North Carolina Shows Its Ass…. Again

Well, as a resident of the above mentioned tar heel state, I find myself this evening feeling a bit dirty, like someone spilled oil on me that I can’t get off. There have been times in my past that I wasn’t proud of “where I come from, ” and this is another. As some of you know, I grew up in a rather smallish mountain town (NOT South Park) in Pennsylvania. I wasn’t proud of it, but as I grew older, I became less embarrassed by it and now find that I am proud of where I grew up. Several years ago (11, in fact) I moved back to North Carolina. I had lived in NC for many years in the military and wasn’t thrilled about the idea of coming back here 11 years ago. But I have changed in that as well. I love living in North Carolina. It is a great state filled with good people.

But I admit that I mostly know people in the major metropolitan areas (Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Chapel Hill) and have little acquaintance with the more “rural”parts of the state (this will be important later). That doesn’t mean I don’t have no ties to the small towns and small town people here, just less than the cities. I encourage people to come here. It really is a beautiful state (although admittedly Wyoming, Colorado, or Montana are much more my style, just not Mrs. Weapon’s style). We have some classic things, like the hometown Durham Bulls baseball team, the Outer Banks, the great ACC rivalries, and lots of American history.

The wording as it appeared on the ballot

But North Carolina has a darker side to it too. They seem to be politically backward in this state (of course I admittedly think MOST states are politically backwards with people damaging the world through the ballot box). These people elected Elizabeth Dole, who hated the state and came here only when necessary, as their Senator. They made Beverly Perdue the Governor (yes from THOSE Perdues). And just yesterday, they made me more embarrassed to be be a North Carolinian than I have been at any point in my life. Because yesterday, this state voted 61% to 39% in favor of adding an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. This in the very state that will host the National Democratic Convention in just a few short months.

Of course the folks in charge of rallying the troops in favor of this ridiculous amendment claim this isn’t about homosexuals.  Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of Vote For Marriage NC. told cheering supporters in Raleigh, “We are not anti-gay. We are pro-marriage.” To which I say, absolutely. I imagine then that the KKK isn’t anti-black, they are just “pro-white.” What a ridiculous statement, the entire amendment was created and marketed as being against gay marriage. But you know what, it doesn’t just ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

It impacts ALL domestic partnerships in North Carolina. Employers now face not being allowed to provide benefits to both same sex AND heterosexual domestic partnerships, and the children of those partnerships. There is a provision to protect situations where a legal contract is in place, but the vast majority of jobs in this “at will” state have no such contract. As a result, not only do people face losing benefits, but the state itself may find that businesses looking to relocate or start a new endeavor will avoid North Carolina and their uncertainty. One of the major factors in employee retention is benefits offered. That is now called into question. This is why many businesses and a large portion of local chambers of commerce were opposed to the amendment.

The amendment will take away the ability of partnerships, both gay and straight, to take actions that they should be afforded. A child raised by two unmarried people could be taken away from one if the “legal” guardian were to pass away. Decisions about medical treatment cannot be made by a domestic partner because they are no longer legally recognized. I think you see the overall implications just based on these two examples. The point is, that Amendment 1 passing did damage to far more people than just same sex couples who desired to express their love for one another.

Not to mention that there were some obvious shenanigans going on during the election process yesterday. There were many reports of folks being given ballots that did not include the amendment 1 referendum on the ballot at all! In several very “anti” amendment precincts, voters over 17 years old were being given ballots for people under 17 (In NC, 17 year olds can vote for candidates, but not on the referendum). These reports were coming out of Orange County, Durham County, Wake County, and Mecklenberg County. Why are the counties important? Take a look at the map to the right…

The counties in red voted no on the amendment. That little cluster in the middle is Orange, Chatham, Durham, and Wake Counties (Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh). The little red county on the southern border is Mecklenberg County (Charlotte). Counties with the highest populations in the state, and also counties that were high negative on the amendment (my county, Durham, voted 70%-30% against). What else does this map tell us? The other counties represented in red are the city of Ashville (hippie town NC) and the county where Appalachian State University are. So the college towns and major metropolitan areas with more educated folks voted no, while the rural counties voted yes.

This isn’t all that surprising. This is the bible belt, after all. I could go into my rants against the christian stance against gay marriage, but there isn’t anyone here who hasn’t heard it from me before. So I won’t bore you all with re-stating my positional reasoning. All that is important is that I proudly voted against the amendment because I believe we don’t have the right to take away civil rights from people simply because we don’t agree with their lifestyle. As the saying goes, those who require the law to prove that their morals and faith are true, really have no morals or faith to prove.

North Carolina has made a grave error. Situations like this are the very reason why we are a republic and not a democracy. What we are seeing is a classic case of tyranny of the majority. Just because you have the numbers to pass a law doesn’t mean that you have the right to pass the law. When a law clearly discriminates against a group of people, then the law is wrong. And one day the religious fools that pushed for this law will reap what they sow, when they find themselves outnumbered and are discriminated against in the same horrific way that has been done with this law. But that is a day yet to come. For today…

I am ashamed to have to admit that I am a North Carolinian.


  1. Instead of being ashamed, use this as an opportunity for some pro-liberty activism. Join my call: North Carolina and gay marriage

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I understand what your trying to do but I suggest it is backwards.

      They need to marry in a State where it is legal, then move to North Carolina.

      The State would have no choice but to honor the marriage.

      • Why would anyone, in any state, ask permission to marry? I wouldn’t allow the government into my marriage anyway (were I to ever marry again) so my marriage wouldn’t be “legal” anywhere.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Actually it would be “legal” in any State that recognizes “common law marriage”.

          In fact some folks were “trapped” by this without their knowledge back in the days of “co-habitation” is the coolest.

        • That’s what I am doing. I will be married when my girl and I declare ourselves to be so. We both work for ourselves, and both do far better on taxes with itemized business deductions anyway (not that I would change my path just to be allowed to keep a little more of my own money that would otherwise be taken by the government). I do not need anyone giving permission. My parents already consider us married, her parents do not, and I care not a rat’s patootie what the government’s opinion is. 🙂

  2. I’ll be back later when this converstaion is over. Being a Christian and supporting the Anti-Gay marriage side, I don’t feel like arguing with anyone about it. It ain’t my state. And i’m not going to say anything to cause hard feelings. So, later.

    • USWeapon says:

      I respect your position Esom. I obviously didn’t want to offend you or anyone else.

      • USWeap and Jon. I am not commenting because as I said, I too don’t want to offend or make anyone angry over something that has nothing to do with my state anyway. But I am not offended. Y’all have your views, I have mine. And it’s not something to cause hard feelings over. I will say this though. I agree totally and without reservation with Jon’s point in that government should be removed from the question entirely.

      • Mathius says:

        Screw that. I do NOT respect his opinion (on this).

        And nor should you, Wep.

        Hiding behind your religion to justify oppression is immoral.

        If he said, “being Christian and pro-slavery, I don’t want to talk about it,” would you ‘respect that opinion’ and not intend to offend him? I mean, slavery is rampant in the Good Book, yet people seem to be able to get past those parts without somehow exporting it into their personal lives and pushing to government to ‘protect’ ‘traditional’ property rights by allowing slavery. You know, except when they did in the lead up to abolishing slavery as slave owners were floundering to justify their oppression of a weak minority on (amongst other things) “Christian principles.”

        I do not, I will not, I CANNOT respect this opinion, regardless of the ‘justification.’ It’s wrong. Both sides don’t have a point, both sides aren’t worthy of respect. A HUMAN BEING who loves another HUMAN BEING should be allowed to marry. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. The only reason to make it more complicated is to muddy the waters and allow a bias to slip in and ‘justify’ your imposition on the private lives of others by means of an invasive government – something you would be screaming to high heaven if it were turned against you.

    • Not trying to pull you into this Esom, I respect your stance on Gay Marriage completely, but I do not respect such a position being put into law. Marriage is none of the government’s business, for or against. The only amendment I would support would be one that removed government from the marriage game altogether. The only reason they are in it now is because we adopted a lot of British laws into our own in the early days without thinking some of it through. Perhaps we could chat over this privately sometime, I would like to hear your thinking… 🙂

  3. Just looked at the WI primary results. The 2 top Dem candidates for Gov. got five thousand votes less that Scott Walker. In total, the Dem Gov. candidates only got 14K more votes than the Rep. candidates. Walker was basically unopposed and got 97% of the Rep. vote. The recall election will be interesting. Any comments from the locals?

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Gay marriage is certainly a religious issue for many who oppose it. I’ve heard all the arguments for both sides, but since I’m not a homosexual, it’s not a big issue for me. I would have voted on the side of liberty (no) had I voted at all. Both points of view should be respected, with that said, there are more important issues to be concerned about in this country at the moment.

    Now, USW said ” So the college towns and major metropolitan areas with more educated folks voted no, while the rural counties voted yes.

    So let me giggle while I break this down. Are you saying that folks from rural areas are less educated? For the record, I’m not offended because I would have repleced the word educated with indoctrinated 🙂

    • USWeapon says:

      No, GMan, I didn’t mean it that way. I meant more educated on the bill. Those major metropolitan areas had massive amounts of information out there and lots of people talking about the amendment. As a result more people in those areas were educated about what the bill actually said while the rural areas were less educated and thought the bill was nothing more than a religious issue…

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I live in a rural area in Maine. I have tv, internet and even newspapers, radio, (Rush Limbaugh, grin). What am I missing?

        • I live in Virginia in a non-rural area. Because I was not in NC, however, I did not know until today that it was not just a ban, but a statement that existing partnetships would not be recognized. There might even be some interstate legal issues with this. Unfortunately, if that is the case, we could end up with a federal power grab in the process of fallout from this foolish amendment.

    • USWeapon says:

      Remember, I am from a small rural town!

  5. naten53 says:

    For me to oppress one liberty for another, I have no standing to argue for my liberties when they are taken away.

  6. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Maine will likely yet again be voting on allowing Gay Marriage this November. A few years ago they lost 53-47 If I remember correctly. This time it should be much closer, especially judging by the comments from several Bangor Daily News online articles on the topic. There has been an evolution (for the worse imo). People such as myself are obviously homophobic close-minded bigots. I will be voting again, and my bigoted vote will not change. I might even vote for Romney because we can’t afford Obama appointing one more judge. Talk about a divisive issue, it makes people get real nasty. I will contain myself.

    The N.C. vote totals did surprise me, especially in that it banned civil unions too. I guess voters did not want to miss the chance.

    Like USW I don’t want to rehash old arguments so I will just state my position simply for anyone who cares to know it. I don’t need a Bible to know right/wrong. “Marriage” is a word with an aged and clear definition, and part of the foundation of civilization. It should not be messed with, with the anything goes Libertarian attitude. I know most of you disagree with me, so save your breath. I have heard all the arguments before but if you want to rant at me that is fine, but don’t expect a response.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      From the polls, it seemed that the majority of NC voters didn’t know the full extent of the Amendment in how it affects not only ‘gay marriage’ but also civil unions and domestic partnerships – for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        That may explain it then. Even I would have thought twice before pulling the lever with unions included.

      • Good morning, counselor…..does that not go along with the argument that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? They should have apprised themselves of the issue before voting….now, they have to live with it.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          True, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But it does help explain why this passed, especially by such a large margin.

  7. @ USW……question for you, brother. I am a bit confused. I was under the impression that you are a State’s rights person? Is this not about State’s rights, as Obama has even admitted, vs a preferential treatment issue? Set aside gay marriage and set aside the differing definitions of what discrimination is…….what if this were a gun issue and the State of North Carolina voted for an amendment against gun ownership….would you be so vehemently opposed?

    Discrimination cuts both ways…..why is gun ownership not labeled discriminatory. Why is discrimination always race or gender based? Obama’s health care is discriminatory….everything that someone is against can be classified as discriminatory. In my opinion, you cannot cherry pick what is a state issue and what is not.

    So, my read on you today is… happen to support the issue of gay marriage or civil union and you support State’s rights and are just upset that the State voted the way it did or you are not a supporter of State’s rights.

    For the record, I do not care if a man or woman wants to marry his horse, dog, or live in….I could care less….My preference is man/woman but I simply do not care. But if my preference is man/woman, this does not make me a racist or against anything….it is my preference. If the majority of the people decide this is what they want for the region in where they live………how do you, on one hand, justify majority rules and on the other hand say it does not apply in all cases? And again, take this LGBT movement out of it and substitute any other provision.

    I see it as a State issue. Nothing more and if that is what the State wants….that is what it gets. As a matter of record, Texas, is pretty strong against this issue…..and it has not hurt job growth nor discouraged employers…we simply adjust. The University of Texas has an issue before it right now,,,,and that is a dormitory for LGBT and transgender. This is an issue for the SCHOOL to decide and not me. I am not going to school there. I could care less. But if this issue did get on a ballot, whatever the voters decide… is what they get.

    As I was writing this response, something popped up in my pea brain…..what if it were the other way around….suppose it was an amendment not defining marriage and defining that LGBT was recognized by the state….would you be opposed to that? Just curious, my bother in arms and you know, whatever your answer is, will be ok with me. It is your right.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I will allow USW to respond for himself, but let me just add (to make you think a little this fine AM) that, despite state’s rights, could a state vote to ban all gun ownership given the 2d Amendment of the US Constitution?

      • Ah, counselor, I am not on the stand….but…..take away the gun issue then and insert something that is hot button that is not a constitutional issue.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Ah, but equal protection is a constitutional issue. You know where I stand on this though — we should never put the rights of a minority up to popular vote of the majority.

        • For example, a hot button issue here is that Texas is a right to work state with employment at will. There are several, including myself, that wants this added to the State Constitution. Of course, there are others, that do not want it added. There is no US Constitutional Amendment against right to work….so this is a State issue. I would not give a tinkers damn what any President said his/her opinion is……it is none of their business….it is what the majority of the State wants.

    • I thought it was pretty clear USW was upset at the contents of the amendment, not claiming it was not NC’s right to pass it. This is a state issue (tho the failure to recognize, as I mentioned above, could cause problems if they do not recognize marriages from another state. I could even see issues with the commerce clause being used to power grab because of the wording of the law. It was a foolish move. Aside from that, it was a move against liberty. An amendment the opposite way, forcing recognition and possibly affecting the right of licensed pastors and justices of the peace to refuse marrying couples they find immoral would also be a state issue, but it would also be affecting liberty negatively. Only an amendment removing government from marriage altogether is a move towards more freedom.

  8. Good article USW – now – knowing that POTUS was asked rather than him calling a presser on the issue – anyone think his evolved stance will have any material impact on the election? I don’t think it will.

  9. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Will these same enlightened N.C voters from USW’s article decide the Presidential election? At this point I don’t see how. I think they are from the same area as the red cluster counties on USW’s map above, No?

    “Today Research Triangle hosts research centers for IBM, Dupont, Data General, Becton Dickinson, Glaxo, Ericsson, Battelle, Panasonic, Martin Marietta, Motorola, Cisco, Biogen, the Chemical Industry Institute of Technology, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Underwriters’ Laboratory, the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, plus the National Humanities Center, which moved there from Boston in 1979. The more than 45,000 highly educated employees make an average salary of $75,000.”
    “These newly successful people have become the pivotal bloc that swings the state between Republicans and Democrats. They are not committed to either party. They are not terribly involved with social issues. Their main worry is the economy. If Republicans make birth control and separation of church and state the major issue, they will go Democratic. If the Democrats mess up the economy and produce $4.50 gas and 8.3 percent unemployment, they will swing Republican. That will probably decide the 2012 election.”

  10. I remember talking to Matt about Dan Savage and the disgusting Santorum definition-he said thats what happens when you piss people off. Well this is what happens when you piss people off. This is what happens when you try to force societal change before the society is ready for the change. this is what happens when you demand change without being willing to compromise-not on equal protection under the law-but by trying to force acceptance by way of law. When you use governmental agencies and laws to usurp parental rights and take away individual and religious rights this is what happens.

    We have to find a way to live together in peace-and that is not going to happen if people don’t compromise on this issue. People need to learn from the mistakes of the past not repeat them.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      It will never happen, but if gays gave up on gay marriage and instead only demand civil unions, they would get overwhelming support at this point. (unless it was seen as a stepping stone to gay marriage, gee nothing seems to work, 😦 )

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But why should they have to settle for a ‘civil union’. If the gov’t grants you and your wife a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, then the gov’t should also be compelled to grant any other couple, including a gay couple, the same certificate. Otherwise, as I’ve said before, get rid of marriage certificates altogether – grant every couple a Certificate of Civil Union.

        • We have had this discussion to many times to rehash the same arguments-So lets try these on for size 🙂 It’s for the greater good ! It’s logical based on human nature and the reality of our current social disagreement on the issue. .

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            The left does not understand human nature. They simply want full control over humans.

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I don’t want to go into endless circles with you Buck, but good luck with the C.C.U. for all idea. As far as why they have to “settle” for a ‘civil union’, my attitude right now is take or leave it. V.H. says we need to compromise, so you have my compromise 🙂

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I understand where you’re coming from, and agree that we’ve spent way too much time going back and forth on this issue lately, but I’m gonna have to leave it, sorry. There are certain things which I find just can’t be compromised.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Buck, you don’t need to compromise. Time is on your side. Us old folks are dying off and being replaced by enlightened/indoctrinated heads full of mush.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Come now, its not a question of being enlightened in the least. Though you are right, the tides are rapidly changing on this issue.

            • In reality-there is nothing in our society that hasn’t been compromised-nothing. I guess it’s the price we pay for living with other people with different ideas. But please tell me just exactly what are they giving up-besides the RIGHT to claim by law that the two unions are exactly the same and anyone who disagrees is guilty of discrimination.

        • Thats why we should advocate for the removal of government from marriage. Then no one gets a marriage certificate from government, no moral or religious stance or descrimination can be demanded or claimed, and you get your certificate from your church or whatever institution, group, or person you deem as overseeing your marriage. Then, if a gay couple gets one, they get it from a differente group than yours, thus you can grant them only the validity you choose to in terms of marriage itself. In terms of legal issues, benefits, legal standing in terms of custody or medical issues, property ownership, etc., all that would be handled by civil unions exclusively.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Pretty much what I’m saying as well Jon — there really is no other choice here.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Yep, get the government out of the marriage business entirely.

          • displacedokie says:

            I’ve been preaching the same thing for years now. I did find it refreshing that Ron Paul and Herman Caine said the same in one of the early republican debates….but of course nobody would actually report that they said it. I think the media is much more happy to keep people pitted against eachother than actually reporting something that might solve a problem.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    @Buck, Good Morning Counselor 🙂 Is it your opinion that marriage is a “Right”? At this point 30 states ban gay marriage, will this become a SCOTUS issue at some point?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Nah, I doubt SCOTUS will take it up. My opinion isn’t that marriage is a right, but that so long as gov’t is granting a marriage certificate, it cannot discriminate in who it grants such a certificate to based on sexual orientation. True, the majority of states ban gay marriage, but that is quickly changing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You say “sexual orientation” is not an allowed criteria for differences.

        So tell me, what is the basis you use for determining what IS an allowed criteria for division?

        Example: Color is a fixed part of a persons body, as is sex. But sexual behavior is just that, a behavior not a physical trait.

        So how do WE as a Society decide what is acceptable discrimination or allowable treatment of difference?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I like how you sidestep from ‘sexual orientation’ to ‘sexual behavior’…

          • Just A Citizen says:


            No sidestep at all. Sexual activity is BEHAVIOR by definition. Whereas your “sex” is a biologial/physical attribute.

            Now answer the question please..

            • Sexual activity is behavior, but orientation isn’t, necessarily. I might be sexually oriented to green slave hippos, but unless I act on that orientation by engaging in sexual activity with a green slave hippo, there is no behavior involved. Only a desire for it.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                A desire is not a physical characteristic. So orientation is a behavior just as much as any desire.

                And relative to the argument of Gay Marriage the issue is ACTION not just desire.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                One more thing. Orientation or desire is not an “objective” way to identify or classify. There is no way to independently determine what it is or if what is claimed is in fact true.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Simply put, the difference is ‘allowed discrimination’ and ‘unallowed discrimination’ lies somewhere along the lines of what is or can be controlled by the individual — sexual orientation is just not entirely in the hands of the individual.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    I am confused over the supposed effect of this law. USW and Buck have hinted at impacts to “other domestic partnerships”.

    This is dealing with “legal domestic union”. So outside gay relationships this leaves those married by the State already or those who are simply living together. So the next question is whether NC has a “common law marriage”.

    If so, I do not see how this amendment would change that relationship in legal terms. A marriage is a marriage.

    I do not understand how it will upset all these employee benefits offered by employers. Generally the State can not dictate what private people recognize under contracts simply because the State does not recognize an independent action as sanctioned by the State.

    So NC does not recognize a “union” as legal union. The employer is providing benefits to people who live together or who are designated on the contract. That is a legal contract, and has nothing to do with “union”. So it seems to me the companies, if they are truly concerned, could simply bypass/ignore this whole thing.

    The issues then are limited to State power, such as inheritance and State benefits. It won’t affect Federal benefits as the State law will not affect those either.

    OK boys, tell me where I am wrong in my thinking.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      The Amendment states that NC will not recognize any legal union other than a marriage between a man and wife. Right there in black and white, NC will no longer recognize any form of civil union or domestic partnership. This impacts such things as taxes, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, benefits, etc. etc. etc.

      True, a private employer may be able to extend benefits to its employee and its employee’s partner if the employer so chose, though am not sure how they can do this if the insurance company refuses. I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that insurance companies must treat a civil union and marriage as the same for purposes of providing benefits to both parties so long as state law recognizes civil unions and extends the same privileges afforded to a marriage to a civil union. So this Amendment would clearly impact benefits.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So we are in agreement. Thus the underlying contradiction is that it seems some of us are OK using the State to FORCE certain private contract arrangements but not others.

        Further proof that when our core principles are shaky you get bad results.

        I do have one other question. What is a “domestic partnership”?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          A domestic partnership is pretty much akin to a civil union – different states have different names for these things, and possibly different rights that attach as well. I don’t know all the ins and outs of NC law on these issues.

          And yes, I am perfectly OK with using the state to force private companies not to discriminate against minority groups. This does not force contractual arrangements (no one is forcing a gay employee to name his partner on his insurance policy), but allows the individuals entering the private arrangements choice in the matter. For instance, my wife is not on my health insurance through work. However, we have the option of having her covered if we so choose — at additional cost to me, the employee.

          • “…using the state to force private companies not to discriminate against minority groups…
            The right of association is one of the most important rights there is. To use government force to violate that right is pretty horrible.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I didn’t mean to imply that the state can step in and stop all private discrimination. It can’t. For instance, I can kick someone out of my home for being gay and there is nothing the state can do about it.

              • That’s being inconsistent. Your home- your business; why make a distinction? Your property should be yours to control. Otherwise it isn’t your property.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, it seems inconsistent at first glance, but there is more at work here and i am being overly simplistic. We can get more in to it at another time.

              • I would like to see this gone into more in depth. The proclaimed right of the state to dictate terms to a privately owned business but not to a home has never made sense to me. I find the two very similar.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                We’ll tackle that another time — I’m quickly trying to wrap up here and take a much needed half day…

              • Understood Buck, enjoy your day, I am sure you earned it. 🙂

  13. Since there are differing sides to the argument…what would you say if the definition stayed the same but all married couples had to give up the bennies of marriage? That would make everyone equal again.

    • Can’t happen. To simple and easy and the politicians on both sides would fight it for that reason. Both want to be able to reward their supporters. I also think the gay movement wants recognition that they don’t get with civil unions. They want Christians to be forced to recognize them as legitimate. Wish they would force that on Islamic’s first, just so we could see how it works out….

      This will affect the election. California only passed their measure 52 to 48%. How many of the 48% are Democrats & will stay home because Obama does not represent their values? And 31 states now say marriage is between a man and a woman only. Eight states allow civil unions.
      Here in the south, religion runs deep in the black community. Again, how many of them will stay home because Obama has now weighed in on this issue as President?

      • That’s the thing tho, there is no right to force others to recognize anything or believe anything or accept anything. If that is the real goal, then it is out of line. If the goal is equality under the law, that is understandable. Anita’s idea might not happen for the reasons you mention, but it makes the most sense by far.

        • Jon,

          If gay activists force the acceptance of gay marriage, can they not use that to force churches, catholic schools, etc to accept them? And it might not happen right now, but would be the foundation for future challenges. I think this is why many gays will not accept civil unions, they want even the christian churches to be required to accept them, or be subject to discrimination lawsuits….

          • Yes, that is why I have a problem with it. But I have just as much problem with blocking it. The only real solution is for the government to be neutral or uninvolved. Anything else is an attempt to pick a moral position and enforce it through law. Legitimate laws protect rights, this is not a rights issue.

            • Clarification, the determination of a specific level of acceptability in the culture is not a right. You can accept what you want, that IS your right, but you cannot enforce others to accept what you do, that is NOT your right, and should not be protected by law. Gays do not have a right to use law to force societal acceptance. Anti-gays do not have a right to use law to enforce a ban or make acceptance illegal. Most importantly, the government does not have a right to interfere in marriage at all. This is both a matter of personal freedom (which government should protect, not infringe on) and seperation of church and state (for those who base their position on religious beliefs). I do not understand why removal of government is not even being voiced at any level above blogs and private conversations. It is the absolute best solution, few on either side of the argument disagree when you speak with them one on one. The only explanation is that the media AND the government WANT this foolish debate for ratings or a distraction from more important things or some other divisive and nefarious reason.

    • Limbaugh ‘Rush Babes for America’ Facebook page surpasses NOW in 24 hours

      Read more:

  14. Destroy marriage, and the church, in one fell swoop
    Obama Seeks Gay Vote
    – Douglas V. Gibbs Thursday, May 10, 2012

    What’s the answer to the question?

    Whatever benefits the liberal most at the moment.

    When President Obama was still Presidential Candidate Obama, because the polls said that most people believed marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, Barack Obama claimed the same. Meanwhile, so as not to lose the gay vote, he also indicated he planned to eliminate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from the military rule book.

    Obama’s presidency has not made the strides toward assisting the gay agenda as he promised, and the homosexual voting block has been feeling dissed by him. Barry’s socialist agenda, massive spending, and a whole laundry list of other actions, has angered many Americans, and he is fully aware that re-election to the presidency is hardly a shoe-in. Barack Obama is pandering to every liberal group he can, while also demonizing his opposition as much as possible hoping to demoralize the republican voters right out of the voting booth. Among those groups he seeks votes from, are those that support the gay agenda.

    Joe Biden recently came out in support of gay marriage, and the media went crazy, because the admission opposed Barry’s position from his days as a candidate. Biden was accused of letting loose yet another gaffe, putting his foot in his mouth, and forcing Obama to take a position – and I think it was planned to play out as it has all along.

    Biden didn’t accidentally let the cat out of the bag. The planners and handlers of the Obama administration carefully concocted this so that the administration could appeal to the gay vote, while also keeping Obama from having to take a position.

    The problem for the Obama administration, however, was that people wanted more. They desired that Barry come out with a position on the issue. Fine. Obama’s speech writers came up with a grand soliloquy, where Barack explains his evolution, his observances of loving gay couples, telling a story that seems to be more designed to convince America to evolve with him, than to clarify his stance.

    The truth of what is rattling around in Barry’s skull may never be known, because Obama is now in support of gay marriage because he needs the votes, and it best benefits his campaign to take that position.

    What is amazing about all of this is a few decades ago we would never have dreamed that gay marriage would be an issue. It was commonly accepted that homosexuality, while a reality in our society, is an unnatural lifestyle. It was also commonly understood that gays wanted nothing to do with marriage. They mocked marriage. They condemned marriage as a dying institution of a religiosity they wanted nothing to do with.

    Then, the homosexual agenda realized that “demanding the right to marry” would further their cause much faster, and efficiently, than ridiculing the institution. What better way to destroy marriage than to demand it for those that it was never intended? Then, they could claim it to be a constitutional right, which would give the gay agenda the ultimate tool, for then they could use it to force those that oppose their lifestyle to marry them, and then bring lawsuits against churches for violating their constitutional right to marry when a church refuses. “What a great idea,” I am sure many of the members of the gay community have been thinking. . . destroy marriage, and the church, in one fell swoop.

    Obama could care less about all of that. He just wants their votes – and he is willing to play them like a fiddle to get them, as the States work in the other direction.

    • In N.C., $1 million was spent in support, $2 million was spent against. And Obama has made a million in an hour and a half..

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I have lost respect for the homosexuals who are now on the Obama band wagon once again.

        Think about it. The PRESIDENT said he supports marriage, but he won’t do a thing to deal with the States right conflict. He is a man of intelligence and great principles. Yet he had to “evolve” in his late 40’s on a fundamental issue like this. And he is still evolving apparently because he can’t bring himself to declare this a Right.. Yet he proposed health care is a Right.

        Good freaking grief…….. my head hurts just trying to sort out the contradictions among these “enlightened” folks.

        • Well he was in favor of gay marriage in 96′, against it in 04′, and now his viewpoint has evolved. And how is this any different from NOW, that only gets outraged when a liberal woman has anything mean said, but is silent when a conservative gets the same treatment. The liberals have taken control of so many organizations it’s scary. Maybe the gays will buy the lie that Obama spoke against them in 04 so he could get elected and support them then? “You know I love all you queers, I just can’t admit it where FOX can hear me”.

  15. Mathius says:

    This is not the first time N.C. has amended their constitution regarding “protecting” marriage..

    This was in force until 1971, by the way.


    USW, I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, 100 years from now, people are going to look back at these kinds of laws and view them in the same light as Jim Crow laws.

    Fortunately, in Obama’s second term (probably toward the end), we’re going to see a repeal of DOMA. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start federally recognizing gay marriages by 2016.

    • Well a whole lot of us don’t believe it’s a legitimate comparison-but if your right and things move this fast-combined with all the other great Progressive ideas-we will more than likely be in the middle of a Civil War by 2016.

      • Mathius says:

        Why is it not a legitimate comparison, V?

        In my eyes, I see two human beings who love each other being told they cannot be married because the people in power / the majority have some other opinion of what marriage is / should be. That is all.

        Do you deny that gay people love each other?

        Do you deny that they are committed to each other?

        Do you contend that their love and their commitment is somehow less or inferior to your love and your commitment?

        What more is there to marriage than two people who love each other and want to commit to each other for life?

        And importantly, why should you’re opinions on what constitutes a marriage be binding on them? What gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives when it doesn’t impact on you? And how would you feel if someone passed a law telling you that you cannot be married to your husband?


        What, in your opinion, V, is the distinction between gay marriage and interracial marriage which makes this a bad comparison?

        • You seem to believe that the government became involved in marriage based on some need to promote and help people simply because they are in love-IMO -that wasn’t the reasoning-the reason was all about Children-it was based on the needs of children -it was based on the fact that when men and woman have sex, children became a part of the equation. They wanted to encourage people to take responsibility for those children. Because that is what was/is considered best for children and society. That idea may well be based in morality but it certainly wasn’t based on the idea of denying gays or anyone else their rights.

          Now times have changed, and like it or not we have to change with them-which means that I look at the complaints of gays and see that they make some valid points-that government being involved has ended up giving married couples protections under law, that they do not have-so I am all for civil unions, even though I believe the original justification of tax breaks to encourage couples to get married and raise and take care of their children was and is legitimate. I think marriage between a man and woman raising their children is the best ideal for a society-one that should be respected and protected, while also acknowledging and giving other societal relationships the needed protections under the law.

          The difference is obvious-skin color vs. gender-even if you deem gender as moot when it comes to gender identity-I’m assuming you will acknowledge the difference in this instance 🙂

          • Mathius says:

            Do you have anything at all to suggest that a gay couple is a statistically inferior set of parents verse a straight couple?

            If the argument is “won’t somebody please think of the children!,” then it seems to me you should need some evidence to back that argument up.

            When they were banning interracial marriages, they argued that it was bad for the children. That one didn’t seem to pan out (as an interracial man is President right now). Your concept of “the ideal” is fine.. insofar as it’s YOUR concept. But when you export it to society at large and use government to impose it, you need something to back it up.

            Now, civil unions are a good start. But what’s the difference between that and “marriage” in your opinion?

          • Mathius says:

            By the way, if it’s about the children, then do you believe that sterile couples should be allowed to marry? Say a pair of 80 year olds, or a man who has lost his relevant anatomy due to an accident or a woman whose uterus was removed due to cancer? Or, perhaps, just a couple which does not want children.

            If children are out of the equation, why then is this relationship still “ideal” over a gay marriage such that one deserves special status and the other is relegated to something other than marriage? Or should these couples only be permitted to have ‘civil unions’?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mathius, Why not allow multiple marriages per person as well (not that I want more than one ball and chain at a time), and lets quit discriminating against Pediphiles too. They should have equal rights too! Let’s make Pediphilia legal and lower the age of consent to 7 or 8. I can see Obama doing all of this if he is re-elected (or just maintains power after the elections are cancelled). Government seems to want to legislate morallity, so that should make the Progressives happy campers (not to mention the Pediphiles)

      When will it end?

      • Mathius says:

        multiple marriages Why not? Who are you to tell me and another adult what commitments we can and cannot enter into? If my wife is ok with it and I’m ok with it, why shouldn’t I be able to marry Christina Hendricks as well? Why should she be denied that?

        Pedophiles Did you catch the key word in my previous answer? Here it is again, in case you missed it: ADULT. You see, children aren’t able to enter into contracts. As such, a child cannot enter into a “commitment” or a physical relationship with an adult. If the child were an emancipated minor, however, I would suggest that it’s none of your damn business.

        lower the age of consent to 7 or 8 7 or 8 year olds are not able to rationally consider consequences or think long term or care for themselves sufficiently to enter contracts. Though I suspect there may be a handful of super-genius kids out there who are far more competent than many 18 year olds, as a general rule, they’re just not competent. Therefore, the age of consent protects them from themselves and others.

        I can see Obama doing all of this if he is re-elected When has he ever even remotely suggested legalizing pedophilia? Or lowering the age of consent to 7 or 8? Or, even, allowing multiple/plural marriages? Never. You’re foaming at the mouth and I think you need to lie down before you hyperventilate.

        (or just maintains power after the elections are cancelled) …. Uh huh… I was pretty sure Bush was going to do this, actually. Do you have anything to even remotely suggest that he’s thinking about this? No. Of course not. Deep slow breaths.. in goes the good air.. out goes the bad…

        Government seems to want to legislate morallity Huh? Wait, what? HUH? But- But-… but I’m confused.. huh? But- you’re the ones.. but.. huh? who? how? *aneurysm bursts* ::thud::

        Are you serious with this statement? You’ve got to be joking, right. Honestly – I’m not dead serious – this is a joke, right? You’ve got to see the irony of this. It’s so flawed and ass-backward that it’s actually making me question your mental health. Yes, government wants to legislate morality.. all the time.. but on this topic, it already IS legislating morality. It is currently telling people what is and is not “morally acceptable” by defining marriage for them. What the progressives are trying to do on this topic is to STOP government from legislating morality. We want to STOP the government from telling private citizens what they can and cannot do with each other. It’s YOU and the RIGHT who are pushing to keep the government in the business of legislating morality with regards to gay marriage. It’s YOU and the RIGHT who are legislating morality and then you have the chutzpah to claim WE’RE legislating morality when we try to stop you?

        Simply stunning.

        • Kristian says:

          Sorry G but I gotta go with Mathius on that last one. We cannot in one breath say that we want the government to make it constitutional that marriage is between a man and a woman only and then in the next breath say we don’t want them to legislate morality. Kinda like having your cake and eating it too, can’t be done.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Kristian, I would prefer that government just get out of everyone’s business about everything. That would make me happy 🙂

            • Mathius says:

              Fine. But in the mean time, how ’bout we start by getting government out of people’s business on this topic first?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I agree 🙂 The problem is that this is the people voting, not a government mandate. It could all change sometime in the future, time will tell. That is where there seems to be confusion. it seems that those who support gay marriage want government to make it legal, where as those who oppose it are using the State Amendment process to keep it not legal (as a contract issue). If government was out of the marriage issue completely, we would not be talking about this. Government is never the solution!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Relax my young friend 🙂 As I said above, I don’t care about gay marriage, it means nothing to me. The rest was to pull your chain 😆 I don’t like Pediphiles and don’t care how many wives or husbands one has.

          Mathius said : We want to STOP the government from telling private citizens what they can and cannot do with each other.

          But it’s OK to force private citizens to buy health insurance? You lefties are seriously confused 🙄

          • Mathius says:

            Did I ever say that? Maybe I was drunk at the time. Can you point me to a link?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Who are you to decide WHO is an ADULT?

          How does Society decide such things? What should the criteria be?

          • Mathius says:

            That’s a great question and I don’t really have an answer.

            Society has decided that there’s a magical cutoff that at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds, you’re a kid (wholly owned by your parents with no freedom or rights) and then one second later you’re an adult. This doesn’t make much sense to me (same with the drinking age, by the way). Kids mature at different rates, some are ‘adult’ at 14 while others aren’t really adults at 64.

            It does seem to me rational to argue that a kid, let’s say a young kid of 5 or 6, should not be able to enter a contract which is legally recognized. And it would seem wrong to me to deny a 30 year old that ability, however immature.

            I’ve asked our resident stark raving lunatic pirate about this very topic several times. Each time, he insulted me, changed the topic, and refused to answer directly. I would argue it’s a case-by-case, though who has the ‘right’ to determine if you have the ‘ability’ to enter a contract is something I just cannot answer. Perhaps it would fall to the parents, though that seems inadequate and too vulnerable to the variation in parenting styles (a lax parent might call you an adult at 7, whereas a strict one might refuse to grant that status until you’re married with a stable job and living in your own home with the mortgage paid off). One could suggest that you’re an adult when you think you’re an adult but that is too flimsy as well.

            I’d be very interested in your opinions on this topic – I really don’t know where I come down on this one.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              If you can not come down on this then how can you come down on the other things?

              They are all built on the same foundation. Unless of course you try to make everything “relative”.

              And we know how that works out.

              To expand the conundrum. How do we KNOW what is a Right and not a Right?

              Can these be identified objectively with reason or are they simply part of the Societal decision making process. And if it is the latter, then how does that differ from Gay Marriage or any other issue?

              • Mathius says:

                Sorry.. that didn’t really look like an answer.

                Are you saying young children should be able to enter into contracts?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, in other religions (Islam) men marry girls as young as 11 (that I’ve read about). Are you saying that you are anti Islam?

              • Mathius says:

                That’s not Islam. That’s cultural. There’s nothing in the Koran that says you should (or shouldn’t) marry children.

                Christianity, for the record, however, has a long history of child brides. This doesn’t make it a “Christian” think – it makes it a cultural tendency within a culture which happened to have been predominantly Christian.

                Though nothing comes to mind, I’d be stunned if Judaism didn’t also have a huge history with this. It’s not about the religion, it’s the culture – unless the religion specifically advocates for it – so let’s not conflate the two.

                By the way, fun fact, Islam doesn’t have ‘eternal’ marriage. When you marry in Islam, it’s for a term. To make that a ‘life term,’ many Muslims set the marriage contract to 1,000 years. However, at the end of the term, the marriage simply expires. Historically, men would marry for a period of years (say, 10-20), and at the end, they would divide up their property (remember, Islam is the only of the major world religions to provide legal rights and protections to women) and go their separate ways. Or they could renew for another term if they so desired.

                Bonus fun fact, in Saudi Arabia, prostitution is illegal. When things are illegal in Saudi Arabia, it’s rarely just a slap on the wrist, especially for female offenders. So, to get around this law, Muslims wishing to employ “prostitutes” marry them instead. They just set the term of the contract for an hour or two as needed. There is a predetermined dissolution settlement at the expiration of the marriage which provides the, er, payment for services rendered. So after a brief, and legally and religiously correct, marriage ceremony, the two newlyweds get to enjoy some time in a seedy motel until the time on the contract runs out.

              • Thats a big can of worms JAC, are you ready for it? Where do you come down on adulthood? When does it start? Who decides? Is there any oversight permitted of those who make those decisions (for instance, if it is parents, can parents be permitted to decide their kids are ready to marry at age 4?)? If you are saying that not having a solid answer on the age of adulthood/consent/etc., and you leave it to society means that anythign can be left to society, then you are openning up the door for any sort of societal regulation of anything. I believe there are rights, and that those rights are not subject to societal redefining or regulation. I believe some rights are not realistic for children. I do not have a fixed answer for the age, because individuals vary. One can be objective, but perfect consistency, such as is required by law since law is inflexible (or at least it is supposed to be), is not possible with a variable subject. You cannot say that all people mature at a certain age anymore than you can say all people are a certain size and weight. But that does not degate other stands on rights, etc.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You did not ask me a question. You asked my opinion on the general matter. I gave it to you.

              I did however ask you a question. If you can not come down on this then how do you justify your position on other matters that are based on the same principles?

  16. Gay marriage, though, is apart of the new faux-civil-rights movement. This movement also includes the mischaracterization of “disparate impact” as discrimination. Perhaps we can also add to the neo-civil rights struggle the supposed epidemic of white on black violence, which the Trayvon Martin incident demonstrated. I dare say, there is no institutional racism, homophobia, or sexism anymore. But there is institutional complaining, grievance mongering, and the incessant crying of wolf.

    The civil rights movements of the ’60s have been so romanticized, especially in public schools, that young people feel that it is their birth right to protest oppression; and that only in doing so are they leading a fulfilling existence. No actual oppression taking place? Well, simply move the goal post by redefining any societal norm as oppressive; and voila, you’ve got a romantic struggle against “the man.”

    Read more:

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I do have some questions for those who object to gay marriage based on religious grounds, and I am not trying to be flippant or show any disrespect. It is your RIGHT to oppose gay marriage based upon your religious beliefs, and I have no problem with that (provided you don’t try to legislate your beliefs to rule over those who do not share your beliefs). I also propose these same questions to those who advocate the use of FORCE to DEFINE marriage in any way, shape or form whatsoever, as they apply in that direction as well!!!

    We have been over some of this before, but here goes!

    1. According to your religious beliefs, anything outside of one man/one woman is sinful. I get that. However, I seem to recall the following from my early religious upbringing:

    A: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
    B: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    C: Judge not, lest ye be judged

    To me, this means treat others with respect (provided that they treat you respectfully) and other than that mind your own frickin’ business. This goes for people on EITHER SIDE of this issue, by they way!!!! Don’t advertize what goes on (or doesn’t) in your own bedroom, and don’t go poking your nose into what goes on (or doesn’t) in anyone else’s bedroom, and let God be the judge of each individual’s actions (if you believe that God does indeed judge such things). Religious people scream about sinners and perverts, activists scream about religious zealots and neanderthals, and we get nowhere. If ALL people simply tried to live by A, B, and C above, a whole lot of this bullcrap could be avoided.

    2. How does what is going on in someone else’s private property affect you? Is someone else causing you harm because of what is going on in THEIR HOME? (Now of course, if they are ADVERTIZING what is going on in their home and demanding the use of FORCE to make you accept them as somehow legitimate, then that is another story).

    3. Regardless of which side of this issue you are on, can you not clearly see the need to get government and force out of the marriage business entirely, as well as out of the business of defining or trying to re-define marriage?

    There is more to it than that (as always), but that makes a good start. Please keep in mind, whatever your personal beliefs are, I AM NOT QUESTIONING YOUR BELIEFS OR SAYING THAT THEY ARE WRONG! I am merely trying to point out that the current system makes no sense, and that it simply doesn’t work.

    • How about everyone include this one little tidbit of fact-that people always seem to want to ignore or deny-the issue of gay marriage isn’t just based on religious belief, it isn’t only religious people who support the original meaning of the word marriage, and many religious people believe in gay marriage.

      • Granted. Now, why is there not more push to get the government of marriage rather than have it “protect” marriage as you see it? I do not understand the dependency.

        • I know that I am not convinced that one can get government out of marriage-the government is so entangled in our personal lives that I don’t personally believe taking away benefits or a license will get them out-hell it might get them more involved-but one thing I am sure about-giving away any legal protection for marriage isn’t a first step I’m willing to take. You call it dependency-I call it self defense.

    • One other thought -we have people who listen to talking heads or they pick some scientist or economist as their expert who they listen too and assign as their personal expert, when there are always experts on both sides of almost every issue-so what is so wrong with people picking God as their expert? And please don’t resort to God isn’t real. It misses the point.

      • Well, it really isnt much different. If you do not believe in their expert or in what the expert is basing things on, then it is no different than the fact that they do not believe in your expert. It is literally a gullibility thing, how much are you willing to believe in the so-called expert and in what he/she says?

        • Basicly, but whether or not one is gullible, really depends on whether or not they are just blindly following. There is nothing wrong with looking to experts to guide you-as long as you know why you agree with them. And those who don’t believe in God thinking they can just decide that one cannot use God’s word as an arguing point because they don’t believe. Or trying to tag gay marriage and abortion as nothing more than a religious argument-which they can just self righteously ignore-well they annoy me 🙂

          • They annoy me too, even tho I am not opposed to gays marrying. If you don’t have clear reasoning and thought, then you should take care of that before you argue anything. Ever notice how angry everyone gets when you bring up the cultural evolution of Rome and compare to the timeline of its decline? 🙂

    • Peter,

      Not sure I qualify for this. I object to gay marriage. It is my belief that marriage has been only used to describe a man and women (or women) for thousands of years. Getting a government to mandate a change in the meaning is a theft of meaning and the identity it describes. Would it be OK for an atheist to proclaim himself a Rabi and start preforming Jewish religious ceremonies? No, they could be charged with fraud and face civil and criminal charges. But what if a group gets together and get the government to pass a law saying anyone can be a Rabi?

      Now I do think they can call themselves whatever they want, including married. I do not think they can force me to recognize them as married.
      And here’s the problem, if they have a law passed saying they are married, the state then will dictate to me to refer to them as married or they will sue me for defamation of character, slander or such. If I am in a fight with a gay person, it becomes a “hate crime” because I always referred to them as “partners”.

      Call it civil union or whatever. Same rights and treatment. Please, please, keep it behind closed doors cause if it’s not any of my business, don’t make it my business.

      • LOI, marriage was defined in such a manner as a familial structure. Modern medicine and adoption have made families possible without normal reproduction. Furthermore, since the marriage was designed in most cultures as a means for structure within which to have and raise children, do childless marriages suffer the same scrutiny? Why or why not?

        Now, I am with you that no one should be able to force you to recognize their claim as legitimate, which is why the government should not be permitted involvement.

        • Jon,

          Can’t speak for them but I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to the liberal/gay push. Call it self defense. The religious right saw this as necessary or opportune time to act. They had an energized base that let them get this passed with a significant majority. Compare it to the Dem’s actions for Obama’s first two years. But by passing this now, they may feel safe from being required to condone behavior that runs contrary to their beliefs. Also remember there has been a lot going on in classrooms trying to teach/indoctrinate very young children about homosexuality.

          • That might explain the win, but that doesn’t make it a good move. Knee-jerk reactionary voting is ALWAYS a bad idea, its how we get this far down the slippery slope to begin with.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “Getting a government to mandate a change in the meaning is a theft of meaning and the identity it describes.”

        Well, my point was that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all, so I wouldn’t want government to mandate any such change 🙂

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Jon Smith

    Re: Thats a big can of worms JAC,

    YES, it is a big can of worms. But how we answer this fundamental question actually resolves most of those that flow from it.

    So let me pose one more to kick off the game.

    What is the source of COMMON LAW!!

    Note: Remember how our Founders so adamantly defended Common Law. To the point that they almost did not ratify the Constitution for fear it would override centuries of Common Law. How often have the “Libertarians” and “Anarchists” here referred to Common Law or something very similar.

    Now, Ready………………Set………………….Go!!

    • Um, not sure how common law comes into play, it was my understanding that common law was largely derived from previous laws and statutes and precedent from Europe, particularly Britain. At the federal level, it has been weaker than at the state level, but it always seemed to me the founders used common law to “fill in the gaps” in our own legislation. In some cases, such as marriage laws, it was an incredibly bad move, short-sighted and not thought out. I am not sure what libertarians and anarchists have brought up common law as a good thing, I know I am not among them, nor among those who thought it was a good idea for the founders to incorporate it.

      So, it seems imperitive to me to exclude children from certain contracts and even certain rights (true liberty for a child is a death sentence). However, there must be a point where they are considered “adults” and all human rights are granted. That point needs a basis, or variety of bases, to determine it. Traditionally it is set by age, with exceptions for emancipated minors and, in certain cases, parental permission. Regardless, it is often obvious that the current traditional age is too high, in other cases, too low. What say you? How does one determine this? Or do you disagree that all rights are not granted at birth?

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Peter B.

    What the hell, have you been feeding us a bunch of Oil Corporate propaganda about cooling.

    According to this world expert we are TOAST.

    😉 😉

    Also saw the other day that HP and other lefty sites were posting data from 2010 showing it to be one of the hottest on record. Yet three days before we saw data showing the ten year cooling trend.

    So WHO’s data is everyone using?

    • The hottest summer on record in Louisiana was set in 1936. There were days when it got to 114-116. In 1936.

      Most heat records and cold records were set in the 1800’s or early 1900’s. So the Lefty “Climate Change” experts are full of dooky.

      One reason that lately they have changed from “Global Warming” to now calling it “Climate Change”. The jig is up Gore!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Recently, NASA GISS was caught “adjusting” old temperature data from Iceland. What, precisely, did they do? They left “modern” temperatures about the same, but adjusted temperatures from the 1930s DOWNWARD, and adjusted 1940s temperatures (which were pretty damn cold) UPWARDS, but not to nearly as high as “modern” temperatures.

      Now, what effect would adjusting hotter than hell mid-1930s temperatures downward and cold 1940s temperatures upward have on the trend line???

      Hint: the trend line for Iceland BEFORE the changes had a slope of ZERO (there has been no warming whatsoever in the data set prior to the adjustments).

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Mr. Obama on why “Civil Unions” are not good enough for gay couples. Directly from the email message he sent to me this morning.

    “What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.”

    As I said some time ago. This was NOT about the Govt benefits attached to the title. It was about GETTING THE TITLE.

    • That’s bull. What about the gays that choose not to marry? Or what about the hetero shackers..are they also less than full citizens?

    • Funny, everything else which he believes is the right, fair thing to do-he tags as a right and wants the Federal to insure that people get-even if he has to bypass Congress- but somehow in this issue-he isn’t calling it a right and he’s willing to let the states decide and so do his little wind up choo choo clock birds-Reid and Pelosi.

      Although, I do understand that from the view point of the left-it is still a big deal for the president to come out and say he supports gay marriage. But it certainly doesn’t really do anything except scream vote for me and send me money.

  21. Here’s an early morning funny 🙂 Me oh my-what will the left do-how will they decide who to attack .

    Facing SEIU picket, Planned Parenthood cancels fundraiser
    Published: 12:15 AM 05/11/2012
    By Caroline May

    Trouble in liberal paradise.

    It seems that the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette (PPCW) in Portland, Ore. and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) are in the midst of a little labor spat — but then nothing is little when it comes to either of these groups.

    Last August, employees at the PPCW voted in favor of unionizing with the SEIU Local 49 in a National Labor Relations Board Election. The pair have been trying to work out a contract since November to no avail.

    Due to frustrations with the slow contract process, the SEIU made plans to picket PPCW’s annual fundraising dinner scheduled for May 12 — a move that reportedly caused Oregon Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber to cancel his plans to attend the event, the Willamette Weekly reported.

    “The governor will not cross the picket line and has canceled his appearance,” Kitzhaber spokesman Tim Raphael told Willamette Weekly.

    The pressure caused PPCW to cancel the entire $250-per-plate event on Wednesday.

    “It is with great disappointment that I write to let you know that we have decided to cancel our upcoming Spring Gala next Saturday, May 12,” David Greenberg, president and CEO of PPCW wrote in an email to supporters, obtained by Willamette Weekly.
    Ads by Google

    “The decision by SEIU to picket our event has put many of our supporters into the untenable position of having to choose between two organizations, and two progressive causes, both of which they support,” Greenberg wrote, explaining that the organization wishes to respect their supporters’ allegiances to both groups.

    The SEIU also rallied in front of a PPCW conference in late March.

    “We’re here today because we’ve been bargaining since November 1, 2011,” explained Skye Frome, a registered nurse, at the time. ”And while we’ve made some progress, we have yet to see our most serious concerns addressed in any meaningful way. We’re here to show management that we’re serious about reaching a fair contract.”

    In an ironic twist, the SEIU’s international executive vice president, Kirk Adams, is married to Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    Neither group responded to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

    Read more:

  22. @ Mathius………good morning, sir. Yesterday you said this: “Fine. But in the mean time, how ’bout we start by getting government out of people’s business on this topic first?”

    I have read both arguments on here very clearly. And I have listened intently the last 24 hours to all arguments. People are trying to define homosexual and put emphasis on love and tradition and sanctity and trying to define those terms….it is impossible because everyone has an opinion. I like state’s rights and to me there is no compromise. HOWEVER, that said…… thing that came out in all of the discussion yesterday among both liberals, progressives, and conservatives alike and that is hypocrisy. For example, you want government out of the marriage business yet you imply that you support a Federal Government mandate to “take government out of the marriage business”. Is this not a form of hypocrisy? Both sides seem to champion their position but want government to be the solution. Therein lies the hypocrisy of it all.

    All of this hype of pandering to one side or the other to get votes and money is a further perpetuation of the hypocrisy of it all. These are buzz words…and nothing more and the people that get hurt are the very people you or the other side wants to protect as if protection is needed and who the hell decides that. Buck throws a phrase around pretty easily….he cherry picks two words from the Constitution…..equal protection and, voila, that covers everything as if states rights mean nothing and maybe, to him, it means nothing. That is ok….as that is his position and I understand where he comes from but it does not dismiss the hypocrisy of saying…..”GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR BUSINESS” and then say….a Federal Mandate is needed. That reduces both arguments to the sum of zero. So, do the people get to decide?

    If the State of Michigan decides to recognize LGBT marriage and that state votes on it and says….GREAT. But Texas, for example, may just look up that way and just shake its head…..great for Michigan but it is not for us. We like things the way they are here. Our State will not recognize it. If the Internal Revenue Service decides to recognize it and allow the deductions and Social Security says ok…….TERRIFIC. But the State of Texas may not still want to recognize it because that is what the majority of the people want. It appears that the left or progressive thinkers wish to do away with the State individuality and mandate and that flies in the face of the progressive thinking that it is not government’s business.

    If the Gov mandates that the States do not have a right to define marriage in their own boundaries, then the government does not have a right to define it either.

    As I said…therein lies the hypocrisy of it all.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir. Your comment yesterday on States Rights was the best of the day. This one is even better.

      Another one to add. The Progressive is all about DEMOCRACY. That is until it doesn’t work out for them. Then it is OK to use Govt to sidestep the wishes of the Public.

      Top O’ the day to you this fine Friday.

      5 days of sun………… did get to freezing last two nights. Hasn’t froze here in over a month. So it must be because I planted tomatoes on Tuesday. 🙂

      • I forgot where you live? ……. I am already harvesting tomatoes and peppers….cucumbers are about two inches long…..potatoes are up and the onions are up. Spinach doing well. Bush beans are up and about 1/2 inch….squash is having some problems…beautiful plants but no fruit as yet…plenty of honey bees around. Herb garden is flourishing….but we have had plenty of rain and no temps over 90 yet. Damned fire ants are a nuisance tho….( I know, you do not have those up there )….the Hummingbirds have arrived and the Martins are here eating up bountiful mosquitoes…..I might be digging some potatoes in about another week…..Have a great day……….

      • I lost half my peppers and basil due to a late frost a month ago. Everything is coming along nicely now tho, peas need a couple strung lines to climb, carrots are finally up….

    • Mathius says:

      For example, you want government out of the marriage business yet you imply that you support a Federal Government mandate to “take government out of the marriage business”. How so? I want government out so I support getting government out. I don’t see any hypocrisy here… I think the private emotional relationship between two (or more!) people is none of Uncle Sam’s business. But, if he’s going to get involved, he should have to recognize everyone’s marriages, not just the ones that the Christian Right deems to be “real marriages.” To do otherwise relegates “gay civil unions” to second class status. Separate is not equal.

      … ok, kept reading.. now it makes more sense…

      You’re saying that wanting government out of the marriage business justifies using the FEDERAL government to force STATE government to get out of marriages is hypocritical since I’m not actively using the government to IMPOSE on someone else (states). Did I get the gist? I don’t see any issue here either. Because no one should have the right to impose on another person’s private relationships. I think the FED should butt out, I think STATES should butt out, I think LOCAL gov’s should butt out. I just support the ‘cure’ from the top because it automatically filters down to the bottom. I’d be just fine if every state independently got out of the business of marriage. But since they aren’t going to, I’m going to support the second-best option.

      I like state’s rights and to me there is no compromise. Let’s stick with the comparison which I find very apt. Interracial marriage. If Texas wanted to pass a law banning interracial marriage (like NC did, back in the day), should they be allowed to under the banner of states rights?

      great for Michigan but it is not for us. We like things the way they are here. Our State will not recognize it. But that’s too flippant. “not for us” is fine if it’s a question of something like what should be on the state flag. But this is a question of human equality. You’re interfering in the private lives of two private citizens with no public interest argument and saying it’s “ok” to do so because not doing so is “not for us” on some state’s rights grounds. Just look through it as if it’s something else. I think Texas’s sodomy laws were a great example. You guys made it illegal for gay men to have sex. Why? What gave you the right to do this? Just because you’re the sovereign nation of the Republic of Texas doesn’t mean it’s ok to just barge into people’s private lives.

      Texas may not still want to recognize it because that is what the majority of the people want Who cares what the majority of the people want? Rights shouldn’t be up for a vote. There was a time when the majority of the people of Texas supported slavery. Does that make it ok if you wanted to bring it back?

      It appears that the left or progressive thinkers wish to do away with the State individuality No, but we don’t think your ‘right’ to ‘individuality’ grants you the power to discriminate against a minority just because the majority thinks it’s OK.

      PS: HOWDY!

      • Batting a thousand today Matt. 🙂 I need to bookmark this rant for next time you support some liberal BS… 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        “Separate is not equal. ”

        And Different is not same.

        • Mathius says:

          Different without a distinction.

          Black and white are “different,” but it’s not relevant to the equation, so we don’t factor it in.

          Tall and short are “different,” but it’s not relevant to the equation, so we don’t factor it in.

          Gay and straight are “different,” but it’s not relevant to the equation, so we SHOULDN’T factor it in.

          What’s relevant to the equation of who should be married is whether they LOVE EACH OTHER and whether they are legally competent to form such a binding contract. Fin.

          Do you argue that gay people don’t love each other, or that it’s somehow different/inferior to the way you love your wife?
          Do you argue that gay people are somehow incompetent to form a legal contract with each other, or at least not as competent as you?

          And, importantly, how does their decision to marry each other impact you? If it doesn’t, then why is it any of your business? Why is it acceptable to you that the government legislate morality on this subject and invade gay people’s private relationships, while any intrusion into your private life is a criminal trespass and violation of your human rights in direct defiance of the Constitution?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Economic status or income is “different”, but is not relevant to the equation, so we SHOULDN’T factor it in.

            Gay people will now get special tax treatment and other Govt cookies. THAT AFFECTS ME!

            How does my level of income or wealth impact you? Why are you so willing to impose upon my Right to Property?

            Are you saying rich people don’t love their property as much as you? Are they “second class citizens” in your view?

            • Mathius says:

              I don’t think anyone should get any special ‘cookies’ bases on marital status.

              Because the government does something wrong doesn’t mean it’s ok to compound the error.

              Regarding your level of income – since you’ve shifted it to taxes – this is a question of cost/benefit with net societal implications. Yes, by having taxes taken from you (at all, just not at high rates!) you’re having your rights trampled. The theory goes that if you’re Rich (capital R), you can afford to give more with less pain than if you’re rich (small R) who can afford to give more with less pain than the well off, then the middle class, the the lower class. So the theory goes.. but that’s off topic.

              The point, to return to the topic, is that (according to you) allowing gay people to get married costs you money, therefore recognizing their rights tramples on your. Did I get that right?


              ::puts on Nifty Jack Sparrow Hat::

              Imagine this scenario: A man is mugging you. You are afraid of the mugger, who is armed and dangerous, but who promises to give some of the money to charity. You see homeless man walking down the street (who might plausibly be a recipient of some of that charity). Suddenly a bolt of inspiration strikes you! You grab the homeless man and kill him so he can’t receive any charity. The mugger, seeing this, takes slightly less money from you.

              Have you acted morally?

              • Just A Citizen says:



                But your story differs dramatically from the point your trying to make. If the beggar had hired the mugger to act on his behalf IN ADDITION to the other beggars on the next street down, then I would act to stop the beggar and the mugger from ADDING to my misery and slavery to their IMPOSITION upon me.

                A FREE MAN must start somewhere. I can’t eliminate all the beggars and muggers at once. But maybe I can stop NEW ONES from joining the MOB.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                So your cut off for IMPOSING YOUR WILL on me is YOUR theory of cost/benefit, affordability, ability, etc, etc..

                Well my theory of IMPOSING ON YOU OR OTHERS is ………………………………… Eye Color. Seems about as objective as your theory.

              • Mathius says:

                See, the fun thing here is that I get to employ a double standard and you don’t! Wahoo!

                You see, I’ve always held that it’s a cost-benefit things, so if I argue from cost benefit, that’s not out-of-line for me. You, however, have always argued in absolutes, so you don’t get to use cost-benefit as a justification.

                Now, from a cost-benefit, the question is the cost of some minor hypothetical government cookies against human dignity, human rights, second class citizen status, continued bigotry, etc. To me, this is an easy call as the BENEFIT is minor, but the COST is substantial on those who pay it. So, from my Liberal-Land, I can see that it should be legal. But you don’t get to use your own cost-benefit weightings because you don’t believe such a place exists.

                HOWEVER, once we venture into Pirate-Land, we see that cost-benefit is irrelevant. What matters in this strange and wondrous place is cold hard RIGHTS. And the RIGHT of two people to enter into a contract is absolute. Whatever anyone else may do as a result of that is not their fault. Any conceivable harm that may arise from this is the fault of whoever imparts such harm (ie, the taxman) and not two people wishing to marry. In Pirate-Land, where you live, any law is almost certainly, and by default, a violation of someone’s rights. In fact, in this case, you are denying them the ability – by law – to enter into a “marriage contract.” So, here, you’re using government force to intervene in a private affair on the grounds that someone else MIGHT do something which would impact you negatively. And that, my friend, does not fly in Pirate-Land.


              • Just A Citizen says:


                I am NOT denying anyone anything. I am not proposing the use of Govt Force to intervene in their personal arrangements. You will not find any place where I made such a claim.

                And ALL laws do not necessarily impede upon the “hard rights” of humans.

                Property rights and your right to self defense can be codified in law without imposing upon the rights of others.

                But now we are back to the beginning with you. What is your basis for identifying a “hard” right?

                By the way, do you realize that “Govt Marriage” laws do not impose upon the right of a gay couple to enter into a contract of their choosing nor from calling themselves Geese, Cows, or Married if they wish. Because you carry these conflicts in your foundation you become confused in your arguments. The issue here is Govt Privilege.

              • Matt, if I jump in an argue cost/benefit I can kick your cost/benefit argument’s butt, so I am not sure you want to revel in having an inconsistent or variable standard. Pirate land is much easier to work within, and there, the only option is to get government out of marriage altogether, which you agree is ideal. You should try all your arguments in pirate land, I bet most of your “best available options” will pass muster there, its the so-called “second best” options that get you, and the fact that you grant second best “realistic” credentials but automatically discount any possility of the ideal being possible.

              • Mathius says:


                The “ideal” isn’t possible. The system is too entrenched. In order:

                1. (ideal) gov out of marriage, completely out. Nothing to do with it at all in any way shape or form. Taxation, estate, hospital visitation / medical decision authorization, etc is all done on a person-by-person basis with people filling out wills, filing docs authorizing their significant other (or not), etc. Further, no one and no business, should be required to lump two people together just because they’re married. To that end, for example, an insurance provider should have the choice to decide if they want to cover ‘spouses’, etc. People who wish to get married can do so at the religion / non-religion institute of their choice, or simply consider themselves to be married and print out their own certificate on their laser printer (or not). People should be able to marry one or more individuals of any gender in any arrangement they wish so long as it is consensual by all parties involved (and only those parties). Dissolution of marriage is determined by private arbitration if necessary or governed by contractual agreement previously agreed to.

                2. (less ideal, but still much better) gov should issue ‘civil union’ licences to anyone who wants them. Said licence legally joins any two people who wish it for government purposes such as taxation, estate planning, medical rights, etc. This is no different than the present state of ‘marriage’ in the us, however, it removes the government from (some of) the morality / religious aspects of the equation. People who wish to get married can do so at the religion / non-religion institute of their choice, or simply consider themselves to be married and print out their own certificate on their laser printer (or not). People would be able to marry one or more individuals of any gender in any arrangement they wish so long as it is consensual by all parties involved (and only those parties). Dissolution of marriage is determined by private arbitration if necessary or governed by contractual agreement previously agreed to. Dissolution of ‘civil union’ may be accomplished through the legal system currently in place for dissolution of marriages. Plural-civil-unions are not permitted, however plural marriages are.

                3. (better) gov issues marriage licences to anyone who wants them. This is a marriage as it currently exists within the US legal system, but makes no distinction between individuals based on gender. Other than that, nothing else changes.

                4. (not ok) gay people are treated as second class citizens who cannot get “married” because the Christian Right is too strong and, backing the Republicans, has utilized this as a wedge issue. “Separate but equal.”

                See, #1 and #2 are great.. but they’re not going to happen any time soon. But I’ll take any step in the right direction I can get.

              • Matt,
                #2 is not impossible. All that would be needed would be for 1 state to do it, and it would catch on fast. And all that would be needed for that would be 1 strong voice advocating it.

                #3 might be more realistic, but you are still ignoring the alternate effect that redefining marriages has, particularly on the religious. I can see your argument, and MIGHT be able to agree that it is better than #4, but only if you could guarantee that official legalization could never be used to force acceptance by people who think it is sin, or worse, force churches to recognize or perform such marriages. I find such a thing far too likely, based upon trends of other laws.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Jon, the 1st Amendment would bar forcing any church to perform such a marriage against its beliefs.

                • Mathius says:

                  Would it? I don’t know. Can a church refuse to marry an interracial couple?

                  (honest question, I don’t know)

                  Jon, I would like to see your proposal enacted – as I say, I do not think the legal status of married should translate to private businesses having to recognize said status. That said, however, I wouldn’t want this to be misconstrued to imply that I believe it’s ok to refuse service based on sexual orientation, for example.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Actually that’s a really good question and I don’t know the actual answer, but I believe they would be free to refuse if it goes against their religious beliefs — I know religious institutions cannot be forced to marry an inter-religious couple.

              • Matt, indeed, I would support the right of a church or business to refuse to accept gay marriage or inter-racial marrage, but I would never condone such action, in fact I would cease to do business with a company engaging in such practices.

                Buck, I would like to find out the answer to that. I am betting that religious institutions are still allowed it, but I know businesses are not. However, a business is still run by people, and those people still have a right to their religion, yes? Not just on Sundays or at church, a person’s faith is with them always, at least for some people. Besides, didn’t we just have a lot of hullabaloo about contraception? There was an initial attempt to force churches to pay for something against their beliefs, and then it was reduced to a business having to do so instead. So I do not trust the 1st Amendment’s ability to keep legalized gay marriage from being forced on people in business and in churches. Not with the government we now have. Not considering the other abuses of the Constitution and the times the various Amendments have been ignored in the name of justification or other. Not when some Amendments like the 10th are completely ignored and scoffed at, as you yourself have done. I know you do not believe in slippery slope arguments, but I am not sure why, we have a clear history of it in our government.

              • Mathius says:

                Jon, that’s not really fair. The government wasn’t trying to require churches to do squat about contraceptives. It was trying to require this of BUSINESSES which were nominally affiliated with churches. So, for example, the YMCA is a “christian” organization, but it’s not really a “religious” organization, is it? I mean, not really.

                Not saying you’re completely wrong, but let’s be fair in our discussion or there’s no point in talking about it.

              • Matt, I was under the impression that the requirement was for all employees, meaning employees of churches as well, is that not correct? Besides, even if you are correct, we are not just talking about loosely associated organizations like the Y, we are also talking about Catholic Schools, many of which are on Church grounds, and they very much are religious organizations. I do not think I was being unfair at all.

              • Mathius says:

                It was definitely NOT for all employees, and especially not for church employees. In fact, that was never part of the ACA – Obama specifically exempted religious organizations from the contraceptive requirement. The hulabuloo came from religious-affiliated organizations such as Notre Dame which are nominally Catholic, but aren’t really “religious” organizations. (I go to a “Jesuit” school for my MBA, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that it’s anything other than completely secular, and I most certainly am not a Jesuit, myself).

                The cutoff is something like religious-backed, but not intrinsically religious organizations. So, the Y, but not St. Francis’ Church. Now, when you get into Catholic school, I don’t know the answer. Maybe? It’s a blurry line. I’m sure there’s an answer out there and if you dug into the law, I’m sure you could find it. But I don’t have the answer.

                So I do not trust the 1st Amendment’s ability to keep legalized gay marriage from being forced on people in business and in churches. So back to your point, if I understand your point. Your concern is that allowing for gay marriages would create a government mandate that they be acknowleged and non-discriminated against by religious organization (or any other private organization for that matter). Did I get that right?

                If so, I have a simple question: Is the possibility (alright, likelihood) that the government would do this more important than the hard it is doing to the men and women being denied the right to get married? Put another way, while I think we both agree the government should have no part in marriage, since it’s going to anyway, is the slightly greater imposition on private businesses more important (yes, I’m asking you to prioritize!) than the higher taxes (no joint filing), second class status (separate is not equal), or violation of rights (ability to enter into a private contract)?

            • JAC, a tax break is not a cookie, it just means they get to keep more of their own cookies. That does not affect you. Now if there is a tax credit (meaning money could be paid out even if taxes are not paid), then that is different. However, the presence of such a thing should bother you regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple, so its not really relevant to this discussion.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        “But since they aren’t going to, I’m going to support the second-best option.”

        Which of course means your more than willing to impose your views upon others who may not agree.

        • Mathius says:

          I’m not the one imposing anything here.

          I’m STOPPING people from imposing others.

          If I stop you from owning slaves, I’m not imposing on you – I’m STOPPING you from imposing on them. If I stop you from using government to discriminate against a minority, I’m not imposing on you – I’m STOPPING you from imposing on them.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Of course your imposing on me. What give you the right to decide if I get to keep slaves.

            And who are you, the supporter of the ultimate Slave Master, to tell me whether I can have slaves?

            I do recall you once declared that my theory of Govt was “imposing my version of freedom” on you. How does yours differ from that?

          • N.C. and 30 other states have passed a law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only. How does that “impose” on anyone? Liberals and gays have been advocating for a gay marriage law. That would be a state changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners. I agree the law is wrong that a partner cannot have the same legal rights as a spouse. But is changing the definition the right way to fix this issue? Isn’t it like saying the way to achieve racial equality will be by mandating all races are now white?

            Separate the issues. Gay couples are not treated equally under the law as married couples. Fix where the law discriminates. You cannot mandate a change in the commonly know meaning of a term used for thousands of years. To seek a gay marriage law is to seek the ability of using government to force people to violate their beliefs or face penalty. And not far behind this, you have those that want to allow marriage to animals and demand rights for trees….

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I agree with you to a point — constitutionally speaking, equality is the name of the game. As such, merely mandating all the same benefits to a married heterosexual couple and to a civil unionized homosexual couple, would arguably be all that the law requires.

              However, I understand (and fully support) the desire and push to have the ‘marriage’ label. After all, who are you to tell this couple that they don’t get to refer to what they have as a marriage, simply because it doesn’t conform to your own understanding of the term? Now no one is arguing to force a church to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple; no one is forcing any religious institution to bestow a marriage upon any couple that they do not wish. All that is being discussed here is the government granting a civil marriage, not a religious marriage, to any couple that requests one. What is so wrong with this?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Who are you to tell a community what their social norms should be?

                How do you decide what you will impose your will upon and what you will let slide?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And who are you to tell an individual what they can and cannot refer to themselves as?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                To add, societal norms change over time. As we can see clearly happening with gay marriage. My disdain comes from codifying past discrimination into law through statutes and amendments defining homosexual couples out of marriage.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                HOW do societal norms change over time? Does it not require “societal” change rather than change “forced” by one group on the rest?

                How do you determine what you will impose and what you will not? What is the basis for this decision?

                You are willing to impose your will upon my Property (money) in the form of taxes. You are willing to impose your will upon me in other ways, based on my group identity, income, farmer vs. logger vs banker, location of residency, etc. So why is it not OK for Society to impose its will upon a minority if Societal norms are violated by that minority?

            • Mathius says:

              But is changing the definition the right way to fix this issue The term has changed DRASTICALLY over those “thousands of years.” It used to mean a man and his WIVES or a man and his wife-as-property or a man and his child-bride. It used to be many things in many places at many times.

              You simply wish to lock in the ‘standard’ definition from, let’s say, 30 years ago, and use government force everyone to keep using that forever.

              The definition IS changing – words change meaning over time. Organically or by the concerted effort of interested parties. But you’re using the LAW to wield the power of the GOVERNMENT to IMPOSE your desired meaning on everyone.

              Who are you to tell a community what their social norms should be? Again. We’re not the ones IMPOSING. We’re the ones trying to stop YOU from imposing. You’re allowing your “communities” to IMPOSE on a minority. We’re saying that’s not OK. Screw their norms. If their norms said it was OK to beat wives with sticks, I’d say they don’t have that right either.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                YOU ARE IMPOSING.

                What is your basis for deciding what a community can or can not do?

                I see you dropped the word “right” but you missed the bucket. What Rights? Where do they come from? How do you support them? How do you identify them?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Who are you to say I can’t beat my wife with a stick.. Your willing to beat me with your Govt Stick to IMPOSE YOUR programs and lifestyle upon me. So by what moral authority do you claim I don’t have that same right/privilege/authority/power?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              LOI, not sure how I could have missed this little nugget earlier:

              “And not far behind this, you have those that want to allow marriage to animals”. What are you talking about!? I’m sorry, but that is just inane — no one is talking about marrying their cow, or dog, or any other animal. All this is being discussed is how two people who love each other wish to refer to themselves.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Nothing in this world is stopping those people from calling themselves anything they want. They can refer to themselves as “married” if they wish. There is NO LAW prohibiting their FREE SPEECH.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And if they wish their government issued license to read “Marriage License”?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                They are free to write anything on it they wish. But if you want a Govt License I suppose you will have to take the title the Govt puts on it as well. A little cut and paste could solve the problem.

              • I agree that the jump to animals or even children is a serious stretch. There is a clear line separating the acceptance of any number or gender of adults involved in contractual arrangements and the involvement of minors or animals. Minors might be a little less clear, as I am currently awaiting JAC’s response to the whole “how do you decide adulthood” debate. Still, even for a slippery slope believer like myself, I don’t see that being the next step, there is a rather substantial hurdle before sliding down to that level.

                As for someone wanting a government license to say a certain thing, I do not see that as valid. If I want my government records to list me as black, and I am not, then to bad. It might be unfair that I cannot have the title of “black”, but no matter how “hood” I am, thats just not going to happen. So I do not see that as a valid argument. That said, I still say there should be no license to marry at all. There is absolutely no reason for the government to have any control over marriage or other consentual contractual arrangements. They may need to have involvement in legal aspects, but that is irrelevant to marriage. A civil union style contract would work just as well for anyone, no need to have marriage on any government document. If it does not need government sanction, then it does not need a license.

          • Actually, you are imposing if you have a law that forces acceptance of any marriage. Now, I agree that NOT having a law restricting marriage is equally important, but this ends being similar to religious displays. It is an imposition to restrict them, just as it would be an imposition to require them to be accepted.

  23. Another election year tid bit: Val Verde County, Texas. Ranching family of 174 years found dead in home taken over by Sineloa Cartel. News Media blackout has been ordered. Sigh.

    • News media blackout? What does that mean exactly? Who orders this and what do they do to keep the story from getting out?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is done by ordering Fed agency staff to keep their mouths shut. More precisely all media contact is moved to an upper level office, which then never returns the media phone calls.

        There was a similar black out in the early Stimulus implementation. At that time ALL communications were handled by Secretary level staff that were actually inserted by the White House to handle said communications.

        State personnel are then reminded that if they don’t toe the line their Federal grants or other support can be jeopardized.

        But I have yet to see them directly threaten or try to stop media coverage, once the media decides it is interested. Which raises the next question. WHEN will they become interested when the facts may not fit the narrative of their lover.

      • Jennie, it is ordered by the Federal Government, more specifically, the Department of Justice. It is handled without fanfare. If a Federal Employee is caught releasing information, they will lose their job and their retirement. If a military person is caught releasing it, they can lose their commission (if an officer) or get discharged and lose pension and benefits. If a State employee gets caught releasing it, they are threatened with jail and loss of budgets, funding, and licenses. If a news media who is owned by the bigger news media gets it and prints it, they are threatened with being left out of the big picture in Washington. For example, assuming there is a small paper owned by the Washington Post……and the small paper prints it…….the Washington Post does not get a seat on Air Force One and loses its seat in the Press Room. This is how you get a News Blackout. CNN will not say anything. Fox News will not say anything. No one will say anything. This administration is well known for this heavy handed approach. It has not been done like this since Nixon. The military must talk through its PRO….Public Relations Officer and there will be no official comment.

  24. @ Buck…….g’morning counselor……how are you this fine morning? We have a taste of your “yankee” weather…..cold front….down to 65 degrees at night and only 85 during the day…..great for tomato and pepper plants though…..already picking produce from the garden.

    @ JAC…..peace,my friend, peace……these are interesting times.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Colonel, that’s some mighty fine weather you’re having. Though 65 is a bit chilly at night, so be sure to pour yourself a nice glass of scotch when sitting outside after dinner tonight – it’ll keep you warm and toasty. Finally warming up on my end; should be in the high 70s this weekend.

      • Unfortunately, all alcohol is off the list. So is Red Bull and so is Dr. Pepper. HEAVY SIGH……No coffee either, although I do not drink the stuff. (Do you know how hard it is to drop Dr Pepper cold turkey? I might as well ask you to not drink coffee ever again.) The diet has changed also….not from over weight issues ( 73 inches, 195 pounds of lean mean fighting machine) but because of the Agent Orange that I contacted in Vietnam,,,,,it attacks the liver in older aged “gentlemen” such as myself and can lead to diabetes (my latest report showed me 9 points off. On the radar screen but not immediate danger.) Therefore, I must refrain from such immodest indulgences… BIg Macs….no fried foods at all….period/paragraph. No Pizza and no cheese. No sour cream and no fast foods. Fruit, Steamed vegetables (yeeech) and I like veggies but steamed? All lean meats, which is a good thing anyway. NO CHOCOLATE…….can you believe this NO CHOCOLATE? I need to give the pancreas a rest so that it can produce the insulin I need and not process the garbage. Can you imagine a Texas Boy not eating fried chicken and fajitas? Can you imagine trying to find such fare on the “frontier” where Mexican food abounds? Damn!!!!!!

        One good caveat…..I can have all the sex I want thus far. The missus is thankful for that. 🙂

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Geez…how is a Texan Colonel to survive!? I feel for you…but don’t you dare ask me to stop drinking coffee!

        • A good friend of mine had some liver issues from previous lifestyle failures that he got himself clear of. Doc told him either no drinking or no meat. He has been a vegetarian ever since. 🙂

  25. Anyone else notice the earth stop spinning a few days ago? Would have bet thousands of dollars against if asked to bet….

    During the May 9 edition of ABC’s The View, Whoopi Goldberg made a surprising revelation to members of the audience. During an interview with Fox’s John Stossel about his new book, “No They Can’t: Why Government Fails But Individuals Succeed,” Goldberg disclosed that she was a member of the NRA.

    Read more:

    • I was wondering where that dizziness came from all of a sudden. Whoopi a NRA member….wow. I have to search the records to see this…..I bet she is not a Golden Eagle though.

  26. Hafta do this in honor of Beach Boy Bruce Johnston.

    Americans will be “f**ked” if Barack Obama gets re-elected … this according to Beach Boys singer Bruce Johnston.

    Bruce was signing autographs for fans in New York yesterday when the conversation turned political.

    “Obama’s an a**hole, “Johnston says … adding, “Unless you’re interested in never having any money and being socialized.”

    But Johnston was an equal opportunity disser — saying, “And who’s the Republican a**hole?”

    “Our guy isn’t any good.”

    He continued, “You got Reagan and Tip O’Neill … those are the last two good guys.”

    “Wait ’til Obama doesnt have to try anymore,” Bruce added .. “you’re f**ked.”…0.0.CArJuiQnVfU

  27. charlieopera says:

    GREAT post, USW. Good on ya.

    Good book (highly recommended) … back to the 60’s.

  28. Kristian says:

    Maybe I’m wrong about this, but all politics aside, I’d be willing to bet that for those gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage it isn’t a matter of politics. I know that when I chose to marry it was because I chose to bind myself to the man that I loved because I loved him and one of the ways that I could express that was by carrying his last name. It’s probably the same for most if not all of the gay and lesbian couples that want to get married. It’s not about the tax breaks or the insurance or hospital visitation, although those things don’t hurt. It’s about their desire to be a spouse. I was so proud the day that I went and got the name changed on my license to my husband’s last name. He’s been gone 2 years now and I still proudly carry his name!

    I keep running back in my mind episodes that I have seen of Little House on the Prairie. Remember that show? I don’t recall anyone that got married having to go to the court house and get a license to get married. It was recorded in the church records and the family bible and that was it. That is how it should be now. If the gay and lesbian couples wish to be married in a church then they need to find one that will do it or found their own. I agree with the ones here who have said that government doesn’t need to be involved in marriage. It’s really none of the government’s business!

  29. Voting with their feet to avoid taxes: How much money do you think that the Federal Government lost by this person renouncing his US citizenship?
    The US will still force him to pay some taxes (a so-called exit tax), but even with that tax it still pays him to give up his US citizenship. Is this what you want? The brightest, wealthiest people to leave the country? From Bloomberg:

    Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co- founder of Facebook Inc. (FB), renounced his U.S. citizenship before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion, a move that may reduce his tax bill.
    Facebook plans to raise as much as $11.8 billion through the IPO, the biggest in history for anInternet company. Saverin’s stake is about 4 percent, according to the website Who Owns Facebook. At the high end of the IPO valuation, that would be worth about $3.84 billion. His holdings aren’t listed in Facebook’s regulatory filings.
    Saverin, 30, joins a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship, a move that can trim their tax liabilities in this country. The Brazilian-born resident of Singapore is one of several people who helped Mark Zuckerberg start Facebook in a Harvard University dorm and stand to reap billions of dollars after the world’s largest social network holds its IPO. . . .
    Saverin’s name is on a list of people who chose to renounce citizenship as of April 30, published by the Internal Revenue Service. Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship “around September” of last year, according to his spokesman.
    Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as “certain foreign- sourced income,” according to a government website on tax policies there. . . .

    • Everyone I ever talked to about taxes and warned of this result of taxing the rich told me I was nuts and that it would never happen. LOL!

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh, I am excited now. Another water war in the West.

    Heard about this yesterday and now its in the news. This is going to get bigger and bigger. And here is the kicker folks. If the Feds don’t want to give an inch the town of Tombstone is SOL. Just ask the farmers in the Klamath basin how this will end.

    P.S. As I said the other day, further proof of just how far a once proud outfit has slid into the ditch.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    New Topic…………. VDLG Party Platform Proposal

    In keeping with a “willingness to compromise” PROVIDED that we move CLOSER to freedom and not farther down the path of “Progressive Slavery”, I would like to propose the following.

    1. National Retirement Fund: A minimum percentage, say 15%, of All wages shall be deposited into Private accounts that are insured by FDIC. These funds will be deferred from Income Tax but shall be available to all tax payers upon demand. Funds removed shall be taxed at the rate applicable to the account holder at the time of withdrawl.

    Existing Social Security accounts shall be transferred to the new NRF including interest accrued on a pro rata basis from all funds owed to the Soc Sec trust. The Fed Govt shall make payments annually to said account so as to assure that the amount due under this rule is completely paid by the time the account holder reaches age 65.

    2. National Medical Care Fund: A minimum percentage, say 5%, of all wages shall be deposited into a Private account that is insured by FDIC. These funds well be deferred from Income Tax and shall be available to all tax payers for the purpose of paying medical bills. Funds removed for payment of such bills shall not be subject to income tax. Beginning at age 65 any remaining funds may be withdrawn at the rate of 1/20 per year but such withdrawals shall be taxed at the ordinary rate.

    Existing Medicare and Medicaid shall be terminated. Those citizens with income below the poverty level at the time of enactment shall have Federal Funds contributed to their account in an amount of 5% of their Gross income for a period of no more than 5 years.

    Now I confess this is a quick draft proposal. So SUFA, it is time to offer your ideas.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I dunno JAC…sounds like you are just imposing additional taxes on me!

      1) NRF — Is this a mandatory tax? What kind of VDLG would impose an additional tax on my wages?? Also, sounds somewhat similar to an IRA.

      2) NMCF — Another mandatory tax!? What kind of VDLG would impose an additional tax on my wages?? Also, sounds somewhat similar to a HSA.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You and your tribe have shown you can not be responsible for own welfare. So for the good of society and the freedom of responsible VDLG members, we are willing to “compromise” and FORCE you to SAVE.

        By the way, I assume you realize the existing Payroll tax would be eliminated. And along with the cuts in these and other Fed Govt programs the overall Income Tax would also be reduced. Total tax would be around 20 to 25% of Gross Income, with only 10% going to general tax. The other 15% is YOURS. It is NOT a TAX. IT IS YOUR SAVINGS.

        The VDLG proposal ELIMINATES Govt responsibility other than keeping track of your account and paying interest on any money borrowed. Your accounts can be invested in Govt and/or municipal bonds only, until you save ten times your annual income. Then you can expand your investment options to anything you like.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Actually they are more like the Federal Employee Thrift Savings and Flexible Health Spending Accounts.

    • I dont like it. It might be better than the current system, but forced saving, especially at an arbitrary percentage is a bit hard to swallow. I would want to at least have the option of opting out of that for a private version, even if it was required that I put in an equivalent amount. That turns my stomach too, but at least it a move to privatization. I don’t trust the government, not even a VDLG version, too easy for VDLG to become VDBG. And the odds of truly competent people always being in charge is low, so them being in charge of 15% of my income to “save for me” is treading on dangerous territory. I get that you are trying a stepping stone, but I think some things need to be removed from mandatory status to really be on the path to phasing them out. One of the problems with stuff like this I have in general is that life comes in phases. There are times I dont want to save, I want to put every extra dime into building a business or education or even taking a vacation or whatever I need at the time. I decide what I need. Keeping government in the role of being able to “do what is best for me” is at the root of the issue. How much they control is not as important as the concept that they should be allowed to control or that they are competent enough to control aspects of individual’s lives. Get rid of the idea that government should have a monopoly on this and you can make some progress.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are currently paying effectively 16% into FICA and have no guarantee it will last and can not get your money back. In fact the medicare side adds to the cost of health care.

        So you are unwilling to compromise because the contribution is required………so you will continue to be forced to contribute.

        As I said, this is a compromise proposal. The alternative is to not compromise and continue living under the existing system. Because the REALITY is that completely PRIVATE accounts WILL NOT PASS.

        • False dichotomy. There are other options. My personal favorite would be to stop paying the B@$+@4ds and let them come try to collect. 🙂

          I get what you are trying to do here, but I would not fly it under the VDLG flag. I would present it as a stepping stone, but other things need to change first. If you hand them 15% plus 5% right now, regardless of your rules, it will never be a stepping stone, it will be the new minimum. We need to think of better ways to wean people off the nanny-state.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Good freakin grief. I just got this in my email from Barack Obama. These people are getting creepy. Please note that the “link” he provides is the Dem party site, not one of those email card sites.

    “Friend —

    If you’re lucky enough to get to marry your best friend, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

    Michelle amazes me every day, and in the years we’ve been together, nothing inspires me more than watching her be a mom to our two girls.

    Each of us has amazing women in our lives who give us strength and encouragement, and no matter what we do on Mother’s Day, it never seems like enough.

    This year, I wanted to try something a little different. I know Michelle treasures every single person who is part of this movement we’ve built, so I’m hoping each of you will sign my card to her today. It’ll mean a lot to her.

    Will you join me in wishing Michelle a happy Mother’s Day?

    Thanks, and happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there.


    • I also notice on the site that it wants your zip code and your eMail Address. So they can deluge you with emails to try and get you to vote for Emperor Obama and his court jester Biden? I don’t think so! Homey don’t play that.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You got it pard. Why do you think I get these love letters from POT…US and the DNC all the time?

        We made one little mistake over three years ago. But it is fun seeing what they are up to all the time.

        • Well I’m just glad I’m not on their list! I hope you and yours have a good weekend. Kindo cool down here considering the time of year. Feels good!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Don’t worry, there is HOT weather behind the cold.

            We’ve had highs in the low 60’s last few days, going to 80 tomorrow and 90 by Monday.

            Enjoy the cool while it lasts.

            Now go catch a ball game or two this weekend.

            • No ball games, but practice for my boy’s travel team. He’s on a different team this year. Some of the others he knows some he doesn’t. But they are the best ball players in the region, and will be playing on college campuses all around the Region from AL to SC and TN. A wonderful opportunity given to a wonderful young man if I do say so myself.

  33. Just for those who do not understand Washingtonese….. Evolved=flip flop. It is amazing how a conservative changes his mind, he/she flipped flopped but a progressive….eeeevvvvoooollllvvvveeesss. What a crock. (Rant over)

  34. charlieopera says:

    Another bank pulls the rug out from under the middle class … and who wants to bet some coin nothing happens to anyone (legally) in this latest version of Too Big To Give A Flying Fock?

    They do what they want with the full blessing of those they put in power. It’s working just great … the gap grows wider again.

    • Exactly WHAT are they SUPPOSED to do Charlie? It’s poor management for sure, but it’s not against the law to lose money on bad investments. And how exactly is it “pulling the rug out from under the middle class”? Am I missing something? Is this not about J.P Morgan? If it is, then Mr Obama is who they put in power. And even if that is so, what is he supposed to do? They have already regulated the crapballs out of the banking industry.

      In case you missed it, the entire WORLD is hurting right now. And in the United States, Obama is turning us Socialist as fast as he can. He can’t turn us into the USSR overnight. There are still too many of us freedom lovers opposing him.

      But don’t you worry! He’ll get right back to it as soon as, or IF. he is reelected. Until then, you will just have to wait.

      • Charlie, Esom hit on the key point here. Washington already regulated them, and it did no good. Obviously expansion of regulation will not fix this, especially since Washington and Wall street are in bed together. There will always be some hidden way they can still screw the rest of the people. The only thing that can bring consequences to these banks is letting them fall apart. And the only thing with the power to do that is the market itself. Legal consequences are too easy to avoid by greasing the right palms. You cannot buy your way out of debt, despite what the Keyensians say.

        • charlieopera says:

          Washington already regulated them, and it did no good.

          Please don’t tell me expect me to believe Washington regulated the banks … whaterver bullshit legislation was passed (by Obama and/or Congress) OBVIOUSLY was exactly that–bullshit. “There will always be some hidden way …” Yes, Jon, we know that … and freeing them up more (or totally) will only lead to a bigger grip on the bullshit legislation that is passed over and over again.

          The market is and always will be a rigged deck. You prefer to ignore that. I respect your belief in the greater good of human decency and worldwide fairness of the market’s unchained (talk about a utopia) … and I only hope the people of this country put down their video games long enough to realize they’ve been comatose long enough. I doubt it’ll happen in my lifetime, but sooner or later, it will. And I do hope the government is held responsible first (the first ones off the rooftops … then the people who own the government.

          • I hear you, all I am saying is if you stop seeking government intervention altogether and support seperation of business and state, those banks will still try to do that nefarious stuff, but in such a free market world, those banks would have gone under rather than get a bailout. Just sayin’…

            • charlieopera says:

              but in such a free market world, those banks would have gone under rather than get a bailout. Just sayin’…

              Jon, here is where I agree with BF — what you describe could ONLY happen in an anarchist environment (and that just isn’t going to happen). So long as there is any form of government (coercion in any form), money will own it and have it do its bidding.

              • Other than the foolish optomist parts of me, I generally agree. Tho it is the pessimist in me that keeps me from totally agreeing with BF. I hate when reality screws up a good philosophy… 🙂

      • charlieopera says:

        Am I missing something?

        Apparently so. Ever hear of 401K’s?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          You really should look closer before throwing around your populist Marxist rants.

          The money lost was the company’s money. Not retirement accounts, not customer money.

          It was the Banks money, being bet to reduce the Bank’s risk exposure. Now the only remaining issue, that is legitimate one, is whether that was Tax Money that was in effect used. If they had not repaid 100% of the bailout back yet then you could argue we subsidized the bet.

          As for the 401K issue in general, anyone who lost more than about 15% on their 401K during the 2008 crash has nobody to blame but themselves. No decent manager would have ridden that to the bottom.

          Now even if they had got out at around 30 to 40% loss, if their managers were doing their job they have made those losses back on the return to 13000.

          I am so tired of listening to people use the downturns as some proof of catastrophe, while ignoring the upside turns that happen before and after.

          • charlieopera says:

            I am so tired of listening to people use the downturns as some proof of catastrophe, while ignoring the upside turns that happen before and after

            And I’m soooo tired of listening to people use the upside turns that happen AFTER the people have had to subsidize the profit margins they DO NOT GET A SHARE OF.

            As regards the 401K management … not everybody spends their lives watching their money, JAC. I know that must make you cringe, the thought that people have other interests in their lives besides the stock market, but they do. And since they were bummed rush into 401K’s (when pensions disappeared), I’m thinking maybe they’re too busy trying to survive … you know, one of those annoying mitigating circumstances.

          • charlieopera says:

            You really should look closer before throwing around your populist Marxist rants.

            No wonder Obama is considered a socialist!

            Something tells me you’re a Mark Levin fan …

  35. This is from our local newspaper. I think you will like it as an example of government gone to far, of misuse of precious government resources in a state that is essentially broke, and of a ridiculously myopic game warden.

    By Rebecca Murphy
    Mother Lode News From page A1 | May 11, 2012 | 18 Comments

    California Department of Fish and Game wardens removed a stuffed red tail hawk and wolverine from the Georgetown Hotel bar on Tuesday in what some claimed was nothing less than “too much government regulation.”

    Wardens Lt. Christy Wurster and Bob Pera came to the hotel prior to the 11 a.m. opening on Tuesday so as not to interfere with customer service either at the bar or the attached Mexican restaurant.

    Warden Pera said the official complaint was made anonymously and originally entailed the report of two stuffed vultures.

    “I received an e-mail from my chief and investigated the complaint Friday (May 4),” said Pera, who was the officer in charge of the seizure. “I discovered they weren’t vultures, but chickens (fighting cocks, to be exact). During my investigation, I did see several other violations.”

    Pera referred to the red tail hawk, wolverine and a small bear that he thought was under 50 pounds and, therefore, illegal. It turned out, however, that the “bear” in question turned out to be a raccoon, and the only other stuffed bear in the hotel looked to be well over 50 pounds, according to Pera.

    Hotel owner Virginia Asbury had little to say about the removal of the animals other than they were there when she bought the business more than 16 years ago. She was given a receipt for the two stuffed carcasses that were removed from the premises, but was told she was not able to possess them, and would not have them returned.

    The wolverine was said to be a kind of icon for the hotel, but Lt. Wurster was adamant about the illegality to possess it.

    “There are several different regulations,” she said. “The state says you can’t possess them in any way, shape or form.”

    Although it is not known how the animals came into the hotel’s possession — whether they were taken prior to regulations being implemented, or if they were purchased in their stuffed condition — the wardens were clear that state regulations (which vary from state to state) prohibit the possession of the animals, making the Georgetown establishment in violation of the law.

    Also made clear was that even if the animals were killed and stuffed legally in another state, the animals may not be in the possession of a California business or resident.

    Local residents witnessing the event from the street commented that it was a ludicrous waste of time to seize the animals since they had been at the local business for many years.

    Following the seizure of the animals, the officers were asked if they had a warrant. They did not, but said they were operating within their rights of the law. Questions regarding the lack of a warrant are expected to be pursued.

    It is unknown what will happen to the animal carcasses, but the name of the Smithsonian Institute was bantered around by both wardens and an employee of the hotel, who said he had talked with someone at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. Although the Smithsonian may be allowed to take them for display, no money can exchange between the owner and the institute.

    • From the Dept of Redundancy Dept:

      This Is Not a Joke: Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies

      The Pentagon was inundated with so many studies in 2010 that it commissioned a study to determined how much it cost to produce all those studies.
      Now the Government’s Accounting Office has reviewed the Pentagon’s study and concluded in a report this week that it’s a flop.
      The study of a study of studies began in 2010 when Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was “awash in taskings for reports and studies.” He wanted to know how much they cost.
      Two years later, the Pentagon review is still continuing, which prompted Congress to ask the GAO to look over the Pentagon’s shoulder. What they found lacked military precision.
      The GAO found only nine studies that had been scrutinized by the Pentagon review, but the military was unable to “readily retrieve documentation” for six of the reports.
      The Department of Defense’s “approach is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards,” the GAO concluded. In fact, they often did not include items like manpower, the report found.
      The Pentagon “partially concurs” with the GAO’s report.

  36. charlieopera says:

    So my wife gets a notice in the mail from Amex. She was a day late paying the bill in full (first time ever). They notify her that we’re being charged $35.00 and our rate is being jacked up 12%. She has much more patience that I do (I would’ve stopped paying the bill and let them go and fuck themselves (as I once did with a previous wife when they had the balls to charge me for an airline ticket I didn’t charge (it was in Atlanta, where I’ve never been) and they expected me to sign a waiver; they make the mistake and I have to sign the waiver–yeah, right).

    So my wife made the call to Amex and the issue was resolved in our favor, but then she turned to me (her a devout Democrat, me the anti-Christ) and said, “You know what, you’re right. This is a rigged deck. It’s all bullshit. A 12% rate increase and a $35.00 late charge and I’ve had this card since 1998 without an issue.”

    Probably she was 1 day late paying in line because she WORKS 7 DAYS A WEEK, but why should that figure into the equation (think back to reason vs. losing one’s fucking soul, please).

    I reminded her of how many people wouldn’t think to call back and plead their case and resolve the issue and/or those like me who feel so insulted (and fucked by the balls on these banks), they would simply let the card die and wait for them to try and settle for 1/5th of whatever the balance was to resolve it). But most people would pay the fee (probably borrowing from another card/Peter to pay Paul) and somehow that’s okay.

    Because it’s not like they aren’t trying to hook the country on credit and fuck them six ways to Sunday with 12% increases. Not to mention when you overpay a bill, they get to keep the money for three months and pay you an interest rate on it MUCH LOWER than what they charge.

    Capitalism at its best.

    But most here think that letting them go even less regulated would mean instant competition and a return to fairness.

    Yeah, right. It would lead right back to where we are (money owning government) so friggin’ fast you’re head would spin.

    I know what to do with Wall Street (especially now after yet another bank lost $2 billion gambling). Toss every one of those MF’ers off the roofs of the buildings they operate from.

    And that’s my rant for the week, folks.

    With all respect, of course.

    • The moral to the story……do not own a credit card.

      Think of the impact to these banks if no one lived on credit. Think of the change they would have to make to attract good customers.

      There is a down side to this that I am suffering by not having a credit card. First of all, no one believes it. Secondly, I actually have no credit rating, which can be problematic at times…..but I have also found, that if one wants credit and has no card……have a down payment handy. It is amazing how quick one can get credit with a hefty down payment and lower rates and lower prices.

      • charlieopera says:

        Think of the impact to these banks if no one lived on credit.

        Colonel, greetings from the cannoli planet … i know you mean well above (and as you point out), it ain’t gonna happen. The deck has been rigged in such a way that we (most people) need credit cards to function day to day (emergencies, etc.). How about we all become shareholders in these banking schemes? Nationalize them all!

        • Hey there in Cannoliville……..I can understand emergencies but I do not understand how the deck has been rigged, pertaining to credit cards. But, what the hell, there is a lot I do not understand, my friend. What is amazing to me is I see people whip out the old credit card….to pay for something like five dollar meal. These banking institutions would not even exist if we did not have credit cards….or at least not exist to where we are dependent upon them…. Credit is ok if one uses it wisely….but to ever carry a balance over to the next month is crazy, in my opinion. People do not have to do that. However, that is the way of the modern day person.

        • You seem to think nationalizing companies is going to give you ownership. It does not, except in name only. Nationalizing, in real life, just means putting them under government control. You will end up with as much control over them and as much a profit stake in them as you have in the government itself. Which is none. And it would leave you with even less legal recourse against grievances.

        • Charlie….one other thing that woke me up in the night…, it was not a super dose of Cannoli………it was your insistence on individual rights. You insist that the people have no recourse, that they have no say so. But I still think you are very wrong. And using your example is a great point. Banks and credit. You claim that you do not have the means to support yourself without credit and that the majority of the people do not and I say that is ludicrous. Perhaps everyone has lulled themselves into thinking that credit is the way out. I can promise you, that if everyone just did not use credit cards………these BIG BANKS that you do not like will fold like a cheap tent in a fart. But it takes intestinal fortitude to not use credit. I know that it is easy to do and that is why the big banks came up with the idea. We, the people, have allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security in that we NEED these banks and we do not, Banks are a tool to be used… like a hammer. Rid yourself of the dependency of credit for credits sake….and you will throw off a huge weight. Do not buy if you do not have the cash. Period….. and that is easy to do but you have to make yourself do it. Do not be lulled into the fact that it is safer because you do not have to carry cash. Bunk! It is no less safer nor secure. Do not use the excuse of saving time. And what, exactly, is an emergency? Keep a credit card for emergencies if you wish but identify what an emergency is? An emergency is not a big screen TV in football season. It is not a cell phone and it is not an impulse buy. Want to slam Walmart? Quit using credit cards and in store credit. These banks and retail stores get bigger each day when someone is willing to pay 4-25% more for using credit and you do pay this. It is a scam when you walk into a department store and they say “save an additional 20% by using this store card”….even the most uneducated know that the cost is already figured in.

          Banks do not owe you nor the public anything. They do not owe you free or low interest. They are a business and that is all they are. So hit THEM where it hurts the most……the bottom line and the public CAN CAN CAN do this…..they just have to want to. The public can bring banks and retail giants to their knees. By what you need and not what you want. This housing crises that we are going through was not greed from banks and mortgage entities……it was expert marketing. It was greed from the consumer. Who, in their right mind, would think that a no down payment to get into a house is a good thing? Everyone should know…..SHOULD know…..what interest is and how it works. You cannot say the public, in general, does not know… should know. But, the marketing skill of getting someone into a house with no down payment combined with the fact that the individual does not sit down and read thoroughly their contract realizing that house payments were going to go up in three years and the interest rate sky rockets past their means to pay was a great marketing ploy. When it comes down to it greed played a role BOTH ways….combined with the ever lasting thought….”well, I have three years to re-finance and I can do that”, forgetting that re-financing is NOT going to be without equity. I will never buy the argument that people do not understand financing….before you make a purchase, you should understand financing. If someone buys into the sales gimmick of…..”get this house now and re-finance later as the market will continue to increase and your equity will be there”……is the same roll of dice that made Las Vegas huge. If it comes up snake eyes, there is no one to blame but yourself. Making credit easy was an excellent strategic move……and people bought it. People do control their destiny…..just do it.

          Please understand, this is NOT a lecture on money management. It is a way to fight back. Hit them in the pocket book. Hit them hard and they will crumble. You want to regulate, through government…….I say regulate through yourself. Leadership is not governing…..leadership is doing. But, no one is out there to take care of the individual and should not be. It is the individual that needs to take care of him/herself. It is not the responsibility of government nor the public. If we, as a people, understand this and take our own greed out of it……..we will be in control. Though the pocketbook and that is the way of capitalism……control the monsters by controlling their food…….money.

          Want to control employers? Employers cannot exist without employees. Employers owe the employee NOTHING but a paycheck and it is the employee that makes the decision to work there. If an employer is unscrupulous, do not work there. It is simple. As an employer, I will pay a wage. A wage that I wish to pay. I do not owe an equal share,,,,,I owe ONLY what I am willing to give……a wage. If I want better employees, I will either add to that wage or offer another benefit. A benefit is nothing more than something else I am willing to pay to entice you to work for me. I do not owe you a vacation and I do not owe you a pension or retirement plan and I do not owe you health…..unless I bargain this away to you. You simply do not have to work for me. It matters not that I can get one hundred dollars for my product….and I pay you one dollar as a wage. I am not in business to provide you a job. I am in business to make as much as I can off the public through whatever legal means that I can and if I make a profit of 100%, bully for me. Do not buy my product if you think me greedy. If enough of you do not buy my product, I will have to lower my prices or cut my expenses. If my expense cuts make you look elsewhere for work….then I am a failure as a business manager and my business will close. But it is the individual and not government that can make the biggest difference.

          I am of the opinion, that government gets bigger off the greed of ALL. We want mandated things. We WANT, we WANT, We WANT. But we want someone else to do it and we are willing to give up our freedoms for ease. This is where I feel this country has gone wrong.

          In conclusion of my tirade this morning….want to control business….hit em where it hurts. You throw more regulations at them and the price goes up. Want to control prices through controls….it has been tried and failed. Business will simply close up. Europe is full of this thinking and their productivity has fallen and they are going broke fast enough that Europe will not be Europe very much longer….it will be a collection of third world nations. Interesting in how France is going in two short weeks. They have already lost 2% of their wealthiest patrons because of the elections. They simply moved. What will it be in another year and then what? Point a gun and say you cannot move?

          We are still in control……so far.

          • Colonel, as Victor Lazlo said to Rick before he and Ilsa flew off to Lisbon bearing the irrevocable letters of transit, “Welcome to the fight, now I know we will win.” You have said what I believe in my heart of hearts and you have said it better than I. You have reminded me of the way I was brought up. If you ain’t got the money, don’t buy it! The biggest fight I ever saw my parents have, circa 1960 was over a new bedroom set. Mom and Dad were married during the war. less than a month later, he left and except for a week or two was pretty much gone for three years. Along the way Mom had picked up a used bedroom set which they kept through the late ’40’s and ’50’s. By ’60, I guess she felt she had earned the right to a new one. They did not have the cash and Mom wanted to buy it on time. That led to a major event which I at 13 got to watch up close. She won the battle and it was paid off in a year but they never again made a credit purchase. Both went to their graves never owning a credit card or, for that matter, a checking account. I have two but they go months without being used. Except for some record keeping sloppiness on my part over the last 40 years I have never paid interest or penalties more than two or three times.

            Your tirade on employers also puts you and I on the same page and I suspect Charlie too. We come at it from slightly different backgrounds and perspectives but we recognize that the individual can control his destiny. It may take work, hard work but it can be accomplished. The power of the greedy can be broken but that can only happen if those being hosed realize they are being hosed and are not lulled to continue more of the same because of a “safety net”. All 60 years of welfare ever accomplished was breaking the spirit and will of some very good and potentially very productive people.

          • Damn. Brilliant!

          • Well said and I quite agree. I made some serious credit errors in my past that I am still recovering from. However, the fact that my credit score is lower than my age has not crippled me. I am better off now than ever, and I buy NOTHING on credit anymore, have not done so for 3 years. You can survive in this country with no use of credit, of that there is no question. You do without a lot of stuff, but you can make it, even do quite well.

  37. @ Mathius…..and a GRACIOUS Howdy back to you sir. (With a tip o’ th’ hat. ***picture right hand thumb and forefinger lightly grasping brim of stetson and head nod…the ultimate sign of respect in Texas***)

    I think you got most of what I was trying to point out in my subtle retired old Colonel who knows nothing manner. Remember, please, that I am off DP, alcohol, grog, salty wenches, and the like, so my thinking may be muddled. However, to quote you….

    “Interracial marriage. If Texas wanted to pass a law banning interracial marriage (like NC did, back in the day), should they be allowed to under the banner of states rights?

    My answer……yes, if that is what the State wants. (Caveat: Texas would never do this but I am using your example) I do not give a diddly squat but, under your viewpoint, you will accept the second best option (enforced by a government) to “force” me to accept a minority position. (Set aside your moral and ethical beliefs here) My point is that, in black and white, to take a stand to enforce a minority opinion on a majority is no different than imposing a majority opinion on a minority.(Additional caveat: Minority, in this example, does not refer to race).

    So, if good Sir Jones, under the Laws of the State of Michigan, decides to marry Sir Jones……hooray for Smith and Jones. I am happy for them and I am happy for the people of Michigan. So, Smith and Jones decided that they are tired of the Michigan Laws and taxes and decide to move somewhere more appealing to their financial lifestyle. THAT is their choice…Hooray for Smith and Jones. They look at Texas….lower taxes, no personal income tax, a balanced budget, lower prices on homes food and transportation, etc., but Texas does not have same laws as Michigan. Texas will not stop Smith and Jones from living here and no one will give a damn…but Smith and Jones have no right to come to Texas and DEMAND that Texas recognize the laws of another State.

    Enter Sir Mathius and side kick, Buck the Walla, the notorious fist raising barrister from the forgotten land of New JOISEY, pounding the “rights” drum. “Texas, you are unfair!” They shout. “You are imposing upon the rights of Smith and Jones.” Texas responds, ” but no one is imposing upon them at all. They moved here in free will and they are welcome in free will. And we will welcome them. But our way of life is different than theirs and our belief system is different than theirs and that is what Texas wants…so they may live here in peace and harmony under our laws that we have.”

    The ever imposing Walla shouts, “Your laws are immoral and unethical. You are discriminating. You are a bigot! You cannot impose your will upon these nice people !” Texas says. “But, Sir, you are imposing upon us. We did not invite them here. They moved here under free will and they are welcome. But the people of the Republic of Texas have decided that we like our system and do not want to change it. There are 49 other states out there, perhaps they would be more comfortable there.”

    Sir Mathius chimes, ” You cannot do that! You must recognize the laws of Michigan or you are discriminating. Who cares what the majority of the people want? Rights shouldn’t be up for a vote!”

    Texas blinks in disbelief, ” TEXAS CARES what the majority wants. The rights of the majority are no less important and it is what the majority wants. That is what freedom and liberty means to us.”

    So, the rights advocates, Sir Mathius and sidekick Buck the Walla, who support no government interference in marriage definitions, tries to impose their definition on the State of Texas under the disguise of minority rights and the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution which leaves each state as the master of their own fate on things NOT covered by Federal Law. (So far, marriage is a state issue). They argue that we need to include the marriage recognition of one state to another under the Constitution. Eventually they prevail in a court of law in some friendly self appointed judge jurisdiction and Texas is forced to succumb. Sir Mathius and sidekick the Walla are jubilant. They champion their cause and crow……..they go marching down the street to the next battle…having used the very government they say should not be involved…. to get involved… and trampled the rights and wishes of a majority into the dust.

    Therein lies the hypocrisy.

    Extra Caveats:
    (1) The names and individuals used in this narrative are not intended to be associated with any individual living or dead. (cough cough)
    (2) There is no “nifty Jack Sparrow” hat in this narrative.

    • Here is where I disagree with you. If you, as a Texan, went to another state, you would want the right to bear arms. This was put in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Another state cannot stop you, just because they do not like that right. Now, when talking about contracts, I would think that property rights would dictate that one is able to engage in whatever private, voluntary contract they wish, and that should be their right, thus viabe in any state. Further, the state of that contract should not be able to be disregarded legally by another state.. You could be socially ostracized for being in a contract considered vile by the people around you, but the contract retains legal staning. Now, marriage is considered a state issue now, but it should not be, it should be a legal issue at all, so the acceptance of it, legally or otherwise, should be irrelevant. However, a life-long contractual arrangement entered into by consenting adults should have legal standing in any state.

      • Ok, Jon…that may be. So……(and it does not matter what the subject is)….if a State has a law against, not gun ownership, but the carrying of a firearm…..I have to accept that. I have to accept that some states have income taxes and I have to accept that spitting on the sidewalk in Oklahoma may be a criminal offense…..If that is what the State wants….that is what it gets….but do not be fooled by contracts. A legal contract in Texas is not a legal contract in any other state unless that state chooses to recognize that. We enter contracts all the time in other states that differ from Texas and we have to amend to appease that State or we do not do business in that state. I do not like the fact that marriage is even an issue. I think it stinks. I do not care who marries whom or whom enters into domestic relationships. I think marriage licenses stink because a license does not change the heart. But, my point I was trying to show…..just because you feel the way you do and I agree with you….the fact is….it is not that way. To use a government to force an acceptance, then robs you forever saying……government should stay out of it. That is why I like state’s rights over Federal…at least the state has a say.

        • Thanks Murf….I could not have extrapolated any better.

        • I certainly prefer state authority to federal, but state government is still a government, so how is it any different, you are still asking to force an acceptance OR restrict an acceptance. I might have to accept a lot of state things, but there is a reason I do support SOME federal authority. As you said, you accept the gun carrying laws, but not ownership laws. Where is the line? The 2nd amendment refers to keeping AND bearing arms, so why does a state get to tell me I can have my gun but I cannot carry it around? If my point of carrying is self defense, and I have that right, then how can that be denied in a specific state?

          I know that not all contracts cross state lines, but a lifelong contract affecting legal status on medical issues and other life decisions, property ownership, custody of children, etc. should not have to be null and void because I moved. This never seems to be an issue for most married couples….is this not a restriction of my right to do as I wish with my property via contractual arrangement? Are wills not valid if I leave my stuff to my kids but have moved to another state?

    • Mathius says:

      Eventually they prevail in a court of law in some friendly self appointed judge jurisdiction and Texas is forced to succumb. The Judiciary is an equal branch of the government. It’s job – amongst other things, is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It’s interesting how people will love a judge who strikes down things they dislike, but will actively disparage any judge who strikes down things they do like. That’s their job – to figure out what is and is not allowed.

      (2) There is no “nifty Jack Sparrow” hat in this narrative. Indeed there wasn’t. Perhaps you should try it on and you might see why State’s Rights don’t trump individual rights.

      Caveat: I do not think that states/feds should force ACCEPTANCE of a marriage between two men or two women. If you, a business, do not wish to recognize that status, or if you wish to refuse service on those ground, I think that should be your right. But, for the government – and the government alone – it should not be a choice.

      • So true, Mathius, so true.However, both sides have an argument and, as I stated before, I do not care…but a judiciary can trample a right as easily as a legislature can and the judiciary is not impartial and never has been…..however, if you feel that majority can be nullified then I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine…..where State’s rights are concerned.

        ( I a gearing up for a friendly episode with The Walla over the “right to work” which he feels is not proper as I understand it but have not seen his views in entirety as yet.)

        I tried on your original from DPM…it does not fit. I am not seafaring.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Colonel, to clarify, I believe a state has every right to pass a ‘right to work’ law if they so choose. I am personally against such laws as they do more harm than good. But we can debate this at some point. For now, off to lunch!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Do you think the Fed Govt has the authority to OUTLAW such “right to work” laws passed by the States?

          • Ooh, I want in on this one. 🙂 I would love to know why those laws do more harm than good. I am not sure I support them myself, tho I would also want to make sure that unions did not have the ability to put enforced unionization into law either. I am in a right to work state and I prefer it to what I see in non-right to work states, but I am not sure how the laws are structured in either case, that would be a good thing to look into…

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Some info on right to work for you to peruse:


              • That does a good job of slamming the RTW propoganda, which is good info. What I was looking for was more info on the wording of the laws. There was a little nugget in the end notes tho talking about the real purpose of RTW. If that is accurate, I am no fan of RTW laws myself. I like unions, just not what unions have become. I think the dearth of manufacturing and other jobs here is more due to government regulation than anything else, with taxes as a second, unions trailing further down. I oppose things like the “Free Choice Act” that give unions the ability to manipulate or bully non-union workers, but I do not like things that suppress unions themselves. This could be a good discussion….

        • Mathius says:

          States are still governments. Just because they’re smaller/more local doesn’t change that.

          Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny of the majority whether it is by Uncle Sam or Uncle Sam Houston.

          A judge who overthrows an unjust law trampling the rights – the HUMAN rights – of a minority is acting properly.

          Just because the majority think something doesn’t make it right or OK.


          That said, I’d like you to answer a simple question: Why is it ‘necessary and proper’ for the GOVERNMENT of the Republic of Texas to prohibit a marriage between two same-sex individuals? How is that, in any way, the business of anyone else?

          It’d be as if they passed a law that you – you, personally, and only you – could not wear your stetson inside your own home. Now, on State’s Rights grounds, it seems, you would argue that if it is the will of the majority, then they can pass such a law – but as with the above, how is that a ‘just’ law insofar as it’s none of their business?

          (it’s a completely different thing if they want to prohibit you from doing your rifle drills in the buff in your front yard or breeding raptors, especially when you obviously do such a poor job of keeping them contained)

          • Just A Citizen says:



            Tyranny against what??

            • Mathius says:

              Maybe I was mumbling.. Sorry, I do that sometimes..



              • Just A Citizen says:


                So by your definition ANY action by a majority that is viewed as not acceptable to a minority is TYRANNY.

                Well then, it would seem that your Progressive types are committing Tyranny against we Radical Right Wing Liberals.

                So what protection can I claim against your offensive behavior?

              • Mathius says:

                I knew you’d get here sooner or later.

                Let’s restate the Liberal Creed as revised by Mathius:

                The Greater Good overrides. Insofar as a government is needed to provide for domestic tranquility, national security, and regulate interactions between non-consensual individuals, taxes and regulations must be in place to some degree or another. Insofar as we recognize that any tax or regulation is inherently a violation of individual liberty, freedom, or ownership rights, the violation should be must be viewed in the strictest of lights for cost to the individual versus benefit to the whole.

                Actions between or among consensual participants, as well as exclusively individual, which do not affect society as a whole are none of the business of society, nor its government. To clarify, voluntary euthanasia should be is an absolute right of both the euthanized as well as the euthanizer, and has no place being restricted, controlled, regulated, or outlawed by the government due to it’s nature as a private action between consensual actors. Conversely, non-voluntary euthanasia (ie, murder) is rightfully the jurisdiction of the government. It is a necessary evil, within that framework, that government may need to investigate consensual actions from time to time to ensure that they are, in fact, consensual and not illegal actions hidden behind a guise of such.

                To expand on this, the marriage of two people is a contract between two people. Typically it is a monogamous commitment of two people in deference to a shared love and desire to spend their lives together. Insofar as this definition goes, it is none of the business of the government, whatsoever. Once we factor in taxation, benefits, and any other “government goodies” which may be entwined, we are now in a place where it has a public affect. To that end, I suggest that the government separate the two into government purposed (ie, civil union) and private (ie, none of their goddamn business). However, as we recognize the extreme unlikeliness of this scenario due to the power of the religious right by means of the Republican Party, it is necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. The lesser is to blind the government with respects to gender and to recognize one person as one person.

                Back to your point that the actions of the majority (“Progressive types”.. Liberals for short), it is true that we trample your rights. All. The. Time. Guilty as charged. In my defense, my view is far more limited with regards to the role of the government than is the view of the majority of Progressive types (which would rightfully include both the (standard American definition) right and left), but still far to the left of you. That said, some rules are necessary, some are overstepping. If it is your view that a particular law is egregiously in violation of your rights, and if you wish to argue such from a cost-benefit standpoint, you are free to do so. It is my view, with regards to gay rights, that the cost of (possibly) elevated outlays due to “government cookies” is insufficient (by a long shot) to justify the subjugation of an entire class of people. It is, to me, clear that this is an exploited wedge issue in the grand tradition of Jim Crow.


                For my records, though I think I understand that you want government out of the business of marriage (and everything else for that matter) completely, insofar as government exists and insofar as it’s present incarnation, size, and scope is unlikely to change much in the near term, is it your objection to legalizing gay marriage that it would result in more taxes on you and thus a greater violation of your rights? Or, if not, what exactly is your objection within the bounds of the existent system?

    • Too funny! …and here come the wise cracks…from the Rush show:

      RUSH: Snerdley is saying he didn’t know that the Statue of Liberty had those kinds of breasts. Neither did we until our art director found it underneath the robes.

      • Well it, nor the one featured in the original picture-looks at any lactating breast I’ve ever seen 🙂

  38. Just A Citizen says:


    ROTFLAO………. spitting up coffee all over the key board.

    Well constructed by Texican friend.

    And a hearty good morning.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Republicans will soon have to address the Changing Tides on Homosexual Marriage.

    • Problem # 1. Even here, even in this group of fairly sharp people there is still some underlying misunderstanding among some participants. If one does not support gay marriage, one is assumed by some to oppose fairness to people who are gay. Try as you might to disabuse people of that notion, nonetheless, there is the same mantra over and over again about rights being denied. If that is the case here at SUFA where, I think we all respect each other, then how much worse this misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) out there in the rest of the world?

      I can only make it as clear as I possibly can by saying that outside of the single word “marriage” gays can damn well do whatever the hell they want to do. They in my opinion and with my support are free to enjoy every single “right” that I as a married heterosexual enjoy. I deny them nothing but the use of a single word.

      I deny them the use of that word because words have meanings to me, meanings that may change over centuries but not over weeks, months or even years. Marriage is a word that is reserved for the use of males and females who contract which each other. That is the meaning of the word, plain and simple. In the scheme of things this one single word has no effect on the rights or responsibilities of an individual so long as those rights are guaranteed. I, and most others seem to be ready to guarantee those rights. The only item I reserve and I do not consider it to be a “right” in any way, shape or form, is the use of the term marriage. Before somebody remarks to me that in an obscure section of Borneo, there is a primitive tribe where there exists a word that loosely translated means “marriage” which refers, in that culture and language to the relationship a man may have with his oxen, I would like to defuse that by saying, one five hundredth of one percent does not count for anything other than a deliberate obfuscation on your part which I reject. .

      It has been almost 50 years since I read “1984”. My literature teacher at the time broke the story down to its cautionary component parts. Do you out there forget that the State exercised control through the manipulation and misuse of language? The state said black was white, war was peace and up was down. The people allowed them to do that. Nothing, that is N-O-T-H-I-N-G, had any real meaning or lasting value because of this manipulation. Anything could be done, any atrocity could be perpetrated because there was never a way to say no. No, like Bill Clinton’s “is” was subject to the interpretation of its meaning.

      Today, we are faced with a large contingent of home grown fascists who use language the same way that Big Brother did. Freedom is not enough, rights are not enough, things must be as they say and what they say today may be far different from what they say tomorrow. Almost any issue we discuss at this forum is based on the meaning and interpretation of words. The so called traditions and values of this country and those basics of western civilization are based on the meaning of words. If we cannot agree, if they are constantly subject to new meanings at a whim then we might as well be speaking different languages to each other. Our failure to stand by absolutes allows us to create our very own tower of Babel.

      One of the things I always liked about the Bible, separate and distinct from its religious implications was its parables. When teachers used to say that the Bible could be read as literature, they were right. It was the “Twilight Zone” of its time in its ability to forewarn against the hubris of man in thinking he was God like. The phrase of my youth in describing an error or mistake, “It’s only human” has been forgotten by those who would set themselves up as being more than human, more perfect, more evolved, more socially mature. .

      I have heard time and time again in this debate over gay “marriage” that the use of a referendum on so called “rights” is wrong, improper, illegal and probably immoral. Supporting that view, analogies are made to race discrimination. The very same people who use that argument would, for their purposes, inflict an entirely new and totally inappropriate use of the word marriage by roughly the same methods they deplore. Fail to use it and be subject to being ostracized or some day, in the not too distant future, even worse. The object my dear friends is nothing less than control over you. Libertarians who do not see this are missing the big picture. Any great debate that occurs today be it gun control, religion in the public square, capital punishment, illegal immigration or the entitlement of your choice is being fought out over the meanings of individual words. Do not be fooled, this gay “marriage” thing is just one more example. Rights yes! Equality, yes of course! The word marriage, never!

      • Freedom of speech. You are attempting to use government to restrict the use of a certain word because you are indignant about the proper definition. Why? And how do you justify that in light of the 1st amendment? Now, where I agree with you is that government can also not be used to make anyone define a word in a way that they do not want. Here is where legalizing is just as much a problem as banning. You cannot enforce a new definition on people. I do not care if it is at the state level or the federal, legalization changes the word. Those who do not want this take issue. However, banning gay marriage, at the state or the federal level, enforces a definition that equally tramps all over freedom of speech. The ONLY way around this is to remove the legal aspect of the word. You want the title? Great, have it, but only in your view and the view of your peers. You want marriage to only apply to your view of a “real marriage”? Great, you and yours can stick to that with no government requirement telling you otherwise.

        • I want government to adopt the status quo in regard to the word. Change nothing. Individuals are free to use the words they want to describe things that they want. Government does nothing. Pay attention, how many times in the past year have you heard the term “pet children” to describe Bowzer the dog or Fuffy the cat. I’ve also heard friends describe their adult children’s pets as their Grand pups. For the sake of making these unhappy people happy would you advocate the Government legalizing contract use of the terms?

          Reread my first and second paragraphs. I deny no right, advocate the denial of no right am in complete accord with “fairness” whatever that means but will not allow the bastardization of the meaning of a word. Somehow, I don’t see how Freedom of Speech enters into the equation.

          As I have said above, every single major disagreement we fight over these days has to do with new and improved meanings of words. Think “Militia” or “Establishment ” regarding the issue of separation of Church and State to get you started.

          • I fully agree that there should be no forced or legal acceptance of a change in definition. I thought that was clear. In no way should anyone be able to change the definition for anyone else. However, definitions change all the time, some for better some for worse. Even the term bastardization is different than it used to be. Word etymology is an amazing historical study. I do not think that legal restriction of definition is any better. If a gay couple wants to call themselves married, that is not a problem. You do not have to accept their use or definition of the word. You do not have the right to make their use of the term illegal and be able to say that they are not legally married but you are. That is misuse of government power. They do not have the right to force to you accept their marriage because it is legal.

            Notice all of the issues we argue over that you mention are matters of legal definition. It is not the colloquial definition of militia, but the legal one that causes issue. It is the legal definition of establishment, not the descriptive term that causes issue. It is the legal definition of separation of Church and State that creates an issue. Remove the legal aspect of the word and you remove the concern over definition. We have misunderstandings of definition all the time, and all that is needed is to explain ourselves, maybe get a little more verbose, and presto, problem solved. Only when those definitions are used as a means of force, as a justification for the legal hammer to be weilded against people, is it a problem. The marriage debate is an example of this. To use the legal hammer to force acceptance of a new and evolving definition by making gay marriage attain legal status is to violate the rights of some to hold to the definition they want. To use the legal hammer to keep some from using marriage as a term to describe their love because they hold it to be title of undying love and life-long commitment is an equal violation of rights. There is no possible side of this false ochotomy to take without violating the rights of people and affecting free speech. The only way is to see past the false dichotomy and recognize that there is a good solution. Remove the legal status of marriage, relegate government involvement to civil union contracts, which can be entered into by consenting adults only, but the number, gender, race, faith, creed, age, or even romantic involvement would be irrelevant. If a pair of godparents entered into such a contract with a parent of set of parents, it would be valid. If 5 people wanted to enter into a lifelong relationship involving custody of children or property, so be it. It really is no business of anyone but the people involved and the only reason for legal certification is to handle legal issues that could arise in the case of death or members or breach of contract. Were it not for that, no legal involvement should be there at all. In a marriage, until children are involved, no legal aspects are really needed, unless you are concerned about shared ownership of property or legal right to make medical decisions, etc.

            Does that make sense? What am I missing?

            • Actually, you make a lot of sense. having been brought up on an awful lot of freethinking Robert Heinlein stuff, the concept of marriage could, based on the society, be radically different from our conventional definition. “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, comes to mind. problem is we are not going to see the “ideal” without a total collapse and rebuilding of society. This is not likely to happen. We are stuck with what we have and are constantly tinkering with things in an effort to “improve” on them. I am a great believer in absolutes. I have seen, for the past 40 years the entire fallacy of trying to improve an educational system by modernizing it. Looking at the abject failure it has become, one longs for the old successful untinkered system that managed to educate and inculcate American values ( defined here as values accepted by the majority of Americans) in a huge number of immigrants from fifty countries speaking thirty languages. Today we have a huge number of immigrants mostly speaking one language and we are afraid to inculcate them with anything, including an education and we call that an improvement.

              I get your point regarding legal definitions but where do they come from initially other than the colloquial definition? There should be no difference. The lawyers would all have us believe that they are the arbiters of meaning. I somehow doubt this was the intent of either the founders or their predecessors. Arguing over “militia” is insane when all you have to do is look at the common meaning for the term when it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights. To allow the lawyers to play mind and word games is to take the Constitution out of the hands of the citizens it was intended for and put it into the hands of the oligarchy (judges) . One of the great wonders of the Constitution which is routinely ignored even here at SUFA is the ability to change it. Hard, difficult and damned near impossible, it is that way for a reason. Sentiment, mores and language change. If the changes are not permanent or if the changes do not have to be enshrined into law, then the amendment fails. Prohibition, Repeal and the failed ERA amendment are indicative of the wonder of the document. Those who are not willing to put it to a vote are telegraphing their own doubts about the “truth” of the position they shill for. I was in my teens when first confronted with the “end justifying the means” argument and I believe that it was Bobby Kennedy who postulated it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The end can never justify the means without corrupting the supposedly noble result beyond recognition. Again, I think that comes down to absolutes, if you are willing to sacrifice principle for expediency the principle can never be recovered. There will always be the temptation to do it again when circumstances deny you the “right” outcome.

              • They do indeed come from colloquial definitions at first. And, in fact, we should endeavor to protect the meanings of our words so that communication remains clear. However, law is not a proper means for this. To resort to such tactics would be to throw out freedom in a society at the most basic of levels. We may be able to do something about what the lawyers are doing, but it would be an involved process, possibly including the translation of documents rather than the use of modern definitions to interpret old documents in legal situations. I agree on the strength of the constitution for all the reasons you mention. Tho, I know some fear putting things to a vote because of distrust of the society, not distrust of their position. The end does not justify the means nor the means the ends, there are examples of each that show neither to be absolutes. If you absolutely believe in a principle but that principle or means does not result in an acceptable end, then you must examine your principle. “Check your premise, contradictions do not exist.” 🙂 Yet, it certainly holds that an end or goal does not justify doing anything to reach it. That is far more a blatant failing of philosophy than is the opposite.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    I suspected POTUS was a whimpy ass but not this bad. Check out the photo of the 67 yr old guy shaking hands with the 40 something Basketball playing, golfer, swimmer in chief.–hosts-vote-him.html

    Looks like he might be bowing……………….. in pain……….. Bwhahahahaha.

    Judy…………..were you at the rally? Did they let you talk???

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi JAC

      Long time, but I do come & read the articles & comments. To answer your question. You’ve got to be kidding, I wouldn’t waste my gas going up there to see, much less listen to his lies.

  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    Anybody here see or read this one? Got it in an Email today.

    DHS Whistleblower: Obama Will Commit ‘Reichstag’ Event To Trigger Martial Law
    Posted by UnSlaveMe on May 11, 2012 at 6:33pm in Editorials, Commentaries, BlogsView Discussions
    I’m not into any of this, but posting it for your own assessment .. B.•‘Reichstag’ event could involve false assassination attempt blamed on “white supremacists”
    •Incited racial riots would lead to calls for government “crackdown”
    •Civil unrest would lead to martial law, DHS travel checkpoints, indefinite delay of elections
    Washington, DC – The Obama agents, through the DHS and other assorted colluders, are plotting a major ‘Reichstag’ event to generate racial riots and produce the justification for martial law, delaying the November 2012 elections, possibly indefinitely, a DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press on Tuesday.

    The ‘Reichstag Event’ would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, “carefully choreographed” and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on “white supremacists” and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.

    The Obama administration would then use the violence and chaos they created as justification for the imposition of martial law in major urban cities in America, the creation of DHS checkpoints, restriction of travel, and the indefinite delay of the November 2012 elections.

    The Reichstag event refers to a fire started during Hitler’s rise to power. The fire allowed him to grab emergency powers and murder his opposition. Historians have long believed that Hitler started the fire himself, while he blamed it on the Communists.

    The anonymous whistleblower elaborated on how the Obama administration is using the Occupy movement, labor unions, and other assorted subversive groups to create massive chaos within the nation.

    “Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” the DHS source shared.

    “Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to foment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”

    The recent revelations appeared to complement warnings given by other government insiders, who alleged that Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson were all agent provocateurs whose mission was to inflame racial tensions and spark open conflict in the streets of America.

    According to the DHS source, a global economic collapse is coming, which the Obama administration is well aware of. They wish to build a system of global governance from the ashes of the previous financial system. In order for this mission to be completed, the Obama administration needs more time at the helm of power. Their reasons for concern are justified; as recently as May 8, influential political prognosticator D*** Morris predicted a Romney landslide if the election were held today.
    Continue Reading at Source
    Tags: DHS Whistleblower: Obama Will Commit ‘Reichstag’ Event To Trigger Martial Law

    • USWeapon says:

      The problem with an article like this Judy, is that if Obama were planning some sort of event to create the chaos mentioned, we would never know about it. Just the fact that it is out there for people to read and speculate about renders it impossible to be true…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Why? The ignorance of the majority of sheeple will not read this. If they did, they would not comprehend it. THe arrogance of this administration makes it even more likely, because they think it will work, despite this story being told. Do not underestimate those that control the MSM. I would say that it would not be hard to start a race war, the only info most get inside the inner city comes from the MSM.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        We don’t know that for sure do we US. And, if it happens for real, then what?

  42. Judy Sabatini says:

    You can’t continue reading though, it says you don’t have authorization.

  43. Does anyone have any trouble with this?

    1) The battle drums can already be heard in Chicago, as police and protestors plan for the NATO summit later this month. “War is going to break out on the streets,” one demonstrator excitedly told Fox News. “Big plans are being made.”

    D13 muses….is threatening war a first amendment right?

    2) Big-name protestors, like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and 1960s radical Bill Ayers, are expected to be among the demonstrators. In order to prepare for police confrontation, training sessions are being held for protestors around the city, which include educating dissenters on “non-violent direct action,” said Zoe Sigman, of Occupy Chicago.

    D13 wonders…..hmmmm……how does one prepare for police Confrontation in a non violent way.

    3) Occupy Chicago is not obtaining the permits that the city required to protest because “its our right to walk down any street,” member Rachael Perrotta said. “We’re bringing in people from all over the country, so expect huge crowds and huge crowds will happen.” Another group leader, Andy Thayer, from the Coalition Against NATO/G8 War and Poverty Agenda, or CANG8, urged supporters to ignore threats from Chicago officials.

    D13 raises an eybrow……bringing in outsiders and not obtaining permits means they wish a confrontation to happen. Ignoring the law is aggressive behaviour. They should have their heads bashed if they become a criminal element.

    4) The “action” includes mass marches down city streets, including the ones closed by police for the NATO summit. When asked whether the group plans any confrontations, Perrotta said, “If the police get violent with us, we’re prepared”. Perrotta also said Occupy Chicago will attempt a shutdown of Boeing’s headquarters, and “there will be events that pop up that have not been disclosed yet”.

    D13 trying to get a handle on this thinks…..walking down a closed street is asking for trouble and the inference is that if the police try to arrest us for violating the law, we will get violent. ( This is what prepared means ). So these protesters wish to shut down a private company…so the private company now has every right to hire private security guards, armed ones, to keep their business open…and they should do just that.

    5) “We plan to show Chicago what democracy looks like,” one speaker said

    D13 says that openly flaunting and violating the laws, creating criminal mischief (shutting down a private company), flaunting authority in the attempt to enforce the law…….is not democracy and is not considered a first amendment right.


    • Well from looking at the last few comments, it’s starting to look as if the G-dude and I aren’t quite as crazy as some seem to think we are. 😉

      As far as fomenting trouble by a “Reichstag Event” it wouldn’t suprise me one bit. But the truth of the matter is, the stupidest thing a white supremacist could do, would be to, a)make a martyr out of Obama thus putting Biden in the Presidency, or b)fail in an attempt to kill Obama and give him reason to declare martial law and call off the election. Are they that stupid? Probably, but I don’t think they will. If something happened like that, a setup is a whole lot more likely. If racist whitey was going to try that, what have they waited for?

      But the same result could come from the Chicago gig. IF that Chicago “war” began to spread to other cities. And I know for sure a lot of the Occupiers are that stupid. They have already been pawns before, so why not again? And since it spread all over the U.S. the last time…..

      All I know is this. I may not be ready for an catastrophic economic collapse, being that I’m already close to it anyway, but I’m ready for a war. And all those kind of idiots have to do is come on down and get them some. We can handle anything out of Atlanta. Sure is gonna be bad for the Nation though. We don’t need any European style riots here. Our cops aren’t used to it like they are over there. And that sure would be a terrible way to introduce Socialism to us.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Esom, I do laugh when I read the crap that D13 posted. These punks think that they are special. They are only playing the game, which is, if you want to destroy something, turn it real violent, eg. Free Speech! These Jackasses are not doing anything Obama doesn’t want them to do, never let a good crisis go to waste, remember? It’s all staged, so get your popcorn out and watch it on TV! Then watch as they use it to further destroy our rights!

  44. Judy Sabatini says:

    I think it would be the most underhanded thing he could possible do, just to remain in office. But, then again, look who we’re talking about. Hell, he’s already done a good job in destroying this country. Just look at all the crap he’s done already, & he wants to do even more. I hope to God, this country will be strong enough for the uprising I’m sure will happen.

  45. Florida finds 180,000 non citizens on the voter rolls…… this becoming significant yet?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Colonel. What a fine Mothers Day………..and a happy one to all you SUFA Mom’s.

      Now, now Sir, you know this is just an insignificant problem. One ginned up by those crazy Republicans and their fear mongering Right Wing Radio talking heads.

      We all know voter ID is just a means of “suppressing” the vote ………….. OF……….???????????????

      Tell yer fine wife Happy Mothers Day for me if you would.

      • Howdy and a good morning to you…..and a tip of the hat yer way…..I will do so ONLY if you will return the favor.

        As to the rolls in Florida….sorry…I lost my head for a sec….how crass of me. I am sure that we will now disenfranchise 180,000 illegal voters because we are against illegal voters.


  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the Day.

    If you believe that Govt should have the power to impose your views (will) upon others, for whatever righteous reason you decide, then you have no moral or ethical basis from which to complain about a Govt ban on Gay Marriage, or any other imposition upon human freedom and Liberty.

    If you believe that Freedom, Liberty and Justice are the foundation of American Society, then you have no moral or ethical basis from which to use Govt to impose your will upon others, whether that be a ban on Gay Marriage of some other issue.

    To Be FREE my friends, you must LIVE FREE.

    This requires adherence to the principle of FREEDOM itself, in all things.


    • Indeed!

    • As much as I DON”T want to discuss that issue. I do have to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments JAC. My view of the issue is mine alone and applies to me alone. Because I belive in Freedom and Liberty for ALL. And as I said to Jon way back up at the top. I agree that Government should have NO involvement in Marriage AT ALL.

      And THAT, my friend, is the ONLY solution to the problem. So naturally, it is NOT the solution that will be chosen.

      • Its funny, almost anyone I speak to agrees with this sentiment if I press a debate on the issue. No one really has a problem with this except for a few extremists on both sides that I know. Yet, as you say Esom, that is not the solution chosen. The media and powers that be like the debate and the false dichotomy for a whole host of reasons.

  47. gmanfortruth says:

    Happy Mothers Day to all the SUFA Moms and the wives/moms of those that debate here. 🙂

    • Hear Hear! Cheers to the mothers here and the mothers of all those here, who raised such smart sons and daughters. 🙂

  48. A lof of the issue with the NC vote was the wording of the law. I get the motivation for the votes both for an against, but the law was written badly. I would have voted against it, but would not want the vote against it to mean I supported legalization. Here is how I would write a law pertaining to this issue:

    Wherein marriage is a private affair outside of the scope of governmental authority, being a matter of individual rights and beliefs, the governing body of the state of “insert state” will no longer have legal oversight of marriage. All legal matters involving marriage (such as custody, property owenership, division of estate, medical decision authority, etc.) will be handled through civil union contracts, which can be entered into only by consenting adults. Those who currently preside over marriages need not seek state approval to do so. However, if those persons wish to act as a legal representative for civil union contracts can pass a certification and acquire a license from the state to advise and oversee said contracts for those who wish to include that in part of their marriage ceremony. State licensed certifiers will not be compelled to offer this service to any person(s), nor certify any custom version of civil union if they do not wish to do so.

    Persons being married, being of age and sound mind, can choose to not do a civil union, or can seek civil union at any time. Underaged persons can seek civil union upon reaching adulthood via age or emancipation. Exception will be made for parents of children, they can seek civil union agreements relating to child custody only, which will last until they reach adulthood, at which point a full civil union can be sought. As marriage is no longer a legal matter, laws relating to sexual relations with minors, animals, or any other non-adult remain illegal despite marital status. Marriages will not carry with them legal authority in matters of custody, property, medical authority, etc. if not accompanied by a civil union.

    What say you SUFA?

    • Correction, “laws relating to sexual relations with minors, animals, or any other non-adult remain illegal despite marital status” should read “laws relating to sexual relations with minors, animals, or any other non-adult remain in effect despite marital status”. That could have caused a ruckus…

    • naten53 says:

      Why are you trying to use logic and government at the same time?

      • Can’t help it. I think I have logic turrets syndrome, it just blurts out….

        • naten53 says:

          Other then this sounding like the most obvious solution based on the US Constitution, instead of having some liberals fighting for the ‘right’ to gay marriage, this would cause an overwhelming tide of conservative (and possibly some liberals) anger because it is taking away their ‘right’ to marriage. Regardless of civil rights not changing with the rephrasing of the terms that define marriage, just the removal of the word will cause more people to be upset way then they already are. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

          • I am sure some people would make that fuss, but the fact is that the right would not only still be there, it would be freed up. Marriage would not have to be licensed. Its like those that would be mad if they removed drivers licenses and made driving open to all. Has the right to drive been taken away? No. Most of the outcry, regardless of how it might be phrased, would be from those who wanted to make sure who could get married was controlled.

  49. gmanfortruth says:

    I have a question for anyone who can answer. I am launching a business venture and have a web domain. Any suggestions on web hosting or other advice?

    • I use Blue Host ( They are reasonable, have good support, decent speed and good uptime. They use a fairly standard control panel that has a lot of tools and allow immediate setup of many things, such as databases for installation of WordPress or other content management systems. I do NOT recommend godaddy for anything except buying actual domain names, mostly because, with the exception of reasonable price, they fail at all the things I just listed that I like about Blue Host.

      Are you setting up an ecommerce site or an informational site? I can give you some advice either way, I do a bit of web development for small businesses.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Thanks Jon, I’m looking at going through WordPress at the moment. I’m familiar with the program and the price is reasonable. Right now we are waiting on our business cards and flyers to get finished by our designer. We have a domain name, and will use the upcoming designs within the website. Once we get it rolling I can invite you in to take a look! 🙂

  50. Judy Sabatini says:


  51. Judy Sabatini says:

    Try this & see if this works.

  52. charlieopera says:

    Another Marxist rant?

    All that new austerity in Europe doesn’t seem to be doing the trick and France voted a socialist in to run things. Hopefully he’s not like the last French socialist to make the news, but it is an interesting turn of events.

    Go Rangers!

  53. Just A Citizen says:


    Re Tyranny and your view of Liberal Manifesto:

    YOU “Actions between or among consensual participants, as well as exclusively individual, which do not affect society as a whole are none of the business of society, nor its government.”

    EVERY action of people has an affect on society. The yet to be determined is the magnitude of that affect.

    Now this is your criteria, so lets look closer, assuming there is not Societal impact of personal matters. MY INCOME has no affect on society, certainly not any more than two homosexuals getting married. So by what authority do you claim power to use Govt against ME to take my INCOME?

    I do not wish to be told what to do by your Progressive/Liberal Govt so by what authority do you claim the power to impose YOUR MAJORITY will upon ME, the MINORITY?

    Your majority is the one impacting society, not me.

    Your theory of Tyranny does not address the core principle.

    So once again, Tyranny against WHAT, or WHOM?

    You claimed against a minority. Yet WHO decides whether the MINORITY is being imposed upon. Who are you to decide that my enslaving left handed red haired people is somehow an impact to society. My slaves do not affect you.

    • charlieopera says:

      I do not wish to be told what to do by your Progressive/Liberal Govt so by what authority do you claim the power to impose YOUR MAJORITY will upon ME, the MINORITY?

      And we (the greater good) do not wish to be slaves to the 1% who own the entire government, so by what authority do you claim the power to impose the 1% MINORITY will upon all of US, the MAJORITY?

      • Charlie, Neither the 1% nor the government is holding you back from being in the 1%, they are not imposing on you. Your next novel could land you right up there in the 1%. Then what? It was still all rigged?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        NO and not just no but HELL NO.

        If a union is doing something I agree with then I will voluntarily contribute money.

        The argument that I “must” contribute because I benefit is bad logic. You see, the same can be said of many things that I do not control but I benefit. Even if I did not ask nor desire said benefit.

        How do you know I could not negotiate the same contract terms without the union?

        The argument is in essence that a group of thugs can move into a neighborhood, start clearing out the bums and then demand protection money because I benefit from them cleaning out the bums. It is no different.

        Freedom is freedom. And forcing my to pay into a Union is NOT FREEDOM. And since it is enforced by Govt it is NOT LIBERTY.

        It is TYRANNY. It is Tyranny of the majority against the rights of a minority, ME!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          “The argument that I “must” contribute because I benefit is bad logic.”

          So you are ok with free cookies? Does this mean I don’t have to hear any more complaints about the 47% paying no federal income tax yet receiving gov’t benefits?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            It is NOT free cookies. No more than having those bums removed is free cookies. It is EXTORTION.

            And as usual you select an absolutely irrelevant and unrelated comparison.

            If they do not pay tax that is fine by me. But those cookies they get are TAKEN from me to give to them, by THUGS.

            Buck, the Unions via Govt enforcement create the situation where an employee must receive the same “benefits” or “contract” as union employees. That is NOT a FREE exchange between me and the employer.

            Another point. The Union does not need money to pay for its negotiating contracts. The reps involved get their wages during such negotiations. They demand the money to create funds to cover themselves when they decide to strike. EXTORTION.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I do not claim the power or authority to give the 1% the ability to dictate to the majority. It is you who supports the notion of a powerful Govt, namely communism, which will do nothing but draw flies like a dead pig.

        It is not me who wishes to impose upon you Charlie. Unless you also are going to claim that I wish to IMPOSE Freedom on you when you don’t want it.

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Re: Right to Work

    Typical of the “pragmatic Progressive” mindset. Produce all kinds of break even analysis with lots of charts and graphs to RATIONALIZE your corrupt philosophy.

    There is only ONE thing that matters here. And it plays into Mathius’ arguments about Tyranny as well.

    MY job is with XYZ Corporation. I work for the Supervisor of that company. My JOB should not be held hostage to a Govt, empowered THUG hiding behind the title UNION. Your UNION has NO RIGHT to impose its will upon my decision to work for said company. The Govt was not given any authority to FORCE me into contract agreement with this third party thug.

    But alas, it is tyranny to ban homosexual marriage because it violates basic rights, but it is OK to crush my right to work and my right to contract under the boot of Progressive Principles. How exactly has that anything to do with “society”? Oh that’s right! YOU GUYS get to decide what qualifies and what does not.

    Me thinks you guys need to rethink the meaning of TYRANNY.

    • Buck the Wala says:


      The idea behind right to work is that, as you put it, you shouldn’t be forced to join a union or kick back some of your hard earned salary to help support the union. But what about the fact that you may be benefitting directly from the union’s activities? When the union enters into collective bargaining and gains higher salaries and better benefits for the employees, you as an employee benefit — shouldn’t you be expected to at least pay a little in to the pot, not to support the union in all its endeavors (e.g., political contributions) but towards the costs of negotiating and enforcing the employment contract under which you benefit?

      I agree that you shouldn’t be forced to join a union as a member, and that your job shouldn’t depend on you joining a union. But I also believe that you should kick in to the union insomuch as you benefit from the union’s bargaining with your employer.

      On to gay marriage, yes, it is tyranny of the majority to deny a minority the right to marry whoever they so choose. As I believe Mathius asked earlier, and I don’t recall your answer (not sure if you had answered the question): Do you support the right of a state to decide, by popular vote, to deny marriage to an interracial couple? SCOTUS sure thought not, declaring that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”.

      • I agree that you shouldn’t be forced to join a union as a member, and that your job shouldn’t depend on you joining a union. But I also believe that you should kick in to the union insomuch as you benefit from the union’s bargaining with your employer.

        So you really don’t know what to think.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Not at all Anita — there is a huge difference between being forced to become a member of an organization you do not wish to belong to, and kicking in to help pay for the negotiation and enforcement of contracts that you directly benefit from.

          I thought it was the conservatives that always argued for no free cookies!?

          • Wrong. Most people find a career that interests them. They begin working the job because it interests them and provides a decent wage. That’s all. If I want to teach, I want to help students learn. I don’t want to be a teacher because of it’s union benefits. Or, you break into the market with a new start up. Why? To make profit. No union should be able to muscle their way into your profit. You started your business for YOUR profit, to make yourself rich, not to make your employees rich.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Yes, people find a career that (hopefully) interests them, that they enjoy doing. But your salary and benefits are very important elements of where you work (not always the defining factor of course).

              If you and I work at the same company and I am a member of the union and you are not, and the union spends considerable time negotiating with the employer to obtain higher wages for its employees, better health insurance and a nice 401(k) matching program, then should those benefits only accrue to myself and other members of the union? Would you be willing to forego the extra few bucks in your wallet each week, the better insurance coverage, the matching contribution to your 401(k)? Or would you expect to obtain the same benefits as all other employees?

          • This is for our discussion later counselor….quit trying to play the word game. Forcing someone to pay and forcing someone to join are one and the same……”kicking in?” lol….sir,

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Not at all — as a member, you have membership dues, which are higher than the amount a non-member would be kicking in towards the costs of only negotiating and enforcing the contracts. Remember: this money cannot by federal law be used for other purposes such as political contributions and lobbying that general membership dues go towards.

              • What if…just what if…we worked at competing burger joints…i did not join the union and you did… My employer pays me more than your employer…why?..because I earned it not because he is forced to pay it…I’m happy and the employer is happy…it works that way, ya know?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                If we’re working for different companies, the fact that one has employees in a union and the other doesn’t is of no consequence to this discussion.

                Also, what say you for the evidence that shows right to work laws have a negative affect on wages, benefits, etc?

              • You mean that article you posted by the EPI (I think that was it), founded by the most leftist of the lefties, Robert Reich? I’m not buying it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                You don’t have to believe it to make it true. That was just one study which seemed to sum the issues up pretty nicely (and concisely). I have come across many other sources that indicate the same result.

            • Trade is trade. If you opt out of paying you opt out of the contract in question. Should not be a problem for the employer or the union.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t believe that is the case. From my understanding, generally speaking, when a union negotiates a better employment contract, all employees benefit, whether union or not. If I am mistaken, then I will have to rethink this issue.

              • If there is no opt out, then no deal, it is extortion. Also, what “costs” are involved in such a contract? Typically, those costs are mostly on the employer. Other than paying a rep for the negotiating period, what costs are there? If a union is unable to negotiate contracts in a right to work state that is a problem. If it is simply that they cannot involve non-union members in paying for their activities, then I prefer right to work. I want unions to have the ability to organize and fund themselves, but not by force. As for the downward pressure on wages, I would need to see more on that. The study you posted showed that the propoganda for RTW was crap, but it did not conclusively show downward pressure with RTW beyond anecdotal, and even admitted that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                costs = negotiating and enforcing, trying cases for unlawful termination, etc.

                will try to dig up some additional studies on the matter as the day progresses…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          A bit more clarification on Right to Work, as I understand it:

          “A “right to work” law is a state law that stops employers and employees from negotiating an agreement – also known as a union security clause – that requires all workers who receive the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement to pay their share of the costs of representing them. Right to Work laws say that unions must represent every eligible employee, whether he or she pays dues or not. In other words, “Right to Work” laws allow workers to pay nothing and still get all the benefits of union membership.”

          “Q: Without a “right to work” law, can a worker be forced to join a union?
          A: No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no collective bargaining agreement can require anyone to join a union. Unions and employers may only negotiate contract provisions requiring nonmembers to pay their fair share of the union’s costs in representing them.”

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Did you not notice that the rules under “without a right to work law” as determined by SCOTUS are the same as you claim exist WITH a Right to Work Law?

            I have not had to deal with a Union vs. Non Union job in a long time. My experience was you joined as a condition of employment. PERIOD.

            I am guessing that it is not the “right to work law” itself that requires representation of all employees. It is probably the labor laws which are not superseded by the right to work.

            But as they say, TWO wrongs do not make a right.

          • Buck…right and wrong but I will do a great article on it with stats,,,,,,,,,,it is coming.

      • I’m coming to mow your lawn this weekend, whether you like it or not. You will benefit from it, so it is only fair that you pay me $20.

  55. @ Mathius…….it is none of my business what people do in another state. And, while I do not like the Texas Defense of Marriage Act, it stipulates that the state does not recognize a marriage or civil union between persons of the same sex, regardless of the jurisdiction in which it is created. Texas further prevented challenges to the state statute by adopting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. The approval of the Texas Marriage Amendment by voters in Nov. 2005 specified the definition of marriage in the Texas Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. It protects the longstanding social practice of recognizing only the union of a man and a woman as a marriage, and reinforced the Texas Defense of Marriage Act of 2003 prohibiting any political entity in the state from recognizing the union of two people of the same gender.

    I will go on to say that I voted against this amendment and will vote against any amendment or law that defines same. However, even if I am in disagreement, the majority voted for it….so be it. This is what the State voted for and it passed. If it is unconstitutional, where is the Justice Department’s law suit challenging this. Why has not the SCOTUS taken it up. The reason is State’s Rights. SCOTUS and the Justice Department has had no trouble in defining a myriad of other things and made them law….why not this?

    Now, you say Texas has no right to not recognize something from another state……..answer me this…..where does another state have a right to demand Texas accept their law? It is the same answer…..they do not.

    My point is this……in the absence of Federal Law taking jurisdiction…State law prevails. If you wish to use force….the Federal Government….to force acceptance against another state…in this particular instance,,,,,,,and then you take an opposite position on another subject…..that is hypocrisy.

    Now, as it turns out, same sex marriages and civil unions can be performed here. It is not outlawed. There is no advantage to being married or not married or marrying your horse. There is no tax implication in Texas. If a church wishes to marry a same sex union, it is free to do so. There will be no marriage license issued. If you are employed, the employer does not ask to see your marriage certificate…it is not required. You can claim as many dependents as you wish….it is a Federal matter. It does not affect insurance in the slightest. I asked BCBS of Texas if they turn down insurance or demand marriage certificates, the answer is no. If a person claims to have dependents, they simply mark it down. So it does not affect health insurance.

    What you cannot do, is FORCE a church or JP to marry you. It is a choice. I like choice…..that is freedom. You will not get a marriage license or certificate from Texas…..but I have one and have found absolutely no advantage for it. It is symbolic.

    You claim you like the greater good approach…but who gets to define that if not the majority vote? You? I think not. Someone else? I think not. Only the Federal Government, by force, can do so.

    So, here is my question……why doesn’t Obama just issue an EO…..he has on everything else.

    Anyway, I respect your decision and your stance and your emotion on this topic. But IF I choose the other side, it does not make me a racist or bigot. As I said before, I did not like the Texas referendum but I will support it because it was majority vote of the people of Texas.

    • I might also add that it does not affect property rights nor does it affect estate rights. In Texas, deeds and wills prevail. Anyone can have a joint banking account. Anyone can designate an executor or executrix. I see no advantage or disadvantage and I do not expect Oklahoma. for instance, to accept a Texas marriage license. If a Texas couple moves to Oklahoma and decide to divorce, Texas law does not apply…Oklahoma law applies. State issue.

      • How about child custody and medical decisions?

        • Ok Jon….got you an answer…..straight from a TEXAS barrister…..not some fandangled New Joisey one………

          Child custody got a hearty laugh from her. Texas courts historically come down in favor of the mother’s side. To take a child from a mother, she has to be really, really, REALLY bad. Child custody on adoptions…..are in the adoption papers and the remedies for that.

          There is no impact on medical decisions….governed by codicil. In Texas, a husband cannot make a decision on the wife or vice versa UNLESS it is life threatening,,,,and that is to save a life only. Once it is stable and the patient can talk within reasonable limits, the choice reverts to them. All other incidents are considered exceptions and the doctors can make a decision on the spot.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            True…what do us New Joisey lawyers know anyway…

            Not a matrimonial or child custody attorney, but pretty sure every state favors the mother pretty strongly on this issue.

            Re: medical decisions — this is true in NJ as well and why it’s so important to have a living will.

          • And if there is no mother involved? 🙂 Medical decision thing would be for coma cases and such I would think, most other things are similar, decisions only in life threatening cases.

  56. European Union paymaster Germany warned Greece on Thursday that European partners could only go on aiding debt-ridden Athens if it sticks to an international bailout program rejected by voters in a general election. “Whether Greece is ready to do what is necessary – only the Greek people can decide.” The head of the euro zone’s rescue fund, Klaus Regling, said Athens would have to agree with international lenders on the terms for financial aid before any more money flows after June. The same will be for France and Spain. Germany has recognized that you cannot use credit and borrowed money to fund stimulus packages that will not work. They have not worked.

    Greece has voted not to accept the austerity measures. Ok cool……what the people of Greece want, as the majority voted, it is what they get. Greece will fail and it will disappear from the Euro Zone within one year. They will go back to their own currency and no one will buy it or back it nor should they. But because the people of Greece voted not to accept the austerity provisions in light of 21% UE and 54% UE among age 15-24 year olds, they will have to accept the Euro’s position of no austerity no bailout….as it should be,

    California has the same problem. They are broke and there should be NO Federal bailout simply because California decided to vote and pass all these unfunded social programs. It is not right to depend on the people of another state to fund what stupidity California got itself into. That goes for all the States that allowed themselves to get into financial trouble through dumb ass negotiations and unfunded liabilities. They are now coming home to roost. Taxing everybody, rich and poor alike, in California will not bail them out.,,,,even at 100%. You must police yourselves and your own spending.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel 🙂

      California is a great example of how things end up when the “Greater Good” and other liberal concepts are implemented. THe left simply cannot fathom that what they believe will result in utter failure, but what the heck, at least they stick to what they have been brainwashed to believe, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

      • Hey there Gman……not brainwashed…..indoctrinated. I believe there is a difference. Pavlov had it right.give em jelly beans every time they ask for one and they become mindless…….run out of jelly beans… lose a hand.

  57. Question: Does domestic surveillance of Americans by drones cross a line when it comes to privacy?

    D13’s answer: ABSOLUTELY !!!

    D13’s synopsis and viewpoint: I have seen, first hand, and have ordered the use of drones in the United States. My orders were to use the surveillance capability of the drones, that were under my command to help patrol the three kilometer exclusion zone of the United States border in Texas and New Mexico. The infra-red capability and the night vision capability are beyond measure. The surveillance technology is good enough to read a name tag and unit identification on a uniform from 5,000 feet in the air. The technology is good enough to peer into trash dumps and read the labels on boxes and refuse to determine what people are eating. (European or mid eastern food refuse in Mexico is not normal). The technology is good enough to read the license plate of a car going over 100 MPH. The infra red technology can pick up heat signals hidden under the brush from a fired weapon or running vehicle. It can spot living bodies, and dead ones putting off heat, from 5,000 feet in the air. It can identify weapons carried by individuals and determine origin of manufacture. It can find marijuana and crack houses in the middle of the night. It is silent and it can be deadly. It can take digital pictures at a rate of 6 per second. It can determine between a group of illegal immigrants or a drug carrying cartel.It is powerful and it is very useful in law enforcement techniques and security. There is audio technology that can be put on drones that can zero in on conversations from 3,000 feet.

    By the same token, these drones can be redirected to peer into the backyards of homes, around swimming pools to photograph anyone laying out in the sun topless or without clothes. It can see what you are reading and read the titles of books. With the correct angle and lighting, it can peer into plate glass rooms.

    They become a good law enforcement tool if used correctly but not normal surveillance. Crowd control during riots, bad weather, floods, storm aftermaths are all good uses….but not general law enforcement. I am against it.,,,,,,,,

    • Agreed. Just for future reference, how hard are they to take down?

      • Actually, very easy.

        • One shot in the nose of the aircraft will kill its navigation system.One shot in the belly of the aircraft will “normally” kill the surveillance capability, and one shot in the fans at the rear will bring it down.

          • Thats good news, and good to know, just in case the tyranny goes full bore.

          • Mathius says:

            And how, exactly, are you hitting a moving target 5k feet in the air? That’s just short of a mile, assuming it’s directly overhead, and it’s not a very large craft. And that’s also assuming you even know it’s there or where it is – they’re not always that easy to spot either. That’s one hell of a shot..

            I mean, not for you.. but for the rest of us, that’s a tough shot.

            • LOL….that is why there is a high survivability rate on these aircraft…….I would suggest a laser guided rail gun with depleted uranium round from Thor’s Hammer…that should prove effective………………..IF you know it is there….however, you never know it is there and they now have electric motors on some of them.

              I was a very tough commander. If I found that the surveillance on the border was something more than the border…… zooming in on bikinis or topless or nude ladies (or men) in private…..they got fired from my command, an article 15, and demotion. I did not put up with that at all…..AND, I might add, that all pictures from military surveillance are not subject to the FOIA.

              The only time you can shoot one down is through radar guided anti aircraft weaponry (non heat seeking)….OR….if they flew low enough to be in range…………………………….OR, you were born and raised in Texas…….hell, our three year old children can shoot that far…..left handed….with one eye closed……over the shoulder….standing on one foot…..drinking a Marguerita……..while singing “Texas our Texas”.

              (Hows that for Texas sized bragadocio?)

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Piece of cake. Muzzle loader………..double charge of powder………..45 caliber.

                From horse back, at a gallop while munching on a steak sandwich.

              • Mathius says:

                They don’t use these for surveillance of the Hammer. DPM kept picking them off for sport (using a flint lock musket). They use SR71’s these days – not because DPM can’t take them down at will, but because he would feel bad for the pilots’ widows and children.

                What a nice guy!

              • HA!….Only a gallop? That’s it? For a minute there, I thought you had something…

              • Note to Mathius……the SR 71 is no longer around…….hasn’t been since 1998. BUT BUT…that could be because DPM was a threat?

              • Yea, even without braggadocio, a .308 bolt action with a decent scope if its trajectory is solid, a basic automatic weapons burst should handle it if its a decent caliber, AK-47 or something. Knowing its there will be the only real issue I think…

  58. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    IMPORTANT! READ THIS! Some of you will get a decent economic education from the contents 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Loved his conclusion. But let me guess, he left ALONE.

    • Good read Peter. Brave man to have given that speech. Clever on his part to differentiate between the 4-legged and 2-legged rats (that already infest the place!)

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    We here from the left that Capitalism can not survive without FORCE of Govt. That Govt Protection is required for its survival.

    So let me pose this question:

    How long would UNIONS survive without Govt FORCE?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      True Capitalism cannot survive WITH the force of Government. What the left calls “capitalism” (see Michael Moore or Charlie for examples of the left definition of Capitalism) cannot survive WITHOUT the force of government.

      When the left claims that Capitalism cannot survive without the force of government, they are absolutely correct, provided you are using THEIR definition of capitalism.

  60. @ Buck: Texas is a right-to-work state. This means that under the Texas Labor Code, a person cannot be denied employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union or other labor organization. Tex. Labor Code Ann. §§ 101.001, et al.

    Texas laws protect employees from threats, force, intimidation, or coercion for choosing to either participate or not participate in a union. In other words, the choice of whether to join a labor union is yours; you may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, nor may you be denied employment because you have joined a union.

    If your employer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union which requires employees to make payments to, or on behalf of, a labor union under the agreement as a condition of employment, (often referred to as a “union security clause”), your employer may be in violation of Texas right-to-work laws. If you do not wish to participate in union membership or contributions, but feel that you are required to do so, or that you will be disciplined or lose your job if you do not comply, you can report the situation under Texas right-to-work laws by emailing

    You can see that a union security clause could be considered a violation of state law.

    Union Shop State: Definition – Clause in a union (collective bargaining) agreement that requires all employees to become members of the union (association) usually within 30 days of hiring, and to retain their membership as a condition of employment in the firm. Also called association shop.

    closed shop and open shop: The term “closed shop” is used to signify an establishment employing only members of a labor union. The union shop, a closely allied term, indicates a company where employees do not have to belong to a labor union when hired but are required to join within a specified period of time in order to keep their jobs. An open shop, strictly speaking, is one that does not restrict its employees to union members. Among European workers the issue of the closed shop has not been so sharply contested as in the United States, where since c.1840 the closed-shop policy had been adopted by most labor unions. Judicial decisions from 1850 to 1898 usually decided that strikes held to achieve a closed shop were illegal. For a period of time after the passage of the Wagner Act (see National Labor Relations Board) in 1935, decisions of the federal courts tended to uphold the legality of the closed shop. Many states, however, either by legislation or by court decision, have banned the closed shop. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Labor Act declared the closed shop illegal and union shops were also prohibited unless authorized in a secret poll by a majority of the workers; it was amended (1951) to allow union shops without a vote of the majority of the workers. Thereafter, a campaign was begun by business leaders in certain industries to have so-called right-to-work laws enacted at the state level. More than one third of the states passed such laws, the effect being to declare the union shop illegal. It is argued in favor of the closed shop that unions can win a fair return for their labor only through solidarity, since there is always—except in wartime—an oversupply of labor; and that, since all employees of a plant share in the advantages won through collective bargaining, all workers should contribute to union funds. Arguments in favor of the open shop are that forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues is an infringement of their rights; that union membership is sometimes closed to certain workers or the initiation fee so high as to be an effective bar to membership; and that employers are deprived of the privilege of hiring competent workers or firing incompetent ones.

    It should prove and interesting discussion when my article is done and I think you will be surprised , my closet conservative barrister friend……(oops…did I say that?)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Of course he is a “conservative”, by definition. He wishes to maintain the Progressive Status Quo.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I don’t wish to maintain the progressive status quo…as a progressive I seek to advance and continue to push forward (you know, to progress!)


  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Here is the Idaho Right to Work law. Note that it does not include any of the requirements you listed above relative to Right to Work laws.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      JAC, in Idaho, if a union negotiates with an employer for higher pay or other benefits, must those benefits accrue to all employees or are they limited to only union members?

      Will try to get back to this later on with you — just found out I have a last minute meeting out of the office…

      • Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM’s bankruptcy, laid-off non-union workers will not be hired back
        From the WSJ:

        Even General Motors Co.’s Lordstown, Ohio, complex, long known for its money-losing small cars and its bad labor climate, is running 24 hours a day, with more than 4,000 workers churning out hot-selling Chevy Cruze compacts. But here in Moraine, the GM assembly plant closed for good. Despite being one of GM’s most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company’s 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM’s bankruptcy two years later, Moraine’s 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry’s rebound. The trouble with Moraine: Its workers weren’t in the UAW. “We did everything we could to keep that plant open and keep our jobs,” said Mitchell Wood, a 44-year-old father of two who used to attach tailgates onto sport-utility vehicles at Moraine. “But in the end, we didn’t have a chance, not being in the UAW.” The plight of Moraine workers highlights the extraordinary role played by the UAW during the near-collapses and bankruptcy reorganizations of GM and Chrysler Group LLC. That role remains a political flash point today. Democrats have cast President Barack Obama and the UAW as saviors of America’s auto industry. Republicans call the help a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the president’s union allies. . . .

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I could find nothing in the Statutes or Administrative Rules that either requires or prohibits such an arrangement. So it would seem that it is entirely up to the Union and Company as to whether the benefits would apply to anyone.

        The only thing I think might apply, but could not find any rule/law, is that benefits for a “class” of employee have to apply to all employees. I know that under certain rules you can not establish separate benefits within the class and some must be the same between class. Classes here meaning Executive, management, professional and general labor as examples.

        It may be that these were Federal Rules because I remember having to include them in an employment policy at one time.

        Now I must point out that Idaho is notorious for keeping its Codes simple and to the point. If you check them out you will find several have been repealed. They will often simply reference Federal Law rather than construct lengthy statutes to implement the Federal Law.

    • Blecch – is there enough disinfectant to clean that place out after these evil scum leave?

      • I thought there was something that prohibits foreigners from buying US elections? And a Greek tycoon, is that who we really need advice from right now? Go home and fix your country Georgie!

  62. NOW it is clear…..Buck, the Walla, the progressive conservative…..wooo hooo !!!

  63. Buck the Wala says:


    My meeting brought me down Route 1 this afternoon…as an excuse to avoid running straight back to the office I made a quick pit stop at A&G in Fords and picked up two sfogliatelle for tonight — I have high hopes and do not like being disappointed when it comes to food…will report back tonight/tomorrow…

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Alright, it was pretty damn good; thanks for the recommendation!


  64. Hello SUFA. Hope you all are well this day (and everyday).

    I’m sorry for a long absence, and honestly it isn’t over yet. Today I just had a strong desire to pop in and see how all are doing. It’s a “better” day for me today so I had the energy to. I see the debate is as great as ever.

    I wish I could have made it all the way through all the comments on this article, but I did the best I could. I hope if things work out better later this month I’ll have a better ability to concentrate and read more. It was an interesting piece USW.

    We best wishes to you all and I’ll see you around when I can. Take care and keep swinging for the fence in your discussions.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Been wondering about your well being.

      Glad to see you still here, even if restricted.

      Best wishes

    • Plainly, great to see you, glad you are doing better, I am sure the trend will continue. All the best. 🙂

  65. I noticed something very interesting during the JP Morgan stockholder meeting today and how uninformed the public is on their own money and how this works. It was very interesting to see who was outside protesting and how much they tried to avoid the cameras. There was a very young black woman holding a megaphone with the usual hey hey ho ho…so and so must go….thread. I would bet Bucks fortune that this woman not only is not a stockholder but an SEIU member. It is pretty evident in the protest.

    Secondly, I am amazed at how uninformed the public is on investing. They BLINDLY trust someone else with their money. JP Morgan has probably done nothing wrong in their latest two billion fiasco other than being stupid. They rolled the dice and it did not hit. So what? People put their money in there or in 401 (k’s) and then forget about it and then BITCH when investments go wrong. They also do not understand what a prospectus is and what a proxy is…..everyone is complaining of the salary that the CEO got last year…..and it was the stockholders that voted it. There can be no raises without stockholder approval. If someone is stupid enough to sign away their proxy (ie..their rights to vote) they have NO SAY SO in what happens. I have never seen a 401 program that did not allow the client to decide where they want their money. A fool and their money is soon departed. If you do not follow it and make changes or question it…..shame shame shame. If you are going to invest your money, do not trust someone else……learn and study where your investments are or where your money is going. It is the individuals responsibility to manage their money. If you let someone else do it…..your risk.

    I do not know what happened on the JP Morgan issue but the CEO has said it was stupid and it was risky and they lost…..he is sorry. But now I hear all this clamoring about more regulations when it was likely the regulations that caused the risky venture in the first place. I hear calling for his head and maybe so…..but that is also a stockholder issue. Claims of no time for investments are bull shit. If you are talking about your future you make the frigging time. Noone is responsible for your future other than you.

    Is no one paying attention to Europe?

    • And in the meantime, the public money that is being sunked daily in O’s green ” investments”, in the wasted stimulus, in the fraud, corrupt, government every single day are all but ignored.

  66. Oh Charlie!!!

    Left-Wing Legend Noam Chomsky: Sarah Palin Was Right

  67. Does anyone else find it particularly disgusting that Democratic strategists would stoop this low to win? And before I hear crap about how all is fair in politics, let me say this. Things like this hear is what Obama was supposed to put an end to. Also, this will have damaging effects well AFTER the elections in November. How are we supposed to stop most of the racism with the, real actual racists, keeping it stirred up so they can win. And what happens when the race wars break out? How will these racebaiters feel then? Satisfied?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Esom 🙂

      If it isn’t obvious now, it soon will be, liberalism is a complete failure. One needs to look no further than California to see that. With that said, you really don’t think that Obama can run on his record do you? 🙄 As far as a race war, well, it will take alot more than racebaiting to achieve that, but don’t worry, I’m sure this administration will concoct a way to get the riots started, afterall, if the election were to occur, they would lose badly. Just for fun, keep your eyes open around Sept 21st 😉

  68. @ Buck………sfogliatelle……is what exactly?

    • Never mind…..Sfogliatelle means many leaves or layers and this crisp pastry’s texture resembles leaves stacked on
      each other. Sfogliatelle look like seashells when baked. Some people also call them ‘lobster tails’ for
      their resemblance to the same. The characteristic ridges form as the layers of dough separate during
      baking. The pastries are filled with a sweetened ricotta cream, semolina, and cinnamon mixture.
      Lemon zest or candied orange bits are also sometimes added. We are providing you with a recipe for
      sfogliatelle pastry dough but you can substitute purchased puff pastry dough. The recipe also calls for
      using lard, which gives a flakier consistency, but you may wish to use margarine in its place.

      Wow…..this sounds about as rich as four foot up a bull’s ass…

    • Buck the Wala says:
  69. @ Jon….re: No mothers involved………it is the custodial parent is how it is worded.

  70. California Gov. Jerry Brown is worse than JP Morgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon

    By Michelle Selesky

    Published May 15, 2012

    With the startling news last week of JP Morgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss and the attention the bank has earned in the fallout from politicians, the news media, and even President Obama, it is all the more startling to notice, in comparison, just how little attention California Governor Jerry Brown has received for his $16 billion deficit blunder.

    Even worse, Governor Brown’s financial loss will foot the bill to California taxpayers, whereas JP Morgan’s mistake was only a hit to the bank and its investors.

    Following Thursday’s announcement of the bank’s massive trading loss, media coverage has been extensive.

    JP Morgan CEO James Dimon joined host David Gregory Sunday on “Meet the Press” to account for his role in the mishap, confessing to “errors, sloppiness and bad judgment” that led to the massive loss.

    Congressman Barney Frank, a sponsor of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, showed up Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” to make the case for increased regulation of derivatives trading and to skewer Republicans for their carelessness and support of less regulation.

    On Monday, even President Obama came out to say that the JP Morgan loss is an example of the need for more regulation of Wall Street.

    All in all, the loss of $2 billion of investors’ money by JP Morgan is dominating the news cycle, has put CEO James Dimon on the chopping block, triggered the resignations or “retirements” of high-ranking staff, and incited politicians from both the left and right to do battle over regulation.

    Yet, at the same time, there was another news story over the weekend that has, in contrast, received much less attention than the J.P. Morgan circus. On Saturday, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that his state’s projected budget deficit will not be $9 billion as he originally predicted in January, but instead $16 billion. That’s a $7 billion accounting error.

    To make up for this gap, Governor Brown is handing the bill to California taxpayers, proposing to raise taxes to pay for the deficit when Californians are already suffering from painful 11% unemployment.

    To be clear, Governor Jerry Brown’s miscalculation is costing California an additional $7 billion – an amount three times that of JP Morgan’s recent loss. His total deficit, $16 billion, is eight times greater than JP Morgan’s error.

    But despite the failure on the part of Governor Jerry Brown, the usual suspects in politics and the media, who are seemingly always so concerned about accounting and regulation, are silent.

    Where is the political scrutiny?

    Where is the fallout?

    Where is Barney Frank calling for more accountability on the part of Governor Brown when it comes to managing his state’s budget?

    When it comes to California’s governor it is doubtful that he, unlike JP Morgan’s top leadership team, is considering handing in his resignation on account of his irresponsible mathematical error.

    It’s time to stop with the political opportunism and the punditry and get serious about budgets and math.

    If the $2 billion loss by JP Morgan is such a travesty because of the risk it poses to the greater good, then our political leaders should be that much more irate – eight times more irate to be exact – about the risk that Governor Brown is posing to the citizens of California with his $16 billion deficit. But so far it hasn’t been about numbers, it’s been about politics.

    It is true that JP Morgan’s loss is the perfect opportunity for politicians and pundits to hash out their feelings about financial regulation.

    But it is also true that California’s $16 billion budget deficit is as great an opportunity for the state’s citizens to air their feelings about Governor Brown and their local leaders. Because while opportunistic politicians and the news media are distracted by the drama surrounding JP Morgan, California’s citizens are faced with the daily grind of looking for jobs, paying over $4 for a gallon of gasoline, getting trapped in mortgages that are underwater, and dealing with a governor who just told him they’re going to have to pay an extra $7 billion more than the $9 billion they expected.

    And while they may not get invited on the Sunday talk shows this week or earn a statement from President Obama that this shows the need for better governors who can balance a budget, California citizens and taxpayers can make a big deal out of their own financial loss by expressing themselves and their opinions on their ballots in the next election.

  71. @ Buck… Atlantic City worth visiting?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Meh — I’m not a huge casino gambling person, but it can be a lot of fun with the right crowd. But Colonel, you wouldn’t be heading to crazy liberal NJ, right?

      • Thinking on it. I go to Vegas all the time ( I am really good at the craps table )….BUT…..never been to New Jersey. I have heard pros and cons…..mainly cons in that the boardwalk is not exactly really safe at night for females but that is all rumor. My new plane is coming off the assembly line in July and it is fast enough and has the range enough to make the trip worthwhile. Commercial Air is just too expensive now days and not as safe as it used to be. But the significant other has not been to the Northeast at all and we were thinking about taking a couple of weeks to tour the area….and upstate New York. I think the East Coast can handle a couple of Texans for that period of time assuming you have the basic food groups that Texans like. ( Not into ta da type eating ). We are not pasta eaters at all. But I have a good friend in Connecticut that I want to see…….and I would even suggest that we take you and the expectant one out for a good steak or even some seafood that is supposed to be good up there.

        I will send the DPM into the area to rid the seas of undesirables and stash some grog. But we were thinking on raising the IQ up there some with some good ol’ Texas hospitality. I really would like to see Atlantic City and can get comped up there but was wanting to know what you thought of the area. The significant other has not been to Broadway either so I thought I would show her that as well.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Wow…a Texan lost in NY!

          If you are coming out to the northeast and if you are a big gambler, then it may be worth heading down to Atlantic City as part of the tour. Otherwise, no real need to make a special trip down there in my opinion (though it is only about an hour from Philly). Spend most of the time exploring NYC – we have all food groups, not just pasta ya know. No need to take us out, but we would definitely be willing and able to show you Texans a good time.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Oh…and congrats on the new plane. Where you going to park that thing?? Its hard enough to find a spot for a car!

          • Have three options up there that I would consider……Teterboro or Essex County or Morristown……the weather will dictate. All three are good airports and all three have the facilities that I would require and all three have the approach configurations that I could fly if there is low visibility or bad weather. It is 1,205 nautical miles and depending on winds aloft, the flying time would be 5.62 hours. I have the fuel range for 1700 miles but only about a 3 hour bladder depending on any turbulence. I would be flying between 11,000 and 14, 000 feet according to the charts on a IFR flight plan. So , I can get there unless you have a hurricane or severe thunderstorms. Parking is no problem. I am saavy to not renting a car up there but I can get courtesy rides to the hotels.

            But I might have to hire you for a translator.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              For the extra 3 hours without a bathroom, might I suggest carrying a used DP bottle to fill up should the need arise…

              When are you flying down to the Carolinas — the Mrs. and I are heading down to Charleston for a spell and could use a charter flight! 🙂

        • Colonel, your flying stories bring fond memories for me. My dad was in a flying club and also owner of two (at separate times) Bonanzas. The club owned four planes, Pipers and Cessnas. I’ve been up plenty in my day ,but had to share flying time with 7 siblings. If you’re ever over Detroit on your way to Jersey ;)… I’m 2 miles from DTW..I’d die for a chance at flying again…not that I’d invite myself of course!

          (don’t even start Kathy!)

          • I think it would be loads of fun to stop in on SUFA-ITES. I fly a G 36 Bonanza now and up grading to the new fuel injected Twin Baron w/300 hp engines. Flying speed in normal conditions is 205 knots. I will see where the flight plan takes me…perhaps Detroit is not out of the way and could be a halfway point…will take a look at it.

            Where does Kathy live? We will be flying down the east coast to the Carolina’s…….specifically Myrtle Beach and its 80 professional golf courses. We are then going on down to Florida and over to the Bahamas and then Orlando and then back to Fort Worth.

            I will have to drop in and see my brother in arms, USW, and swap war stories.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Pray tell Colonel. You still partake of a little “swat and follow”?

              I do believe there is opportunity for a combined “surf and turf” trip someday. Golf and Steelhead!!

              Hope all is well in the Republic of Texas this fine morning.

            • Bonanza! Cool. I still remember my dad’s call numbers (i think that’s the term) Bonanza 4418 Delta! Memories, memories!

  72. Just A Citizen says:


    “Put another way, while I think we both agree the government should have no part in marriage, since it’s going to anyway, is the slightly greater imposition on private businesses more important (yes, I’m asking you to prioritize!) than the higher taxes (no joint filing), second class status (separate is not equal), or violation of rights (ability to enter into a private contract)?”

    1. Imposing is imposing. You ask for distinction between one cup of sewage in your water as opposed to two cups.

    2. You use Govt grants/theft, (taxes) as a criteria for deciding how much Govt should grant/steal. Again, stay with fundamentals, you’ll be standing on firmer ground.

    3. There is nothing currently preventing homosexuals who wish to call themselves married from entering into a contract. Your argument is a fallacy and misses the underlying affect of a Govt Marriage License. Namely it is an “automatically” recognized arrangement as opposed to requiring someone to actually prepare and execute a contract. It is a Govt granted PRIVILEGE.

    Which once again leads us back to the beginning.

  73. Interesting thing I am hearing on the radio…….the Martin case……evidence from hospital supposedly shows, Zimmerman with broken nose, lacerations on back of head and both eyes blackened…….

    Autopsy shows bruised knuckles on Martin……..Zimmerman’s grandfather is black…..

    Interesting how all of this is just now coming out……..

%d bloggers like this: