What Do We Need This Government For?

From Common Man

Thought about the need and benefit of government and outside of a Military (designed to protect both the country and its citizens from aggression) and a limited court system, don’t see much to warrant the need.

Social Security – Although possibly initially designed to give working individuals an automated way to save for retirement, it has evolved to just another government entity stealing from the citizens; while bankrupting itself at the same time.

IRS – A Government authorized agency stealing from its citizens and at a tyrannical rate.

US Treasury – Although there was a time and benefit for paper currency, it and the government itself have managed to bankrupt a country.

Medicare – Same circumstances as SS

Welfare – Where it was once a “Hand-up” it is just another government entitlement bureaucracy enslaving those who participate and have been conditioned to depend upon it.

Road Commission – Not even an argument, private contractors could and would do a much better job, and most likely for less

EPA – Evil

Dept of Agriculture – Come on, they are a joke.

Dept of Education – Yeah right, most of the kids coming out of High School can’t tell us what the 3 branches of the government are.

Congress – HA!

Police and Fire – Although I admire the majority of those that make this a profession I don’t believe they would be any less effective as contracted services.

Supreme Court – Politically appointed hacks

Fannie Mae was established in 1938, and Freddie Mac was established in 1970 and these two government run institutions pushed us into the worst recession we have seen in decades. In 116 combined years of effort and both are broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964, and in 45 years and now $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more..

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965, and in 44 years the government has squandered those funds confiscated from the taxpayers and now both are broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

95% of the various Federal government departments – Most are a joke, are over staffed, fail horribly at what they were initially designed to do, and continue to suck up the citizens earnings.

Now I am not totally convinced that we should completely abandon all government, but I certainly could justify 60% of it while significantly reducing the remaining department’s budgets by 60%. Also believe that local governments, run by locally appointed representatives could manage most of the needs of the community. Services rendered by the representatives, approved by popular vote, could be financed via a service fee to residents. This would include road & infrastructure maintenance, public education, public safety, etc.

Now for this to work effectively taxes (federal, state & local) would need to be eliminated or significantly reduced, which would enable the working people to keep more of what the earn and at the same time allow them to pay for what they need. Now I am sure there are those out there that will attempt to make the argument that everyone should have to pay for public services otherwise there won’t be enough funds to finance those same services. I strongly disagree.

If a local tax is levied to cover those specific services the local community approves, such as road and infrastructure support, safety services, etc, then citizens will keep more of their earnings and services will improve. Services would improve since for the most part those providing said service would be privately contracted and would be required to submit a contract stating specific services and costs. Since this would be an open bid contract quality and service deliverables would be key factors, and since the services would be controlled by the locals the contracted firm would be held accountable. And because those companies’s bidding for the contracts would be local, both the community and citizens would benefit.

Now let’s address the issue of government all together.

The world we currently live in requires the majority of people to cohabitate in order to thrive. And most people seem to want to live and work in an area where other people want to work and live. These are communities and they range in size from villages like Attica, MI to New York, NY.

Additionally people tend to pander for leadership especially when those same people live in communities. It is somewhat human nature for the majority to want someone to direct them or at least provide functional guidelines. And, interestingly enough the larger the community and the more people involved the more leadership and/or guidelines those same people need; and that need is self imposed. I am not sure why this is, especially from a personal perspective, the older I get the less I want to be interfacing with people outside of my circle.

Nevertheless, since people migrate toward communities and some form of appointed leadership, some amount of community mandated government/leadership is required; if for no other reason than the community naturally warrants it.

I think the challenge comes when you compare a community the size of Attica, MI to a massive metropolitan sprawl like New York, NY. Magnitude now comes into play; the magnitude of geography, facilities and number of citizens. But, the principles of service don’t really change; they just expand to the magnitude required.

In either case two factors determine how each community functions:

1.     How the individual citizens manage those appointed to function on their behalf

2.     Federal and State government influence or (and this is key) the lack of it.

In a community the size of Attica, MI most people know each other, or at least everyone knows someone that knows someone. Additionally, laws or rules enforced by appointed representatives generally affect everyone to some degree or another. Therefore community members take a more personal interest in what laws and rules are be applied.  In New York, NY most people don’t know each other and don’t really care about the individual who lives 2 miles of more away. Laws and rules applied by appointed representatives don’t generally affect the majority, or the majority doesn’t pay any attention to what appointed representatives are doing unless it directly affects them.

Another element that impacts communities is crime or the potential for crime. In Attica, MI crime is for the most part insignificant and that is because the potential for crime is also insignificant. In New York, NY crime is pretty much rampant, and that is because the potential for crime is infinite. And what is really interesting even though police and public safety services in New York, NY are huge, and probably some of the best throughout NA, New York’s crime rate is uncontrollable.

The key here is the potential for corruption and the nature of humans to be influenced by that corruption. Although most people are basically good natured and individually honest, they have evolved to live by the rule “Go along to get along”. In metropolitan areas like New York, NY that evolutional tendency becomes more the rule, and is increasingly enforced by the ruling class which has taken advantage of the citizenry’s indifference. 

This comparison exemplifies our current federal government. Because the magnitude of both the population and potential for corruption, coupled with a historical migration toward indifference by the population, our government has evolved to its current corrupt level. And that is primarily due to the historical increase of indifference by the public; “Go along to get along”

Resolving this problem logically requires us to do the following:

  • Reestablish Individual Responsibility – Each individual must accept personal responsibility for their own life. Demanding others (individuals, government or communities) to provide for them is a violation of Universal Law and/or a Free Market society. At the same time, Governments or ruling entities demanding funds from citizens to provide for those who demand others provide for them is also a violation of Universal Law and/or a Free Market society. Establishing rules, laws or institutions designed to provide for those who will not accept Individual Responsibility only serves to enforce the decline of Individual Responsibility.
  • Control local government – Someone once ask me how you go about eating a 1500 pound Moose. I responded by saying “one piece at a time”. This same philosophy can be applied towards our enormous government infrastructure. Since we cannot swallow the whole Moose in one bite, we need to start small, and small is the local government. Each individual must first take an interest in how their local government is being run and what the ambitions of those elected to represent the community actually are. If those ambitions and rules of operation do not coincide with the best interest of the community, then change is the solution. Additionally that same government should be altered to promote Individual Responsibility, Universal Law and Free Market Enterprise. Also, since each one of us must manage our finances responsibly, so should our local government. If they don’t then that too must be altered accordingly.
  • Educate the People – Since society as a whole has evolved to reject Individual Responsibility, the government has purposely transitioned to support government reliance and laws/rules/social pressure promote the same, we need to educate or re-educate our fellow citizens otherwise. This is especially true with our youth who are being indoctrinated by a corrupted government to believe the ideal of “Greater Good” is more important than Individual Freedom and Liberty. Each of us must accept responsibility to promote Individual Responsibility, Freedom and Liberty, and that those principles are the foundations to a sound society. And since indoctrination by a corrupt government is designed to start in the schools, we must regain control of the school board.
  • Question law – Over the course of the last several decades all levels of government have designed and implemented laws and rules that are continuing to limit liberty and individual freedom. Therefore, we must investigate and either alter or eliminate any and all laws that limit or violate individual liberty and freedom.   
  • Give and promote Charity – It is the case that there are individuals and families that need help and can reclaim a normal role in society if given the chance or assistance to reground themselves. Each of us should reach out to those in need especially those in our local communities; it is part of being a righteous human being. It helps to promote community and individual stability. And money is not always the best way to help. Community gardens where the food is donated via a local food bank or charitable organization only requires some of your time and gardening knowledge. Volunteering our services to local nursing centers or senior center is another option. You can also join various local organizations like the Rotary, Lions, Optimist or other like minded institutions. This is not only a great way to give back, but also a wonderful way to mingle with other established members of the community. Organizations like I mentioned usually influence local government and most likely have government representatives as members. Volunteering your time to assist local government endeavors or functions is another way to better understand community needs and citizenry.
  • Independence – Since we as a nation are most likely going to experience some financially challenging times, and possibly Chaos, it is important to become and practice Independence and self reliance. This does not mean you should become a recluse and shun society, although if that is a lifestyle you seek that is fine too, but it does mean you should work to become as self-sufficient as possible. This eliminates or at least minimizes your dependence on society to maintain a reasonably comfortable existence. It doesn’t mean that you ignore those around you, actually quite the opposite. Seek out those that follow the same moral standards as you and work together to further independence. Set up your lifestyle to be self supportive and manage your finances to permit you to ride out times of drought. This doesn’t mean you have to live like a miser, or stockpile large Cache of food and household goods, but the processes learned better enable you to weather storms and minimize the need for social dependence.
  • Elected Official – If you don’t find the current representatives to be to your liking run against them in the next election. Also, since our children’s education is paramount you can either volunteer or even run for a school board position.

The point of all this is really simple; things need to change and more government is not the answer. We need to reduce the government’s foot print, regain control over our communities and work to reinstate the basic principles of Individual Responsibility, Freedom and Liberty. 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Common Man, Good Morning 🙂

    I like the whole article. I believe we can eliminate the whole of federal govt and we could do just fine and be better off in the long run. In some cases, like California, even state and local govt can be minimized a great deal, let the people manage their own affairs. We, the people, are far better at managing our own affairs than those idiots in DC, we really don’t need them, they need us! There is much to discuss in your article, i’m sure some will disagree with the premise that we can think for ourselves 🙄

    • GMAN;

      Wife and I stopped in at the local watering hole last evening for a couple of barley-pops and a burger and I ran into a couple of my Rotary buddies, one of which is the Sr. Editor of the local paper. I had sent him my previous article entitled “The Plan” and asked him for his professional literary advice. His opening comment was: “You are an anarchist”. Now Jim is a joker and a wonderful human being, but even though he made the comment as somewhat of a jest, he did think I was a bit nuts for thinking there is a specific plan for crushing the country. Interestingly, after about 30 minutes of spirited discussion he, and a couple of those with him, started to buy into what I was saying. They all agreed that obama is the worst ever, but it got real interesting when I started talking about the fact that Wilson was the one that got the Progressive movement started, and the effort to increase government size and authority since has been governments primary objective. It still amazes me that seniors think FDR was a great leader and his efforts pulled us out of a depression. It was also interesting to hear the responses when I brought up the fact that Harding was a far better President (economics wise) than Wilson, FDR and others. Despite some of those at the table being in their 80’s none of them had much understanding of past presidential history. Most of them seemed to think that government could infact fix things.

      I could have talked for hours with these folks, but my wife came over and gave me the look and pointed to her stomach, so my discussion came to a close. The good news is that I am confident that those at the table now have a different perspective from which to judge. I am also sending Jim this article as well; I am sure it too will garner some thoughtful discussion

      Back after lunch

      CM

  2. All;

    I have a 10:00 am meeting, but will be back around the lunch hour. I will do my best to chime in when I return.

    CM

  3. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    • Peter;

      As we use to say in the 60’s “Right on!”

      CM

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I wasn’t born until 1968, but the phrase was still popular where I grew up (in Southeastern Wisconsin) well into the 1970s, so I get you 🙂

  4. I will try (hah) to keep it short since I will be in and out today. While I feel that there is almost no way to stop the behemoth that does not stop me from complaining about it. Some of this is in the hope that when it all melts down as it surely will, the folks still around will have to put something together.

    Perhaps the largest fallacy is the one that says “folks are the same all over”. Nope. Not hardly. The American left despite the fact that it was America that led the way to Democratic Republicanism, continue to insist that the old continent has better ways. They point to the successful semi-socialist Western Europe as being the shining city on the hill to be emulated. America led the way. It is questionable what Europe would have become without America. Would there have been a French Revolution? Would constitutional monarchies have developed? All good questions I think and questions that lead back to the inspiration our experiment was for the rest of the world.

    Quick digression, The abysmal lack of historical perspective in this country because of the failure to teach history. One could ask is this deliberate? There is a school of thought that says that if you don’t teach facts, then facts are of the moment. They become think and feel rather than know. I fear that this is where we are. One could say that the American left, nothing more these days than an offshoot of International trends towards Socialism cannot tolerate History because of the lessons it teaches. So, in the Dewey method of education, in vogue since the 1920’s, is there a conscious movement not to teach history? Or, is it just because we are such a “now” oriented society that we don’t have time for it. The truth may fall on either or both sides but make no mistake, one plays quite well into the other. The phrase, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result” is quite popular today. Quite true, but if one does not know of the previous results, then what?

    This leads us to why we are different as Americans. Best said by Bill Murray in “Stripes”, “We have been thrown out of every decent country in the world” . Emma Lazarus put it differently acknowledging “we were the tired and the poor, yearning to be free”. Both, however come down to the same thing. Our forebears left the other place. They had had enough and just couldn’t stand any more. They had that yearning to be more than their parents were, to breath free to make a new way, in a new place without a hereditary class structure.

    If there is one thing Darwinism has right, it is survival of the fittest. While there may have been losers come through Ellis Island, by and large, the bulk, the vast majority were survivors. They pegged everything they had on the move. They were also confident enough in themselves as to take a chance on something over the assured nothing they had in the old country. The history tells us that many did not make it here. that they died crammed into slums, living from day to day. The streets were not paved with gold, not that most of them ever thought they were, but they passed along that survival gene to their children along with horror stories from the old country. Their children became Americans, Their children rose up in 1917 and 1941 and fought for the new country and the new ideal. Somewhere in the back of their minds was the idea that even if the system had not worked for them yet it was still worth preserving and nourishing. They triumphed both times. They led the way. They stood the old continent on its head. Pundits trashed both Coca-Cola and Hershey bars as being the only things America brought to their “betters” in the old country and, surprisingly, the American Left bought it. Too damn dumb to understand jealousy. Too damned dumb to see the fundamental changes wrought by the old countries exposure to the new country.

    We here, all know the rest of the story, even Charlie, Buck and Matt do, if they think about it. Those people came home, they built the society we have today, they prospered in ways neither they nor their parents ever thought possible. They provided the most to the most at the least cost in human history and people complain that it was not enough. They took on the defense of the world, education for the masses, human rights, human dignity not always succeeding but never not trying. They were an impatient lot. They would not stand in queues. They would never accept “less is better”. “It can’t be done”, was not their watchword because they knew what impossible things they had done. For better or worse, it was always forward, upward, onward and let the Devil take the hindmost.

    They had a conscience, this evolved new species of humans. They created safety nets so that others would not know the privation they knew and they created bureaucracy’s. The American gift and the American fault are in fact the same. Build it now, and get onto the next thing. For the past sixty years Americans have created social programs to fill a need. The fact that they failed in many cases or that they have outlived their usefulness or that even worse, they have become counter-productive, has been lost in the rush forward. It is, I guess, human nature that we seek “leaders”. We have gotten so far away from those who boarded those ships in old Europe to leave it all behind that we, their descendents, have become like those left behind, too timid to leave. The old aristocratic, hereditary ruling class has been left in the dust but has been replaced by a new one. There are those who would say they are the wealthy who don’t pay their fair share but the Rockefeller’s, Vanderbilt’s, , Whitney’s, Morgan’s, Trump’s, come and go. Even the Kennedy’s will someday burn through their trust funds. The true new rulers we have created are the bureaucrats. Perhaps, not hereditary in the biological sense, they are, based on attitude, education and employment none the less the equivalent of the long line of Louis’ in France. Attendance at certain schools guarantees government employment and the enhancement and continuation of policies pioneered and refined at that institution.

    I submit that these people have become the bane of our existence and have contributed to the viral hate we have of governments intrusion into our lives, supposedly for the “common good”. Part of what I would love to get into here is the effect that the last 60 years of new government programs have had on cost, efficiency, effectiveness of industries they have become enmeshed in.

    I’m the housing guy and I know the effect on home prices, rents, municipal taxes and mortgage lending programs designed to “help people”
    government intervention has caused. At the same time ,these programs have resulted in massive increases in government employment for those who push paper rather than build things. Over the years I have diligently followed (and paid for) a declining educational system where the failure rate seems to closely parallel governmental involvement and mandates all designed to “make things better”. The $ 2.00 home doctor visit has gone by the wayside in my lifetime and been replaced with the $ 5.00 aspirin, and a CAT scan for everything.

    To tie it all up, not as neatly as I would like, I wonder how all these programs have accidentally been designed to be looted by Americans who, in their own way, because of their heritage are always poised to take advantage of “free stuff”. This tendency goes far beyond the lady with six kids on welfare and her boyfriend(s). It extends into academia, medicine and the law. To paraphrase “Field of Dreams”, “If you build it….. they will rip it off.”

    • ST:

      A lot there to digest. I do agree with you that the majority are by nature lazy, if for no other reason than they have been socially conditioned to be so. I also believe that when they are faced with a significant circumstance the larger percentage (55% +) would take the steps to evolve; however I think that the majority (60%) would fail, leaving us with about 20% of those deemed average. Add to that another 12-15% of the population currently deemed above average or “Independently Responsible” and you would have the population capable of moving forward.

      I also believe that for the population to return to a mindset initiallized by our forefathers it must be gradual and involve certain benchmarks, or we wind up with the senerio I painted above. It took a few generations to get to where we are now, so by natural order it will take at least that much or more time to evolve back. Paradigm shifts can sometimes take time, especially when they involve unlearning prior to learning

      As for the schools, it is really amazing what they are NOT teaching in History class these days, and even more amazing that some of it is just plain wrong. That is why I believe that the schools in the local communities are a key factor to our future. If we fail to teach our children that which is true, righteous and moral, then we will wind up with an even further decline in freedom and individual liberty.

      CM

      • When I was a young buck, out to change the world, the old man brought me down to earth, as usual, with, “If it took 40 years to screw something up, it’ll take 40 years to unscrew it!” Right he was.

        Well, we do know from history that revolutions are led by the 20 to 30 percent who do care. That’s about the best we can do I think. I too have been met with wonder and amazement when I bring these things up. Incrementalism is insidious. the changes are such that people don’t really see them. The Pavlovian conditioning that goes on in the society has become so much more powerful. One wants to “belong”. Advertising tells us to be hip and cool. Be part of the Pepsi generation. How many times have I caught myself doubting or questioning beliefs I have held immutable. The answer is quite often. If you are pounded and pounded and pounded again, feel that you are being ostracized for your beliefs, sometimes even by your own children, then you are sorely tempted to “go along to get along”.

        In light of the mess in this country right now, I am astounded by the support the President still has. Considering the limited number who do vote, the anti-Obama guy will probably win with 55% of the vote as you predict. What he should not fail to understand is that his victory is a negative. People are not voting for him or his policies, just against Obama. The President never understood this. he won with his 55% by being “not Bush”. The hope and change was not calling for any fundamental shift in direction but rather a hope that the next guy would not be Bush and that there would be a change in how the administration was run.

        The worst possible scenario for us would be a failed/flawed Romney presidency which would embolden people far to the left of Obama to see a call for even bigger changes. What we truly need at this point is a Dwight D. Eisenhower, a boring, competent individual who could spend eight years making small tactical changes in government that would ultimately lead to a strategic change. Use incrementalism against the incrementalists. Boy do I hate copying their tactics!

        • ST;

          Dwight I am not so sure, although doing nothing is a good start. I would venture to say a Harding and/or Coolidge. Cut taxes to the bone and let industry and a free market manage itself.

          If Romney focuses on repealing all that obama has done, cuts taxes, opens up drilling, pulls the troops home, tells the middle east to take a long walk off a short pier and stops spending the country into bankruptcy then the economy will bounce back and people will be happier. If he takes the stance that government can help and just puts different plans into action then we will continue the decline.

          As I said in the article “The Plan” NOTHING is the only action the government can take that will actually result in positive.

          CM

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Using incrementalism to fight incrementalism just ain’t gonna get the job done. However, a vast number of people don’t want “radcial change”. It’s a real quandry, and I don’t think the outcome is going to be good at all, regardless of who becomes the next President. As BF points out, fighting a flawed system from within the flawed system is futile.

          • I’m just being shrewd here. I’d love to see a real radical reversal but that is just not going to happen. You have to outsmart the enemy and, trust me, they are the enemy. They and their minions in the press are constantly ready to strike. Scott Walker is an example of that , he and Christie, their calm and mostly reasoned appeal to restore sanity to State government was instantly set upon by the libs and constantly misrepresented by their allies in the press. I use Eisenhower not because of his politics which were moderate but because of the sense that we were backing off a World war, the Korean War and the Great Depression and could take a breather and figure the next step. I think Nixon would have continued on the same course as Ike had not the “progressives” fallen in love with JFK and the New Frontier. The worst thing that could have happened was Kennedy’s death. For a guy and a family that did not have much use for Civil Rights they suddenly became the reason to pass the flawed acts.

            There are psychological treatises to be written on both Nixon and LBJ who out progressived the progressives in an attempt to be loved by people who would never love them. Style always beats substance, especially where glamor and fame trump competence.

            • ST;

              Nixon and Johnson were egomaniac’s and power hungry. Both of them did far more harm than even remotely any good. Both of them got (at the time) that what they deserved’; a public that grew to dislike or even hate them. Neither operated from a sense of righteousness, only power and influence, and as a result they are both recorded in history as failing presidents.

              I for the life of me cannot fathom how in the hell Nixon was ever elected into office… we will just call it a fluke. Johnson was one of the most corrupt POTUS to ever be seated and when the country turned against him he was devistated.

              Nixon and Johnson were prime examples of how bad corruption can get, both were evil and bent on furthering their own legacy.

              They got what the deserved.

              CM

              • Nixon was elected because he wasn’t Johnson. Plain and simple.

                Johnson won because Kennedy died and as Barry G said in his autobiography, the country was not ready for three presidents in a single year.

                I often wonder what effect the Pat Brown (dirty) win for Governor over Nixon in ’62 had on him. Was that when he went off the rails and the paranoia took over? I could never understand the need for anything like Watergate since George McGovern guaranteed his own defeat all by his lonesome for his wackadoodle positions (thanks to incrementalism, now considered moderate). By the way, Carter won because he wasn’t Nixon. By my calculation, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2 were the only presidents elected post WW 2 not because they were not someone else.

  5. Almost all anarchists have arrived at that philosophy by the route of reason, not emotion.

    Almost everyone else thinks anarchists are a bunch of wackos.

    So, the interesting perspective – a philosophy derived from reason is wacko.

    Yet, as you described, a simple conversation with others who think you are wacko have a hard time disagreeing with you and your positions – because your position is generally reasoned.

    Yet, the inevitable conclusion that eventually arrives – they shake their heads, thinking you are a wacko.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      By today’s standards, people with the ability to reason and use true logic are considered well outside of the norm, so maybe by today’s standards, the truly reasonable are “wacko” compared to the vast majority of the populace.

      • Indeed, but I think such an ability is there, only it is dormant. The right circumstances could return such thinking to the forefront more quickly than many imagine.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Jon,

          I agree, but the populace must be taught critical thinking skills and the ability to think and reason for themselves, in most people, the skill does not simply arise magically on its own, especially when most current “teaching” is diametrically opposed to it.

          • Perhaps, but what are the logistics of this? We can teach those we come in contact with, but some are unwilling to learn while there is a system supporting them, and some will simply not accept us as teachers for whatever reason, or will succumb to the alternative teaching, especially since it is easier.

            Also, with logic and reason, while this technique may not work for everyone, I find it is often like it is with swimming for some people. The best way to learn is to have to, to be thrown in without support and wake up the ability already inside you. I understand, however, that this may not work for all people like it did for me, since that technique of learning to swim did not work for me. People’s minds are as different as their bodies.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Jon,

              I was lucky. I went to one of the most LIBERAL of Liberal Arts colleges in the country (Former Senator Paul Wellstone taught political science there while I was a student!) but they MOST IMPORTANT thing that they did was encourage ALL of the students to question EVERYTHING, think for ourselves, and apply sound logic. I don’t know if they continue that tradition these days, but I certainly hope that they do!

            • Peter

              Survival of the fittest is not a bad thing.

              CM

  6. 8)

  7. Nice article, glad to see some critical thinking on the basic need for government itself from more than just BF and Peter B (love you guys, by the way). Here are some thoughts:

    Part of the reason for crime in NY is not just opportunity. The same “everyone knows everyone” that affects how much people pay attention to laws and how they affect the community is also a massive part of the reason for less crime. Even criminals rarely ignore the affects of their actions on those they know. Crime is usually perpetrated on either strangers or people who are disliked. Occasionally, it is perptrated on those close because either the criminal thinks it will not really hurt them (like taking from a wealthy family member) or because it is easy (an increased opportunity or likelihood of success because of trust). In a small community, even close crimes are reduced because, while a person might not care about those around them, the knowledge others have of them is sufficient to keep chances of success without being caught pretty low. In a large, concentrated population where people are not close, this is not a concern. It is easy to hide in the masses and no one will be able to point you out because no one really knows you.

    Large populations create an increased need for structure. Things like courts to decide conflicts between communities can be useful. Also, a hierarchy that is in place to keep watch over local communities to make sure bsic rights are not violated can be useful, tho only if the watchman is kept in line and has strict restrictions (something that is obviously no longer there, but was supposed to be facilitated by the Constitution). It is possible that an enlightened populace could operate without this defined structure, but I do not know that such a broad-based level of enlightenment is realistic just yet. Add to that your very true statement that many people demand to be governed, and many more demand that others be governed, and it is difficult to avoid government.

    That said, it seems in almost every case, that the more responsibility government takes on per the demand of the people (even if the people are first convinced to demand it), the more people ignore that responsibility. In other words, bending to the demand to take on a role that previously belonged to the people, leads to the people being increasingly incompetent at that role, which tends to justify the government taking on the role. Mathius’s third law, or first, or whatever number it is that people are inherently lazy is true. People are not, however, inherently stupid, its just that if they are allowed to be lazy they will become stupid. I often get asked if I would really trust our current population to handle all the things freedom would demand them to handle, and it is difficult to say yes based on the current state of things. I say yes anyway, however, because I believe that people will rise to the occasion. I also think many would suffer and die along the way if the responsibility was transferred back too quickly. I am not sure if there is a realistic scenario for a gradual transition, however.

    Government must be outside of the market. The market, in terms of the concept of supply and demand, will demand government. Supply, however, must be kept low. This is because the supply itself demands growth, which is not a natural state of any market commodity. Government being an unnatural commodity, it seems it would be reasonable to put unnatural restrictions on it. It truly is like fire. People demand fire (heat, warmth, energy), but because fire itself demands more to consume and desires to grow, it must be kept at bay, and only be put in place enough to accomplish what is needed. It may be kept alive so that it can be used when needed to fight fire or to warm things, but its consumption and inefficiency is well known, it is there for emergency use only. Even your statement that it is useful for military is one that must be scrutinized. Our military is very powerful, but it is overused and even over-powered. It seems well and good to have massive military superiority, and I do not mind being vastly superior to other nations. I DO mind it being vastly superior to the population of the country. I mind even more it being used for non-defense actions. Even some of the actions in defense of allies is questionable and worthy of deep, deep scrutiny and far more transpparency than we have. It is an arm of government, and thus equally dangerous to the people as the rest of government.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Jon,

      You admit that government is an unnatural commodity, and yet you assert that the market NATURALLY demands it.

      It seems contradictory to me that the market would demand an unnatural commodity.

      To me, this is why government (as BF and others have defined it- a definition which I accept) is not desirable. It is an UNNATURAL COMMODITY.

      What we need, and what I believe the market demands, is a NATURAL way of organizing society which conforms to Natural Law, and grows organically from society and the market. I think that this is what the founders of this country kind of had in mind originally, but for many reasons it didn’t work out that way.

      • Let me try to explain this another way. There is market demand for force, even for murder, otherwise there would be no hit-men. There is a demand for the use of force (via government) steal from some and give to others. Demand exists, it does not only exist in a manner that works within the free market. This is what I meant by “unnatural commodities”. It is outside of the realm of natural rights, it involves a demand for something that an enlightened free person would not demand, but an unenlightened free person might. Some people demand to be governed. Free men who do not understand freedom will actually seek to give away their freedom. The solution is to either A) make sure everyone is enlightened, which is impossible even through education, because fear and laziness will override reason in some people. B) artificially restrict the supply. Restrict government so that it cannot meet the demand for certain things, make it unavailable. This is why men like Charlie say that capitalism leads to government and the 1% being in charge, because those with the power of wealth will use that power, in many cases, to seek more power, the power of authority, or at least to seek the use of force to reduce competition. This is not inaccurate in that such a demand does exist, else it would never have happened. Evil exists among men and it makes demand, evil men are part of the “market”. What is inaccurate is the claim that this is a part of capitalism, or that it is inevitable. However, the only way to prevent it is to use some means to restrict the supply of government, to limit its ability to grow.

        The bottom line is that contradictions exist in the minds of men. They do not exist in real life, but there are people who, by allowing them to exist in their own minds by not engaging in reason, will engage in behavior that is a contradiction, such as demanding an unnatural commodity. This is the core of the “many reasons” that the dream of our founders “did not work out”. This is why the idea of freedom must be constantly kept in mind and must be reset, often through force. It requires force to maintain because it must defend itself against force. Power fights against freedom all the time, which is why freedom cannot exist without a struggle to maintain it. The thing that is often forgotten by anarchists is that freedom is not only fought against by the seekers of power, but by those who seek to be ruled. Some seek to be ruled because they are fooled by tyrants, some seek it because they are simply too lazy or too afraid and wish to be irresponsible and have the protection and guidance of others. It is, in a way, a seeking of the fountain of youth, a return to childhood, when you were provided for and told what to do. For some that is their fondest time in life, and they seek to return to it, to the ease and the play time and the irresponsibility. These people are, in fact, greater in number and harder to combat than the tyrants and power seekers themselves.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Thank you Jon,

          Now that you carefully thought that out and explained it (extremely well, I might add), EVERYONE should read what you just wrote, because it was darn good! 🙂

        • Jon

          Let me try to explain this another way. There is market demand for force, even for murder, otherwise there would be no hit-men.

          …or government.

          Correct.

          Violence is profitable.

          it does not exist in a manner that works within the free market.

          It does exist in the free market – however, by its use it distorts the market place, and as such the market place corrects and adjusts itself to that distortion

          You apply violence “here” in the market, the market “move and avoids” that area. Money moves away from violence, or acquires violence to resist an application of violence.

          This is what I meant by “unnatural commodities”. It is outside of the realm of natural rights,

          I do not agree that it is outside of natural rights.

          There are two manifestations of this right:

          Civilization – which is a direct manifestation of the “Golden” Rule

          Government – which is direct manifestation of the “Might is Right” Rule

          “Equal” (as in an equal choice to be made by any man) but opposite.

          As one increases, the other must decrease.

          B) artificially restrict the supply. Restrict government so that it cannot meet the demand for certain things, make it unavailable.

          But this is a contradiction.

          You create a violent force that imposes upon men so to stop violence and the imposition upon men.

          The only real action to “restrict supply” is to decentralize the access to violence. It is the centralization of violence into “government” that creates the expansion.

          When men take their violence into their own hands, the extent they can exercise this violence is naturally limited to only the area and extent that they, individually, can operate. When they begin to organize locally with other of like goals and like minds, they create “organized crime” or the “Mob” – but no mob is capable to control an area any larger than the local population is willing to tolerate them.

          However, if men accept the argument that such violence should be centralized to larger abstraction of institutionalization – the State – so to control smaller organized groups of the Mob, such men ignorantly magnify the violence and not diminish it.

          This is why men like Charlie say that capitalism leads to government and the 1% being in charge, because those with the power of wealth will use that power, in many cases, to seek more power, the power of authority, or at least to seek the use of force to reduce competition.

          Agree.
          When violence is for sale, there will be buyers.

          The larger the providers of violence, the more expensive is their services – thus, the largest suppliers of violence are the most expensive, and at a price only the very wealthy can afford.

          However, the only way to prevent it is to use some means to restrict the supply of government, to limit its ability to grow.

          But you invoke a necessary contradiction – to limit the supply of government by creating government…

          This is why the idea of freedom must be constantly kept in mind and must be reset, often through force. It requires force to maintain because it must defend itself against force.

          Tom Jefferson would agree with you

          . The thing that is often forgotten by anarchists is that freedom is not only fought against by the seekers of power, but by those who seek to be ruled.

          I know of no anarchist who has forgotten this. Indeed, all anarchists I know repeat this as a fact.

          These people are, in fact, greater in number and harder to combat than the tyrants and power seekers themselves.

          Exactly.

          Those that surrender their responsibility to others become slaves.
          Those that accept responsibility of others become masters.

          The most powerful way masters control slaves is by using the slaves themselves upon other slaves.

          The powerful tool of the controlled to control others – Google: “The Chain of Obedience” – in every army, this is how they control soldiers so to slaughter millions of innocent lives and every man in that army has succumbed to such evil of obedience.

          It is so powerful that most men who have left such an army still are infected by it – even outside the army, they defend the army and its evil.

          • No, restriction of the supply is not a creation of force. It is a limitation on consolidation of power, and thus a limit on force. You just said that government, or might makes right, exists in the free market. You also agree that many will choose this option. So, to operate within a totally free market, your system will simply do what it is doing now. Demand for increased government will increase until the demand for more freedom incites enough violence to overthrow the violence of government. What I am speaking of is an arrangement wherein a society permits a small amount of supply to placate the demand for violence, but keeps it limited so that it does not grow beyond a certain point. It is not ideal, but neither is your system. Yours is pure, but not desirable.

            I am, in fact, speaking of restriction of access and centralization of violence, yet you say this is a contradiction because I permit a government to exist. You are being a purist, I am not, but this does not mean that I am in contradiction. I am very rationally seeking a balance between those who are enlightened and the desires or perceived needs of those who are not. Contradictions exist in the human mind, and therefore they exist in human action, and therefore they must be dealt with by reasoning people. You cannot ignore the existence when you speak of a real world, workable society.

            I am not limiting the supply of government by creating government, I am limiting the supply by making sure that when a government is created through demand it does not go past a certain point. I cannot convince a majority of humanity that no government is the best option, but I can convince them that a limited one is. I am no more condoning it than I am condoning any other vice or poor choice, I am simply standing in the way of that choice destroying the whole of society.

            • Jon

              No, restriction of the supply is not a creation of force. It is a limitation on consolidation of power, and thus a limit on force.

              How do you believe you can limit force by giving the exclusive power of force to a violent power?

            • Jon

              So, to operate within a totally free market, your system will simply do what it is doing now.

              Not one little bit.

              “Your” system depends on centralizing violence.
              “My” system refuses such centralizing – leaving decentralized violence.

              There is no such thing as “good” evil. There is only bad vs. really bad.

              Decentralized violence = bad
              Centralized violence = really bad.

              Trading “bad” for “really bad” is a bad idea.

            • Jon

              You are being a purist, I am not, but this does not mean that I am in contradiction

              I am not a “purist”.

              I am a radical – one who goes to the root of the issue.

              And you are in contradiction – erroneously labeling me does not resolve your contradictions.

            • Jon

              Contradictions exist in the human mind, and therefore they exist in human action, and therefore they must be dealt with by reasoning people

              This comment is why great human evil exists – that merely because you can dream a contradiction, you act upon it.

              You are in direct conflict with the Universe – and thus, it is exactly here where evil is borne.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Jon and BF

                Lets take this to the bottom gentlemen.

                I’ll offer up a thought there.

  8. Great article and a problem it creates, little or nothing left to talk about. There are some things that can be done, like NY’s crime rate was lowered by Giuliani, who had small-time offenders targeted by police. Fringe benefit, they did a lot of the violent crime as well.

    “Educate the People – Since society as a whole has evolved to reject Individual Responsibility, the government has purposely transitioned to support government reliance and laws/rules/social pressure promote the same, we need to educate or re-educate our fellow citizens otherwise. This is especially true with our youth who are being indoctrinated by a corrupted government to believe the ideal of “Greater Good” is more important than Individual Freedom and Liberty. ”

    But then, your or my re-education will be labeled indoctrination by others. To a degree education and indoctrination are identical. And then on the EPA, an article to celebrate the millions of deaths they are responsible for…

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47340

    • LOF;

      To your point about indoctrination, I looked it up just to make sure.

      Indoctrination: “to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions”

      So, if Universial law, Individual liberty, Freedom and Individual Responsibility are truely sound and righteous mindsets, and ones that enable a stable and prosperous social order, instructing others in those mindsets cannot be deemed indoctrination.

      CM

      • “if Universal law, Individual liberty, Freedom and Individual Responsibility are truly sound and righteous mindsets, and ones that enable a stable and prosperous social order, instructing others in those mindsets cannot be deemed indoctrination. ”

        Of course it can, it can mean anything. Does “gay” mean to be happy, or is it a natural lifestyle? If you refuse to teach it as a normal, acceptable practice to fifth graders or first graders, are you not being “oppressive”?
        “to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, (Like self reliance?)

        “especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions” (and as a part of your “teaching”, you show the poor as being less worthy in our society, taking welfare or any government assistance is treated as some kind of “sin” against society.
        You talk about independent thought, but it still come back to only the thoughts you approve of will be condoned.)
        (PS, I agree with you except they will still call it indoctrination, and there’s enough truth there they can make that stick. Kinda like Buck could argue blue is green. Ex, look at how “academic freedom” is protected)

        A University of California, Los Angeles research professor is suing the university to keep his job of more than 35 years after questionable management of his grant money and his termination, allegedly for exposing illegal and unethical practices among his colleagues and for criticizing their research.

        Dr. James E. Enstrom’s peer-reviewed research challenged California’s status quo by contending that exposure to fine particulate matter, like diesel particles, does not kill. The majority of his colleagues believe the particles cause lung cancer and death, a popular belief that Enstrom said ignores evidence to the contrary.

        Disagreements between Enstrom and the Environmental Health Sciences (EHS) department began years ago and is only now culminating in a lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court against UCLA officials and its board of regents.

        Enstrom charged in 2008 that his colleagues exaggerated the adverse effects of particulate matter in order to justify expensive diesel fuel regulations to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Enstrom testified in the same year to the state Senate that the lead contributor to the CARB report, Hien T. Tran, paid $1,000 for his Ph.D. from a fake university, and members of a CARB panel had exceeded their mandated three-year term limits by decades.

        Shortly after Enstrom revealed the misconduct, UCLA began sending him notices of termination and has refused to compensate him for more than a year’s worth of work.

        “The facts of this case are astounding,” said David French, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and one of Enstrom’s lawyers. “UCLA terminated a professor after 35 years of service simply because he exposed the truth about an activist scientific agenda that was not only based in fraud, but violated California law.”

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/ucla-professor-of-35-years-suing-to-keep-his-job-after-challenging-environmentalist-status-quo/#ixzz1xtArMFoF

        • “Of course it can, it can mean anything. Does “gay” mean to be happy, or is it a natural lifestyle? If you refuse to teach it as a normal, acceptable practice to fifth graders or first graders, are you not being “oppressive”?
          “to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, (Like self reliance?)

          “especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions” (and as a part of your “teaching”, you show the poor
          as being less worthy in our society, taking welfare or any government assistance is treated as some kind of “sin” against society.
          You talk about independent thought, but it still come back to only the thoughts you approve of will be condoned.)
          (PS, I agree with you except they will still call it indoctrination, and there’s enough truth there they can make that stick. Kinda like Buck could argue blue is green. Ex, look at how “academic freedom” is protected)”

          Maybe others will assit here, but absolutes like those stated are not really open to interpretation as they are just that, absolutes. As an example: Free men are just that, free, and any restrictions placed by society, or an entitiy of society restricting said freedom nulifies said freedom. I may not personally approve of how a person conducts their sex lives, but that does not give me any right to restrict their freedom to engage as they desire. (The exception to this is if it invokes harm on another, and/or violates natural law).

          Individuals also have a freedom to disengage, they do not have to participate, they can chose to live independently. And as this discussion relates to educating 5th graders about any kind of sexual choice is not relevant; as it is not society’s place to do so. That is a responsibility of the parents not the government.

          As a caveat to this I will say I am still not absolutely clear about certain elements and how they play out in a true “free” society, however I am absolutely clear on the role of the government; and it does not fit into the overall fundimentatls of a true free society.

          CM

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        People who are taught to question everything, use logic, and reason for themselves CANNOT be “indoctrinated”. Being taught to question everything makes indoctrination impossible.

        Also, people who are taught true critical thinking skills will eventually reason out Natural Law for themselves – teaching them about it will get them there faster, but once you can truly think, you can’t help but figure it out on your own eventually, it’s “natural” 🙂

  9. The Senate’s final vote on the farm bill is expected next week, but according to Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, there will be no substantial reforms to the food stamp program due to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s obstructionism.

    Eighty percent of the spending from the farm bill this year goes to the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, constituting $770 billion in spending over the next decade.

    According to Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, Reid will not allow any of his reform measures — aimed at dealing with the swelling cost and growth of the welfare program — to even receive a vote.

    “[Reid] is filling the amendment tree so basically nobody can get another amendment in unless he approves it,” the Alabama senator told The Daily Caller.

    Spending on food stamps has quadrupled since 2001 and increased by 100 percent in the last four years. In the 1970s, 1-in-50 Americans participated in the program. Today, that ratio is 1-in-7. When the economy improves, the figure is set to hover at 1-in-9, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/sessions-reid-unwilling-to-consider-reasonable-food-stamp-reform/#ixzz1xsgm9QJ6

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    What do we need THIS government for?

    Considering the state that THIS government is in… I would say “nothing”.

    Do we need societal organization? Sure. Do we need “Government” especially when it is defined as “the entity with the self appointed right to (supposedly legitimately) initiate violence against the non-violent? Nope.

  11. This being the appropriate weekend, as I prepare to take the flight of my dreams in the B-17, “Yankee Lady”, out of Teterboro on Sunday in my “12 O’Clock High” moment, I would like to wish all fathers out there, all who will be fathers, all who want to be fathers and all those who while not physically being a Father have served in the role as a mentor,

    HAPPY FATHERS DAY!!!

  12. Mathius™ says:

    Mathius’s third law, or first, or whatever number it is that people are inherently lazy is true.

    1. People. Are. Dumb.
    2. People. Are. Lazy.
    3. People. Are. Greedy.

    • Matt;

      A large majority are ignorant, a smaller number are stupid, but the good news is that the ignorant ones can learn. Just look how you have evolved since joining the ranks of SUFA…HA! HA!

      People are lazy, but lazy has lead to great leaps in innovation and technology. (Indoor plumbing, the computer, automatic transmission, etc.) Sloth is a better description for those that seek or expect government help verses fending for themselves.

      And I don’t believe that the larger majority of people are greedy, although all those in Congress are. I believe that people are by nature giving and willing to help their fellow man. But at the same time they don’t want the government forcing them to do anything.

      CM

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        LOL, CM, you and I posted at almost exactly the same time, and said nearly the same thing… I COULD say “great minds think alike” but others would then question the “great minds” part 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      1. There are good reasons why MOST people are dumb. Truly educated people scare the crap out of the elite.
      2. Most people are SLOTHS (far beyond lazy). Someone who has truly mastered the art of laziness will get up late, and then proceed to get more done with less effort than the “early birds” get done all day. People who have truly mastered the art of being lazy are among the most productive and innovative in society.
      3. Some people are indeed Greedy, especially the ones who are sloths. The people who have mastered the art of laziness want to be paid fairly for their innovations and productivity which allow such a large portion of the populace to be sloths. The sloths call this “greed” even though it isn’t. The “early birds” want “an honest days pay for an honest days work” which is ok, but probably won’t make any of them millionaires.
      4. If you are dumb and a sloth, your greed will make you want to take from the early birds and from those who have truly mastered the art of being lazy.
      5. There is also a small percentage of people who are SO GREEDY that they want to have enough money and power to control everyone else on this list. However, it is highly unlikely that the people comprising that small percentage are dumb or lazy.

    • Ok, so 2nd was gonna be my third guess….

      Still, I think most people are dumb BECAUSE they are lazy, so I woulda made that one first… 😛

  13. Good morning All 🙂

    I want to wish all the Dad’s and dad’s to be a Happy Fathers Day 🙂 I hope we all see many more! We just added 10 more hens to the chicken pen, we have 7 peeps still growing, that now gives us 25, with two known roosters (still waiting on the peeps to show). Life is wonderful in the country 🙂

  14. Had our first wild fire scare this afternoon. It was less than 2 miles upwind of us. They got on it with ground and air crews and got it knocked down quickly so we did not have to evacuate. It’s going to be a long summer after a wet spring. Lots of fuel around. We are still shaking limbs out of trees from the wet snow we had 3 years ago so not just grass but a lot of tinder dry wood as well.

    • Is there anything you can do to reduce the danger? Remove undergrowth or cut some trees and create a firebreak?

      • We try to keep the grass short but is it all browned out as water is too expensive here. I save my water for the garden and fruit trees. This is rolling hills with mixed oak and pines and lots of grass. Often there are too many rocks to safely mow certain areas. Anyway mowing is done for the season as it is too dangerous to do now. I clean up as much brush as I can each spring and burn it during the wet season. I burned 4 big piles of it this spring but that was only about half of what I have. It rained all April so it was too wet to work or burn. That just made the grass and weeds more dense so it added fuel. We had 100 degree days with a brisk breeze last week and 90’s this week so the fire danger is now high. When I build my barn a few years ago, I installed rainbirds in the roof with a drop pipe to ground so I can sprinkle it without climbing up there. We have been through drills where we quickly install rain birds on the house roof running from hoses. The danger is loss of water pressure as any irrigation pipes in the path of the fire will probably be burned off. So we do our best. I live on a dead end road with one way out. Should the road be blocked I will have trouble getting my wife in here wheel chair out of here as it means cutting some fences and going overland down a steep hill. Not something I want to do in a top heavy full size van.

  15. I do not know why everybody is upset at the President’s amnesty program (because that is what it is)……..it does not extend to the State. Texas and New Mexico have already stated that because Obama said this, does not make it law….We will continue to deport when we find them and we will continue to protect our borders. We simply will bypass ICE and Immigration and deport them ourselves. Pretty simple actually.

    • I’m a little upset when the government passes a law, then selectively enforces or ignores it.
      I’m a little upset when a government (fed) sues another government(state), as will likely happen here, appealing and acting as if it’s all free. We the tax payers get to fund all this knowing the courts are about as corrupt as any/every elected official…

      • I was trying to be sarcastic,,,,,I guess it did not work.

        • Nah, it’s me. In a little bit of a funk, watching things that used to be fiction, scare stories become reality. Some bad luck in my personal life also, but it’s getting better with time. Will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on a state enforcing a federal law they refuse to enforce.

          • LOI….that is ok…..I am telling you and you watch…..Texas will not care what any court says…….it will enforce the law until the law is changed and an EO will not do that. No one cares what Holder says…..just watch.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Colonel,

              Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the substantive provisions of this act? Forget that it was done by EO for purposes of this discussion.

              Oh, and how goes things?

              • If you are talking about the Dream Act……I can get on board with certain limitations. I will first say that I do not buy the argument of “innocent” children. But that is another subject. OK…..here goes.

                (1) Close the border….shut it down. (2) Cap the Dream Act to December 2011. Anyone after that is not exempt. (3) Eliminate in state tuition for illegals. (4) Eliminate all entitlement programs UNTIL they become United States Citizens, (5) Eliminate the anchor baby program in its entirety.

                Then, and only then, I can deal with the current 20 million that are here. I have no sympathy or even empathy for them but will deal with the reality. I know what the real story is and it is not what is being printed nor shown on Wiki nor fact check….both leftist reporting and mostly dribble, although they do have their moments and will actually report something correctly. For example, I hear how productive and supportive these illegals are to the United States but I say that is pure bullshit. I am NOT saying that some are not supportive because some are…..but, and this is fact….The highest drop out rate in all high schools in Texas is Hispanic…yet they are allowed to stay. Remedy this….if they drop out….they are out no matter the age…and parents with them, otherwise there is no incentive.

                In Houston and Dallas and San Antonio…..some school districts report Hispanic dropout rates in excess of 50%. So this speech by Obama does not cut it. So, that is my story counselor….also, local police agencies report that the majority join gangs.

                Now a question for you. You are an officer of the Courts. You are supposed to uphold and support the laws of this country….how can you condone the subversion of the Constitution. We have Federal Law in place passed by Congress….the only way to supposedly change Federal Law is through Congress…….Why is not the Federal Law upheld and enforced and how can a sitting President openly flaunt the law and change it, without following the law……why, as an officer of the court, can you and others sit idly by and give approval of this maneuver?

                This very maneuver makes me think that Obama DOES NOT have the basic belief in our system and way of government and proves to me that he does not have the best interest of this Country at heart.

                Sorry for the epistle….but there it is. And things are going well here. Thank you for asking…hope things are well for you.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                To be fair, I’m torn on the answer to your question. I believe this was much better left to have Congress enact as opposed to having been done by EO. It would be hypocritical of me to support this solely because I may agree with the underlying premise and then criticize some other action done by EO as being an overreach by some President where I do not agree with the underlying action being taken. That being said, I do believe that this action is not entirely inappropriate to be handled by EO given the nature of the problem, the dereliction of Congress’ duty to handle said problem, and the fact that this can be considered more along the lines of prosecutorial discretion than changing or creating law. So long story short, I do criticize the President a bit for doing this by EO as opposed to really leaning on Congress to get this done, but I do believe this isn’t necessarily something that can’t be handled by EO as a form of discretion in enforcement.

                And yes, things are going well out by me too!

              • Had a big argument with my son the other day on this EO. Besides its probable illegality, this is another anchor around the neck of black youth in this country. With a 47 percent unemployment rate vs. a youthful Hispanic unemployment rate of 11%, seems to me these new “legal workers” will yet again drive nails into the aspirations of young black people. Would be fun to ask the Big O about this but I suspect the media, including the black media will give it a wide berth. Oh, my son’s disagreement was that I was “reaching” on the issue. Funny, the dots connect for me. How do you folks feel?

        • We have to read this in a foreign publication?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Well I wouldn’t want to read this drivel in a domestic publication…

            • Yes it would be sedition to object to King Obama’s decrees domestically.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I have no problem criticizing Obama – there is much that he deserves to be criticized on. But that there is some serious drivel! Some choice lines:

                ” …Obama and his Marxist illegal presidency…”
                “…Constitution HAS been overthrown…”
                “…Axelrod recently called for an Amendment to the First Amendment which would stifle any and all free speech that challenges Obama…” [to clarify, yes, Axelrod did discuss possibly seeking amending the First Amendment, but the context was geared entirely on ways to undo the Citizens United decision — a very far cry from stifling any speech critical of Obama]
                “…he shouted-down a reporter from the Daily Caller…” [not quite what happened]
                “…lost our country to the Marxist/Islamic ruler currently ensconced in OUR White House…”

              • Mathius™ says:

                “…he shouted-down a reporter from the Daily Caller…” [not quite what happened]

                ::spit take::

                What?

                Adding: “Yet, the zombie-like ObamaMinion media have done nothing but chastise their colleague for daring to ask their Luciferian Messiah a question he didn’t like”

                Riiiiggggghhhhttttt… Luciferian Messiah… ::falls out of chair laughing:: I swear, if I didn’t know better, and someone just posted the text here, I would honestly think it was from the Onion. In fact, I bet The Onion could reprint this article verbatim in its entirety and no one would doubt for a second that it was written as satire.

                And yes, sure, Obama “shouted the guy down” (more like reprimanded him firmly) for questions he didn’t like… or because he was interrupted (repeatedly) mid speech… odd that there doesn’t seem to be and mention of that..

                Drivel.

              • So you let the prez off the hook because a reporter fumbled? I’m hearing no outrage about backdoor amnesty or the fact that he had a press conference..but wouldn’t take any questions….or that he just took Congress out of the question….hahahahahaha!

              • Oh, don’t let me forget that he was an immigrant..who waited his time to become a citizen…..

              • Mr. Matt.

                I am sure if you tried you could locate on You Tube, Dan Rather’s confrontation with Nixon. I watched it at the time with my father who had no love for RN. This was before Watergate and my father felt that the disrespect shown the office was worthy of a good horsewhipping. Sort of like in the military where you salute and acknowledge the rank, not necessarily the man. I too think that this young man was out of order but it sure as hell ain’t the first time someone has done it and should not be treated as such. Perhaps he can go on to be the anchor of CBS evening news and sit in the great Cronkite chair.

                I would also think that left, right or upside down, we would all protest Executive Orders on principle. In their way, they are like recess appointments and should have gone out of fashion at the end of the 19th century. If you want to keep them then make a requirement that they be voted on within 90 days. I imagine that this would have about as much success as the “War Powers Act” in a country where the congress is, I think, more there for their perks than to govern.

                For those interested, B-17 ride on Fathers day was totally awesome. # 2,773 on my bucket list is now crossed off.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, this reporter did not stumble – he demonstrated outright disrespect for the Office of the President.

                And, to add, Obama’s action fell short of granting amnesty. The EO ordered the Dept of Homeland Security “to stop deporting undocumented immigrants who came to this country before 16, have resided in the U.S. for a five years or more, and are in college or are high school grads or serve in the military. Plus they must be under 30 and have no criminal record. It does not give amnesty”

              • am·nes·ty   [am-nuh-stee]
                noun
                1.
                a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

                No sugar coating.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anita,

                “Fumbled”? Watch that video again. That wasn’t a fumble, it was a deliberate interruption. And, even if you could (which you can’t) excuse his original outburst, he continues to heckle the President afterward. This is no mistake. It’s showman ship. He’s showing deliberate disrespect and rudeness – and, without knowing more, my guess would be that it established a lot of ‘street cred’ on the right amongst the President’s strongest detractors to have done so.

                SK,

                I can’t find the video (obviously, I wasn’t around back then). Can you give me more to go on? Maybe a line or two of what was said, and I’ll try to go off that? I’d really like to see this. I understand that there have been outbursts before. Though, to my memory, there has never been the equivalent of heckling during prepared remarks or, worse, Joe Wilson shouting out “you lie” in the middle of a state of the union address. Seems to me (my humble opinion) that this President more than any other in my lifetime (admittedly far, far, far shorter than yours 😉 ) is the subject of far greater disrespect. Even when compared to Bush, who the left thoroughly hated and trashed, I cannot think of a single instance where we was directed confronted in such a manner. Not even close. Can you?

                Some, on the left, like to attribute this to racism, or as a response to his perceived illegitimacy to hold the office. I, on the other hand, as I suggested above to Anita, suspect this has more to do with ‘street cred’ wherein the right, who hates the President, are enamored of anyone who would be so rude and confrontational and disrespectful to someone who they, themselves, wish they could be rude and disrespectful toward. In my humble opinion, it’s just cynicism, pure and simple – they know that it’s like catnip to the Tea Partiers, so they do it. That is, Anita, for example, would love to give the President a good talking to. But she won’t ever have the opportunity to do so directly, so when someone else does it for her.. well she really likes that person. Does this make sense?

              • Hey! If you want me to say the reporter messed up..fine, he did. (tho Mr. Obama is pretty sensitive) So what about the rest of my post?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Amnesty is a pardon for offense. Obama is saying he won’t PROSECUTE or DEPORT based on the offense of illegal immigration if you meet certain criterion. This is NOT amnesty.

                HOWEVER, I do think it is an overstepping of his authority regardless of the fact that I agree with the underlying stance. So, yes, I agree with the position and the object and the plan, but no, I do not agree with the way in which it was done. So, to me, it’s not within his power to do this. That said, when someone (inevitably) challenges this in court, I expect them to win.

                And, no, Anita, he did not “mess up.” Mess up would be when you accidentally interrupt, then say “oops, sorry, thought you were finished, go on.” He didn’t. He heckled the President and even after Obama made it clear he wasn’t finished (not that Munro was confused.. it was pretty clear that Obama was mid-sentence.. watch the video again). This wasn’t a “mess up” – this was a deliberate show of calculated disrespect designed, I believe, to garner approval from the far right.

              • Matt,

                I’m surprised that I can’t find it either. The key words I believe were Nixon asking Rather “Are you running for something” and Rather responding, “No, are you?”. It was either at a speech or at a press conference.

              • Mathius™ says:

                SK, got it.. no video, but a transcript.

                And this is not a good comparason. Rather was definitely a hostile member of the press and was, perhaps, out of line, but he sure wasn’t interrupting. In fact, Rather was the SEVENTEENTH question being asked. He was recognized by Nixon, prior to speaking, and when he stood, there was “sustained audience reaction.” According to other sources, this means that pro-Nixon audience members agressively booed rather (was was viewed -rightfully so – as hostile to Nixon) and cheered by anti-Nixon audience members.

                [17.] Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Dan Rather, with CBS News. [Sustained audience reaction]
                Mr. President–Mr. President

                THE PRESIDENT. Are you running for something? [Laughter]

                Q. No, sir, Mr. President; are you? [Laughter]

                Mr. President, I believe earlier that you said that you had cooperated completely with the grand jury investigation. It was my impression–and I could be wrong about this–but that the record shows that that is not quite the fact; that number one, that the grand jury asked that you come down and tell your side of some stories they had heard, and that you declined to do that. Number two, that the Special Watergate Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski, indicated in a letter to the Senate that he did not get all of the evidence that he thought he needed, and I would be interested in hearing you reconcile what I believe is on the record of these previous statements.

                My basic question is this: That in recent days you have, in effect, attempted to define the limits of the House Judiciary Committee investigation, what evidence that they have access to. Now, since the Constitution, and I think, without qualification, clearly assigns to the House of Representatives impeachment investigations, how can the House meet its constitutional responsibilities while you, the person under investigation, are allowed to limit their access to potential evidence?

                Source

                Calling him Mr. President after being called on to ask his question, then responding to a quip with a quip. Maybe that was out of line.. Maybe he should have just responded “No” and left it there.

                But that’s certainly not the same thing as what happened the other day, or am I missing something?

              • Maybe somebody else can dig up the actual clip. It was painful at the time. There was a cringe factor while you watched. i think that it is one of the reasons, to this day, that whenever Rather screws up, people applaud or worse, laugh at him (“What’s the frequency Kenneth?”. As my parents used to warn me, “Watch your tone, young man”. Question was relatively harmless, the vitriol was appalling.

  16. President Barack Obama played his hundredth round of golf on Sunday at the Beverly Country Club in Chicago, Ill.

    Obama has played more rounds of golf in one term than President George W. Bush did in his entire eight years in office, ABC News reports. Bush played golf 24 times in eight years.

    Bush told Politico in May 2008 why he stopped playing golf while in office.

    “I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” Bush said. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf.”

    ABC News reports that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Obama’s golfing habits in April.

    “I scratch my head at the capacity of the president to take four hours off on such a regular basis to go golfing,” Romney said. “I would think you could kind of suck it up for four years, particularly when the American people are out of work.”

    Obama’s routine trips to the links may have been in an effort to move up Golf Digest’s presidential leaderboard, which had him ranked eighth or two spots behind Bush in January 2009.

    And while 100 rounds of golf may sound excessive for a president who The Daily Mail notes never played golf before entering office, Woodrow Wilson played almost 1,200 rounds of golf, the most of any president.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obama-has-golfed-four-times-more-than-bush-did-in-eight-years/#ixzz1yB6RC389

    • Ann Romney, the wife of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, said Monday that she doubted she and her husband would vacation overseas as frequently as the Obamas if her husband were elected.

      Romney was responding to a question from WJR Detroit’s Frank Beckmann, who asked Romney if her family would be vacationing abroad as frequently as the Obamas.

      “I doubt that,” Romney replied. “Our vacations and our happiness come from being with our children and our grandchildren.”

      First Lady Michelle Obama has drawn some criticism from conservative radio hosts for her international travel, including a trip to Spain with daughter Sasha where she lunched with King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia.

      President Obama, however, has not taken any foreign vacations during his presidency, usually celebrating the Christmas holiday in his home state of Hawaii and summering in Martha’s Vineyard.

    • Mathius™ says:

      “I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal,” Bush said. “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf.”

      Riiiggggghhhhhttttt….

      http://kirkcaraway.com/14/05/2008/bush_caught_lying_about_quitting_golf_in_solidarity_with_military_families (skip to 7:30 and 10:00)

      (sometimes I really like Olbermann)

  17. I think Christians have had just about enough of being bashed and banned. There is a fear (finally) that our nation is in deep trouble. Twice in three days now I’ve seen calls to action. I know some of yous couldn’t care less but I’m posting links to the couple things I’ve been hearing:

    http://judeochristianfreedomalliance.org/Home_Page.php
    We’re already getting support from the majority of Judeo-Christian Denominations… from all races… black, white, hispanic…God-fearing folks from all across America coming together in ONE VOICE— saying ‘We will NOT allow these attacks on our faith, tradition and symbols to continue!”

    http://www.call2fall.com/basics
    “Call 2 Fall” on our knees is for every Christ-follower in America. Specifically, there are multiplied millions of believers who realize that America is in trouble and that neither Washington nor Wall Street has the answers. We are hoping that at least 40,000 churches will join in a corporate act of humility, repentance, and desperate prayer on our knees before the Lord.

    Another one called Fortnight to Freedom is also forming..you can google it if you’re interested..I didn’t want to get lost in moderation.

    It can’t hurt..just sayin…

    • Mathius™ says:

      I think Christians have had just about enough of being bashed and banned.

      I’m sure American Muslims feel terribly for y’all.

      http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/11/showbiz/all-american-muslim-lowes/index.html

      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

      http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-29/us/florida.burn.quran.day_1_quran-burning-florida-church-terry-jones-american-muslims-religion?_s=PM:US

      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/8/19/113223/843

      Do I need to go on? Because I’ve got about 100 more I can post. But, then again, I suppose you are perfectly capable of operating Google yourself but just choose to play the victim.

      As has been said here before, I think quite well: you are confusing losing your special position of privilege and being treated like everyone else with being discriminated against. For centuries or, in fact, millenia, the Catholic Church in particularly, but Christianity in general has brutally oppressed everyone it could. It has subjugated billions of people, and hundreds of religions, in fact, outright destroying several competing faiths entirely. It has obtained for itself in America a special position of prominence and power beyond anything enjoyed by Judaism or Islam or (god forbid!) agnosticism, but which is slowly eroding. Slowly, bit by bit, other faiths (and non-faiths!) are chipping away at the pedestal upon which Christianity is perched in this country and from which it looks down upon the heathens and the sodomites. And you dare scream bloody murder at the loss of your special place, as if it is your right to be there. As if America were founded as a Christian nation (it wasn’t) or, even if that were true, that it would be relevant in the modern world. As if you can claim the corner on truth as the ordained of God to exert undue power and influence over the rest of us, and the denial of that power and influence is somehow an imposition on you!

      You’re not the victims! You’re not oppressed. You’re not being bashed (any worse than anyone else, and far less than some). You’re not being banned. You’re NOT.

      It’s as if the British, having colonized India and enjoying decades of luxury and position on the backs of a subjugated people, are suddenly upset when the Indians dare rise up and demand equality. I say! How dare they! Don’t they know that we are the chosen of God to rule them? We’re the victims in all this, with those nasty heathens taking away the positions and wealth that are rightfully ours.

      ———————-

      God, I’m so sick of the Christian victimhood mentality.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        God, I am so sick of people who think that just because other people have been attacked, turnabout is fair play! Stupid philosophy.

        How about we stop the attacks on ALL religions, Islam and Christianity included, and actually apply some golden rule for once.

        The whole problem with the the philosophy espoused by Matt and others is, “Group X has been discriminated against by group Y, so now it is not only “just fine”, but even ENCOURAGED and APPLAUDED when Group X bashes, ridicules, and discriminates against group Y instead, and if group Y complains about it, they are just a bunch of whiners getting what they deserve.”

        Wow… REALLY???

        How about we ACTUALLY treat group X and group Y THE SAME WAY AND WITH RESPECT???

        Oh wait, then group X DIDN’T WANT EQUAL TREATMENT, THEY WANTED THE RIGHT TO GET “PAYBACK” AGAINST GROUP Y!!!

        Ok, that explains THAT whole bizarre philosophy….

        • Mathius™ says:

          How about Christians stop foisting their religion on me and let me buy alcohol on Sundays, hire prostitutes, marry more than one woman, sleep through a Sunday morning without being subjected to obnoxiously loud church bells (at my old apartment, not my current home, thankfully), stop pushing school prayer, remove ‘under God’ from the pledge, or from our money, and much, much more? Or let gay people married? Or let politicians get elected without having to pass a religious litmus test? Or repeal obscenity laws? Or permit euthanasia?

          We’re not attacking Christians. We’re BEING attacked by Christians. Christians have been oppressing non-Christians in the country since its inception. We don’t want “payback.” We just want them off our backs.

          It’s not mistreating you to stop you from telling me what I can and cannot do. They’re not the VICTIMS – they’re the aggressors, and we just want to be left alone.

          How about we ACTUALLY treat group X and group Y THE SAME WAY AND WITH RESPECT???

          How ’bout it?! I’d love to see this. But that means that Christians need to knock off all the above. If they don’t want to do those things, that’s great – don’t. But if I want to, they need to stop meddling with my non-Christian life. Capisce?

          How about we stop the attacks on ALL religions, Islam and Christianity included, and actually apply some golden rule for once.

          How ’bout it?! Can you name for me a law in the US which oppresses people based on a Jewish or Islamic or Hindu or Daoist or Taoist or Buddhist or Shinto beliefs?

          Are the Jews going around banning shellfish because it’s not kosher?
          Are the Muslims forcing your wife and daughters to wear a burka?
          Are the Hindus forbidding you from eating cows because they’re holy?
          Are the Buddhists forbidding you from exercising greed?
          Are the Shintos forbidding you from disrupting the harmony of nature?

          How about some goddamned reciprocity and application of the golden rule for once? How the f*** about it?

          We don’t pull this on you. So how ’bout you leave US alone?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ah, Matt, there you go accusing the US Government of being “Christian” again…. lol.

            Are the Jews going around banning shellfish because it’s not Kosher? I don’t know, what is the law in Israel, where they run the place?
            Are the Muslims forcing my wife and daughters to wear a burkha? If I was in Iran, I suspect they would!!!
            Etc. Etc. Etc.

            I am not aware of any NATIONAL law forbidding you to buy alcohol on Sunday. A FEW states have such laws, but not very many. (Indiana has such a law, but I can still go to a bar and drink all I want on Sunday, I just can’t buy alcohol from a store… stupid, eh?)

            I am not aware of any NATIONAL law “pushing” school prayer. Quite the contrary actually! It is FORBIDDEN in public schools… unless you are Muslim.

            Your problem, Matt, is you are confusing GOVERNMENT AGGRESSION with aggression from a particular Religion which you call “Christianity”.

            For one thing, if you really knew that much about Christianity, you would understand that it is made up of a whole lot of “sub-religions” like the Catholics, the Protestants (which are further split into about 1500 smaller sub-groups), the Lutherans, and COUNTLESS other sub-sets all claiming to be “Christian” and that most of these sects vehemently disagree with each other over lots and lots of things.

            So, you blame government aggression and oppression on something else, which you call “Christianity” and then you probably want government to “fix the problem”… except that government ain’t never gonna fix the problem, because GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!

            Got that yet?

            • Mathius™ says:

              We’re not in Israel or Iran. We’re in America.

              And here, in America, the CHRISTIANS (admittedly a collection of sub-groups) by-and-large are the ones pushing this.

              You blame government. But government is a TOOL.

              And CHRISTIANS are using that TOOL to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

              And, when we try to wrench it from their grasp, they make a lot of noise and complain about victimhood.

              “You can have my super-majority powered evangelical use of government to oppress non-Christians when you pry it from my cold… dead.. hands!!”

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Matt,

                Without the government, the things which you are complaining about could not be accomplished. Sometimes it IS THE TOOL which is at fault.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Here’s a hammer.

                Hammer is neither good nor bad. I can use it to make things, to improve people’s lives, build homes, hang pictures, and more. It’s a marvelous thing. However, I can also use it to hit you over the head.

                If I opt to hit you over the head with my shiny metal hammer, would you blame the tool or would you blame me?

                Tools are tools. People use tools.

                How many times have people argued “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”? Yet you would argue the exact opposite here?

              • Matt, that is why government is compared to fire. It is not just a tool. It is not like a hammer that can be either wielded or not, it has a life of its own, and it is doing something as long as it exists. It must be controlled. Now, it can be argued that fire is useful for many things, but only if it is under control. Fire can be a tool, or it can be the source of destruction, but it is always burning. Also, fire can be used as a tool when there are better tools available. It used to be used to make canoes out of trees, but it is no longer considered the best method for that.

              • Government is not a tool.
                It is not like a hammer, nor is it like fire.

                It is evil – it is the belief that violence on the non-violent will solve human problems successfully.

                One must argue that evil does good if one argues government is necessary, or is a tool, or does anything “good”.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Jon, sure, fair enough.

                But my point stands. If you USE THE TOOL CORRECTLY, it does not do the harm in question. It is, therefore, necessarily the fault of the people wielding the tool INCORRECTLY. And those people are….?

                Who is, as Mr. Flag likes to point out, the hegemonic power within the US? Who has the power? Who calls the shots? How did all of these things I spoke of (blue laws, etc) come into being? Did Government just spontaneously decide to make them (life-of-its-own theory) or did someone push for them?

                And, more to the point, if we can just please stay on topic, can we realize that Christians in this country aren’t being “bashed and banned” – if anything, they’re the ones DOING the bashing and banning. Yes, true, they do get bashed, but I would defy anyone to suggest that they’re getting it worse than anyone else. So, who is imposing on who in this country? Why should the far-and-away most powerful group in the country be allowed to play victim while simultaneously victimizing everyone else?

              • I have some agreement with you, tho I know some would be more likely to compare government to, say, nerve gas, rather than fire. As in it has no real good use other than violence which is generally not considered a good use. Still, even as compared to fire, it consumes and damages when left to its own devices. It must be constantly and closely controlled and/or contained to be considered a “tool”.

                As for your topic, Christians are being bashed, and only in a few cases banned, but I agree that they are doing a lot of both, and have been for some time. That does not justify them being bashed and banned, even if it seems like they brought it on themselves. Not all christians are doing this, just as not all muslims are seeking that everyone follow their laws, but in some places they are, where they have the political power to do so, just as many christians here are doing damage to freedom because they have the political power to do so and have bought into the idea that laws are in place to maintain morality.

      • Gee Whiz Matt! Did you have to go off like THAT? Personally, I couldn’t care less what happened centuries ago. I don’t care how many words you post, we are waaaay off corse. All my post suggests is to take a few minutes out of your day to ask your ‘god’ for help to get back on corse. Is there a problem with that? There is no call for violence..only peace. Get over it! 👿

        • Mathius™ says:

          God has the same rate of responsiveness to my prayers as praying to a brick wall. But at least I can see and touch the brick wall and know that it’s real.

          We’re not ‘on the wrong track’ because there is no ‘right track.’ We’re in a recession. These things happen. Boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust. Then boom again, followed by bust again.

          The politicians suck. So maybe they suck more than they used to when you were younger, but less than 100 years ago? Who knows. If the system gets too corrupt it will collapse. And a new system will rise from it’s ashes. Rise, fall, rise, fall, rise, fall, rise, fall. Then rise again, followed by fall again.

          If you want to try to pray your way out of a bad situation, go for it. Have at it. Knock yourself out. And if you want to band together with other like-minded people to pray collectively (maybe God is more interested in mass prayers?), go for it. I have no objection to this whatsoever other than that I consider it a waste of time. But it’s your time, so it’s yours to waste.

          ——————————————————

          My problem, Anita, comes in with your first line: “I think Christians have had just about enough of being bashed and banned.”

          You see, this shows an atrocious understanding of the religio-political system in America. You aren’t being bashed and banned. You are doing the bashing and the banning, and worse, you are oblivious to the fact. You and your ilk are aggressively and proactively oppressing everyone who doesn’t agree with you. As Black Flag would say, the hegemonic power acts, the weaker power re-acts, yet you insist somehow that you are the oppressed victims in all this? Nonsense. You have all the power.

          You say “I couldn’t care less what happened centuries ago,” but the links I posted for you weren’t from centuries ago. They’re within the last few years. And they aren’t in some foreign land, they’re in America. Soldiers being punished for refusing to attend a self-described ‘aggressively evangelical’ Christian rock group, Florida congregations hold Koran burning events, an Islamic community center being branded as a ‘ground zero mosque’ and everything that entails, or a commercial sponsor being boycotted because a show about NORMAL Muslims didn’t adequately convey the BIAS which the group wanted to see (to whit, that Muslims are evil, American-hating terrorists).

          This isn’t centuries ago. It’s what you’re doing NOW.

          Christians have had just about enough of being bashed and banned? Well how about you start by stopping your bashing and banning of EVERYONE ELSE.

          Maybe you need some Hindu mixed in with your Christianity: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

          But, if you’d like to stick with good, old fashioned, bible thumping Christianity, try this one: “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”

          • Maybe you need some peace in your mind…its called faith.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The peace in my mind is called an absence of faith by way of an absence of a need for faith.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yet you continually argue for FAITH in your silly Progressive theory of Government.

                You know, we just need to improve the efficiency a little.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I have an OPINION – An IDEA – that progressivism is (probably) the best of the available options.

                This is not a ‘faith’.

              • It is the very worse – it is a philosophy of a bunch of busy-bodies; one of interference and intervention; of moral depravity and elitism.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Flag,

                Pointing at progressives (which is, as you pointed out, a philosophy, not a religion) and shouting “YOU TOO” doesn’t negate my point. Progressivism is a means to an end. It is, like government, just a tool. If it were wielded by me exclusively, the country would be very different. But I don’t wield it because I am just one person. It is wielded, predominantly, by.. whom?

                Back to the original topic: Can you lend me some support that Christians aren’t the oppressed in this country but are actually the oppressors? Anita’s Christian-victimhood routine is tiring me.

              • Boo Hoo…how do you think I feel? You say we”re not bashed but you continue to bash.

  18. Britain stops Russian ship carrying attack helicopters to Syria
    Rick Moran

    Putin, Russians caught in a Big Lie, assuring the world that the US was crazy in saying they were sending helicopters to Syria, the assuring the world that they wouldn’t be used to kill civilians.

    Great Britain decided differently.

    Telegraph:

    The British marine insurer Standard Club said it had withdrawn cover from all the ships owned by Femco, a Russian cargo line, including the MV Alaed.

    “We were made aware of the allegations that the Alaed was carrying munitions destined for Syria,” the company said in a statement. “We have already informed the ship owner that their insurance cover ceased automatically in view of the nature of the voyage.”

    British security officials confirmed they had told Standard Club that providing insurance to the shipment was likely to be a breach of European Union sanctions against the Syrian regime.

    They said they were continuing to monitor the ship, which has been the subject of a fierce international row since US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week revealed it was adding to the arsenal of weaponry available for Mr Assad to use against rebellious Syrian towns.

    […]

    The MV Alaed picked up its cargo of Mi25 helicopters – known as “flying tanks” – from the Russian port of Kaliningrad, where they had been sent to the state-owned manufacturer Mil’s “Factory 150” for servicing and repairs.

    No doubt the Syrians are going to use them for sightseeing tours over Damascus.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/britain_stops_russian_ship_carrying_attack_helicopters_to_syria.html#ixzz1yFZQbUPE

  19. @ Buck,,,,,,,boy, do I have a problem with “discretion of enforcement”. Does this not set a terrible precedent? What if someone acts out of ” discretion of enforcement” on, say, a murder or some such. I do not see how you can draw a line…….

    We have a law….it is in place….and now you tell me I can use discretion on the enforcement of said law…..no matter the content.

    While I can agree that a do nothing Congress is frustrating…..does that mean you can circumvent it.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      For good or bad, prosecutorial discretion in bringing charges happens all the time. Now there may be a legitimate argument to be made that the President should not (or does not) have the authority to exercise such discretion, or even more so, a legitimate argument that this type of action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion.

      As I said, I’m torn on this.

      • Understand and it is a big gamble because in Texas, he just isolated several Hispanic groups….

        I know that you have to be torn on this as I am about the Dream Act….

        All of it, unfortunately…..is about politics.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      To me, the whole point of having 3 branches of government was to prevent any of the branches from becoming tyrannical. I would have thought that EO’s would have a set date that they either expired or had to be voted on by Congress to begin with under such a system.

      The founders WANTED Congress to “do nothing” as much as possible… it was purposely designed to make it DAMN DIFFICULT to get new laws passed. The more controversial the bill, the less likely it would ever become law in the first place. By allowing EO’s, and not requiring that they either expire (rather quickly) or get voted on by Congress, this bypasses our normal system of checks and balances and distorts the system. I have never heard of the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of any Executive Orders either… although they may have a few times and I may just not be aware of it.

      At any rate, especially at a time such as this, when the country is somewhat evenly split on a lot of issues, our government was DESIGNED to “grind to a halt”, because some of the Founders recognized that the Federal Government would (99.999% of the time) do more harm than good by passing any legislation whatsoever.

  20. SK….Glad to hear your plane ride was fun. I thought of you Sunday as I drove past Willow Run Airport. There is an air museum there full of fun facts and airplanes. Had a couple friends in the car at the time and mentioned your ride…needless to say my friends were jealous. Can’t wait for our air show Aug 4-5. http://www.yankeeairmuseum.org/airshow/

  21. Mathius™ says:
  22. Girl, 16, dies weighing just 40 pounds as relatives say mother ‘hated her’ and was obsessed with hunger
    Teen was born with mental disabilities
    Comments (70)
    By Rheana Murray / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
    Tuesday, June 19, 2012, 7:39 AM

    Markea Blakely-Berry was abused and starved to death by a mother who hated her, family members say.

    Mark Blakely, Markea’s father.

    Ebony Berry faces charges of murder and first-degree child cruelty by deprivation.

    A 16-year-old girl weighed just 40 pounds when police say she starved to death at the hands of a mother who “hated her.”

    Authorities found Markea Blakely-Berry dead on Friday in her Atlanta-area home. Her 38-year-old mom, Ebony Berry, had called authorities after first reaching out to her dad when she found teen and couldn’t revive her.

    “I got her off the phone,” Larry Stewart told WOOD-TV. “I said, ‘You dial 911. Don’t call me. Call me back and let me know what’s going on with the child.”

    Markea, who was born with mental disabilities, was dead when police arrived. Berry was arrested and is being held without bond at Cobb County Jail, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    She faces charges of murder and first-degree cruelty to children.

    Relatives told WOOD-TV the history of abuse began when the girl and her mother lived in Grand Rapids, Mich.

    “Her mother hated her for some reason. We don’t know,” said Cheryl Gore, Markea’s paternal grandmother.

    Gore says Berry had been starving Markea for years. She last saw her granddaughter in 2008, when Berry moved with her children to Georgia.

    “She punished her daughter,” Gore told WOOD-TV. “She didn’t have to kill my grandbaby like that.”

    Gore told the station that Markea used to mail her drawings, always with no return address. The last one she received was around Thanksgiving, showing a table full of food and people with empty plates.

    “Ham hocks, potato salad, she put it all down there,” Gore said, but when it came to her, it was just a blank face. She didn’t get to eat.”

    Markea’s father Mark Blakely, who did not live with Berry and his daughter, says child protective services (CPS) should have stepped in while the family lived in Grand Rapids.

    Michigan CPS launched several investigations, but only one found substantiate abuse, WOOD-TV reports.

    “She ran to do wrong,” Blakely says of Berry’s move to Georgia. “Nobody helped, nobody tried to stop her. The system knew that she wasn’t wrapped all the way tight.”

    Family members say they found links to a group that encouraged hunger on Berry’s Facebook page. Police are investigating the claim.

    “It’s like, mind-blowing to me,” Blakely told WOOD-TV. “I can’t even understand it. How could anybody do that to somebody? You wouldn’t even do your worst enemy that way.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/girl-16-dies-weighing-40-pounds-relatives-mother-hated-obsessed-hunger-article-1.1098295#ixzz1yG5MUfmM

    Take note that the family members-readily admit knowing that the mother was a nut case-who hated and didn’t feed her daughter-Yet all they do is ask why the STATE didn’t do something.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusion from this. The conclusion should have been that we need to strength the CPS and give them more power to act on behalf of children in cases of suspected abuse.

      Time and again, I see this argument.. the government doesn’t work… here’s an example. But the reason it doesn’t work is because people who believe government doesn’t work have crippled it to the point where it can’t work. AMAZING!

      It’s like, the other day, when congress was having a hearing on Jamie Dimon and they asked him if Dodd Frank worked. He responded that he doesn’t know. But isn’t it interesting that the same senators who substantially weakened the bill, who took so much of the bite out of it, then go on to show that it doesn’t work.

      CPS doesn’t work because people view them as jack-booted thugs and decry every time they interfere in some innocent family’s life (a tragedy, to be sure), but then they also bash the CPS for every time they DON’T interfere in some family’s life and it turns out there was abuse. Either you err on the side of caution for the children or for the parents. There will be mistakes made either way, but if you neuter the agency and take away their ability to act absent hard proof, then you can’t complain when they miss things.

      But take all that aside. VH, what lesson do you take from this tragedy? What should the family have done? Should they have kidnapped the child from her mother? What if they were wrong? Should family (grandparents and relatives) have the ability to unilaterally take a child from her parents based on their opinions? What if they’re wrong?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The essence of your argument is that Complaining about a Govt agency stepping outside its authority and impacting INNOCENT lives is somehow RESPONSIBLE for the Agency being unable to accomplish its mission.

        Which of course includes NOT IMPACTING INNOCENT lives.

        In order for you claim to hold ANY water you have to show which laws or ordinances were “watered down” as a result of the public’s outcry or criticism.

        The natural evolution of govt is to get bigger and more complex. This, combined with the fact that CPS is dealing in an area where Govt has no business, other than normal laws prohibiting violence against innocent people, is the SOURCE of your failure.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So JAC, in your opinion, what should the family have done? Now, if it was my family, I’d run over to the house and snatch the child and bring her home to live with me. But then I would wind up being arrested for kidnapping and we would be right back where we started.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Had you done so, your arrest would have CAUSED a full investigation and disclosure.

            Now without all the Govt Laws, what power would the negligent mother have had over grandparents who assumed responsibility for the child?

            If the mother hated the child to the point of neglecting her basic needs, why would she have even raised a stink if the grandparents took her?

            But please recognize the actual point V.H. is raising here. That BECAUSE of all these GOVT laws that replace PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY you get these type of events. Just like the reaction to Katrina is a reflection of the SAME DISEASE.

            So the real question should not be What do I think should have been done, but why wasn’t what most of us think proper ACTUALLY done?

            Because we are replacing American Independency with American DEPENDENCY.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Except, of course, Buck would go to jail, lose his law licence, his livelihood, his life savings (in his defense), and his home.

              But never mind all that..

              The question I would ask you is this: should grandparents and extended (not “do they,” but “should they) have the power to take children from a parent when they (in their own view) consider the parent to be detrimental to the child? Who decides (in your world view, not the US legal system, etc, but in your opinion of what Should Be), whether it’s ok to just act? Obviously, since you’re not like flag and believe in some government, you’d probably have it hit the legal system at some point (though there’s no CPS presumably)… but, just in general: how do you see this playing out.

              Scenario: Mother is “borderline” abusive to her child. Grandparents say it’s abuse, mother says it’s discipline. And.. go..

              Adding, what if it’s not the grandparent, but a concerned neighbor or a teacher?

              (not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see how your view fleshes out)

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Re Buck. He would have to be found GUILTY. A Just society would not find him guilty. And the child would most likely NOT file charges in the first place. But never mind all that….

                We have one of two choices to deal with disputes. One is a Court of Law, the other is the Court of Public Opinion. When our communities were smaller the Court of Opinion was suitable. As I see it, that could still work IF the Common Law were well understood and documented so that new comers would not get out of the law.

                So if we assume Court of Law then the family should be able to bring ACTION against the parent to REMOVE GUARDIANSHIP. Law enforcement would investigate and in this case there is an OBVIOUS QUESTION as to what is happening. A young girl under 100 lbs is a SIGNAL of SOMETHING.

                If the Parent contests the action then the Court should appoint someone to stay with the parent and child until proceedings are concluded. This is to prevent coercions of the child and to assure NO DAMAGE is done until the Court can Rule.

                This should also be a JURY Trial and not just a matter of the magistrate ruling on a Guardianship issue.

                There are other possible methods that might be suitable. But what I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE is govt agencies that write law, enforce law, bring legal action and coerce citizens whose FUNDING is DEPENDENT upon their success in creating more business for themselves. Much like the local cops who get to keep the Ticket Money. IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST in a FREE SOCIETY.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “And the child would most likely NOT file charges in the first place.”

                Ah, but it would be the mother of the child that gets to press charges. And I agree, I would almost certainly be found not guilty, but would still arguably have to go through the time and expense of a trial.

                Also, as to your point that by kidnapping the child I would in effect be initiating an investigation on the alleged abuse of the child – yes, that is true, but don’t forget, the family had previously notified the CPS and an investigation was commenced.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      VH,

      Mathius makes some good points here. This is an absolutely tragic story. But what were the grandparents and family to do? They reported the suspected abuse, CPS investigated that abuse, and failed to find anything sufficient to warrant taking the child away from her mother. Had CPS acted and taken the child away and it turned out there was no abuse, you would be howling about how horrible CPS is for taking a child away from her own mother.

      • Kristian says:

        Buck,

        If I read that story correctly they did find something and didn’t do anything about it. Michigan CPS launched several investigations, but only one found substantiate abuse, WOOD-TV reports. One incident should have been sufficient to remove the child and investigate further. Instead the child was left in her mother’s incapable hands and now she’s dead. I’ve seen cases like this in Florida. There is abuse, it gets reported, an investigation is conducted and then nothing. The child is left in the home because an interview has been done with the abuser and they’ve promised to clean up their act. Until the next time that is. So please explain to me how many next times these people are supposed to get before something is done. The system failed. It’s the government, failure is inevitable.

      • I actually think we should have a CPS-I just believe that people rely too much on the STATE. Now in our system it is hard to do anything on your own if the mother will not co-operate. But it is this families responsibility to take care of this child-especially the father of the child. If he has to rely on the STATE then he should have made sure that the State took care of the situation. He should have taken care of his child and done whatever it took. From calling CPS-to visiting the child and making sure she was being fed and continuing to call and call and call the CPS-to taking the mother to court to picking the child up and removing her from the home. If their wrong-it will be sorted out in a court of law.-All I know is you do not allow your child to be starved to death.

        You don’t get to just say oh well-she moved to Georgia-it’s no longer my responsibility and blame it on the STATE. the State agency is supposed to be there to help-but the people have to make sure they do their job.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Congratulations!

      You NAILED the problem squarely on the head: “Take note that the family members-readily admit knowing that the mother was a nut case-who hated and didn’t feed her daughter-Yet all they do is ask why the STATE didn’t do something.”

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Why all this moral outrage over “respecting the office of the President”???

    Who established this STANDARD of behavior for FREE AMERICANS??

    Respect folks is something to be earned. Not bestowed upon a position or title.

    Soldiers salute ass hole officers for fear of punishment, not out some sense of respect for the position itself.

    • Mathius™ says:

      You would prefer that, like Bush, Presidents only speak to friendly crowds and/or reporters?

      Or perhaps you think they should prerecord their speeches from a bunker somewhere and send them over the internet to reports so they don’t get interrupted?

      I don’t think that they, necessarily have to have respect for the man, but they should show a certain level of civility and professional conduct. Who benefits when you heckle the speaker? Do you think Obama should have stopped, mid speech, and debated Munro?

      • NO…he should not have paid any attention to it at all…..that usually shuts people up.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Where the hell have you been over the years? This notion of only speaking to friendly crowds is hundreds of years old. Clinton was the master at this. I am sure Mr. O thought he was speaking to a “friendly” crowd as he was obviously irritated when things didn’t go as SCRIPTED.

        The reporter was RUDE. But he was NOT heckling nor is he a heckler. Yet you continue to use that description. This shows me you are falling for the diversionary narrative.

        Now lets ask a few pertinent questions relating to the subject of constructed announcements. Review the video please. Notice the President showing off his usual glance from side to side as if addressing a large crowd. If not for the rude reporter blurting out the camera would have NEVER panned to the Press. Who happened to be a fairly small group, much smaller than would have required the POTUS glancing, with chin raised, from side to side. And they look to be at least 30 feet away BEHIND a Rope. And they had been told NO QUESTIONS.

        By the way Mathius, Reagan’s “hecklers” is why you see new reel of him getting off the helicopter at some distance from people, and walking with a smile and a hand over his ear, making you think he DID NOT HEAR the question nor the vitriol of those yelling. Yes, he was also a MASTER of the illusion.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I am sure Mr. O thought he was speaking to a “friendly” crowd as he was obviously irritated when things didn’t go as SCRIPTED.

          You thought President Obama was confused and thought that a reporter for the Daily Caller was friendly to his administration?

          But he was NOT heckling nor is he a heckler. Yet you continue to use that description. This shows me you are falling for the diversionary narrative.

          I watched the video. He continued to try to talk while the President was talking. If not heckler, what term would you prefer? Because once is an interruption, continuing is… what?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathus

            RUDE!!! IMPOLITE!!! Being an ass!!! Take your pick. I’m sure other terms would equally fit. But he was not “heckling” nor was he a “heckler”.

            Hecklers are those folks who were removed prior to Jamie Dimons testimony the other day. Or the Code Pink people removed from the State of the Union address by Bush. Or the Romney folks who showed up at Axlerod’s speech the other day.

            Someone with a Press Pass at a Press Conference asking questions is NOT a heckler.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Does that include someone with a Press Pass at a Press Conference who is trying to talk over the President during prepared remarks?

              heck·le   [hek-uhl] Show IPA verb, heck·led, heck·ling, noun
              verb (used with object)
              1.
              to harass (a public speaker, performer, etc.) with impertinent questions, gibes, or the like; badger.

              Seems like a good fit to me. But fine. Don’t want to call him a heckler? Ok. But can we agree that it was very, very unprofessional? Can we agree that it was disrespectful? Nevermind respectful to the “office,” but disrespectful to the “man” and to the fact that he was invited to attend and should have conducted himself in a professional manner?

        • Mathius™ says:

          By the way Mathius, Reagan’s “hecklers” is why you see new reel of him getting off the helicopter at some distance from peopl

          This wasn’t Obama walking from point A to point B being peppered with questions. That’s a completely false equivalency. This was a member of the press core interrupting a SPEECH.

          That’s the difference between you stopping a professor in the hallway to ask a question and shouting over him in mid-lecture.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mahius

            Boy you sure do have trouble staying on a point at times.

            The issue here is whether OTHER Presidents suffered such “lack of respect”. You also asked whether he should just speak to friendly people. I am giving you examples of how other Presidents did suffer the same disrespect, OR MORE, and how they handled it. Your insinuation that Bush II was the only one who controlled the appearance of crowds is simply FALSE.

            You act all indignant about how THIS President has been treated when in my memory I have never seen one handled so carefully and given so much deference by the Press. That is until very recently. I think the worm may be turning and we will soon see just how thin skinned this man is.

            • http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/ronald-reagan-being-interrupted-by-reporters-video/

              They were rude to the Prez. and to Mr. Meese(sp) Not much new under the sun-except maybe rudeness, anger, or the desire to get in the first question being turned into an accusation of racism.

              • Mathius™ says:

                “And now I’m going to ask President Meese (sp?).. ”

                BOOM!

                Right there? See that? That’s him saying “I’m finished.”

                Yes, they interrupted him at this point and started shouting questions. Yes. They did. And yes, they kept at it.

                But he was clearly FINISHED – he said what he had to say, uninterrupted – and they wanted to get at him before he left the podium (which is what Munro claimed he was doing despite the obvious falsity of this). The fact that Munro would point at that specific behavior (trying to get your question in before he leaves) as an explanation for his own behavior shows that this is normal / standard etiquette for the Press Corp. So you’re showing me a video (which crashed my browser, by the way) of the press corp acting in the standard fashion as if this is something egregious. Whereas Munro’s outburst was clearly mid speech and then he continued to try to talk over the President.

                These are no where near comparable. And the fact that you’re trying this hard and floundering so badly only emboldens my case.

            • Mathius™ says:

              You act all indignant about how THIS President has been treated when in my memory I have never seen one handled so carefully and given so much deference by the Press

              Seems to me that much of the press is constantly at his throat. Especially Fox News. I especially loved this one – my personal favorite – a 4 minute hit piece: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Tmstx1HWX08

              (A hit piece which, by the way, Fox blamed on a “mistake” by an “associate producer” as if an AP (typically a 20-something year junior assistant) could possibly have the authority (and budget.. I don’t buy that some kid in an editing room put this together.. this is high produciton value) then run it (REPEATEDLY) on one of the highest rated shows on the highest rated news channel. Riiiigggghhhhtttttt….) But the media is being very deferential..

            • I really don’t care much about this situation-the man was rude, society is rude-it seems like hardly anyone is allowed to actually give a speech without rude people interrupting or trying to totally drown the speaker out. It isn’t new-so MUnro or whatever his name is -was a bad boy-lets slap his hand for a day and move onto-What the hell does the President think he is doing??????????

              But if we are going to talk about it-Boom-I think not 🙂 -they didn’t even let Reagan finish his sentence-and even after he said NO-they still wouldn’t let him introduce Mr. Meese. and whether you acknowledge it or not-introducing the man was part of his statement.

              • Oops I forgot- Bada Bing 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                and whether you acknowledge it or not-introducing the man was part of his statement.

                I see your argument, but the point is that this is standard ettiquite. It’s not “rudeness.” It’s business as usual. The speaker wraps it up and before he can escape, they try to hit him with questions. That’s not what Munro did. Munro claimed this is what he did. But what he actually did was just straight interrupt. Surely you can see the difference?

              • Well, what you are trying to say is that this person was exceedingly rude compared to just rude. So the actions of 2 or 3 people is now supposed to prove that Obama is being treated worse than any other President. Okay, based on what parameters(is that the right word?) Some people were ruder than others or one President was treated rudely more often-based on what? So NO, you don’t get unprecedented, or business as usual.

                Actually, accept for 2 or 3 instances I would say Obama has been treated unusually well by the press based on incidences of rudeness.

                Now if you want to talk about the number of times that Obama crossed the line 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        P.S. YOU AVOIDED addressing my question. AS USUAL you dove off into some tangent that fails to recognize the underlying issue.

        • Mathius™ says:

          What’s your question? Who established this behavior? I don’t know. But there should a minimum level of decorum when attending ANY speaking event, which is that the speaker speaks, uninterrupted.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            WHY should we show RESPECT to the OFFICE?

            That is not the same as simply having good manners. The call to RESPECT the Office is deeply sinister. It portends the “required” respect for the KING, no matter who sits in the chair.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I think we should respect the speaker.

              If a man is at a podium and you are INVITED to attend HIS event, you should behave with decorum.

              I could argue ‘respect the office not the man’ blah blah blah blah, but honestly, I’m just fine with you not respecting the office. But a certain level of civility and decorum are necessary and to be expected of adults in a professional atmosphere. Yelling out during a nationally broadcast speech to a joint session of congress is not acceptable. Trying to talk over the speaker during prepared remarks is not acceptable. Regardless of who the speaker is.

              It’s bad enough that the media only reports sound bytes, should politicians be unable to complete a whole speech without someone shouting out? It’s not like it was a random protester. This was a member of the (supposedly professional) white house press core who was specifically invited to attend. He should have behaved like an adult.

              And adults can control their outbursts.

              • I agree with Matt!!!!!!!!! (Note: world will assuredly come to an end soon )

                No less an authority than Maj. Dick Winters pointed out the respect for rank, not the man wearing it. You can always think the boss is an ass, but, saying it, that’s for when you quit and walk out the door.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                You forget, according to the Founders, the main purpose of a “free press” was to hold the government (including the President) accountable for government actions, and hold the government’s feet to the fire when the government screwed up.

                Now, I am not saying that the press should be “disrespectful of the office”, but at the same time, the press should have a pretty wide latitude in being able to “throw the BS flag”. Do I think in this case the reporter showed “disrespect for the office”? No. Lack of decorum? Yes.

                You have to remember that Presidential speeches used to be a lot more “pubic” back in the day before TV and radio, and the crowds (including the press) could get pretty out of hand if they didn’t like what the President was saying. Now members of the press need to be “invited” to Presidential speeches in the controlled environment of the White House Press Room.

  24. Anita…..the reporter that interrupted Obama was wrong….but so were the reporters that interrupted Bush in the same way….numerous times…including State of the Union Address’…..even the reporter that shouted at Reagan.

    The only difference,,,,,if it happens to Obama, it is not ok….if it happens to a conservative President, it is ok….that simple.

    No President should be interrupted but the disrespect for the Office of the President started decades ago.

    • Agree..they threw shoes at Bush! 🙂 ……..(I know Matt..it was out of the country..but Bush laughed it off instead of whining)

    • Mathius™ says:

      but so were the reporters that interrupted Bush in the same way….numerous times…including State of the Union Address’

      Link? Source? I don’t remember this. Though, to be fair, I spent much of 2002-2006 in a drunken stupor, so it’s entirely possible I missed it.

      if it happens to Obama, it is not ok….if it happens to a conservative President, it is ok

      No it’s not ok either way.

      ———————-

      Anita, “.they threw shoes at Bush!”

      The “they” who threw his shoe at Bush as an Iraqi reporter who, I believe was subsequently arrested, and spent a few months in an Iraqi prison. He was NOT a member of the US press core, or of the “liberal press.”

      I don’t approve of shoe throwing at a speaker (or in general, for that matter). I understand the sentiment, but I do not approve. I would add, only, that the thrower viewed Bush as a foreign military occupation force leader which makes some difference vs hecking an elected official of your own government.. just saying..

      Adding, by the way, kudos to Bush for a ninja like shoe-dodge. I was fairly impressed – I wouldn’t have thought he could move like that. (on par with Obama’s fly-killing).

      • Drunken Stupor, eh? Hmmmm……..grog?

      • It was two shoes. 🙂 You’re all uptight still. I admitted the guy fumbled, and he messed up..but you admit that as with the Iraqi reporter, you understand the sentiment. Why can’t i just understand the sentiment?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Because, as with the Iraqi reporter, it wasn’t a “mess up.” It was deliberate.

          Calling it a mess up negates the whole point. The point wasn’t that someone spoke out during the President’s speech. If someone had a coughing fit and disrupted, that would be entirely excusable, no? After all, it wasn’t deliberate. Munro didn’t “Mess Up.” He made a CHOICE to show intentional, deliberate, and (probably) calculated disrespect to the President of the United States of America during a prepared speech.

          Do you honestly believe it was an “accident” and that, per his explanation, he thought the President was finished and he (Munro) was just trying to get a question off before the President left the podium? Watch that video one more time, then look me in the eye computer and tell me you believe it was a “mess up” and not a decision.

          And, even if (somehow), you excuse his original choice, how do you justify his continued heckling after Obama’s response that he’s not taking questions right then?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            WHY do you not accept the man’s explanation? You expect us to accept POTUS’ explanations at face value. But you are unwilling to do the same for this feller. Curious!

            • Mathius™ says:

              Because I watched the video. Did you?

              The explanation “I thought he was done” is ludicrous on it’s face. Obama is clearly mid-sentence. And then, after he explains that he’s not taking questions right now, the guy continues to talk.

              The “explanation” is a LIE. It’s a sob to the left.. “yea, yea, yea, I hear you.. it was a mistake.. hahaha.. now shut up.”

              And what explanation is POTUS offering? He’s the one who was giving the speech. It was HIS. TURN. TO. TALK. He was the one who was interrupted (more than once). What does HE need to explain?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Well I for one can see how his excuse is plausible. I have seen similar in other situations. People get the adrenaline running and jump the gun. Once they do, they hardly ever back down. Just keep going.

                He explained what he was thinking, I have no reason to not believe him. But it is irrelevant anyway. He acted and he apologized. What is ridiculous is the DNC and Obama Campaign now trying to create this line of SERIAL DISRESPECT FOR Mr. Obama, or in other words the “BLACK MAN” who happens to be President. That Mathius is a bunch of Bull Dookey and for some strange reason you seem to have accepted it as truth.

                I was not talking about Mr. O’s explanation of the interruption but his explanations of his actions.

                Like this is JUST about COMPASSION and NOT A POLITICALLY motivated act! The talking heads are rampant trying to support this hilarious claim.

              • Mathius™ says:

                People get the adrenaline running and jump the gun. Once they do, they hardly ever back down. Just keep going.

                Maybe. Maybe I’ll have to give this some credence. What you’re saying makes sense, though in my opinion it’s unlikely that it he would have an “uncontrollable” outburst like that – deliberate is far more likely in my view. However, the world will never know.

                He acted and he apologized.

                No he didn’t. He EXPLAINED. And his explanation was a LIE. He said he thought the president was finished and he was just trying to get his question in before the President left the podium. This is flagrantly untrue. Just look at the video. Obama is mid-sentence. He either had (as you believe) a spontaneous outburst or (as I believe) a deliberate outburst. But either way, his “explanation” of ‘I thought he was finished’ is bogus. But I haven’t seen the word sorry anywhere.. just saying…

                What is ridiculous is the DNC and Obama Campaign now trying to create this line of SERIAL DISRESPECT FOR Mr. Obama, or in other words the “BLACK MAN” who happens to be President. That Mathius is a bunch of Bull Dookey and for some strange reason you seem to have accepted it as truth.

                I accepted it as the truth? Wow.. news to me..

                I thought I was clear that I don’t buy the “black man” hypothesis. Shall we read back the tape?

                Some, on the left, like to attribute this to racism, or as a response to his perceived illegitimacy to hold the office. I, on the other hand, as I suggested above to Anita, suspect this has more to do with ‘street cred’ wherein the right, who hates the President, are enamored of anyone who would be so rude and confrontational and disrespectful to someone who they, themselves, wish they could be rude and disrespectful toward. In my humble opinion, it’s just cynicism, pure and simple – they know that it’s like catnip to the Tea Partiers, so they do it.

                The left might attempt to parlay this into some narrative which suits their political ends, but that’s politics as as usual. I don’t buy it, however I’m sure others will.

                ————————-

                HOWEVER, my question stands.. can you show me any specific instance instance that was comparable to this or the SOTU “you lie” outburst? So far I’ve heard SK suggest Rather’s “Are you running for something” remark (rebutted above) and Bush’s shoe thrower (also rebutted above) and Reagan at the rope-line (also rebutted above). None of which are remotely comparable. Maybe you have a better example?

                I’m not saying it’s racism. I think it’s cynicism. But if I’m wrong, I’d love to see a contra-example.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I was not accusing you of falling for the racist overtones. You had previously said you did not accept this. However, you have continued to stand by the primary narrative. That somehow this is all unprecedented.

                Mr. Wilson’s outburst was very unusual in modern times, but certainly not unprecedented either. Not in a body where one member nearly beat another to death on the floor of the House. Nor where Dems issued a collective groan, sounding very much like boo’s, to a President’s proposal for an undesirable program. Or the DELIBERATE SILENCE given to a President at an obvious point where at least “polite applause” would be expected.

                We have here at SUFA many folks with over 50 years of memory and others who have spent considerable time studying history. But you can not accept any of our statements relative to other acts by the public, press or elected officials that show such behavior is NOT out of the norm for American politics.

                Well since you were the one who PROPOSED this view I think it is YOUR responsibility to MAKE YOUR CASE. Please provide historical evidence that Mr. Obama has been treated with far less “respect” than other Presidents of the United States.

              • Mathius™ says:

                That somehow this is all unprecedented.

                I’m still waiting for the precedent.

                I’ve seen:
                A) Nixon calling on Dan Rather, then making a joke/quip/snide comment (hard to tell context without video) to which Rather responded with a (fairly good, in my opinion) quip of his own.

                B) Questions being shouted out at Reagan after Reagan says “and now I’m going to hand off to ..” In other words, at the END of his speech once he’s FINISHED talking, people tried to get questions in before he steps down.

                C) An Iraqi reporter throwing shoes at Bush as if that’s comparable to a member of the Press Corp. A man who, in his view, was the victim of a military occupation is not comparable to a US citizen member of the Press Corp in a Rose Garden speech.

                D) Questions being shouted at Reagan on the press line. This is akin to stopping your professor to ask questions in the hallway between class and the shouting at him in the middle of his lecture.

                ————–

                Contrast these to:
                A) Joe Wilson, a seated member of Congress shouting “YOU LIE” in the middle of a State of the Union Address.

                B) Munro shouting out in the middle of a speech, then continuing to try to talk over / argue with the President.

                —————

                These are equal in your mind?

                —————————————————————————–

                Mr. Wilson’s outburst was very unusual in modern times, but certainly not unprecedented either. Not in a body where one member nearly beat another to death on the floor of the House.

                Fair enough. I am referring to modern times. We don’t have dueling either these days.

                Nor where Dems issued a collective groan, sounding very much like boo’s, to a President’s proposal for an undesirable program. Or the DELIBERATE SILENCE given to a President at an obvious point where at least “polite applause” would be expected.

                This is the same as shouting out “YOU LIE”? These are staggering false equivalencies.

                But you can not accept any of our statements relative to other acts by the public, press or elected officials that show such behavior is NOT out of the norm for American politics.

                All you have to do is show me one example, just one. (In modern times, to be fair). Just one example which is COMPARABLE. The examples shown this far are bogus and, if you’re honest about it, you know it. You KNOW these aren’t the same or comparable.

                Please provide historical evidence that Mr. Obama has been treated with far less “respect” than other Presidents of the United States.

                I have done all that I can. I have shown two SEVERE instances of wildly inappropriate nationally televised disrespect by both a seated congressman and a member of the Press Corp. I have opened the floor to contra-examples and the best anyone seems to be able to do is the above. Just one freaking example. Just one and I’ll take it all back. I can’t prove the negative, but “We have here at SUFA many folks with over 50 years of memory and others who have spent considerable time studying history” – surely one of them must have a better example than the above?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ooooh Mathius, don’t forget Brewer pointing her finger in Obama’s face. That should definitely be on your list!

              • Wait…don’t forget the inevitable coughing and foot shuffling and low murmuring that comes from both sides of the house when there is disagreement.

  25. How do…….friend Mathius….. you say “Obama is saying he won’t PROSECUTE or DEPORT based on the offense of illegal immigration if you meet certain criterion. This is NOT amnesty.”

    I say….a rose is a rose is a rose.

    But it matters not here…we will not pay attention to it….it is a State matter now….we will enforce the laws on the books.

    Another note: Fort Worth made the national news today on how full the gun ranges are, how many women are buying weapons in anticipation of the November elections, ammunition cannot be kept in stock, right to carry permits for women at an all time high……most all males already have one…Gun sales are up over 30%…..(rail guns excluded).

    caliber .380 is the highest ammunition sales…..7.6 mm second…..5.52 third…..9mm 4th…….Here in Fort Worth, I am on a list for .270, .380, .300, .243. As soon as I get the call and get out to the gun stores….most is already gone….unbelievable….BUt….such is the way of the Republic.

    • bamadad says:

      D13 go to Ammoman.com they have .380 in stock with free shipping. They only sale in bulk so I hope you want 500+.

    • You know, these people are screwing it up for the rest of us with the ammo hoarding. Prices are nuts. Why anyone in the world would need more than 50 rds. of .30 Armor Piercing and 200 rds. of ball I don’t know. Throw in a brick of 22 LR and a couple hundred rds for the handgun of your choice. As I used to tell junior, it should never be “spray and pray”.

      • Oh Stephen…..come now…you think that 12,000 rounds of ammo is hoarding? I could use some more .30 cal for an M2 carbine…..only have 1500 rounds of that……80 grain of ball will be fine.

        @ Bama Dad…thanks but I do my own loading of .380 but will visit that site…..I am looking for more .270 and .300 cannot seem to find it, though I do have some for reloading. 7.62 and 5.52 is all over the place…..but will check it out…thanks.

        • bamadad says:

          Ammoman is out of 30 carbine but try these folks:

          http://www.unammo.com/#106

          • Got any good sources for either .303 Brit. or 150 grain tips? Got five Enfields and the Paki surplus crap is damned dangerous. $ 26.00 for 100 tips is pricey for plinking.

            • bamadad says:

              Ammoman has .303 Brit by Prvi Partisan 500 rounds for $385 with no shipping. PP is very fine ammo and the brass will reload forever. Midway USA is selling blemished tips right now, don’t know what calibers they have.

        • bamadad says:

          Try this sight out for .270 and .300:

          http://ammoseek.com/

          If you load .223 or .308’s I got some killer loads using Nosler Ballistic Tips and Barnes TTXS bullets. I am currently working on some .243 loads as well but just have not had the time to get the chronograph out.

        • M-2, I envy you. Coming from a state that outlawed my two M-1 carbines that I have had for 40 and 30 years respectively, and made me move them to my cousin’s basement in another state, I really envy you. I won’t even get into the AR-15 (SP-1) issue.

          • I actually have two carbines….one M1….taken from the beach at Iwo Jima…..and the other (M2) from the invasion of Okinawa. My dad was in the Navy as a Ensign JG in WWII…and was in charge of a bunch of LCVP’s that unloaded the Marines onto the beaches. After the battle at Iwo, the carbines were in a stack, he said, that was 15 ft high. At Okinawa, a wounded Marine just gave it to him as they were loading him up to go home. He, dad, is still alive at 93 and we exchange stories all the time. Our family goes all the way back to Hood’s Cavalry and forward…have really cool journals…we made every skirmish except the Spanish War and Granada..BUT, I have knives from each war that relatives supposedly carried and I have a sharps .50 cal black powder from the Civil War, some cousin, I am told, and 44/40 from the Comanche raids in the late 1800’s, from a great x4 grandfather.. I have a BAR from Korea, from an uncle, and I have an AK 47 that I brought home from Nam….( I took that one from the lad that tried to tickle me with it….folding bayonet on it)…I kept my .45 from Desert Storm, with permission of course….and really sharp K bar…..to go along with my other weapons….really sharp looking war room in my house.

            The M2, I kept in original condition…but the M1, I had restocked and blued but kept the serial number intact. I do have a commemorative m16 but do not have a CAR 15 yet……but I will get one…..just have to get the right papers for it.

            • It is nice to know the history. I have an m-98 Mauser, all matching which was picked up by a friend’s Dad on Omaha beach (he was 1st ID) on D+1. Wish I had thought to get an affidavit but hell, I was only 16. Everything else was bought in stores. Wish I could have talked Uncle Mike out of the PPK and other 98K he picked up. The one that interests me most though is a 30-40 Krag, 1898 model where branded (very professionally) in the stock is a 3/4in. “5th” on the top line a 1 1/2 in. “34” on the 2nd line and a 3/4in. “B” on the third line, all right above the butt plate on the right side.

              I assume that its a 5th regiment Co. B rifle, probably # 34. Now my research shows that the 5th Regt. is a pre WW 1 regiment which was involved in the Mexican Border, Pancho Villa thing. Question I don’t even know where to look for the answer is: were they armed with the new 1903 or, did they still carry Krag’s? Otherwise it might very well be somebody’s 5th Regiment in the National Guard.

              Funny thing about my carbine, the older one. It’s Winchester made, with no bayonet lug and the old flip rear sight but the serial number is high six millions. The last digit in the serial is off center and high and deeper than the others. Methinks this walked away in a duffel bag at some point.

        • Colonel;

          My brother-in-law and father-in-law reload and have for 30 years. .270 is a favorite of the BIL, he has about 5000 stashed. He works for MC sporting goods and can usually get the brass and projectiles at reduced prices. if you have a specific load you favor, let me know I am sure he would do a swap or give you a great price.

          Probably give you the pig & deer hunting / service man discount….

          CM

      • SK;

        When the “reckoning” comes and the obama coolaid drinkers turn to zombies you will need a lot more than that. Never enough ammo

        CM

  26. Mathius™ says:

    ::does the “get me out of moderation dance”::

  27. @ Mathius….I just realized that I did not answer your question earlier….the 2005 State of Union address where Gearge Bush was actually booed and catcalled during the speech…..no one offered an apology then either and it just was not one person but most of the democratic side of the house.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’d love to see it.. Can you send me a link/time? I’d rather shoot myself repeatedly in the face with a 12 gauge than watch another whole Bush SOTU.

      • Sorry that I do not have the time…only the year. Let me see if I can find a link.

        • Wow found it…..www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM

          • Mathius™ says:

            Look how young he looks!!

            First thought: god, he’s full of it!

            Second thought, yes, very rude, unprofessional, out of line.

            Third thought: that’s still a far cry from shouting “YOU LIE!” or trying to talk over the President.

            But, yes, I will grant you that it could be considered precedent. Do you, at least, agree that the two are not in line with each other? Booing, while rude and unprofessional, is not so overtly disrespectful as calling someone a liar in front of millions of people, is it?

    • Also, President Reagan in the East Room of the White House did not back up and chastised a reporter by telling him to shut up if he cannot tell the truth.,,,,,,when the reporter kept interrupting and when Reagan would not respond, was very indignant and Reagan responded very pointedly…..not a very Presidential thing but he pointed a finger and said to SHUT UP>

      It happens all the time and I think like you do…..you should respect the fact that there is a speaker and let him/her speak uninterrupted. It just does not happen that way unfortunately.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Obamacare and Commerce: from Electric City

    “Written by Rob Natelson on 18 June 2012

    On the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision over Obamacare’s individual mandate, attention is been focused on the challengers’ argument that the mandate is outside the Commerce Power because otherwise there would be no “limiting principle” to Congress’s authority.

    Certainly, the question of whether congressional authority is limited or unlimited is an important issue in the case. But another, perhaps deeper, issue is whether the Constitution’s words mean anything at all.

    The Constitution grants Congress power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States. . . .” The word “Commerce” was designed to encompass only some designated activities: trading (buying and selling) among merchants, navigation and cargo insurance, commercial paper and finance, construction and maintenance of ports, and a few others. When the American people adopted the Constitution, if an individual was not engaged in some of those activities, then that individual was not engaged in “commerce,” and therefore Congress could not regulate him under the Commerce Clause. True, his activities might be governable under the Necessary and Proper Clause, but only if he was engaged in conduct “incidental” (subordinate and connected by custom or necessity) to “Commerce.”

    In case decisions since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has, mostly through the Necessary and Proper Clause, expanded the scope of permissible regulation from commerce and its incidents to “economic activities that substantially affect commerce.” Additionally, in the 1944 case of U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters, the Court erroneously held that insurance is “commerce” itself, implying it could be governed under the core Commerce Clause and not merely under the Necessary and Proper component of the Commerce Power. But despite such decisions, the Court always has required that there be some activity for Congress to regulate.

    As the great justice John Marshall said in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), in a document of enumerated powers, “The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” Thus, when the Constitution authorized Congress to “regulate Commerce” or to “punish Piracies” it did not thereby authorize Congress to punish other activities.

    Even more fundamentally, a core tenet of western philosophy, at least since Aristotle, has been that a proposition cannot embrace its opposite—that “A” does not, and cannot, include “not A.” That’s why a power to punish piracy is not a power to punish you for the decision not to engage in piracy. Otherwise, “A” would encompass “not A.” Similarly, a power to regulate commerce does not encompass a power to regulate you when you refuse to engage in commerce.

    In the Obamacare litigation, the government has been arguing that health insurance is part of “commerce.” That is wrong under the Constitution’s actual meaning, but a justifiable argument for lawyers to make under post-New Deal Supreme Court jurisprudence.

    But the contention that non-Commerce is “Commerce” goes much farther: It is the claim that “A” encompasses “not A.” It is an assault on the very concept of “meaning” that underlies the rule of law.”

  29. OMG – are we really spending a whole day deliberating which call out is worse? MANUFACTURED outrage, as always with this regime! Isn’t is amazing that when someone in bo’s friendly audiences hollers out some “loving” remark, the guy will stop and smile and acknowledge the “heckler”, but since it was a reporter asking a tough question of the one, it becomes totally unacceptable and RACIST! What a flippin’ joke this whole adm. is along with anyone that supports their behavior.

    • Kathy, I am sorry I started the above conversation that morphed into whom was rudest to whom. Sorry, about that. I could care less about the press corps. They are all rude. Not to mention, the president who handled the situation w/o any grace. I remember a press conference where Bush43 was asked the same question three times in a row. It was basically tell us what mistakes you have made. It was a gotcha question that most people would not answer under the circumstances. Bush did not answer it but was polite throughout. Much more than I would have been. Quoting the sheriff in TX, they were “stuck on stupid”. As far as this president goes, the press has lobbed more softball questions than Carter has little liver pills.

      The real issue is the imperial decree that Obama issued. The question that Munro was trying to ask was legitimate and should be answered by the president. What considerations to American citizen workers were given? How is granting probationary amnesty to this group going to effect others that played by the rules?

      We discussed the immigration issue here several months ago. I proposed my solutions. The dream act was defeated because the primary issue is border security. We have been lied to too many times in the past to approve any reforms w/o first securing the border. At this time neither side will budge because there is too much political profits to be had by stalemate. If we allow the discussion to be diverted to rude reporters, then we are just playing into the hands of the politicians. Only they will gain and no solution will be found.

      More troubling to me is not the decree itself but the fact that it was made. One man just overruled 535 members of Congress. Constitutionally, he can overrule them but only in a negative (veto) sense. This was not a veto this was an imperial decree. All hail King Obama!

      • You are right T-Ray, the question was valid and should have been asked and answered by bo. Notice how the faux outrage isn’t about that issue at all, but another attempt at shielding and hiding from the real issue at hand. It’s a bunch of crap and those that still play this game and try to protect this adm. at all costs are part of the problem.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    “Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person’s own life.”

    —Epictetus

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Focus on the last point and sentence. Boy, oh boy, how far astray we have gone.

    “Over the course of American history there has been a great deal of debate over whether the broad generalizations regarding natural rights in the Declaration of Independence ought to be regarded as incorporated within the more specific guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, or even regarded as “supra-Constitutional principles” that are nevertheless binding on all American governments. The suggestion that there are such principles can be found in some early American federal and state cases. For example, in Calder v. Bull (1798) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase declares that whether or not there are express prohibitions against it in a Constitution, no “republican” government can make a person judge and party in his own case, pass a law that makes criminal an act legal when committed, or take one person’s property without compensation and grant it to another. Similarly, in Currie’s Administrators v. The Mutual Assurance Society (1809), Virginia supreme court judge Spencer Roane observed that “all free governments” were instituted for the protection of “our rights of person and property,” and that the powers of legislatures are bounded by “the principles and provisions of the constitution and bill of rights, and by those great rights and principles, for the preservation of which all just governments are founded.”

  32. I just heard on the radio- jury in Texas won’t indict the father who killed the man he caught molesting his 5 year old daughter. There will be no charges whatsoever. Evidence included the audio of the father frantically screaming to the 911 dispatcher to hurry to help the guy he had beaten, that he was afraid the guy was about to die. So he didn’t intend to kill him, just stop him.

    Good. There’s justice.

    Murf

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good thing the guy killed wasn’t black! Another circus would have cropped up full of race baiters. Good for Texas 🙂

      • One thing about Texas that is really good on this G man……it does not matter the race here and never really has mattered. When anyone is killed, whether a minority or not, in this situation…there never is much of an outcry EXCEPT from those who do not reside here.

        The code of the West is actually alive and well here. (1) Do not disrespect women. (2) Do not molest children, (3) Do not trespass, (4) Do not steal another person’s property…not even a bag of trash, The State prison in Huntsville, where all the hardened criminals go, even live by that code inside….a child molester or a rapist….simply does not survive in prison here.

        There was no way that a grand jury was going to indict.

  33. Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

    Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
    Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
    Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
    Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift

    By Steve Doughty

    Worrying claim: Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly

    NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

    Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.

    He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.

    It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

    It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.

    There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

    Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.

    He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yKx4RhPS

  34. @ Mathius………..I spent a great deal of time, yesterday and last night, researching through archives from address’ and speech;s of past Presidents and other officials.

    I do NOT see a difference in respect between someone saying ” you lie” and booing and catcalls. One does not outweigh the other, in my opinion. They are both interruptions and I do not see degrees.

    • Agree. If I were speaking at an event (and I have) and were to be treated so, I would consider that rude. I would also expect the members who had hosted that event to hold their fellow members accountable for their rules on decorum. I think Joe Wilson was admonished by his peers and he did fully apologize. I do not know what was said or done about the many Dem’s disrespectful behavior.

  35. Geography of Abortion Shows Pro-Life Progress
    By Michael J. New
    June 19, 2012 3:36 P.M.

    Comments
    1

    Last week on The Atlantic’s Cities website. there was an interesting analysis by Richard Florida on the geography of abortion. Florida obtains state-level abortion data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute and examines how well a range of political, demographic, and economic variables correlate with state abortion rates. The fact that Florida relies on correlations and fails to utilize regression techniques limits his analysis to a certain extent. However, his analysis does debunk some common myths about state abortion rates and provides evidence of pro-life progress.

    The most important service that Florida’s analysis provides is that it drives home the point that red states have lower abortion rates than blue states. He shows that state abortion rates are positively correlated with support for President Obama in 2008. In the past, a number of commentators have tried to make the argument that abortion rates are lower in “contraception friendly” blue states than in “abstinence friendly” red states. However, time and time again, the data shows that red states have consistently lower abortion rates. Florida attributes the scarcity of abortion providers in the South and Midwest as the main reason for this. His analysis includes a map which shows that a vast majority of counties located in southern and Midwestern states lack an abortion provider.

    Also, Florida cites some research indicating that state-level pro-life laws, including public-funding restrictions and parental-involvement laws, result in lower abortion rates. Florida could have expanded on this. At one point, the states enacting pro-life laws were more diverse ideologically. For instance, among the first states to enact pro-life parental-involvement laws were solid blue states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island. However, as a recent Guttmacher analysis demonstrates, the states most active in passing pro-life laws in recent years are located in the South and Midwest. This is also contributing to the lower incidence of abortion in red states.

    Florida reports a number of other correlations as well. However, most of findings are predictable to those familiar with the differences between red states and blue states. States whose residents have high incomes and high levels of formal education also have higher abortion rates. Conversely, states whose residents have a high degree of religiosity possess lower abortion rates. The only counterintuitive finding is that divorce rates are negatively correlated with abortion rates. However, this is likely because southerners tend to marry at a younger age and have higher rates of divorce.

    Florida’s analysis indirectly provides evidence of pro-life progress. In his essay he notes that during the 1970s and 1980s, the results of national elections were not correlated with state-level abortion rates. However, there have been two important developments since the 1980s. First is that attitudes on social issues have become a better predictor of voting behavior. Second, since the 1980s, Republicans have made substantial gains in numerous state legislatures. These gains have taken place across the country, but have been most heavily concentrated in southern states. The end result has been more pro-life laws, more regulations on abortion clinics, and lower abortion rates across the country.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303293/geography-abortion-shows-pro-life-progress-michael-j-new

    I know everyone is tired of talking about abortion-so just consider this a Woo HOO !!!! from me.

  36. Holder gets executive privilege from Obama. Fine! Let Brian Terry haunt them both and let the vote count show a landslide in November. 🙄

    • Anita….invoking executive privilege is nothing new at all. When the White House wishes to keep something secret…it is either executive privilege or national security. But, I think every one down to the romper room reject knows that this Fast and Furious goes to the top and that it is fooling no one. The same thing for the “green project’ scandals…..it is readily apparent that the money from the stimulus went to this companies that were not going to make it as a payback for political donations. So, the issue is, with all the people on some sort of welfare (47%) will they vote the man out…….I have my doubts…People have lost the individuality and like the sugar teat.

      • Judge Napalitano says its not an acceptable subject for executive privilege. If the prez was not personally involved then EP does not apply. So who is covering for who? Yes, we all know.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I feel like this is a Nixon moment. Obama should be in jail, not in the Whitehouse.

    • Un-fricken-believable.

    • Doesn’t it become Obama’s issue now?

      • “The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee who first began the Fast and Furious investigation.

        “How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances,” he said.

        • Simple….there is White House involvement.

        • Who wants to bet Obama will not answer questions about this?

          • Wasn’t one of Holders statements during one of his testimonies that this was a “low level” operation? So how does EP come into play for low level operations?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          As far as I can tell, the argument seems to be that DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, and as such can, in and of itself, request executive privilege over internal DOJ documents even if the President was supposedly “not involved”.

          To me, that argument seems like a stretch….

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Peter

            Not a stretch at all. In fact Agencies can deny requests for information under prior rulings on Privilege and “Working Papers”.

            The request for formal Ex. Priv. is made here because Congress is seeking communications between Justice Dept and the White House on HOW TO RESPOND TO CONGRESS and the MEDIA.

            Now for some interesting “history” on this very notion. You see the Enviro groups tried to secure communications between the White House and Agency staff on other “rule changes” when past Administrations tried changing Federal Regulations, or on decisions made by Agencies.

            They have had mixed results. So the claim that any such communications “always” qualifies under Ex. Priv. is not entirely true. Not 100% of the time.

            But lets cut to the REAL issue here. WHY should any communications other than Personnel records and Information on Ongoing Criminal Investigations or National Defense be subject to “protection”?

            If the Admin. considers public knowledge to be a “chilling affect” on its planning and scheming then SO BE IT. A little more “CHILLING AFFECT” is EXACTLY what we need. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Before everyone goes off half cocked I suggest you read Holder’s letter requesting EP. You will have to hit the “full screen” button to read it.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/obama-executive-privilege-fast-and-furious_n_1611962.html

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I love how people are already starting the scorecard… Reagan used EP 20+ times, Clinton used it 14 times, GW Bush 6 times, and Obama has only used it once.

        How the F@#$ is the scorecard relevant in the least???? The only things that matter are:

        1. Should it apply in this case?
        2. Is it being used legitimately or just being used as a CYA measure?

        Now, I am CERTAIN that in past cases it was used as a CYA measure and nothing else, which means it was MISUSED IN THE PAST.

        I am also FAIRLY certain that it is being used as a CYA measure in this case, in which case it is being MISUSED NOW.

        What gets ME, is the people (and you KNOW WHO YOU ARE) who will then make the claim that BECAUSE IT WAS MISUSED IN THE PAST AND THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT, IT IS SOMEHOW OK THAT OBAMA IS MISUSING IT NOW!!!

        What a stupid argument! You have to draw the line somewhere… if you CLAIM to be against “government corruption” then you are a huge friggin’ hypocrite if you claim that because Reagan did it is it just fine if Obama does the same thing. Basically what you are saying is “I am against government corruption except when I am for it.”

        So, lets ALL learn to throw the BS flag against people who do this, ok?

        • Mathius™ says:

          I really hate agreeing with you…

          ::sigh::

          Adding, it’s interesting that Reagan was at 20.. when I read it it was Clinton 14, Bush 6, Obama 1. With more context it looks like Clinton and Reagan were both bad and that Bush was (surprisingly) better, with Obama being the best. It’s really interesting what you can do with numbers when you play modify your data set.. The article I read made it seem like Clinton was the worst ever, Bush was normal, and Obama was better though still wrong. Interesting.. very interesting… Does anyone have a full data set?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            The actual numbers don’t matter. All that is needed is to understand context.

            Official Ex Priv. is not invoked except in case of Congressional Investigations. For Reagan that happened due to Iran Contra. For Clinton it was Whitewater and then Monika.

            For Bush II I think most of it was related to the Gitmo decisions and the interrogations. There were a couple also about the role of Oil Companies in formulating Energy Policy. The Oil Company one, by the way, was a wild goose chase and demagoguery by the Dems.

            This Administration has learned well from the others. It is not that there aren’t things worthy of investigation but that they have kept Issa busy on a couple of things and have managed to d….r…..a….a….a….a…a….g out the responses. This helps AVOID use of Ex Priv..

            • Mathius™ says:

              The actual numbers don’t matter. All that is needed is to understand context.

              Agreed.. I would just find it interesting..

      • Hmmm, researched, contacted administration and received email of doc. and then had the story written by 10:15 this morning. That HuffPost guy is scary fast, has time warping abilities, or was contacted before it was announced almost like an orchestrated media response…..

    • Bama Dad says:

      Be careful of what you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Jon and BF

    We should keep a couple things in mind when discussing the proper amount or form of Govt.

    The discussion seems focused on the reality that “violence” exists and that a free market does not eliminate this. What has been lost in the arguments is that the real issue is one of “legitimacy” not “violence” in and of itself.

    Govt creates a “legitimate” or “legal” use of FORCE. A LEGAL MONOPOLY on using force/violence. Thus using Govt to combat “unauthorized” force creates a greater problem than the “unauthorized” force. The latter can be addressed via “self defense”. At the same time, we want to fall back to Govt because it is a monopoly. We hope to prevent the OK Corral from happening around the country. We fear that powerful bankers and Corps will have their own ARMY to impose their theft upon us. I think this is blown way out of proportion. We peons far outnumber the Bankers and Corps and those they could afford to pay.

    The next factor is the true weakness in Govt. It is not BECAUSE it creates a legal monopoly on force. It is because the CONTAINMENT or CONTROL of that monopoly DEPENDS ABSOLUTELY on an educated and politically active population, the majority of whom share a common set of values and ethics.

    • Flag, what I am saying is that the market demands government. You agreed. I am proposing a limit on the supply. I am proposing that the limitation on supply will be in the form of a constitution or preset structure that makes growth incredibly difficult without voiding the authority of the government itself. This was the goal of the founders in the US, but they permitted far too much consolidation of power and ability to grow. This was in part because they did not really believe in no government, and in part because they did not imagine free men would so willingly seek to give up their freedom, as we have now.

      You are proposing complete elimination of supply. How do you propose to accomplish this? It is well and good to say that any government is evil because it is a consolidation of power and a monopoly on force. However, if you simultaneously recognize that the free market demands such a thing, and you propose to eliminate supply (which is, in fact, an artificial impact on supply in defiance of demand), how are you not in contradiction? Or did I misunderstand something?

    • JAC, you are correct, the cure is worse than the disease. And it is the fear of some greater violence and the lack of belief in one’s self and their peers to combat it that drives many to seek refuge in the evil of government. The question is, can such fear be driven from our society and kept away?

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    OK, it is time for FAIR and BALANCED.

    A week or so ago I gave kudos to Michell Malkin on one of her reports.

    Today I must say that she has done herself a great DISSERVICE with her reporting on the air tanker problem and its relationship to wildfires this summer. It is reporting like this that makes one wonder just how “accurate” the journalists other work has been.

    http://michellemalkin.com/

    The Air Tanker problem has been building for years. Nobody has addressed it, not Congress, not any of the last three Administrations. There is definitely some responsibility to be born by the Obama Administration, but not all of it. And that responsibility should be focused on the Political Appointees and their direct helpers, not on the US FOREST SERVICE staff who are simply carrying out the Laws of the USA.

    Now I am not saying that the FS has been completely rational here either. But Michelle is linking Mr. Obama to the FS “bureaucrats” as if they are tied at the hip. Mr. O did not appoint those career people within the agency. Although his people did run the last Chief out of her job for making the mistake of doing what she was paid to do.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H. and Anita

    I do not intend to spur on the discussion but thought you and others would find this interesting:

    “June 20 (Reuters) – Pregnancy rates for U.S. women in their early 20s fell nearly 18 percent from 1990 to 2008 and their abortion rate dropped by 32 percent, as those women delayed the decision to have a baby and used more effective birth control, said a government report released on Wednesday.

    The findings for women in their prime child bearing years mirror similar studies showing declines in pregnancies and abortions among teenagers.

    The report from the National Center for Health Statistics stated that in 2008, the pregnancy rate for the 20 to 24 age group was 163 per 1,000 women. By comparison, in 1990 that demographic had a pregnancy rate of 198.5 per 1,000, which was nearly 18 percent higher than in 2008.

    Pregnancy rates for women between the ages of 25 and 29 fell a more modest 6 percent during the same time period, to 167.9 per 1,000, according to statistics in the report.

    The abortion rate also declined among women in their early 20s, to 38.4 per 1,000 women in 2008 from 56.7 per 1,000 in 1990, the report said. That represented a drop of 32 percent.

    Again, the drop was more modest for women in their late 20s, as their abortion rate fell to 28.6 per 1,000 in 2008, from 33.9 per 1,000 in 1990, the report said.

    A report by the Guttmacher Institute released in February, based on government statistics, showed the teen abortion rate was down 59 percent in 2008 compared with 1988, and that in 2008 the teen pregnancy rate had fallen 42 percent compared to 1990.”

    This is clipped from a story on Huff Po for those who want more. 🙂

    • Doesn’t work for me 🙂 I added to the pregnancy numbers during that time frame.

    • 18 percent, it’s amazing. What we are seeing is the end of Western civilization as we knew it. May be a few years later but we are following the European lead. Having fun, being sophisticated and not being tied down have become what is really important. Dogs, cats, pythons, Iguanas have become acceptable substitutes for children. What interesting times we live in.

      The world will not end but it will be far different from what we knew. As I ponder these things and wax philosophical, I am astounded by our hubris. Do the folks out there really think that we have reached the zenith of civilization, that we cannot improve further, that we have nothing to pass on to posterity, that there should be no posterity. Amazing, and sad.

      Anita, you must not have got the memo!

  40. Just saw a special on CNN……according to them, this is the first time EP has been invoked when it did not apply to the office of the President…..anyone know?

  41. The claim of executive privilege, made by the president to keep testimony or documents from compelled revelation, is not an absolute one. Thus, the claim must state the basis for its invocation. In US v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court decision that came just two weeks before, and arguably precipitated, President Nixon’s resignation from the presidency, the Court articulated the only three constitutionally permissible bases for the presidential claim of executive privilege.

    The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.

    The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category–(a) or (b) or (c) above–his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.

    When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.

    It is unheard of for Department of Justice (DoJ) officials to bring documents in an on-going criminal investigation to the White House, and discuss them there. It is equally unheard of for White House advisors to go to the DoJ and discuss documents pertaining to an on-going criminal investigation there. We know that the documents in question pertain to an on-going criminal investigation because Attorney General Holder has repeatedly so stated in sworn testimony.

    Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, DoJ documents involved in an on-going criminal investigation can only lawfully be discussed or reviewed–at the White House or at the DoJ or anywhere else–with persons lawfully involved in the criminal investigation or the administration of the criminal justice system. That leaves very few human beings outside the DoJ and inside the White House with whom Attorney General Holder or his DoJ colleagues may have lawfully discussed these documents. Certainly the president himself would be in this category.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/20/president-obama-attorney-general-holder-and-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yOGRCCTt

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Overall a decent summary of executive privilege, but it misses a pretty essential point applicable to this case — executive privilege does extend to other members of the executive branch (not solely the President). The claim of executive privilege here does not necessarily implicate the President or ‘prove’ the president’s knowledge and involvement in the program at issue.

  42. Well, it did not take long for the race card to be played. Chris Matthews has now played it…..the only reason that the contempt vote is being taken is not because of fast and furious it is because the President and the AG are the first blacks to be in this office….

    sigh……………………….

  43. Buck the Wala says:

    G’morning all. Time to return back to Obama’s EO from the other day and its (as some here have put it) ‘probable illegality’. Exhibit A of its illegality was Obama’s own statement maybe 9 months back in an interview where he explicitly stated that he, as President, cannot take unilateral action to pass the DREAM act. A pretty damning videotape of that statement was played ad nauseum on Fox News to prove the point that this action was in fact illegal or unconstitutional, as Obama himself had indicated.

    Fast forward to yesterday. After arriving home and having a tasty dinner and good bottle of wine, I decide to kick back on the couch and relax a bit. Nothing new is on TV so I put on the Daily Show from the night before which I had unfortunately missed. Stewart played Obama’s very same statement and then humbly commended Fox News for its reporting on the issue. Then, turning to the camera, he asked Fox News whether there was any further statements on that tape, whether it could all be put into a bit more context. Lo and behold – that was not the end of Obama’s statement. After making the point that he could not simply declare the DREAM Act law, what he can do, as President, is prioritize enforcement of existing law. You know, exactly what he wound up doing just the other day.

    Not to mention, in this same segment, Stewart ripped Fox News for its repeated claims of Obama’s ‘unprecedented order’ by demonstrating that all modern Presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Dubya and Obama) have all taken similar action in prioritizing enforcement in the deportation of immigrants under certain circumstances and for certain groups.

    Just thought I should add the above to the mix…and strongly urge all of you to start watching the Daily Show if you don’t already for your daily news intake!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mornin Buck 🙂

      Quickly, Obama took an oath to “uphold the Law”. But choosing not to do so is OK because other idiots did the same? Stewart is basically saying it’s OK to do wrong because the other guys did the same thing. No wonder our nation is in decline 🙄

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Not quite what Stewart is saying. He is saying two things:

        1) There is precedent (that alone doesn’t make an action constitutional and Stewart is not saying that it does). But in our current system, precedent (for better or worse) is still important.

        2) More importantly, the fact that Fox News decided (not the first time, of course) to take Obama’s unfinished statement and use it to blast his decision as being hypocritical (See!? Even he doesn’t believe what he did is constitutional! He’s has no respect for the Constitution or our laws!) when in actually Obama’s statement laid bare his views on his role as President and what he can and cannot do unilaterally.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I see. I think we can agree that the MSM is as fraudulant and disfunctional as our government, probably equally corrupt as well. Bash the right, bash the left, phooey on all of them 👿

        • “as President, is prioritize enforcement of existing law.”
          How is it prioritizing to have thousands of illegals in custody, and release any who look or claim to be the right age group?
          (assuming they don’t have I.D., which they wouldn’t unless it was US I.D. showing they were citizens)
          Also have to wonder how they came to be in custody? Are most not arrested by local law enforcement for breaking some law? Can’t remember here, so a little help please, what age group has he decided to ignore the law over?? 18-30??
          Funny numbers, isn’t that close to the avg. age of the prison population, of which, 30% are also illegal immigrants!
          Great plan MR. PRESIDENT!! Lets keep the ILLEGAL in illegal immigrants!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            LOI, this only applies to illegal immigrants who are NOT committed any crimes (other than crossing the border illegally when a child). If said immigrant was picked up and being held in custody for a crime, this would not apply. All this is doing is saying the administration won’t spend its resources going after otherwise law-abiding immigrants who came to this country before the age of 16 (yes, there’s a bit more to that, but who has time!?)

        • President Barack Obama’s new de facto amnesty for young illegals will create a logistical nightmare when it is implemented, according to a chorus of legislators and policy analysts.

          The new program, initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and announced by President Obama, will bring nearly one million new people into the offices of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

          Meanwhile, a deferred action — whereby DHS decides at its discretion against deporting or prosecuting an individual — must be done for free for every new applicant.

          Amid all of this, a continuing hiring freeze at all levels of the federal government means that USCIS won’t be allowed to hire any new employees to deal with the influx of new immigration cases.

          Add to that President Obama’s decision to sidestep Congress, which leaves the program without specifically appropriated funds.

          All of this, say critics, creates a program that is unworkable and will only lead to rationing of other services provided by USCIS.

          Jessica Vaughan, a policy analyst at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, explained how she believed this would play out. “The immigrant that paid money for a visa application is the one that’s going to get hurt because their case will now be slowed down dramatically even though they followed all the rules,” Vaughan told TheDC.

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/21/obamas-election-year-immigration-move-could-create-logistical-nightmare/#ixzz1yR60hc6C

    • Serious question. ‘Prioritize enforcement’. Is that the same thing, in Anitaspeak, as pick and choose what parts of a law you will enforce?, while letting the rest of the law hang loose?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Yes and no. It is making a determination as to where and how to best spend your resources in enforcing a given law.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        Keep in mind that he is not deciding to ignore one “part” of the law. His is deciding to not enforce that part on a “particular group”.

        Clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment. Bwahahahahahaha.

        • JAC, what could be wrong with deciding to only enforce a law against some, but ignore it for others? What harm could possibly come from that??? Especially since it’s the old people that are going to be deported (saves us paying their SS) Don’t you just love a discriminating president….

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “it’s the old people that are going to be deported (saves us paying their SS)”

            That makes absolutely no sense. It’s nonsensical!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I think LOI was pointing out that under the EO anyone caught who is over 30 will be deported. Thus reducing the population of ILLEGAL Old People.

              You criticized Fox, and justly so I might add, but let me take a shot at the left wing media that I have read and seen. It seems the “Dem Population” thinks that Mr. O has issued a new “immigration policy”. Yet I have seen nothing from the talking heads in the media to dispel this notion.

              By the way the EO is unprecedented in my opinion. Not because he does not have the power to be “selective” but because I have never seen such a convoluted and targeted policy established via EO. Which confirms in my view that it is TOTALLY POLITICAL.

              The Admin could have simply not looked for these people or turned them lose if accidentally found. No EO was required to exercise that “prosecutorial discretion” you mentioned.

              Now I am going to share something with you about how this Admin works and would like your reaction. This spring various Agencies within the Dept of Ag were told that their “highest” priority this year was to increase the number of “minority” employees and “African Americans” in particular. Agency managers were told that they could use the “seasonal” work force and “other powers” to move people around to meet the “targeted number”. How this would work is those people returning for “seasonal” jobs would NOT be rehired. Minorities would be hired in their place.

              All of this was done without any “documents” being issued. Face to face contacts and lectures. And I use the term “lectures” deliberately.

              After months of back and forth the Admin has backed off some, but not entirely. Had they stuck to their guns the land mgt Agencies within Ag and Interior would not have been able to fully staff their wildland fire crews.

              Given this and how White House staff have been in control of Dept and Agency communications and strategies also leads me to conclude that the White House was up to speed on the Fast and Furious thing from the beginning. Unless Holder is treated differently than the other Secretaries. Which is possible.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not really sure what you want me to respond to here. If you are looking for me to support or justify the admin’s actions in pushing for increased minority hiring, you’re not going to get that from me. This is nothing new as past admins have made similar pushes, perhaps not to this extent, but that I just don’t know so can’t really comment on. My own thoughts – you hire the best person for the job, end of story.

                As for the EO – I’ll grant you that the provisions are more convoluted than that done by past Presidents in making such deportation decisions. But that doesn’t chance anything about whether or not it is an unconstitutional act. I’ve said before that this would have best been done by Congress.

              • JAC,
                Just to be clear – this was NOT an Executive Order. It’s simply a policy change for the agencies that deal with immigration.

            • Since this is a step towards making them legal immigrants, who would then be able to draw social security, kicking out the old folks before they can become citizens will delay having to pay that many “new” citizens SS. Does that make sense?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Still not really following your logic on this.

                Sure, once a legal immigrant, after working for their lifetime, they will be entitled to collect on SS just as you or I will. But they will also be paying into the system for their lifetime…

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I was looking for your thoughts on their methods more than a push for affirmative action.

              Yes, prior Administrations have emphasized this. They all carefully constructed policy and direction to avoid getting afoul of the SCOTUS rulings on discrimination.

              This Admin by passed this process and simply told agency heads directly what they would do or lose their jobs. And frankly, had the agency heads done this there would have been massive litigation. But the Admin would have been clean. The entire house would have fallen on the agency heads because there is no records of them being directed to do this.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m not familiar with any of the tactics, behind the scenes pushes, etc. from past admins on this issue.

        • Those darn groups again. Time to get rid of groups.

    • So let’s see if I’ve got this right-Obama knows that “as President, cannot take unilateral action to pass the DREAM act” but he found a loop hole which he can use to do just that(at least temporarily) and you think this makes what he did better-and the statement that he knew what he was doing was unconstitutional unfair. His intent was to use his power as President to do something HE knows he doesn’t have the right or power to do-he just found an underhanded way to do it.

  44. $9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs — $9.8 Million Per Job
    By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas
    from Drudge Report

    (CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs — annual operation and maintenance positions — meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

    At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs — which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

    Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

    • But, but, but …. perhaps these just weren’t efficient or something. If we keep doing it, and in fact, spend MORE $$, we are bound to get it right eventually…right?

      These were never meant for job creation, these were payback to obama bundlers, ie money laundering the Chicago way.

      • We absolutely must spend more, saving the planet is damned expensive! If only there were more abortions or people would breed less…but then, who would collect all the cow farts???

  45. Elena Kagan: The ObamaCare Recusal That Wasn’t
    By Tom Thurlow

    When the U.S. Supreme Court releases its decision on the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Justice Elena Kagan will cast a vote that should not have been counted. The relevant rule requires that Supreme Court justices recuse themselves if in their previous capacity they served as “counselor or advisor” concerning a current matter before the Court, or if there is anything about the proceeding by which the justice’s impartiality can reasonably be called into question.

    E-mails released to Judicial Watch revealed that when in 2010 Obamacare passed and Ms. Kagan was solicitor general, Ms. Kagan viewed the passage as “simply amazing” and that she assigned a deputy in her office to help prepare legal defenses to any challenges to ObamaCare. When in another e-mail she was asked for her opinion on a meeting to discuss legal defenses to ObamaCare, Ms. Kagan replied, “what is your phone number?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/elena_kagan_the_obamacare_recusal_that_wasnt.html#ixzz1yRBhcaLc

    • Just A Citizen says:

      LOI

      She has established “plausible deniability”.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Perhaps ‘required’ but there is no procedure in place to force a SCOTUS justice to recuse himself or herself from any given case — it is left entirely to the discretion of the justice.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    There is nothing more fun to watch than a bunch of lawyers caught up in their own web of obfuscation and exceptions fighting with each other over the meaning of the very things they have muddled.

    In the case of the Executive Privilege that is what we are about to witness. Congress, aka Lawyers, fighting with DOJ, aka Lawyers and the President, aka lawyer, are going head to toe………..each claiming righteous knowledge of what the Constitution and Law allows or requires.

    All sides relying on their OWN version of “except in this case” or “however” etc, etc….

    Ladies and Gentlemen, what we are witnessing is the ultimate JOB SECURITY ploy for LAWYERS.

    And of course it is all done AT OUR EXPENSE!

    • Thought the same thing. Circle arguements, selective enforcement, definition skewering, moving moral baselines. Must be in their oath.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        I suppose that would depend on their definition of an oath! Bwahahahahahahaha….. 😉

  47. Reminds me of the Kid Rock song Amen…got me feelin guilty of being white

      • Touche

        • “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
          ― Jesse Jackson

          I think that has changed some, now you look at how they are dressed, their age and sex. Young men, dressed like thugs or gang members will set off the alarm bells where a well dressed black does not even get your attention. And in line with Mr. Cosby, the problem is when people stop respecting themselves and acting respectable. A thug demanding respect may get fear, but never respect.

    • Can you believe this UM-D campaign? Perhaps God was sending a sign to that area with the recent deluge of rain and flooding!?!

  48. Speaking of Kid Rock….Welcome Summer!

    • Yeah, you and that “smokin’ funny things”…..

      What are the plans for the lake property? Building yet? Is this the year you wanted to move there for your son’s schooling? Update!

      • Fewer and fewer funny things for this grandma! Still not comfortable about building yet so the new school plan is on hold too. Been doing the grandma thing 10hrs day alternating weeks with the other grandma. Will probably still homeschool for one more year minimum and play it by ear from there. Sure would like to wake up forever at the lake though.

  49. @ Buck…….novel concept….prioritizing and selective enforcement of the law…dependent upon resources (and election year)….what a nice precedent….

    So….it appears now that selective enforcement is an open door to discrimination. A policeman can now selectively enforce whatever portion of the law he wishes to do….(taking into consideration “resources” of course) using profiling and statistics to stop and question all those who fit a statistical profile……….Ok, I can dig it.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Colonel – policemen regularly selectively enforce. Ever get stopped for a speeding ticket….yet don’t receive a ticket?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        But now they can selectively enforce based on color and age! That is if they are allowed the same discretion as POTUS.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You’re comparing apples and oranges.

          • @ Buck….please explain. Are you saying that selective enforcement does not apply to all law now?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Selective enforcement of a given law based on race or gender is discriminatory, this is a given. The cop who decides to only give a speeding ticket to blacks (or only to whites, as the case may be) is clearly discriminating against a group. But I’m not convinced this would be unconstitutional as the underlying crime/offense was still committed. This is different from pulling over every car being driven by a black woman, or a white male and harassing the driver due to the color of their skin.

              Does this make any sense? I know I’m not being perfectly clear on this…that’s what happens when you dont’ get enough sleep and are under a pile of work while trying to debate a completely unrelated topic…

      • Exactly my point, JAC.

      • Yes, of course I have…that is why I always keep my Military ID next to my drivers license….I am still guilty of violating the law, though.

        • And, I might add, I think it is horribly discriminatory to let me off of a speeding ticket because of military service but most everyone else is given one….

    • But, I still like the Texas way…..pay no attention to Holder (we didn’t anyway) and pay no attention to Obama’s EO (We didn’t anyway) and enforce the laws on the books……his EO ONLY pertains to ICE and Federal Immigration officials……it does not apply to the state. Our law enforcement will continue to enforce the laws on the books….in their entirety until said law is repealed….so says our AG.

  50. Obama/Holder new tune “Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep / Now they see me, now they don’t / I’ve come and gone / And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step / Cut a little swath / And lead the people on!”

  51. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    JAC,

    The next time someone tells you that the “climate scientists” are the real scientists, and the skeptics are somehow NOT real scientists, perhaps you should point them to this…

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/rupert-wyndhams-excellent-prose-to-bishop-langrish-the-26-ethical-flaws-of-propagandists/

    It becomes abundantly clear that “climate scientists” are not scientists at all, but rather exhibit ALL TWENTY-SIX of the listed ethical flaws of propagandists.

    Of course, anyone you show this to who is a “true believer” will not accept that argument, but there are people who will see the validity of this.

  52. The Bud Light Drunk

    A woman goes to the doctor all black and blue.

    Doctor: “What happened?”

    Woman: “Doctor, I don’t know what to do. Every time my husband comes home drunk on Bud Light he beats me to a pulp.”

    Doctor: “I have a real good remedy for that. When your husband comes home drunk on
    Bud Light, just take a glass of sweet tea and start swishing it in your mouth but don’t
    swallow. Just keep swishing and swishing until he goes to bed in his Bud Light stupor.”

    Two weeks later the woman comes back to the doctor looking fresh and reborn.

    Woman: “Doctor, that was a brilliant idea. Every time my husband came home drunk on Bud Light, I swished with sweet tea. I swished and swished, and he didn’t touch me!”

    Doctor: “You see how much keeping your mouth shut helps?”

  53. An excellent example of the tip of the iceberg when Obamacare becomes the law of the land. As Al Jolson so famously said in “the Jazz Singer”: “You ain’t seen nothing yet”.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/medicare-fraud-fugitive-nabbed-jfk-airport-article-1.1099421?localLinksEnabled=false

  54. gmanfortruth says:

    As many EO’s as Obama has signed, I wonder about a potentail scenario. Lets say he enacts one that gives him control of all resources (which he has signed). He then directs his Federal agents to confiscate excess food from the storage of citizens. Now here is my question, since EO’s are not law, do I have the right to use deadly force to protect my resources? It seems to me that his EO’s would be violating my rights if enacted. What say anybody 🙂

    • In short,,,,,,,the Fed is is trying to move money from the bond market to more active growth markets. They hope that investors will move their money and put more of it into circulation. It will not work.

  55. No big deal. Some bratty Rs just want to create trouble 🙄
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/opinion/a-pointless-partisan-fight.html?_r=2&hp

  56. @ Buck….”Selective enforcement of a given law based on race or gender is discriminatory, this is a given.”

    No Buck, it is not at all. Obama just made it race based. It pertains to Hispanics…singled out. It is pandering on the basis of race. There is no race card to be played any longer after this…..he set a great precedent for all the rednecks out there.

  57. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Per you:

    ” JAC,
    Just to be clear – this was NOT an Executive Order. It’s simply a policy change for the agencies that deal with immigration.”

    Good catch. I assumed since everyone was saying it was an EO that it was a fact. Guess I should have known better. That would at least eliminate my concern over the convoluted nature of an EO to accomplish this new policy.

    This does raise another interesting point over “authorities”, however. When it was perceived that the White House was directing changes to the National Forest Management Act planning regulations, the environmentalists sued and got a Federal Judge to rule that the Administration could not dictate changes to such Federal Policy.

    Now this is easily handled as Holder can simply announce the changes. But it was Mr. Obama who claimed HE was ORDERING the change. Again we see a double standard applied by the special groups. Not surprising but it is frustrating.

    Frankly Mr. O lost a great opportunity to tackle the Immigration issue in a bipartisan way that would have either accomplished something or given the elephants a deep black eye. I can’t figure why he has taken weak action in the border security portion while ramping up the deportation portion. The whole approach by the Administration on this has been confusing at best.

    • JAC,

      This does raise another interesting point over “authorities”, however. When it was perceived that the White House was directing changes to the National Forest Management Act planning regulations, the environmentalists sued and got a Federal Judge to rule that the Administration could not dictate changes to such Federal Policy.

      But this is not a “policy change,” its “prosecutorial discretion.”

      But it was Mr. Obama who claimed HE was ORDERING the change.

      No. It was a memo from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        The President announced the change from the podium. He used the words “my administration”.

        The formal mechanism may be Napolitano’s memo but the White House was OBVIOUSLY involved and directed this.

        That is MORE than Bush did with the NFMA issue I mentioned.

        You are correct that he does not seem to use the words “I ordered” but his entire public stance has been “look what I did”. Seems to me your trying to out do Buck on the lawyerly splitting of hairs here.

        And I do not agree this is just “prosecutorial discretion”. That mechanism is utilized AFTER an arrest or detainment. And it is used for INDIVIDUAL situations. NOT groups based on age and race.

        • JAC,
          Sure, it was “Obama’s administration” and the White House was OBVIOUSLY involved and directed this. I believe the Department of Homeland Security is part of the Obama administration.

          Seems to me your trying to out do Buck on the lawyerly splitting of hairs here.

          You’re the one who usually has to define all terms and actions with they’re correct and precise definitions. Why is this different? It seems to me you’re trying to split hairs to find a way to make this “illegal”.

          And I do not agree this is just “prosecutorial discretion”. That mechanism is utilized AFTER an arrest or detainment. And it is used for INDIVIDUAL situations.

          No, prosecutorial discretion is used all the time when law enforcement decides how to use their limited resources to enforce the law. Splitting hairs again.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Lets look at how the Huff Po is reporting the new policy:

        “President Barack Obama still leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney among Latino voters in five swing states, and his recent decision to halt deportation of undocumented young people upped enthusiasm, according to a poll released Friday by Latino Decisions.

        The poll, done in conjunction with advocacy group America’s Voice, found that 54 percent of Latino voters in five key battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia — were more enthusiastic about the president after his announcement. ”

        “his recent decision”…………… “after his announcement”.

        Maybe somebody should tell his supporters this was NOT a policy change and HE DID NOT actually make any decision.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I get these in my email all the time.

      I am struck how they all use BARACK instead of Mr. President or The President or President Barack Obama….etc, etc.

      • Mathius™ says:

        The problem, JAC-ster, is that Bush beat Kerry and Gore because Bush was the guy people preferred to have a beer with*. So long as people vote on such STUPID, MORONIC, IDIOTIC, LUDICROUS, INSANE standards (and make no mistake, a lot of people just vote for whoever they like more), then the politicians are going to try to be someone that people like. To that end, “Michelle” (or, as I like to call her, Mrs. Obama or The First Lady of the United States) will appeal (particularly to women) on behalf of her husband as someone they would like to be friends with. Obama will try to be “one of the guys” and Michelle will try to be “one of the girls.” ::sigh::

        *dear god, how could Bush win this poll? He doesn’t even drink!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Actually Matt I don’t see it as a “problem”. But I think back to Clooney’s jab at some Fox news guy for calling the president Obama, when Clooney had called Mr. Bush ….Bush.

          I am simply pointing out the irony that so many Dems get indignant about using the title MR PRESIDENT but the campaign and DNC send out all these emails using his first name only.

          As for strategy I think it is brilliant. Obnoxious but brilliant. That is why I get these stupid emails. I made the mistake of clicking on one of their little “offers” three years ago. I have been unable to get my name off their damn mailing list ever since. Now I have given up because it gives me insight into what they are trying to do.

          I can explain the Bush phenomena. The man came across as a NICE GUY who genuinely CARED. All his bumbling and stumbling over words didn’t diminish this quality. It may have actually added to his “Regular Person” persona as well. To this day I think it is why he had so much support among the Republicans who didn’t like his policies. They liked the man and thus supported him against any personal attack.

          Oddly, it is a lesson the “conservatives” didn’t learn well. They might have peeled more lefties away from Mr. Obama by now if they weren’t attacking him in a personal way so often.

    • Don’t donate to a food pantry, or your own favorite charity in lieu of gifts. No, donate to me!!!

      http://www.therightscoop.com/desperate-obama-campaign-wants-all-your-birthday-and-wedding-gifts/

  58. Just A Citizen says:
    • Watched an different one last night & he’s poking the Dem’s pretty well…does seem to me he’s avoiding one thing, how does it apply to all the events that took place before he was informed? Maybe Stewart want’s to give Obama an out, let Holder fall on his sword?

    • Something new to me, from Canada Free Press

      The AG’s Inspector General

      Each department of government is assigned an Inspector General, or an official to conduct an investigation of the individuals and actions of a particular department if necessary to determine whether any improprieties were committed or laws broken. For the Department of Justice and the Fast & Furious investigation, that Inspector General would be Cynthia A. Schnedar.

      As it turns out, however, Katie Pavlich, author of the book “Fast and Furious,” notes that Holder and Schnedar have connections that go back a long way. While Holder worked as a U.S. Attorney in Washington from 1994 through 1997, she was the Assistant U.S. Attorney, reporting to Holder. In other words, Holder was Schnedar’s boss. They also worked on legal briefs together, and filed over a dozen such briefs together during that period.

      Now, Schnedar has been running interference for Holder, reportedly obstructing the procurement of documents requested and subpoenaed by Issa.

  59. Kathy,

    BF! Explain please! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/fed-pulls-trigger-more-economic-stimulus-170328858.html

    The FED merely admitted to what we’ve at SUFA known for the last few months – the US is still in a recession.

    The consequence: everyone got out of the stock market/commodities and went to cash – but the fundamentals have not changed.

    Obama has spent more money than all previous Presidents combined, and this has no reason to abate.

  60. Obama’s plan to create jobs and fix the economy??

    EPA blasted for requiring oil refiners to add type of fuel that’s merely hypothetical

    By Jim Angle

    Published June 21, 2012

    FoxNews.com

    Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.

    “As ludicrous as that sounds, it’s fact,” says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. “If it weren’t so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical.”

    And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, “the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild.”

    Refiners are at their wit’s end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.

    “None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It’s a phantom fuel,” says Pyle. “It doesn’t exist in the market place.”

    And Charles Drevna adds, “forcing us to use a product that doesn’t exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns.”

    And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:

    “Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn’t exist?” Pyle said. “Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them.”

    The EPA does have discretion to lower the annual requirement. And one supporter explains, that’s what the agency is saying.

    “We are going to reduce your blending obligation by 98 percent because we feel that that’s the right thing to do,” says Brooke Coleman, the executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council of the Renewable Fuels Association. “We are going to maintain your blending obligation on the gallons that we think are going to emerge.”

    The EPA, which would not speak on camera, is still hoping production of cellulosic ethanol will emerge.

    A study by the Congressional Research Service, however, says the government “projects that cellulosic bio fuels are not expected to be commercially available on a large scale until at least 2015.”

    Drevna of the refiners association says they had no other choice left since EPA insisted they still had to blend some of the nonexistent cellulosic ethanol.

    “We’ve had to go to the courts and litigate this thing is because they just turned a blind eye to us,” Drevna said.

    So the refiners are now suing the EPA, in part because the mandate gets larger and larger– 500 million gallons this year, 3 billion in 2015 and 16 billion in 2022.

    And still, not a gallon of cellulosic ethanol in sight.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/?test=latestnews#ixzz1yXWeLqfV

  61. How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart

    By Rebecca Walker
    Last updated at 1:18 PM on 23rd May 2008

    She’s revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women’s rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn’t buy in to Alice’s beliefs – her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

    Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises – a mother.

    The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. ‘Mummy, Mummy, let me help,’ he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.
    Rebecca Walker

    Maternal rift: Rebecca Walker, whose mother was the feminist author of The Color Purple – who thought motherhood a form of servitude, is now proud to be a mother herself

    I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: ‘Mummy, Mummy.’

    It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother – thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

    You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.
    Rebecca

    Family love? A young Rebecca with her parents

    In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late – I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

    I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

    As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

    My mother’s feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn’t even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

    I love my mother very much, but I haven’t seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son – her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

    Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world – goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it’s time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

    My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

    My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I’m told they even made me walk down the street to the school.
    Alice Walker

    Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter

    When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds – my father’s very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother’s avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent – a bizarre way of doing things.

    Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa – offering herself up as a mother figure.

    But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities – after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

    My mother would always do what she wanted – for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?

    I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me – a ‘delightful distraction’, but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

    According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio – some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

    Sisters together

    A neighbour, not much older than me, was deputised to look after me. I never complained. I saw it as my job to protect my mother and never distract her from her writing. It never crossed my mind to say that I needed some time and attention from her.

    When I was beaten up at school – accused of being a snob because I had lighter skin than my black classmates – I always told my mother that everything was fine, that I had won the fight. I didn’t want to worry her.

    But the truth was I was very lonely and, with my mother’s knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

    Now I simply cannot understand how she could have been so permissive. I barely want my son to leave the house on a play-date, let alone start sleeping around while barely out of junior school.

    A good mother is attentive, sets boundaries and makes the world safe for her child. But my mother did none of those things.

    Although I was on the Pill – something I had arranged at 13, visiting the doctor with my best friend – I fell pregnant at 14. I organised an abortion myself. Now I shudder at the memory. I was only a little girl. I don’t remember my mother being shocked or upset. She tried to be supportive, accompanying me with her boyfriend.

    Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I’d never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.

    As a child, I was terribly confused, because while I was being fed a strong feminist message, I actually yearned for a traditional mother. My father’s second wife, Judy, was a loving, maternal homemaker with five children she doted on.

    There was always food in the fridge and she did all the things my mother didn’t, such as attending their school events, taking endless photos and telling her children at every opportunity how wonderful they were.
    The Color Purple

    Alice Walker’s iconic book was made in to a film in 1985, and starred Whoopi Goldberg and Margaret Avery (pictured)

    My mother was the polar opposite. She never came to a single school event, she didn’t buy me any clothes, she didn’t even help me buy my first bra – a friend was paid to go shopping with me. If I needed help with homework I asked my boyfriend’s mother.

    Moving between the two homes was terrible. At my father’s home I felt much more taken care of. But, if I told my mother that I’d had a good time with Judy, she’d look bereft – making me feel I was choosing this white, privileged woman above her. I was made to feel that I had to choose one set of ideals above the other.

    When I hit my 20s and first felt a longing to be a mother, I was totally confused. I could feel my biological clock ticking, but I felt if I listened to it, I would be betraying my mother and all she had taught me.

    I tried to push it to the back of my mind, but over the next ten years the longing became more intense, and when I met Glen, a teacher, at a seminar five years ago, I knew I had found the man I wanted to have a baby with. Gentle, kind and hugely supportive, he is, as I knew he would be, the most wonderful father.

    Although I knew what my mother felt about babies, I still hoped that when I told her I was pregnant, she would be excited for me.

    ‘Mum, I’m pregnant’

    Instead, when I called her one morning in the spring of 2004, while I was at one of her homes housesitting, and told her my news and that I’d never been happier, she went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then she asked if I could check on her garden. I put the phone down and sobbed – she had deliberately withheld her approval with the intention of hurting me. What loving mother would do that?

    Worse was to follow. My mother took umbrage at an interview in which I’d mentioned that my parents didn’t protect or look out for me. She sent me an e-mail, threatening to undermine my reputation as a writer. I couldn’t believe she could be so hurtful – particularly when I was pregnant.

    Devastated, I asked her to apologise and acknowledge how much she’d hurt me over the years with neglect, withholding affection and resenting me for things I had no control over – the fact that I am mixed-race, that I have a wealthy, white, professional father and that I was born at all.

    But she wouldn’t back down. Instead, she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than ‘Mom’.

    That was a month before Tenzin’s birth in December 2004, and I have had no contact with my mother since. She didn’t even get in touch when he was rushed into the special care baby unit after he was born suffering breathing difficulties.

    And I have since heard that my mother has cut me out of her will in favour of one of my cousins. I feel terribly sad – my mother is missing such a great opportunity to be close to her family. But I’m also relieved. Unlike most mothers, mine has never taken any pride in my achievements. She has always had a strange competitiveness that led her to undermine me at almost every turn.

    When I got into Yale – a huge achievement – she asked why on earth I wanted to be educated at such a male bastion. Whenever I published anything, she wanted to write her version – trying to eclipse mine. When I wrote my memoir, Black, White And Jewish, my mother insisted on publishing her version. She finds it impossible to step out of the limelight, which is extremely ironic in light of her view that all women are sisters and should support one another.

    It’s been almost four years since I have had any contact with my mother, but it’s for the best – not only for my self-protection but for my son’s well-being. I’ve done all I can to be a loyal, loving daughter, but I can no longer have this poisonous relationship destroy my life.

    I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It’s helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it’s caused for my contemporaries?

    What about the children?

    The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn’t take into account the toll on children. That’s all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

    Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: ‘I’d like a child. If it happens, it happens.’ I tell them: ‘Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.’ As I know only too well.

    Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

    Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

    But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them – as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

    I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

    I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters – a happy family.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html#ixzz1yZ9dcNFh

    • Wurtzel Doesn’t Understand Stay-at-Home Moms
      By Carrie Lukas
      June 21, 2012 11:20 A.M.

      Comments
      10

      Claire Mahoney already wrote about how Elizabeth Wurtzel’s screed against stay-at-home moms overlooks the growing number of men who are opting out of the workforce to raise children. I’m more struck by how Wurtzel’s piece reflects a bizarre view of the lives of most stay-at-home moms. She writes:

      To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege, and most of the housewives I have ever met — none of whom do anything around the house — live in New York City and Los Angeles, far from Peoria. Only in these major metropolises are there the kinds of jobs in finance and entertainment that allow for a family to live luxe on a single income.

      Perhaps Wurtzel intends simply to describe her personal experience: She has a cloister existence and has only met upper-class stay-at-home moms living in major metropolitan areas.

      She seems, however, to be suggesting that these are the only places where stay-at-home moms exist at all; that only women with power-broker husbands pulling in six-figure salaries opt to forgo paid work when they have children, and then all those women promptly hire a staff to do the actual icky business of keeping house and caring for junior, while they lounge in salons and take yoga.

      Wurtzel should be self-aware enough to recognize that she is an outlier. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the labor force participation rate of married women increases with education. Women with infants whose husbands are in the highest earning quintile have a labor participation rate (48 percent) that just about matches the participation rate of women whose husbands are in the lowest earning quintile (47 percent). Gallup echoes this finding, titling their research into this demographic, “Stay-at-Home Moms Lean Independent, Lower Income.”

      Certainly there are well-educated moms with rich husbands who end their careers when they have kids and hire help. And sure, if you have a full-time nanny and housekeeper, then your duties as mom aren’t the equivalent of a full-time job.

      So what? That has nothing to do with the experience of the vast majority of stay-at-home moms who get up early each morning, pack kids’ lunches, cart older kids to school, and then come home to clean the house and mind the toddler until the kids come back in the afternoon wanting mom’s attention, help with homework, and another meal.

      I’ve written before criticizing attempts to assign a monetary value to the work of a stay-at-home mom, since they tend to be ridiculous and overlook the real motives and value of parenting.

      However, clearly there is monetary value in the work performed by a stay-at-home parent. Families often have to make calculations about how much it would cost to hire someone else to perform the work of the mom (or dad) when contemplating going back to work or buying life insurance. Wurtzel’s claim that something only becomes a “job” with value when someone pays for it seems arbitrary at best. A family saves money by doing things themselves — whether that’s fixing their own car or raising their own kids. It seems more accurate to assume that if you can call something a “job” when you hire an outsider to do it, one can safely call it a “job” when you do it too.

      Wurtzel is honest, at least, that it isn’t just the semantics that bothers her: She, like many feminists before her, is frustrated that all in the sisterhood — particularly her fellow ivy leaguers who she thinks should know better — make choices about how to spend their lives that she feels are a waste and detrimental to her cause.

      She can rage against it, but this problem for liberal feminists is not going to go away. The simple truth is that many women, including well-educated women, are going to make the calculation that they are happier raising children (or heaven forbid, enjoying life on their own terms) than in the working world. They are going to decide that they can contribute more to their families by focusing on raising their kids than working for someone else.

      Wurtzel says she’s happy with the choices she has made. I’m glad to hear it. Now can’t she leave the rest of us alone and appreciate that we may actually be happy with our choices too?

      http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/303589/wurtzel-doesn-t-understand-stay-home-moms/carrie-lukas

  62. From the department of “So what else is new”…..

    The rap sheet for members of the International Union of Operating Engineers reads like something out of “Goodfellas.”

    Embezzlement. Wire fraud. Bribery. That’s just scratching the surface of crimes committed by the IUOE ranks. And it is from this union that President Obama earlier this year picked one of his latest appointees to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency tasked with resolving labor disputes between unions and management.

    That recess appointee, Richard Griffin, was former general counsel for the 400,000-member union of heavy equipment operators — a union tainted over the years by mob connections and a history of corruption.

  63. The last few days have been quite eventful:
    1) Sandusky is guilty (he actually got a speedy trial, under 9 months from indictment to conviction)
    2) Obama decrees general amnesty (in a form) for one class of illegal aliens contrary to the rule of law, there is little outcry
    3) Issa gets a committee vote to hold Holder in contempt
    4) The president claims executive privilege over F&F
    5) Pelosi claims the attacks on Holder are a conspiracy to disenfranchise voters
    6) Pelosi urges the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling
    7) The Muslim Brotherhood wins in Egypt
    8)) Greece still in the Euro zone but for how long
    9) The press now fears a second dip is coming

  64. AS predicted over one year ago….1 down and three to go….

    Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohammed Morsi was declared the winner in Egypt’s first free presidential election in history by the country’s elections commission.

    • Acknowledged, you called it. It is what i feared would happen. The real question is how radical will this guy be. It shows once again how unusual our revolution was in that common sense prevailed.

  65. “70 percent”

    — Decrease in membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees chapter that represents Wisconsin state workers since the state stopped automatically collecting dues from worker paychecks last spring, according to the Wall Street Journal. Statewide, the union’s overall membership dropped from 62,818 to 28,745.

    Told ya….take out the dues checkoff and the union membership dwindles significantly……As long as people do not see their money, it is easy..but when people get the money in their hand and the union guys comes around asking for the dues……..it ain’t so easy and the “hard core” is all that remains.

    • Side note: The only alternative that the union has….is to treat the member just like any other creditor….collection agencies…..something that union’s “used to” despise. Force a union to act like a business with a balance sheet and “voila” things do change.

      • side note to the side note: Now, we will see how union membership defines friends.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Colonel,

          Take away a mandate and the monopoly dies. Forcing people to unionize has always been a negative for me. Maybe when Obamacare gets crushed for that reason, will the workers be free from these thieves!

        • Now if we could just make taxes voluntary.

  66. This is something I’ve started several times but never finished it. It kinda fits with this post – What Do We Need This Government For?

    A constant theme – here and from the “right” in general – we’re losing our freedom and liberty.

    So what is the correct amount of “freedom”?

    “Absolute” freedom would be living on your own, with no interference from anyone.
    You hunt and gather and plant and harvest and make and build whatever you need to survive.
    You provide everything you need to live.

    Then you get a spouse. You give up some freedom, because you have to provide for and consider that person.
    But you gain some security because that person can also help you survive.

    Then you have kids. Same thing applies.

    Then some neighbors move in a few miles away. You meet them, but you both continue to live separately.

    A few more people move into the area, and a ‘community’ starts to form. Someone suggests you pool your resources to build a road to connect everyone.

    Then someone suggests you pool your resources to build a bridge so you all have easier access to additional hunting areas and easier trade with the next community.

    Then it becomes a town. Then a city. And pretty soon someone suggests you form a “government” to “help” everyone.

    Thru out these steps you’re losing freedom and gaining security.

    What’s the correct balance of freedom vs security?

    And once you’ve attended that correct balance, how do you keep it?

    How do you stop “progress” from continuing, and more people moving into the area – or just more kids growing up – and increasing the population, and increasing the need for more cooperation and government?

    And remember, much of the world stopped at the early steps – they’re what we now call “third world” countries.

    If the USA had stopped at any of these early steps, we’d be a third world country too, made up of many small communities with limited cooperation.

    So, What Do We Need This Government For?

    We need it to create a stable society that promotes cooperation and competition, which allows for economic growth.

    Imagine if 220 years ago, the 13 colonies had gone their separate ways and become 13 separate nations. We’d be just like of the rest of world, having small wars for the past 220 years that constantly set us back, unable to cooperate and move forward. We wouldn’t have the resources of a federal government that has created – or empowered private companies to create – what drives our economy and progress.

%d bloggers like this: