what point can Govt allow distinctions that reflect the society they represent.

              While the Federal should apply to ALL as in 100%, what about the lower levels. You are supporting an argument that supposedly allows such distinctions at the lowest levels, but then impose YOUR view of morality/ethics using the FEDERAL power upon the lowest level. All with no regard to the most basic differences in human preference or cultural norms which support the Govt itself.

              You negate your own argument for the limitations on both Federal and Local. Thus you allow the Federal to expand its power beyond that which you originally describe, protection of our rights.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I suggest that the federal government force the states to act in a gender-blind manner.

                My view of morality, which I would have the federal government impose on the states is that a man and a woman are the same thing in the eyes of the law – that is, they’re all just PEOPLE.

                This is not expanding the federal government so much as it is shrinking the state/local governments.

                If you want to discriminate – go right ahead. But public schools and public facilities shouldn’t be able to.

                Once again, there’s a difference between suggesting that the government force INTEGRATION versus forbidding governments to SEGREGATE.

                And, with that, I have work to do.. we can pick this up another time.

              • Mathius

                So then how do you construct the wording that gives the Federal this power?

      • Well in their defense, when some parents name their kids Moon Unit Zappa, isn’t it kinda hard to figure out who or what they are?

    • Mathius

      You are guilty of creating a non-existent scenario which you then use to judge the validity of someone’s position.

      Your arguments are sound, given your Make Believe scenario. But that is not the reality in which we live TODAY.

      Go back to the beginning. My comment about what the Progressives had done in my town and county.

      First they claim ALL PRIVATE businesses are PUBLIC space (Done by the FEDERAL level).

      Then they say that NOBODY can prevent a man from entering a woman’s restroom, if he “identifies himself as a woman”.

      Public restrooms and locker rooms are NOT constructed in the manner you describe. So the LAW preventing segregation of sexes does in fact impose upon one of those involved. Namely those who do not want the opposite sex in the restroom or locker room/shower with them. Whether you like it or not, this is a cultural norm in most places. We may have overcome much of our racial bias but we have not overcome our Puritanical bias.

      As you say, Govt should be neutral. But that is NOT what is happening here. This was an active and deliberate use of the force of Govt to impose somebody else’ view on society.

      That is the key point here. In a large geographic area with millions of people, the only way to allow people with significantly differing “cultural” values to exist in peace is to allow them to segregate themselves to the extent it is not causing actual physical harm or impeding their ability to pursue living.

      Segregating bathrooms by sex does not create violence, does no real harm and does not impair a persons ability to pursue a fulfilling life, regardless of their “identity”. At best it could be considered a slight inconvenience.

      Racial segregation, on the other hand, does have an affect on one’s ability to pursue a fulfilling life. Because it directly impacts their access to economic or other opportunities.

      You seem also to confuse the Right to use a restroom with a Right to use THAT restroom. You are ignoring the role of LOCAL Govt in comporting with local traditions and customs, as long as they don’t violate our natural rights. I submit that people who don’t know what sex they are have NO Natural Right to use a restroom designated for a particular sex.

      Now to a slightly broader question. If the Govt should not ALLOW discrimination “against”, why should it be used to ALLOW discrimination “for”?

      • I hope to be around and hear what Mathius says in 18 – 20 years, after raising his child. 😉

      • Mathius™ says:

        I guess I jumped in the middle somewhere and missed the beginning of this discussion…

        First they claim ALL PRIVATE businesses are PUBLIC space (Done by the FEDERAL level). This is wrong. Private businesses are PRIVATE. While there are certainly concerns about externalities (for example, pollution), internal matters are and should be internal. If you don’t want to hire someone because they are gay, that should be your prerogative. If you don’t want to let self-identifying females who are genetically male into the “woman’s” bathroom, that should also be your prerogative. And she should be free to boycott.

        Public restrooms and locker rooms are NOT constructed in the manner you describe. So this makes it ok? They should redo their restrooms, and you are free to refrain from using them until then if you are not comfortable. Your discomfort does not justify using the government to FORCE someone else to behave a certain way.

        Whether you like it or not, this is a cultural norm in most places. We may have overcome much of our racial bias but we have not overcome our Puritanical bias. EXACTLY! We overcame much of our racial bias. YES! So we should just ignore and bow obsequiously to our puritanical biases? NO! We should fight them at every turn. You have every right to be puritanical – every right – but you have no right to use the government to FORCE someone else to behave a certain way.

        As you say, Govt should be neutral. But that is NOT what is happening here. This was an active and deliberate use of the force of Govt to impose somebody else’ view on society. And on this I agree with you. Government should be neutral. And it should leave businesses and private individuals alone where they are not harming non-consenting third parties.

        That is the key point here. In a large geographic area with millions of people, the only way to allow people with significantly differing “cultural” values to exist in peace is to allow them to segregate themselves to the extent it is not causing actual physical harm or impeding their ability to pursue living. BULLDOOKEY! You’re not “allowing” people to segregate themselves, you’re FORCING them to be segregated. In the private sector, it should be that they do to themselves what they do until they reach equilibrium. In the public sphere, you’re FORCING them to be separate in deference to one side of the “cultural values” in defiance of the other. But the important thing is that doing so initiates a violence against the losing culture – that is, you have the government telling someone they CANNOT do something at the risk of committing a crime and suffering punishment. It’s so easy to see if you look at it as racial instead of gender though – if whites aren’t comfortable sharing restrooms with black people, should government facilities have two rooms and arrest black people who use the white room? And, especially, when the line blurs, say a half-black-half-white person who considers themselves white.. is it your place to tell him what he is and is not? Is it right that the government should do so?

        Segregating bathrooms by sex does not create violence, does no real harm and does not impair a persons ability to pursue a fulfilling life, regardless of their “identity”. At best it could be considered a slight inconvenience. Says you. I say that you are forcing me not go where I want to go. How does that not meet your definition of “violence”? And it does create harm – it says to the person that we, as a society, do not respect your opinion of yourself and your identity – you are who we tell you that you are.

        But it it’s such a minor inconvenience to make a person who thinks of herself as female use the man’s room, why is it so terrible to you that she use the woman’s room, after all, it’s sooo minor, right?

        Now to a slightly broader question. If the Govt should not ALLOW discrimination “against”, why should it be used to ALLOW discrimination “for”? Because it isn’t MAKING anyone do anything. It doesn’t MAKE you use the restroom. It doesn’t MAKE someone else use it. It’s not discriminating against you that someone else can use the same restroom as you. There is no coercion against anyone.

        HOWEVER, you would prefer that the government actively coerce someone else to make you comfortable.

        Freedom for me, but not for you.

        • Mathius

          Contradiction Alert: “Your discomfort does not justify using the government to FORCE someone else to behave a certain way.”

          But you want to allow THEM to use THEIR “discomfort” to have government Force me to accept their way.

          “Freedom for me, but not for you.” Not at all. I am free to use the Men’s restroom and the women are free to use the Women’s restroom.

          Freedom carries with it a Rational and objective restriction. I am free to………… provided I am not IMPOSING my will upon others.

          The segregation of restrooms is a local social construct designed to meet this criteria. It is in fact you who wishes to use the Govt to FORCE the will one upon others.

          You see, these issues have two edges. But the purpose of this examination was to determine the proper role of the Federal in protecting our basic rights. To prevent lower govts from imposing violence upon us. You have created a Catch 22. You say that local can be restrictive but to the lowest level possible. Yet WHO decides what that is? You say the Federal should only be to protect rights, but WHO decides what those are?

          I think you are about ready to leave the cave young Mathius.

          For you have over the past few days made a succinct and articulate case for NO Government.

          If only you actually lived according the arguments you make.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Seriously.. I don’t have time today..

            But you want to allow THEM to use THEIR “discomfort” to have government Force me to accept their way.

            Nobody is forcing you to accept anything. Accept it, don’t accept it. Whatever. It’s up to you.

            But you would have the inverse. You would have your lack of acceptance be used to FORCE them to use behave a certain way which does not hurt you.

            If they can use that restroom, you can still use it.. or not… up to you – you are free. But if you refuse to accept the idea of sharing it, the action take is yours to do freely. You, a free person, can CHOOSE not to go in with them, or to leave. There is no imposition on you.

            If you get your way, they do not have a choice – their freedom is restricted. The fact that you are uncomfortable gives you the RIGHT to tell them where they can and cannot go.

            Do I need to get Dread Pirate Mathius out here to explain it to you?

            I am free to………… provided I am not IMPOSING my will upon others. EXACTLY.. you are free to use the restroom. So is everyone else. And if they want to use the restroom, how does that hurt IMPOSE on you? Yes, there are fewer stalls available, I suppose. But nothing has been forced on you.

            But you want to IMPOSE on them. Because you aren’t comfortable?

  44. Buck the Wala says:

    Colonel,

    You must be ecstatic…I hear Perry is returning home to Texas!

    • I bet he’s busy out hanging up the “Welcome Home” banners! Texas should be pleased as the majority of the rest of the nation is. 😉

    • Ecstatic????? Not really…..he is a much better governor. I did not like him as President…..but he has lost some favor here during his Presidential run. His re-election will be very tough…..unless it is Dewhurst that runs against him.

      Our State Constitution is pretty rigid…….and he is a state’s rights person…..but his viewpoint on instate tuition will cost him greatly. Just that alone.

  45. I am so excited about ABC’s interview with Newt’s Ex for a couple reasons. First this means they are finally, totally going to vet the candidates this election, which means they will be researching and interviewing those persons in Obama’s past as well, right? I am so looking forward to those interviews to finally hear from the people that knew Obama when. Of course, some of these interviews will take place in prisons in Chicago but that won’t stop the media from getting to the bottom, I just know it. Can’t wait! Yea MSM!

    The second thing this interview will do is bring many from the left over to Newt’s side! The left loves marital cheaters! The more cheating the better. Remember their all time favorite? Bill Clinton – affairs/lying/lack of morals – We love you, Bill, you are our kind of man!

    I can’t wait. Just wondering if cigars or stained dresses will be a part of it?

    • Well since I haven’t stepped in the poo poo pile recently, let me rectify that today.

      What does ones fidelity to their marital partner – even if we find their behavior reprehensible – have a darn thing to do with their competence or ability to hold a job (even the Presidency)?

    • Real Housewives of DC 🙂

    • Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

      In her first television interview since the 1999 divorce, to be broadcast tonight on Nightline, Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899#.TxhBnfl5t8E

      • Wow, Newt is the only one lacking moral character?

      • Well, let us watch her bank account……such timing. I would not care if Newt wore pink panties and likes whips and chains……if he was a good President. Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton……geez…………………………………..look at their backgrounds. Why would one vet Gingrich and not insist upon impeachment of sitting Presidents when they stray? Wherein lies the difference? Does holding the office give greater stay to immorality?

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          I find it amusing that the woman who Newt cheated with on his first wife was upset that he cheated on her with his third wife. I guess that we should at least be glad that he did the “right thing” by both of these women.

          Colonel you leave off FDR and of course Warren G. Harding. All had no problem cheating before and during. What was that great anti Harding campaign slogan, “Ma, Ma where’s my Pa, He’s in the White House hah, hah, hah”?.

          Seriously though, I’ve done a lot of thinking about this since the days of JFK. There is something about men who are driven to become great (even if it’s only in their own minds) it is like a ying and yang. Their intelligence and drive is offset by some type of tragic flaw. I don’t know whether it’s proper to say this is a pressure relief valve or what. In many ways it’s a Greek tragedy. Thinking on past presidents, I would exempt both Bush’s since I feel neither was driven, Reagan because his wife was in many respects a more than equal partner and he a lousy father. Truman was never taken with himself and he, Hoover and Coolidge all just fell into the job. Nixon, well, Nixon unfortunately speaks for himself. He will keep the psych-historians busy for centuries. Wilson was a lying, racist POS. Taft wanted to be a Supreme Court justice and Teddy was,,,,, well Teddy was Teddy. I will not venture back before that.

        • D13,

          Kennedy, like Clinton, were Democrats and the liberal left are very forgiving about indiscretions – it is expected of the “Free Love” left!

          The Right Conservatives hold a high moral standard, which ignores the leftist Presidents (as it is “expected” that they are immoral) but punishes those on the Right who act like those on the left.

          The left, though they ignore their own, hold the Right to a higher moral standard, and thus join in the chorus against the Right immoral behavior.

          It might not appear fair, but it is one the defining differences between Right and Left – the Right hold themselves to higher moral standards around family and sex.

          • It might not appear fair, but it is one the defining differences between Right and Left – the Right hold themselves to higher moral standards around family and sex.

            ah, but who is to say one is right and the other wrong?

          • @BF……and, therein, lies the issue and the point that I was trying to make. Whether or not you hold a person to a higher standard….is….(Mathius should like this)…..prejudicial upon its face, is it not? Either hold BOTH to the same standard or have NO standard.

            As to Newt and his infidelities, I do not give a rat’s ass. I do not subscribe to that lifestyle but I am not here to say that one that does…is a lesser person. It is a choice and NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

            I did not watch the debates…purposely. But I did see the clip that Newt responded to with that moderator….and Newt was right. To open a Presidential debate with a question of a past marriage is despicable. It is designed to destroy and has no place in a debate…unless he was about to declare that infidelity will be a law or some such crap as that.

            I did not watch the interview with Newts second wife, but if the reports are true, that she cheated with him while married to his first wife……..makes her claim nothing but sour apples. She has absolutely no ground to stand on and the timing of all of this is particularly depressive and highly suspect.

            But, as you say or implied, it is a flag standard of the left.

      • I’m sure if you call my ex-wife (who was a serial adulteress) she won’t have one nice thing to say about me either considering I divorced her cheating arse.

        I won’t even pay attention to her comments except to say what I said above.

    • Isn’t this the same thing they have done for years now? The media want a moderate Republican and will find something on anyone too far to the right. When it comes down to Paul and Romney, watch the assault on Paul. Would bet they keep hitting him on those letters, won’t matter what he says, no answer will be good enough.

      And when Romney wins the primary, watch them come after him and praise Obama.

  46. Interesting. Very interesting.

    My complaint is that he didn’t describe or cite the cases that support his claims. Making it hard to see how the arguments are supported.

    Why Obamacare’s Medicaid Mandates are Unconstitutional
    Written by Rob Natelson on 19 January 2012

    Today Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a “friend of the court” brief showing why Obamacare’s Medicaid mandates on the states are unconstitutional. The brief was written jointly by Dave and me.

    This is one of two amicus curiae briefs the Independence Institute will file in the Obamacare case. The other will address the mandate that individuals buy government-approved insurance.

    The Medicaid brief addresses a part of Obamacare overshadowed by the individual mandate—but arguably even more damaging to the constitutional system of checks and balances.

    Obamacare requires all states to greatly expand government health care or lose ALL Medicaid funding—or at least a portion thereof to be set by the unguided discretion of the bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services. Since federal Medicaid funds are a huge portion of all states’ budgets, the effect is to subordinate state fiscal policy to the whim of federal officials. This is unconstitutional both under the Constitution’s original meaning and under modern Supreme Court case law.

    Here are some of the points covered:

    (1) The Constitution splits sovereignty between federal government (as to enumerated purposes) and state governments (as to all other purposes). This was recognized by the Founders, and is also recognized by the modern Supreme Court.

    (2) An unseverable attribute of sovereignty is a concept called “independence.” This also was acknowledged by the Founders and is accepted today by the Supreme Court.

    (3) State “independence” in this context means power to make uncoerced, free decisions, based on the desires of the people within those states. Again, this is part of both the Founding-Era record and of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

    (4) Thus, the Supreme Court protects states from federal bullying. In accordance with the lessons from the ratification debates over the Constitution, the Court has been particularly protective of the states’ financial independence.

    (5) The Obamacare Medicaid mandates are FAR more coercive than any federal conditions previously upheld. Indeed, they are more coercive than some federal mandates struck down.

    (6) Several factors aggravate these mandates: (a) The Founders EXPRESSLY documented the field of social serves as reserved to the states, free of federal meddling, (b) the sheer size of the punishment for any state that does not knuckle under, (c) Congress’s “in your face” violation of rules previously announced by the Supreme Court, and (d) Obamacare’s grant to unelected federal bureaucrats of uncontrolled power to punish states they don’t like.

  47. @ Matt…………………..you said “As long as we’re being clear that you’re being prejudiced.. admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.”

    Where is the problem with prejudice? Or are you streamlining it to race? I have several prejudices…….are you telling me you have none?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I, like everyone, have many.

      But I try to confront my (irrational) prejudices wherever possible.

      Many here, oddly, seem just fine with some prejudices even though they can only support them with weak and discredited arguments. The same arguments which are eerily reminiscent of Jim Crow (that’s not to equate their opinions with racism – only the SUPPORTING LOGIC for those opinions with the SUPPORTING LOGIC for the racism).

      And… 30 seconds of Googling.. here’s some reading material. It seems fairly anti-religion, but push through that and see if you can’t find the central point being made.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        He lost me on the first page though I read the rest. The question about how should/do blacks feel about the culpability of Christianity for slavery is a non question since included in this culpability would be all religions, repeat, ALL religions throughout history. Secondly, the point about how should/do blacks feel about religion’s culpability (note I changed it) should be amended to: how should/do blacks, whites, browns, reds and yellows feel about it since historically, all have been subject to slavery as recently as in the 19th century, late 19th century too.

        In a nutshell, I fall back on thinking of thirty years ago. Huh, a man and man marry? Preposterous. Call it what you would like but historically, it’s not marriage nor can it be. That being said I am not opposed to any type of civil union guaranteeing any type of equalized benefits you might desire which can be called anything you want other than marriage since that word is already taken. The whole thing is really very simple, you just got to get your head out of the Cloud Coo-Coo land you are in .

        There are books to be written, far in the future, when all currently involved parties have become dust which will explain in great detail just how the Western democracies created by the enlightenment fell. The return to barbarism and the dark ages will be blamed on something akin to the “Tower of Babel” myth in the bible where very simple words like marriage, truth, lies, freedom, rights, honor, even the word “life” itself no longer meant the same things to all people. So they came to mean nothing to anyone or, worse, they came to mean whatever was convenient at the moment. That’s probably what Orwell was getting at.

        The conceit of humans never ceases to amaze me. That which has occurred prior to our brief moment on this planet is irrelevant and of course “old and obsolete”. Meanwhile, we, here in the present never, even for a moment, think what might be the take of future generations on what we think, propose and act on. They will only be saddled with the result. One of my sons, the engineer ,who just started his family constantly berates me with, “It was your G– D—– generation, the baby boomers, who screwed everything up, threw away what your parents handed to you and guaranteed that I will never be able to retire”. There is no defense, he’s so right.

      • Funny-I’ve read quite a lot about Darwinism being used as an excuse for racism. Is evolution based on religion?

  48. I think this clip speaks the volumes regarding the entire issue of the ME

    • Flag,

      I do like the video but don’t see how it explains the ME issue unless it’s that they have been fighting over that land for thousands of years. No matter who or how the maps are drawn, it offends somebody and eventually they will start a war. Current event:

      “in its Jan. 19 print edition, it features a four-column color photograph of a sobbing Palestinian man with a caption purporting to give an account of the previous day’s IDF attack on the Gaza terror cell.

      The caption is headed: “2 Palestinians Killed Near Israeli Barrier.”

      The caption reads: “A Palestinian grieved Wednesday at a hospital in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, as the victim of an Israeli strike was brought in. Two Palestinians were killed when Israeli forces fired on what the military said was a terrorist squad near Israel’s border fence. Witnesses said that three people in a donkey cart were hit. No group immediately claimed the dead as its members.”

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/a_ny_times_picture_worth_a_thousand-fold_bias.html#ixzz1k0UpklLd

    • Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur’an “as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta”—which is to say, not once.

      The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting “We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem” and their brethren in Jordan yell “We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa”? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect “the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world”? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

      Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

      http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem

      Then, in 715, to build up the prestige of their dominions, the Umayyads did a most clever thing: they built a second mosque in Jerusalem, again on the Temple Mount, and called this one the Furthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque). With this, the Umayyads retroactively gave the city a role in Muhammad’s life.

  49. Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed San Francisco when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.”

    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/01/18/bidens-oops-moment-in-sf-giants-on-their-way-to-super-bowl/

    If he ever got elected President and wanted to start his own war in the Middle East, he’d probably screw up and end up attacking Cleveland!

  50. I have to say, Newt’s beatdown of John King last night was refreshing. Now, before yous righties get too excited, I’m not taking any of this election serious at all. But it is a sideshow and it is, at times, entertaining … and I do believe the Newtster is the only one in that particular clown act who can give Obama what he deserves (at least in debates), so I’ll be quietly rooting for him to upend the Rominator, knowing full well President Fredo will win (as the SAGE predicted long ago–anything under 10% unemployment and he wins–Mattius will be donating a million or so to some worthy cause because of it). But I would love to see the Newtinator and Fredo go at it head to head in however many limited debates they have. It won’t make a difference which one wins, it’s all a big joke on the public anyway.

    It was refreshing last night (the first 5 minutes). I have very little regard for Newt, but boy did King walk into that roundhouse.

    • He did handle him well, almost like he was expecting that question and had planned/rehearsed his response. Still well done and he had the guts to push back. Not sure how this will play out, the MSM vs the new media is changing the dynamics. People are more informed. I think a dog catcher would beat Obama, but he still has his true believers……

      I was watching Fox & Friends this AM, and am not pleased with their coverage. I expect the MSM to try and tell us what to think, but expect better of FOX. They had one segment on who the military was supporting and three former military guest supporting three different candidates. They did state at the end of the segment that Ron Paul has the received largest amount of donations from the military, but why then could they not find a Paul supporter to interview? Mitt, Newt and Santorum all had supporters, but the overwhelming #1 supported by members of our military gets zero. And all the video’s I saw again featured only those three, again denying coverage to Paul. Even FOX is trying to pick, if not the winner, the looser. At least some others who watch FOX see this as well:

      FOX – Didn’t you listen to NEWTS message to the Media—-in this story you down play Mr Paul. I think Mr Paul did very well as he is the ONLY Candidate that has never swayed from his stance on ANY issue. I am not saying he won the debate, but give credit where credit is due!
      Fox seems to be more bias than it advertises.

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/real-battle-for-gop-nominee-is-just-beginning/#comment#ixzz1k0kwzLzY

    • 10.) No we couldn’t, but maybe if you gave us four more years we can? Vote Obama 2012.

      9.) There is only so low we can go before we bottom out. Vote Obama 2012.

      8.) I still have so many speeches left to give. Vote Obama 2012.

      7.) We’re not better off than we were 4 years ago, but we are better than we were 400 years ago! Vote Obama 2012.

      6.) Goodbye 18-hole Sundays, hello 9-hole Saturdays. Vote Obama 2012.

      5.) Give Carter the second term he never had. Vote Obama 2012.

      4.) Four words: Attorney General John Edwards. Vote Obama 2012.

      3.) Ain’t no party like an Obama inauguration party and you won’t get one if you don’t vote for me. Vote Obama 2012.

      2.) Two words: More Biden. Vote Obama 2012.

      1.) 9/11 was an inside job. Vote Obama 2012.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/19/what-comes-after-hope-and-change-the-top-10-losing-obama-slogans-for-2012/#ixzz1k104pz4Q

  51. @ JAC……good morning, kind sir….and how is the clan of JAC this morning.

    You said something that I found amusing…”Now to a slightly broader question. If the Govt should not ALLOW discrimination “against”, why should it be used to ALLOW discrimination “for”?

    Now, that I have had time to stop laughing, it is a great question……one that should have “left” heads spinning for some time.

    But, I can hear the motor in Charlie’s head warming up….He will say something like….JAC, for the greater good, government discrimination is needed to correct the wrongs of the past……all the while refusing to acknowledge that it was government that created the past discrimination for the greater good.

    • d13

      Good morning Colonel.

      Things are well with our Clan, although a little soggy. 8-10″ of rain the last 48 hrs.

      You seemed to grasp my purpose, but it appears to have missed its intended target.

      I used to be a better shot than that. Must be my failing eye sight. 🙂

      Hope all is well with you and yours this find Friday.

    • Good Morning, Colonel! Buon giorno!

      Pluto is fine this time of year … a little snow but it looks pretty neat on the lawn.

      Charlie draws closer to anarchist by the day, but if there is going to be a government we have to live with, it should be a democratic socialist one, but that’s neither here nor there. Our current government, owned by corporations, continues to mystify (regarding your angst). You want less of a government, yet you support the ONLY way 1%’s get to rule; capitalism. This doesn’t compute on Pluto (or on that earth planet). It is falling apart daily, but for now we have this sideshow election to keep us entertained. From where I sit (on Pluto), the only way we get to socialism is with more capitalist abuse … so I’ll be rooting for the GOP clown act all the way (things have to get worse before they can get better). Obama should not be rewarded for what he did to labor, but you guys should be pulling for him for what he did for Wall Street and big business. I doubt even Newt will be so good to Wall Street but he may … one never knows which side of the flip-flop he’ll wind up on. The Rominator, I think, is a goner. Just too stiff.

      Remember, the SAGE isn’t for welfare for the sake of welfare. He just isn’t for allowing thieves to pick and choose their own salaries at the expense of the working class. Nobody is worth $2.4 million an hour … or $2.4 thousand. It’s obscene and there’s no market in the world that would justify it without absolute corruption (ours). Sit back and enjoy the show that is our “election” process … with no socialist or communist permitted on stage in our “democratic” society.

  52. Something that I do not understand that you lefties might explain to me.

    Romney is being BLASTED for being a corporate raider and putting people out of work in the name of capitalism.

    Obama is given a free pass for being a corporate raider, putting people out of work, and sending tens of thousands of jobs to China.

    Please explain the difference?

  53. One for the Flagster and any who want to chime in, what should happen to this man and why?

    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/sports/Brazilian-Race-Car-Driver-Charged-With-DUI-Manslaughter-in-Collins-Ave-Crash-Police-137724358.html

    • LOI

      The man appears guilty of RECKLESS behavior that resulted in a death.

      Assuming he is found guilty of the same, he should pay to the dead man’s family (assuming wife/kids) a minimum of the NPV of his expected life time income. Then perhaps a little more for distress to any wife, kids and/or parents.

      But here is the key point from the other day. The crime and punishment should be EXACTLY the same for doing the same thing if he were SOBER.

      • LOI,

        As JAC said!

        Take out of the story “bloodshot eyes, flushed face and smells of alcohol” and the story is exactly the same – a reckless driver kills innocent man.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Flag,

          I don’t necessarily disagree with your position on this.. That is, if I get drunk and drive recklessly and kill someone, the fault is mine for putting myself in a position where I am incapable of driving safely. Thus, sober-Mathius is still at fault just as if sober-Mathius had been the one driving. Makes sense to me.

          The question I would have is this (and I’m not trying to poke holes in your theory.. just seeing how it fleshes out) if an accident is caused by a person with Alzheimer’s who is not capable of making a reasoned decision to engage in the actions, is he equally responsible for his reckless driving as he would be if he retained all his mental faculties? After all, it is still a case of “a reckless driver kills innocent man.”

          • Mathius

            My view on this is that “deliberate action” is the criteria, not “intent”.

            Now Alzheimer’s would require us to determine if the person “knew” they were affected, that their driving ability was impaired due to their illness, and it was the cause of the wreck.

            If they are not capable of a reasoned decision, as your example, then a GUARDIAN was responsible for them getting into the car. While I would not see the Guardian guilty of RECKLESS driving, they could be guilty of Negligence and culpable in a civil case.

            If their is no Guardian yet, then the person is still Liable for the effects of his/her actions. That does not mean that a “criminal charge” of RECKLESS driving resulting in Manslaughter.

            Another way to couch the question is this. Is a 15 yr old still responsible for killing someone due to their reckless driving?

            In both cases the answer is YES.

            What is not determined, is WHO is liable for the financial restitution to the family of the dead/damaged victim.

          • Mathius

            is he equally responsible for his reckless driving as he would be if he retained all his mental faculties? After all, it is still a case of “a reckless driver kills innocent man.”

            The consistent approach has always been this:

            Did the action create the harm?

            So, it is completely immaterial to point to anyone’s state of mind to make this measure.

            Action did the harm, not the state of mind.

            Once we have made this proper assignment, what we choose to do prevent the repetition of it has a whole lot more measures and considerations.

            In this case, we know this person is a serious danger to society and at the same time has no hope for himself to eliminate this danger. He would need to be guarded for the rest of his life.

            In another case, we may do something else.

      • I may can agree to that. My point was/is there is a difference in an accident and a crime.
        If you do something reckless, speeding, drinking, texting, and it is determined you are at fault for an injury as a result, it is not simply an unavoidable accident. One reason we have laws is to “protect”. Someone who has shown a pattern of reckless behavior calls upon society to act to protect itself. That may mean prison time, not just a cash payout.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/2/illegal-immigrant-killed-nun-released-by-feds/?clear_cache_true

        • LOI

          If you do something reckless, speeding, drinking, texting, and it is determined you are at fault

          Speeding is not reckless
          Drinking is not reckless
          Texting is not reckless

          Your attachment of “reckless” to these actions is a fallacy – and thus, your conclusions are equally a fallacy.

          for an injury as a result, it is not simply an unavoidable accident.

          All accidents are avoidable

    • Charge him, convict him, throw away the key until his sentence is served, according to the laws on the books. I will agree that he is a flight risk and should not be granted bond…..he will skip it. I can see no logical reason to believe he will not jump bail. He is not a US citizen and his dad has diplomatic pull. He is a flight risk.

      This is my opinion and do not hold LOI or any other Sufaite responsible. 🙂

  54. Interesting video about our education system and how bad it really is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=VxHfYNTrnic

    • Unbelievable.

      • Here’s a debate from a few years back that I’m listening to. A professor that teaches free market principles! Wow!

    • You know this guy just gave “them” the excuse they need to demand he be fired. How dare he forcefully or not-grab this girls purse and go through it. The actual message will be lost by the use of deflecting outrage.

      It is truly scary -80%. The irony that the policies of government has allowed and caused the problems which the public now out of anger and fear demand be continued and increased.

  55. January 20, 2012
    Dems propose board to regulate oil profits: What could go wrong?
    Rick Moran

    All they want is oil companies to make “reasonable” profits – as if there was such an animal in a free market economy.
    The Hill:
    Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.
    The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

    Silly us. Why would we think that responsible lawmakers would want to, you know, act responsibly and tell us what their idea of “reasonable profit” might be?
    The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
    What possible incentive would an oil company have to drill only to have congress steal 100% of its profit?
    According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.
    Only a liberal could come up with a bill that refuses to define “reasonable profits” – but will take 75% of profits over and above whatever liberals deem to be “reasonable.”
    They may as well just put a gun to the head of oil company executives and demand they open the safe. They have no clue about drilling costs or transportation costs, or any other cost of doing business in the oil sector. All they know is, profits are “too high.”
    They should be locked up in a loony bin for being a danger to themselves – and us.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/dems_propose_board_to_regulate_oil_profits_what_could_go_wrong.html#ixzz1k1PFV9z3

    • China gets jump on U.S. for Brazil’s oil
      Two export pacts a coup for Beijing

      By Kelly Hearn – Special to The Washington Times

      BUENOS AIRES — Off the coast of Rio de Janeiro — below a mile of water and two miles of shifting rock, sand and salt — is an ultradeep sea of oil that could turn Brazil into the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

      The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

      The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

      Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

      The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil’s oil frontier.

      Chinese oil companies are pushing to meet mandatory expansion targets by inking deals across Africa and Latin America, but they are especially interested in Brazil.

      “With the Lula and Carioca discoveries alone, Brazil added a possible 38 billion barrels of estimated recoverable oil,” said Luis Giusti, a former president of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA, referring to the new Brazilian oil fields.

      “That immediately changed the picture,” he said, adding that Brazil is on track to become “an oil giant.”

      During Mrs. Rousseff’s visit to China, Brazil’s Petrobras signed a technology cooperation deal with the China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec.

      Petrobras also signed a memorandum of understanding with Sinochem, a massive state-owned company with interests in energy, real estate and agrichemicals.

      The Sinochem deal aims to identify and build “business opportunities in the fields of exploration and production, oil commercialization and mature oil-field recovery,” according to Petrobras.

      The relationship with China goes back to at least two years before Mr. Obama came to Brazil to applaud the oil discovery and tell Mrs. Rouseff:

      “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

      China rescued Petrobras in 2009, when the oil company was looking at tight credit markets to finance a record-setting $224 billion investment plan. China’s national development bank offered a $10 billion loan on the condition that Petrobras ship oil to China for 10 years.

      A chunk of Brazil’s oil real estate appeared on China’s portfolio in 2010, when Sinopec agreed to pay $7.1 billion for 40 percent of Repsol-YPF of Brazil, which has stakes in the now internationally famous Santos Basin, and the Sapinhoa field, which has an estimated recoverable volume of 2.1 billion barrels. Statoil of Norway also agreed that year to sell 40 percent of the offshore Peregrino field to Sinochem.

      Last year, Sinopec announced it would buy 30 percent of GALP of Brazil, a Portuguese company, for $3.5 billion. GALP has interests in the Santos Basin and a 10 percent stake in the massive Lula field.

      “The $5.2 billion cash-in we will get from Sinopec is paramount for our strategy in Brazil,” GALP CEO Manuel Ferreira de Oliveira told Bloomberg News.

      “It will give us a rock-solid capital base as we enter a decisive investment period at the Santos Basin. This operation values our existing Brazilian assets at $12.5 billion and is really a landmark for the company and for our shareholders.”

      News reports in December said Sinopec is the current favorite to buy stakes in Brazilian oil owned by Britain’s BG Group, which also has interests in the massive fields of Carioca, Guara, Lula and Lara.

      On Jan 8., the French company Perenco announced it was selling Sinochem a 10 percent stake in five offshore blocks located in the Espirito Santos Basin. Some of the transactions still await approval by Brazil’s government.

      In December, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez publicly reiterated his government’s commitment to an oil refinery joint venture with Petrobras.

      That project reportedly is set to be funded by China’s national development bank. Some news reports have quoted the head of China’s development bank saying that new deals with Brazil are under consideration.

      James Williams, an energy economist with the U.S. consulting group WTRG Economics, said the Chinese are taking on big risks with ultra-deep-water investments.

      “But for them, the benefits are greater, as they become partners with companies that have better technology and expertise,” he said.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/19/china-gets-jump-on-us-for-brazils-oil/?page=all#pagebreak

      • Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline
        Q
        By Theophilos Argitis and Jeremy Van Loon – Jan 19, 2012 1:14 PM GMT-0600

        President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.
        Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”
        The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.
        Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global energy markets.
        Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
        “I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be used in other countries,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said in an interview before a speech at Imperial College in London today.
        ‘Profound Disappointment’
        Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.
        Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.
        Environmentalists and Canadian opposition lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration’s decision. Megan Leslie, a lawmaker for the opposition New Democratic Party, said the Keystone pipeline project was harmful to Canada’s energy security.
        “What I’m opposed to is continuing the unchecked expansion of the oil sands,” Leslie said by telephone.
        New Flashpoint
        Enbridge’s pipeline may now become the new flashpoint between Harper and the opposition. Harper has said building the capacity to sell the country’s oil to Asian markets is in the national interest, and the government will review regulatory- approval rules for new energy projects so they can be done more quickly. Harper has also said he will look more closely into complaints that “foreign money” is being used to overload the regulatory process.
        “We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said at a press conference Jan. 6 in Edmonton.
        The Keystone decision is the latest of several U.S. moves that have irked Canadian policy makers. Canada objected to “Buy American” provisions in the Obama administration’s $447 billion jobs bill that was blocked by Republicans in Congress, as well as the restoration of a $5.50 fee on Canadian travelers arriving in the U.S. by plane or ship.
        Approval of Keystone is a “no-brainer,” Harper said in a Sept. 21 interview with Bloomberg.
        Cornerstone of Development
        Yesterday’s rejection “certainly introduces new uncertainties into the economic relationship,” said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “This is a cornerstone of economic development for the country.”
        The denial came before a Feb. 21 deadline set by Congress after Obama postponed a decision in November. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast, crossing six U.S. states and creating 20,000 jobs.
        “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”
        Canadian policy makers said they remain optimistic TransCanada will eventually be able to proceed.
        Still Supporting
        Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.
        Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.
        “We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”

        ww.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html

      • ww.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html

          • The first one is so obviously ridiculous I don’t see how anyone could support it. The second didn’t we give Brazil alot of money too-so why didn’t we get some assurance that we would actually get some of the oil. The third-they can reapply-just how long are they suppose to apply and just how long do they have to research before a decision can be made. But no our Dear Leader is going to stay faithful to his green energy. Someone please tell me with a straight face that you still believe this Man and at the very least six house democrats are good for this country.

        • V.H.

          I would like to point out that it was a REPUBLICAN Governor of Nebraska, and the people in Nebraska that petitioned the President to halt the pipeline and force study of an alternate route.

          Personal observation. The news stories this morning reminded me of the propaganda put forth to justify the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Valerie Plame’s and her husband’s careers.

          • Are you saying this article about the left wanting to Nationalize the oil industry is a lie?

            Are you saying that all of these moves against energy development in this country, while supporting energy development in foreign countries-which we are liable for is all propaganda created by the right.

            That one republican governor asking for a rethinking of this issue excuses all these things-that there hasn’t been plenty of time for any and all objections to have been looked at and worked out -that all this crap isn’t just a delaying tactic that is hurting this country-and that most of the problems if not all for delaying these things is the fault of the left.

            • V.H.

              I am talking about Keystone and nothing else.

              The Right Wing and Republicans are screaming about how this will do this and that, how Obama is declaring war against jobs, blah, blah, blah.

              FACT. A Republican Governor at request of citizens who could be directly and adversely affected asked Obama to overrule State so alternate routes could be looked at in more detail.

              There are LEGITIMATE environmental concerns.

              The Republicans forced this with a Bull Shit deadline imposed for political gain. It will blow up in their face.

              This amounts to Republican backed businesses trying to use Govt to force people to accept a pipeline across their land and above their only water supply who are NOT convinced it is safe.

              As for the broader energy issues the GOAL is quite plain and has been in place for decades. Drive UP the price of oil and gas so that Alternative Energy becomes affordable.

              • So how bad have I been conned-From what I’ve read-all this started in 2008-that they have already agreed to reroute it-but that Obama has said no and insisted they start the process over from scratch.

              • Oh and that there are already many, many pipelines already going through this area.

              • Is there any reason why this is not a reasonable position? So they can get started instead of waiting another year or two.

                Keystone XL Pipeline

                Our need for energy is important to our daily lives and our economy and oil is among the energy sources that will help us meet this demand. An oil pipeline, known as the Keystone XL pipeline, has been proposed by TransCanada Corporation to deliver oil from its sources in Canada, Montana and North Dakota through Nebraska to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. This pipeline has the potential to help our country meet our critical need for energy.

                For more than a year, I repeatedly raised concerns about the original route of the pipeline that would have cut through the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, posing a threat to our greatest natural resource. I’m not against oil pipelines or tar sands oil, but the original route was wrong. I am pleased that after hearing the concerns of Nebraskans, TransCanada agreed to voluntarily move the Keystone XL pipeline’s route around the Sand Hills.

                Now that my concerns with the route have been addressed, the Administration should approve the project. In November 2011, I offered my support to a bill that prevents unnecessary delays in the Keystone XL pipeline process. If enacted, the bill would direct the President to make a decision regarding the permit for the non-Nebraska portions of the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days. If the President does not act, the permit would be granted by law. Also included in the bill is language that would require the President to approve a Nebraska route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska and require the State Department to support Nebraska efforts to identify an alternative route within our state. Nebraska would have as much time as is needed to complete the process in our state. This bill respects the Nebraska process to protect the Sand Hills while providing a commonsense approach to bring friendly oil and jobs to the U.S. without unnecessary delay.

                It is clear that our country needs additional supplies of energy, so it is unfortunate that this pipeline approval was tangled up because of sloppy routing. We have many pipelines in Nebraska and I am pleased that our state helps to move much needed crude oil to refineries.

                http://johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=trans

    • Per dollar of income, Coca-Cola makes more profit than big oil. It is the mere size of the oil companies that make profits look huge. Also government taxes on fuel exceed corporate profit margins.

  56. Thought of the Day

    Lefty Contradiction # 1041

    Because we pay for your health care we have a right to use Govt to control your diet.

    BUT

    If we provide you with Welfare, NOBODY has a right to require you to take a drug test.

    • Mathius™ says:

      JAC,

      YES!!!

      It is preposterous that people expect us to pay for them, but then complain about the strings we would like to attach to it. Don’t want the strings, don’t take the money.. but nooooooo.. we have to give them money AND let them live however they want. Screw that.

      Want my money because you “CAN’T” help yourself? Well then you shouldn’t be using drugs. If you have the money for drugs, you could spend that on food instead of making me pay. How’s that for a thought? Ooh, I bet that one didn’t occur to you, you sponge.

      ———–

      That said.. they tried it (in Florida?), and it wasn’t cost affective. For everything they saved by booting drug users off the payroll, they spent more money on the tests. While I absolutely do not believe you have a RIGHT to my money if you can afford luxuries like drug use, I can’t support a program which net-net costs me more money than it saves. Then again, if I’m wrong about this or there’s a more cost-effective way of doing it, you can count on my support

      ———-

      By the way, I think that if you’re on the dole, you should have to do something – ANYTHING – which makes you less comfortable and which (ideally) provides some net benefit to society. I don’t care if you’re picking up litter by the side of the road, but something-for-nothing is just asking for abuse.

      ————-

      (If I keep talking like this, Buck is going to confiscate my “Bleeding Heart Liberal” badge)

      • Ahhhhh-can you explain something to me-you are for nationalized health care-which means I have no choice about how I get my heath care-but the government gets the right to control me because they are forcing me to take their money(ha ha-their money)

        • Mathius™ says:

          SWEET JESUS!

          Tell me where I ever said I was for nationalized health care?

          In fact, let’s look elsewhere on this very page, shall be?

          JAC: it seems you now want the FEDERAL to dictate the health insurance for everyone.

          Mathius™: Can you point out where I said this? (hint, you can’t, because I never did).

          or this:

          PS:

          So let me rephrase then.

          You are against the government mandating a person have health insurance or be penalized through taxes for not doing so?

          Mathius™ says: In truth, I haven’t given this much thought. I see the greater good theory.. but no.. I don’t think the individual mandate is justified…

          BUT!

          But, at the same time, it should be noted that I am militantly against the idea that hospitals should be forced to treat people who cannot afford treatment. These are two halves of a whole (ie, I have to pay for your emergency care, so I should have a say in making you have insurance so I don’t have to pay.. goes the argument).. But I don’t think I like the argument that a business should be forced to provide a service which it doesn’t want to provide, and to do so at a loss.

          So, if you remove the second half (“I have to pay for you if you don’t have insurance”), then you lose the justification for the first half (“you have to have insurance so I don’t have to pay for you”). And the whole thing collapses.

          • I have to pay for your emergency care, so I should have a say in making you have insurance so I don’t have to pay.. goes the argument

            Though I want to point out that taxpayers will still pay for others hospital care UNLESS there is no deductible or benefit limitations that would cause the insured individual to be billed for the difference (if they can’t pay, then taxpayers still will). Granted it would be less than now in all probability – but “we” still pay.

          • That’s right-you have told me this before. Sorry 🙂

      • (If I keep talking like this, Buck is going to confiscate my “Bleeding Heart Liberal” badge)

        Just get his to agree with you and it won’t be a problem. 😉

  57. With my spelling and sentence structure today I realize I’m not smarter than a fifth grader! I need coffee……………

  58. Mathius™ says:

    No, no, you can trust me…

    There you go… Good… wasn’t that delicious? Don’t you feel better now?

  59. For your TO DO list today – call your AG (info in article):

    Obama Pushes Hard to Protect Big Banks from Fraud Prosecutions … But We Can Stop Him

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/obama-pushes-hard-protect-big-banks-fraud-prosecutions-we-can-stop-him

  60. The stupidity shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, we’re supposed to believe they thought they could make a profit selling stuff for less than it cost them to make it. Course I reckon a few lucky people probably did.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/bankrupt-solyndra-caught-destroying-brand-new-parts/

  61. Here we go again-how about walking out on your job without a reasonable reason -meaning you no longer have a job. Is what would happen to anyone else in any other position.

    January 20, 2012
    Indiana Democrats Abandon Ship
    Betsy M. Galliher

    Like indignant toddlers stomping off to avoid a fair, yet unwinnable, fight, Indiana Democrats are staging another tempered walkout over pending Right to Work legislation; illustrating once again the Democrats’ definition of compromise — rewriting the Democratic process until it suits. Or, maybe Indiana Democrats simply tripped and fell out of the Statehouse in the hullabaloo of abandoning their jobs.
    It’s hard to trump Indiana Democrats’ brazen five-week stint at an Illinois hotel, thwarting a vote on the same legislation in 2011. Having exhausted the general assembly’s patience with more delays, calls for referendum, amendments, debates, Democrats again find themselves desperate to avoid the inevitable — the democratic process known as a vote. Even the $1000 dollar anti-bolting fine now imposed on members each day they skip work is not enough to force Democrats back to the job they are paid to do. And, a few thousand dollars in fines does seem a pittance, after all, considering millions in political coffers are at stake.
    Today, the Indiana unions who fill Democrat coffers at the expense of workers’ paychecks are threatening more compromise — inconveniencing thousands of football fans, tourists, and vendors by blocking the streets to the Indianapolis Hoosier Dome on Super Bowl Sunday. These tactics, among others, are one reason a majority of citizens in Indiana voiced their support of RTW in 2010 by overwhelmingly voting Republican control of the State’s general assembly.
    The majority of Hoosiers are well aware that convincing capable individuals they are incapable of representing their own best interest remains the siren song of Democrats and unions alike. Democrats prove this by their very indignation over RTW legislation. After all, the legislation in no way denies the right to organize. So why the uproar, unless the very survival of unions is dependent on mandatory membership, coerced representation, and confiscated earnings, millions of which are doled out to Democrat candidates. Maybe unions simply aren’t the champions of workers they claim to be.
    Right to Work legislation empowers the individual. It attracts industry that is free to prosper without the damning confines of union control, promoting economic growth and the livelihoods of workers. Is it any wonder those who thuggishly organize for collectivism, not to mention their own power, oppose it by any means necessary?
    Indiana Democrats are sunk. And RTW legislation isn’t really their undoing — the threat of individualism is. No wonder they’d rather jump ship than admit the truth.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/indiana_democrats_abandon_ship.html#ixzz1k2mEgk2w

    • It’s what they do. Bang drums, stand on chairs and scream, yell “racist” or “it’s for the kids” and if all else fails, run away to Illinois.

      • January 21, 2012
        It’s official: Tax happy Illinois now has the lowest rated state debt
        Rick Moran

        The Wall Street Journal brings us the news that the state of Illinois – which raised it’s personal and business taxes by more than two thirds last year – has had its debt downgrated to the lowest level of all the states in the union.
        Though too few noticed, this month Moody’s downgraded Illinois state debt to A2 from A1, the lowest among the 50 states. That’s worse even than California. The state’s cost of borrowing for $800 million of new 10-year general obligation bonds rose to 3.1%-which is 110 basis points higher than the 2% on top-rated 10-year bonds of more financially secure states.
        This wasn’t supposed to happen. Only a year ago, Governor Pat Quinn and his fellow Democrats raised individual income taxes by 67% and the corporate tax rate by 46%. They did it to raise $7 billion in revenue, as the Governor put it, to “get Illinois back on fiscal sound footing” and improve the state’s credit rating.
        So much for that. In its downgrade statement, Moody’s panned Illinois lawmakers for “a legislative session in which the state took no steps to implement lasting solutions to its severe pension underfunding or to its chronic bill payment delays.” An analysis by Bloomberg finds that the assets in the pension fund will only cover “45% of projected liabilities, the least of any state.” And-no surprise-in part because the tax increases have caused companies to leave Illinois, the state budget office confesses that as of this month the state still has $6.8 billion in unpaid bills and unaddressed obligations.
        It’s worth contrasting this grim picture with that of Wisconsin north of the border. Last winter Madison was occupied by thousands of union protesters trying to bully legislators to defeat Republican Governor Scott Walker’s plan to require government workers to pay a larger share of their health-plan costs, and to shore up the pension system by trimming future retirement liabilities. The reforms passed anyway.
        In contrast to the Illinois downgrade, Moody’s has praised Mr. Walker’s budget as “credit positive for Wisconsin,” adding that the money-saving reforms bring “the state’s finances closer to a structural budgetary balance.” As a result, Wisconsin jumped in Chief Executive magazine’s 2011 ranking of each state’s business climate-moving to 17th from 41st. Illinois dropped to 48th from 45th as ranked by the nation’s top CEOs.
        The huge irony: Governor Quinn sits fat and happy in Illinois while Governor Walker will be fighting for his political life in Wisconsin thanks to a recall effort spearheaded by unions and the left.
        Dan Mitchell at Cato (Via Hot Air):
        In other words, higher taxes led to fiscal deterioration in Illinois, just as tax increases in Europe have been followed by bad outcomes.
        Whenever any politician argues in favor of a higher tax burden, just keep these two points in mind:
        1. Higher taxes encourage more government spending.
        2. Higher taxes don’t raise as much money as politicians claim.
        The combination of these two factors explains why higher taxes make things worse rather than better. And they explain why Europe is in trouble and why Illinois is in trouble.
        We’ve got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. If the GOP nominee can convince Americans of this, they win.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/its_official_tax_happy_illinois_now_has_the_lowest_rated_state_debt.html#ixzz1k81MV91M

  62. Here’s one for you, Mathius. Once that parasite of yours gets beyond the parasitic stage you can refer to it as your gender neutral growth. It’s all the rage apparently!

    http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/couple-finally-reveals-childs-gender-five-years-birth-180300388.html

    • Well, I have to echo the listed comments-no Really masculine clothes but a Really girly shiny pink bathing suit is okay-No their not influencing him at all.

      Have you read about the 11 year old boy, where his female gay parents have decided to basically neuter him with chemicals because they believe he is old enough to make such a major decision.

  63. Supreme Court Throws Out Texas Redistricting Maps

    Updated: January 20, 2012 | 10:57 a.m.
    January 20, 2012 | 10:29 a.m.

    The U.S. Supreme Court threw out court-drawn Texas redistricting maps on Friday morning, saying a panel of federal judges should have used the Legislature’s maps as their starting point.

    That’s a victory for the state, which argued for the Legislature’s maps. But it still leaves Texas without maps for the primary elections this spring, and probably ensures that those elections will be held later than April 3, the currently scheduled date.

    Both maps would result in strong Republican majorities in the Texas House, Senate and congressional delegations. But the Legislature’s maps were more strongly Republican, adding a handful of Republican seats in the Legislature, and one to three more in the congressional delegation.

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, set aside the court’s map.

    Step one….is won. It has always been a state right for redistricting every ten years according to the census report which is based on population. The lines for redistricting are drawn by the state legislature. Whoever is in charge of the legislature…gets to draw the lines.

    A Federal Court Judge from San Antonio threw out the lines and redrew the map the way the judge wanted…..Supreme Court says no way Jose’….you cannot arbitrarily do this…and it was unanimous.

    • What is step two? And the law that makes approval necessary because of past racial discrimination-is there any end date written into the bill-where this will no longer be necessary?

      • VH…this was a movement where a Hispanic activist judge threw out the legislative process and substituted her own vision….guided by La Raza. Everyone down here knows this. IT was destined to lose but in the process of losing…..it all but guaranteed the resdistricting process. The next challenge is going to be whether or not a STATE has the right o redraw district lines and the government will try to step in under the discrimination laws. I should be shot down again…it is STATE business…not the feds.

  64. Abortion T-Shirts. And the monster Doctor didn’t understand what he had done wrong. Just makes you kind of sick to even think about this.

    ‘Abortion Is as American as Apple Pie’
    By GEORGE NEUMAYR on 1.19.12 @ 6:09AM

    Meet abortion provider Merle Hoffman, who has her own way of marking the Roe v. Wade anniversary.

    In 2004, Planned Parenthood began selling T-shirts emblazoned with the declaration, “I Had An Abortion.” This was part of its campaign to “demystify and destigmatize” the practice. Prominent abortion advocates felt at the time that their movement had grown too timid.
    Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, argued that feminists needed to go beyond the rhetoric of “choice,” jargon he regarded as cowardly and vague. They should celebrate abortion directly and unapologetically, he said. After all, the unborn child, as an annoying interloper, deserves to die. “The unborn child is not just an innocent life,” he wrote, but a “liability, a threat, and a danger to the mother and to the other members of the family.”
    Amidst such comments, the website Imnotsorry.net sprung up. The founders of the site explained that it “was created for the purpose of showing women that exercising their legal right to terminate their pregnancy is not the blood-splattered guilt trip so many make it out to be.” Space was provided on it for women to post testimonials expressing their “relief” and “joy” after an abortion.
    Ron Fitzsimmons, president of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, also found “choice” rhetoric insipid. “We have nothing to hide,” he said to the press. “The work we’re doing is good. We are there to help women, and it’s important to talk about abortion so that it’s not a stigma.”
    Abortion, he said, is more than just a choice. It is a good choice: “We can no longer respond to [pro-life arguments] with ‘it’s your right to choose.’ We need to recapture the notion that abortion is a difficult moral choice for women, but one that is, in fact, a moral choice.”
    These days abortion advocates are considerably more circumspect, returning to the “safe, legal, and rare” formula that Bill Clinton popularized. But a few still hunger for raw honesty. In apparent anticipation of the upcoming Roe v. Wade anniversary, Salon interviewed one of them on Monday. Merle Hoffman, a New York “abortion provider,” told the online publication that the “pro-choice movement is uncomfortable with itself,” as it still treats abortion as a regrettable act. “I’ve always said that, and I’ve always believed that,” she said. “We’re not comfortable with the banner we’re under.”
    This makes no sense to Hoffman, given the large number of Americans implicated in abortion. “You know how many women have had abortions?” she said. “Abortion is as American as apple pie. I think it’s one in three. But we’ll go on TV and say, ‘I just had my tits done or had a bikini wax,’ but not had an abortion. If you could see that constituency rise up at one point in time — but they don’t, because there’s this cloud.”
    Hoffman bluntly acknowledged that abortion involves killing an unborn child: “In the beginning [pro-lifers] were calling it a baby. We were saying it was only blood and tissue. Let’s agree this is a life form, a potential life; you’re terminating it. You don’t have to argue that abortion stops a beating heart. It does.” Nor does she insist that abortion is a minor medical procedure: “I can’t say it’s just like an appendectomy. It isn’t. It’s a very powerful and loaded decision.”
    Like Alexander Sanger, Hoffman sees abortion as a laudable act of self-defense against the encroaching unborn child. Referring to her own abortion, Hoffman writes in a soon-to-be-released memoir, Intimate Wars: “With my choice I was fighting for the right of all women to define abortion as an act of love: love for the family one already has, and just as important, love for oneself. I was fighting to reclaim abortion as a mother’s act. It was an act of solidarity as significant as any other I had committed.”
    Hoffman’s career as a founder and owner of an abortion clinic has been lucrative. Salon describes her as a bejeweled millionaire: “Impeccably coiffed — signaling more Upper East Side doyenne than die-hard boomer activist — she wears an enormous glittering ring she designed with the symbol of Choices, combining the caduceus and infinity symbols.” The “Choices” to which the ring refers is the euphemistic name of the abortion clinic Hoffman runs. So her brutal honesty evidently has limits.
    The subtitle of her memoir is: “The Life and Times of the Woman Who Brought Abortion from the Back Alley to the Board Room.” Last January, abortion advocates marked the anniversary of Roe more mutely, as they dealt with fallout from the life and times of a man who brought abortion from the back alley to main street Philadelphia. Remember Kermit Gosnell? Shortly before the nostalgic remembrances of the Roe ruling were set to begin, a grand jury in Pennsylvania charged the longtime Philadelphia abortionist with seven acts of infanticide and the killing of one adult.
    Gosnell’s specialty was late-term abortions bordering on infanticide. He practiced his craft in the open. Prosecutors blamed the lack of investigation into his clinic on the “pro-choice” atmosphere in the state. Nail salons are more closely monitored than abortion clinics, they said. Indeed, local abortion advocates knew all about Gosnell, only badmouthing him in public after the indictment came down.
    At his bail hearing, Gosnell appeared puzzled. He had performed the very late-term abortions pro-choicers urged George W. Bush not to ban. “Is it possible you could explain the seven counts?” he asked the judge. In a culture that lionizes late-term abortionists as bravely defiant, the answer to his question remains unclear. Perhaps he should have called his clinic “Choices.”

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/19/abortion-is-as-american-as-app

    • These people are really sick, the bottom feeders of society. How rabid of mind are they to think so little of a human life. If only they’d just give up theirs to spare us all their disgusting views and behavior.

      • If only they’d just give up theirs to spare us all their disgusting views and behavior.

        Spoken like a true Christian.

        Oy vey …

        • Just find it interesting those that espouse the virtues of abortion are….living!

          If one places such a low value on allowing others to give life – why do they keep living themselves?

          • You ever noticed Kathy how so many people want you to discuss the abortion issue separate from your religious views because they aren’t a Christian-but the second you say something they believe is unChristian- they want you to act and talk more like a Christian. They really need to make up their minds-because if I go completely by logic and leave out morality-wow, I can justify a whole lot of evil things.

            • V.H.

              Once again you succumb to a Fallacy in logic.

              “………..because if I go completely by logic and leave out morality-wow, I can justify a whole lot of evil things.”

              The application of logic DOES NOT prevent the discovery or application of morality. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

              In fact, Logic is a tool to discover morality. I submit it is the ONLY appropriate tool for identifying morality, because it is the tool that discards “contradictions” with reality.

              • You may well be correct JAC-but lets face it-logic may be a tool to discover morality but most people simply use logic to justify what they want to justify. And per many people on here-even when we discover a moral truth it still isn’t an absolute. So whether you want to use religion or just discover moral truths through history-we need some absolutes to guide our actions.

          • Something tells me you’re for the death penalty … now that would be interesting, based on your theory.

            • Key word: innocent

              An innocent life is snuffed out during abortion; not so during the death penalty.

              And blah, blah, blah, save me the details of how many innocents have been put to death.

              • Kathy,

                No matter how many innocent lives are killed…
                …..it never justifies killing non-violent people.

                How many innocent people need to be killed before the killing an innocent person is justified?

                You kill the guilty because they have killed the innocent..

                But if under your argument of guilt of killing and creating the consequence of death,

                will you submit yourself to death if you, in your search for guilt, kill the innocent?

              • Like I said, how Christian of you.

                Tell me, did you cheer from your living room couch when Rick Perry said he had no problem sleeping after putting someone to death in Texas?

                bla, bla, bla … we’ll save you the details … imagine putting an innocent life (i.e., abortion/execution) … oh, those pesky details.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Kathy, I truly love how quickly you condemn me and others for having a complete and utter disregard for life, yet at the same time make statements like this.

              • It surprises me-that it bothers you so much-all I hear from people on the left is abortion is okay, euthanasia is okay-destroying human life is okay -so here are two people in this article that not only proclaim loudly that babies in the womb-are alive and are human-but killing them should be CELEBRATED-and you are offended that someone else points out that if life means so little too them than why do they think their life has any special meaning.

              • And what is your stance Charlie-Abortion, capital punishment?

  65. RIP Etta James~

    • Our wedding song … me and my wife … heathens that we are (she’s my 4th; I’m her 3rd) … she’s an unhappy democrat; I’m a socialist-communist-anarchist (pretty much anything anti-capitalist) … two more hard working people you’ll struggle to find … and the wife is religious (catholic); the husband not.

      thought you might want the bla, bla, bla details, Kathy my love.

  66. I am trying to understand this decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline project.

    1) a 7 billion dollar private investment. (no tax money)
    2) reduces ME energy dependence by 8%….some think more than that.
    3) creation of jobs that are desperately needed.
    4) an environmental study that has been in effect for three years with the two contracted environmental firms both agreeing there is no environmental impact.
    5) the Governor of Nebraska changed his mind and is for the pipeline since it was moved to alleviate a “perceived” clean water issue….which turned out not to be an issue in the first place.
    6) helps the United States as well as its neighbor Canada.
    7) takes China and Asia out of a western energy source.

    And we have Obama blaming it on the Republicans because they attached something to it….just as the democrats attached things to the deficit bill……..

    So, would someone enlighten me as to why this pipeline is a bad deal? Remember that I am just a retired old Colonel who knows nothing….

    • The only thing the Republicans attached to it was a deadline to make a decision. So he’s saying he was rushed into making a decision, which is why he must go against it.

      Biggest piece of lying crap there ever was. And he’s our president.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Anything good for this country, he goes against, doesn’t matter what it is.

      • Have to second that one!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          What I don’t understand, is what is he so damn afraid of? I’d like to see one good thing he’s claimed to have done, besides dragging this country into the deepest hole it’s ever been in.

          • Welcome back Judy, long time no see.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Thanks T-Ray, I’ve been around, come here & read, just don’t participate that much anymore. Just been busy taking care of my mother & still looking for apart time job.

          • If he has done anything good, the bad has so overshadowed the event-I couldn’t care less anymore-I just don’t want him to have 4 more years to ignore Congress and the people, especially when he doesn’t have to worry about re-election.

            You know, I do remember watching when it was announced that he won-I so didn’t want him to win-the media kept repeating he was a moderate but I kept hearing -not even close to moderate- in his words-but I still cried in happiness for all those people who literally looked so happy that a black American was going to finally be President. I simply couldn’t not be happy in their happiness. But any shared happiness that moment brought-are wayyyyyyy gone. The whole reason I shared their happiness was that maybe race didn’t matter as much anymore-the democrats have thrown that hope away-the race card is wayyyyy to politically beneficial and Obama- black, white-who cares-he’s a friggin dictator.

    • One thing I never understood about this was why the State Dept. was the gatekeeper. It seems that this belongs to Energy, EPA and Commerce more the DOS. Once DOS agrees that we can buy the oil from Canada via NAFTA their involvement should end. But then what do I know about the intricate overlapping of government bureaucracies.

  67. JANUARY 19, 2012 12:00 A.M.
    Civilization in Reverse
    We, too, can lose our civilization.
    By Victor Davis Hanson

    In Greek mythology, the prophetess Cassandra was doomed both to tell the truth and to be ignored. Our modern version is a bankrupt Greece that we seem to discount.

    News accounts abound now of impoverished Athens residents scrounging pharmacies for scarce aspirin — as Greece is squeezed to make interest payments to the supposedly euro-pinching German banks.

    Such accounts may be exaggerations, but they should warn us that yearly progress is never assured. Instead, history offers plenty of examples of life becoming far worse than it had been centuries earlier. The biographer Plutarch, writing 500 years after the glories of classical Greece, lamented that in his time weeds grew amid the empty colonnades of the once-impressive Greek city-states. In America, most would prefer to live in the Detroit of 1941 than the Detroit of 2011. The quality of today’s air travel has regressed to the climate of yesterday’s bus service.

    Advertisement

    In 2000, Greeks apparently assumed that they had struck it rich with their newfound money-laden European Union lenders — even though they certainly had not earned their new riches through increased productivity, the discovery of more natural resources, or greater collective investment and savings.
    The brief euro mirage has vanished. Life in Athens is zooming backward to the pre-EU days of the 1970s. Then, most imported goods were too expensive to buy, medical care was often premodern, and the city resembled more a Turkish Istanbul than a European Munich.

    The United States should pay heed to the modern Greek Cassandra, since our own rendezvous with reality is rapidly approaching. The costs of servicing a growing national debt of more than $15 trillion are starting to squeeze out other budget expenditures. Americans are no longer affluent enough to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil, while we snub our noses at vast new oil and gas deposits beneath our own soil and seas.

    In my state, Californians for 40 years have hiked taxes; grown their government; vastly expanded entitlements; put farmland, timberland, and oil and gas lands off limits; and opened their borders to millions of illegal aliens. They apparently assumed that they had inherited so much wealth from prior generations and that their state was so naturally rich, that a continually better life was their natural birthright.

    It wasn’t. Now, as in Greece, the veneer of civilization is proving pretty thin in California. Hospitals no longer have the money to offer sophisticated long-term medical care to the indigent. Cities no longer have the funds to self-insure themselves from the accustomed barrage of monthly lawsuits. When thieves rip copper wire out of street lights, the streets stay dark. Most state residents would rather go to the dentist these days than queue up and take a number at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Hospital emergency rooms neither have room nor act as if there’s much of an emergency.

    Traffic flows no better on most of the state’s freeways than it did 40 years ago — and often much worse, given the crumbling infrastructure and increased traffic. Once-excellent K–12 public schools now score near the bottom in nationwide tests. The California state-university system keeps adding administrators to the point where they have almost matched the number of faculty, though half of the students who enter CSU need remedial reading and math. Despite millions of dollars in tutoring, half the students still don’t graduate. The taxpayer is blamed in constant harangues for not ponying up more money, rather than administrators being faulted for a lack of reform.

    In 1960, there were far fewer government officials, far fewer prisons, far fewer laws, and far fewer lawyers — and yet the state was a far safer place than it is a half-century later. Technological progress — whether iPhones or Xboxes — can often accompany moral regress. There are not yet weeds in our cities, but those too may be coming.

    The average Californian, like the average Greek, forgot that civilization is fragile. Its continuance requires respect for the law, tough-minded education, collective thrift, private investment, individual self-reliance, and common codes of behavior and civility — and exempts no one from those rules. Such knowledge and patterns of civilized behavior, slowly accrued over centuries, can be lost in a single generation.

    A keen visitor to Athens — or Los Angeles — during the last decade not only could have seen that things were not quite right, but also could have concluded that they could not go on as they were. And so they are not.

    Washington, please take heed.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288436/civilization-reverse-victor-davis-hanson

  68. From Pluto with love …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/01/ides-of-march-from-tebow-to-newt.html

    Go Ravens … go 49’ers … go Moonachie Blue Team … go anybody but the Cheatriots!

    • Hey Charlie, my friend………have a question for you……have I missed something about the Patriots….(Cheatriots)…. I am not a Patriots fan but why do you refer to them. Is it about them stealing the signs across the field?

      • Absolutely, Colonel! Prior to Belichik, they hadn’t won a single Super Bowl. Granted, they were (and are) a great football team with probably the greatest QB of all time, but like the Canseco-Bonds steriod era of basement (which I REFUSE to count), the super bowls they won under Belick prior to his getting caught, admitting it and then having to pay the fine ($500,000) negate those wins. Since he was caught and fined, he hasn’t won a super bowl. If they win this year, it’ll be their first (in my world–on Pluto and Fords, New Jersey). Defenders of his antics claim “everybody else did it” … my answer is nobody else was caught or admitted to it or paid a fine. Maybe a technicality, but the fact remains, they haven’t one a single super bowl since he was bagged. Thus, they are the Cheatriots (my son Dustin named that that–bright kid). I used to call them the Cheaterfaces.

        • Baseball = basement … especially since they moved the fences in, used that little league T-ball rule in the American League (dh) and so-called super stars (too many of them) don’t bother hustling until contract year. Disgraceful … I hardly ever watch anymore.

        • I am not so sure that everybody did that……there were a lot of teams that did not have to do that but it is done in baseball all the time. Hell, they even have people with binoculars reading catchers signs and relaying that to dugouts via headsets and signaling the batter.

          Base ball has become boring…I will admit that watching the Texas Rangers since Nolan Ryan took over is more fun….and beating the billion dollar Yankees with a 100 dollar team is fun……but money drives the players.

          I was against the NFL parity rule and it did away with dynasty teams….but parity made the NFL more watchable in my opinion. Nobody likes watching the Yankees much anymore because it is the best team that money can buy…..and it is not hard to win with all the best players…..but now you have NFL teams winning divisions with 9-7 records and possibly beating a 14-2 team…..any given Sunday…so to speak. Makes it more interesting in my opinion.

          • Now, if we can get rid of the BCS…..it will be more fun. This last game between Alabama and LSU was the 4th lowest watched in BCS history…..that is because of the East Coast bias. I did not watch the game and even though I have fun with Bama Dad and he with me, even he knows that a college playoff system is the best. But it is all about TV ratings and money. The Oklahoma State game was the most watched game…and one of the most interesting to watch. Actually, there were several great games…..the Baylor shoot out was also fun……..but the rematch of LSU and Bama was just not on the charts. I take nothing from Bama…..arguably one of the best teams in collegiate football….but any system that allows a non division winner to play for a title over division winners jus just plain wrong….but this has been discussed already…..just ties in with the whole sports scene.

            • But it is all about TV ratings and money.

              Once again your heart is in the right place, sir! Welcome to the cause! Workers of the world unite!
              🙂

              • if it is ‘all about tv ratings and money’ which I also agree with, then they would give up the farce of saying ‘it is unfair for the students to play several extra games’

          • and beating the billion dollar Yankees with a 100 dollar team is fun

            I knew you were a socialist at heart, colonel 🙂

            I’m a Mets fan so I even root for the Boston Choke Sox when they play the Skankies. One of my fondest memories back in the day when the Moonachie Green team played in New York and I was a season ticket holder for the Jets … after a Monday night game we lost to the Vikings, on the way out the crowd just erupted with “Yankess Suck, Yankees Suck!”

            I became a Bills fan when the Jets became the Moonachie Green team over in Jersey (where I now live). Fans can leave their respective cities and remain loyal, but teams, no way. There’s only 1 NY team … and they suck, but they’re all we have.

            • See, I knew there were other things we agreed upon! The Mets are the only choice when it comes to which NY team is the team to back. Overall they are my #2 favorite behind the Giants.

              • My Dad was a Giants fan (when they were a NY team). He stayed with them when they moved. The Mets make us suffer too … how about that management? Oy vey.

  69. There are only three words left to save the United States, as proscribed by the its Constitution

    President Ron Paul

    …any other words that do not lead to that statement will doom America as you know it.

    • What is an anarchist doing suggesting one man should lead the nation?

      And why is it he doesn’t want that Union Leader’s endorsement? Is it because they actually check their editorials? Because they make sure racism isn’t proclaimed in its name?

      How he gets so many young pups to follow him in the ditch is pretty amazing.

      • Is an anarchist saying that one person would be better following a document necessarily saying that they agree with that document?

        Why would you want an endorsement? I think they are stupid to begin with, because if someone votes based on who someone else endorses instead of finding out for themselves then we are probably well past ‘saving’ the constitution.

        • Especially when that document was written by the rich for the rich.

          Good on ya.

          • Charlie……quit it…….My forefathers wrote that so I could get rich…..and it is working….Leave me alone, you Canoli Eating Plutonian Hairless Swamp Rat !!! I enjoy my money off the sweat of all the slaves that I own…..er…….employ…..er…..hire at whatever wage I can get them to agree to. Simon Legree is my enforcer.

            ****** WE INTERRUPT THIS POSTING TO INFORM YOU THAT THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS BLOG. IT IS WIDELY KNOWN THAT D13 WAS AT THE LAGUNA MADRE AT A DPM BEACH BASH AND IS SUFFERING THE AFTER EFFECTS OF THAT PARTY. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED RANT*****

            Wha…………where am I?

  70. OMG…..(I would post this on the RIP page, but out of respect I will not…so here goes)

    South Texas High school disbands sports activities INCLUDING FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL….in favor of academics??????

    So what if 1/3 of the school population is not coming to class.?
    So what if the grades are lower than low ?
    So what if there are parents that say their son can play football but should not have to attend class to do so?

    I mean, come on, what is this world coming to? Doesn’t that administrator know that Friday Night Football in Texas is greater than all the religions of the world combined? It IS an institution….hell, even GOD played football. Or is it that football is GOD? Doesn’t this administrator know that Texas Blue Chip football is the highest in the land…..the world? What is this country coming to?

    Imagine telling the parents that football is not life….and the NFL is not the promised land. Imagine this administrator is actually wanting students to “earn” their privileges by studying and making the grades. How DARE him for actually demanding ***gasp*** personal responsibility!!! I mean…….jacking with Texas Football….is……is…..is……BLASPHEMY!!!!

    What is this world coming to? Demanding personal accountability….success….integrity,,,,leadership…..responsibility.

    If he does this and is successful…where will the liberals recruit next?

%d bloggers like this: