Open for business…



  1. Looks like wordpress closed the comments for the last article, so here’s one for open mic.

    PHOENIX (AP) — A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

    The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

    The teen didn’t open the door because he didn’t recognize the woman.

    Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.

    When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

    The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

    He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

    The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away.

    Read more:

    • It is important to teach your children “Gun Control”….4” groupings at 30 feet and to aim small, miss small.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Can you copy Todd’s last post and bring it here for more discussion?

      • Todd says:
        June 24, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        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.

        • Todd;

          Your thinking is askew when you make the comment “imagine if 220 years ago…” for a few reasons:
          – You assume we as a nation would be a group of nations, which is simply not likely due to the fact that the nation became such by banning together in order to function as such.
          – Wars would have been less likely if for no other reason than opposing nations didn’t have either the means or the will to go to battle against us; especially since we had just defeated the strongest military in the world at the time. And those colonies depended on each other for trade and commerce.
          – We were operating under a common Constitution that mandated individual freedom and rights.
          – We had plenty of resources as demonstrated by the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and we had the inginuity to create technological advances.
          – Government stayed out of the way back then, as opposed to nowadays where they stifel inginuity and advancement.
          – And you biggest problem is that you believe government “empowered”. The government cannot empower that which it does not have the authority or ability to empower. The people empower the government not the reverse.

          The government has not and cannot stimulate anything other than evil and tyranny.


          • commonman55,

            You assume we as a nation would be a group of nations, which is simply not likely due to the fact that the nation became such by banning together in order to function as such

            If we had stayed with the Articles of Confederation, we’d pretty much be 13 (or more) separate nations.
            Only by giving the Federal Government more power were the “United States” really born.

            Wars would have been less likely if for no other reason than opposing nations didn’t have either the means or the will to go to battle against us; especially since we had just defeated the strongest military in the world at the time. And those colonies depended on each other for trade and commerce.

            I meant wars between the 13 colonies/nations and their neighbors. Kinda like the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

            We were operating under a common Constitution that mandated individual freedom and rights.

            My assumption is they didn’t create the constitution – or ratify it.

            We had plenty of resources as demonstrated by the agricultural and industrial revolutions, and we had the inginuity to create technological advances.

            This is also stuff to fight over…

            Government stayed out of the way back then…

            I’m not so sure this is true.

            And you biggest problem is that you believe government “empowered”. The government cannot empower that which it does not have the authority or ability to empower. The people empower the government not the reverse.

            Ok – throw the words “the people” on the front:

            The people have empowered the government to create a stable society, promote cooperation and competition, which allows for economic growth.

            The government has not and cannot stimulate anything other than evil and tyranny.

            An awfully broad statement…

            • Todd;

              Please show me an act, law or rule envoked by the government that has promoted prosperity, or increased tranquility, especially in the last 130 years. Everything they have regulated or managed has resulted in waste, theft or corruption, and everything they have enacted has been indirectly or directly designed to either control or regulate individual liberty and freedom.

              And the current regime is doing the absolute opposite of your last statement.


              • Commonman55: Please show US where and when a truly free environment existed? Further, where it has benefited anyone other than those it enriched? Before you begin, understand that right here in the good old US&A, an entire indigenous population was raped of its culture (those who weren’t killed off) both BEFORE and after your wonderful constitution was enacted. That’s one hell of a job your liberty did on native Americans, my friend.

              • commonman55,


                And now why don’t you go tell Stephen K. Trynosky how his life long career in government “has resulted in waste, theft or corruption, and everything they have enacted has been indirectly or directly designed to either control or regulate individual liberty and freedom.”

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Your premise is flawed in several places. Having a spouse, and having children are CHOICES. Choices are a product of freedom, not a limitation on freedom. Choices do have CONSEQUENCES, but by choosing to accept those consequences, once again, I do not limit my freedom.

          Secondly, “absolute freedom” means NOTHING WHATSOEVER about “being on your own and hunting and gathering”.

          Free people COOPERATE BY CHOICE all of the time, without being forced to do so.

          So, significantly revise your premise, because your definition of freedom is deeply flawed, and then we can go from there.

    • I wouldnt be surprised if the parents get arrested because they left a gun and ammunition unattended in their house with children.

  2. Just A Citizen says:


    I have been waiting for others to respond to your most important questions, but nothing. So let me start.

    “So what is the correct amount of “freedom”?”

    100%, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM = Correct Amount.

    Freedom is the ability to act according to your will. In all of your examples, up until Govt is formed, you are able to exercise your will. Your claim of giving up freedom is therefore FALSE.

    Nobody is forcing you to marry or have children. Freedom does not eliminate the requirement that you have to make choices in life. You can be single or married. You can make those decisions for whatever reason you want. But you can’t escape the decision when choices lead you down differing paths.

    So once married, nobody is stopping you from leaving except YOU.

    It is YOU who decides that working with others to accomplish some needed goal is beneficial to YOU. Nobody is forcing you to cooperate. It is your will alone that dictates what you do.

    Freedom is a concept relating to other human interactions. Not those of nature. Thus your freedom is not imposed upon or restricted by Nature. But Nature creates choices you must make to meet your personal life goals. Yet you are FREE to set those goals and to make the choices you feel necessary.

    Before we move on we must reach agreement on the fundamental concept. Otherwise we are arguing from different worlds.

    • Interesting. I think that the thing becomes a trade off. When I join with a larger group, or any group for that matter, I join voluntarily. Either rules exist for that group or, if you are in at the inception, rules tend to come along by mutual agreement and aimed at (hopefully) benefiting the group. If I stay, I agree to abide by the rules, if I leave, I exercise my freedom. Problem arises where I am forced to join a group and forced to stay and forced to abide by rules that are at best arbitrary and capricious.

      Since I have always had an interest in Gun Control, I find that the rules pertaining to it in one community are instructive on the loss of freedom. There was a time in NYC (before 1965) when long guns were unregulated. As a result of a particularly senseless crime, registration was mandated and an age restriction imposed. Later, a requirement was enacted requiring that long guns be encased in a certain manner. Still later, certain types of long guns were banned (semi-autos) with no provisions for exception. Confiscation was enacted for the banned types.

      Now where I believe rights and freedoms are being trampled goes beyond the laws themselves. I could leave and go to Westchester or Nassau counties (adjacent to NYC) and be free of these restrictions, but can I? Certain government jobs mandate that I live in the five boroughs. Exercising my freedom would then force me to give up my livelihood. If I am a homeowner I would have to sell my home to move regardless of market conditions. If I am of lower income and have a reasonably priced home or apartment, I would have to surrender my home and face possible homelessness (I know this is a stretch) to exercise my freedom. So here, we have a situation where you are being forced to give up your freedom and cannot reasonably escape from it.

      Obviously, a new resident is not in the same predicament. He or she is exercising their freedom to move into NYC knowing full well that to join that group their firearm rights are virtually non existent.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are mixing two distinct, and opposing, concepts of freedom in the same example.

        The freedom “from” and the freedom “to”.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky,
        I’m trying to keep the examples of freedom vs security rather generic to avoid getting into arguments over details.

        To address your examples – were you around as this laws were being implemented? You could have fought against them, or decided to move when you saw the direction the community was taking.

        As far as your job – I believe you chose to work at your current employer, right? And that job has certain requirements (live in NYC). I believe you are free to quit… ***

        My job has certain requirements (they have the audacity to expect me to be here for (close to) 40 hours a week!!). If I don’t like it, I can quit… ***

        It seems you are also choosing to stop at the relatively small “community” level?

        *** I’m kinda “channeling” someone else here!! 🙂

        • Todd,

          Did fight them at the time but was overtaken by incrementalism. Never thought that those dummies could be that dumb. An oversight on my part I admit. I was still a callow youth and had never heard that thing about the camel’s nose under the tent yet. This whole process was a big push to me over to where I am today. I only use the firearm example because it is something I am interested and knowledgeable about. Education, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, drug policy, energy et al. are all other specific topics which have become overly regulated and have resulted in a loss of freedom through reduced options .

          Actually, in my particular case, the live in NYC thing was very interesting. Upon employment in 1969, there was no such condition. In ’77 moved across the river to NJ to an affordable house having had baby # 1 and being on one income. Six months later, NYC retroactively adopts a residency requirement. So, the rules were changed while the game was in play. Ultimately got a waiver with the understanding that my advancement chances would be severely limited (they were) by remaining on the other side of the river.

          Now, I’m not making the point that I could not quit but I am making the point that in effect, I would be forced/ coerced into quitting by the new firearm regulations. Regardless if you are talking about township, county, state or federal government, unfortunately you are at the whim of some very unknowledgeable people who do not see the encroaching limitations on freedom they foster on you as being either anything other than minor or as being absolutely necessary for the security of the majority.

          As the population grows and the number of legislators remain the same, we are getting farther and farther away from the concept of any truly representative government.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Please remember that freedom does not imply a “lack of rules” Anarchy (by the correct definition” means “no rulers”. It does NOT mean “no rules”. I can expand on that if necessary, but we have beaten it to death already.

        You see, Todd’s problem is he believes that any time you agree to abide by a RULE, you have GIVEN UP SOME OF YOUR FREEDOM.

        That is NOT THE CASE.

        Any time you are FORCED to abide by a rule, whether you agree to it or not, THEN you have had some of your freedom TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU.

        BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE THERE, and a crucial one at that!

    • JAC,
      I think we agree. Each step I listed is a choice “you” make. But each choice leads to changes in freedom and security, and each choice has consequences further down the road.

      So once married, nobody is stopping you from leaving except YOU.

      Right. But that decision has consequences: One less person you have to worry about, but one less person to “watch your back”.

      If “100%, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM = Correct Amount”, then you are pretty much choosing to stop at the relatively small “community” level. Anything beyond that and you lose control of decisions, and therefore some of your freedom.

      • Todd;

        That is simply not the case provided you operate within the laws of individual freedom and liberty, and that those rights are paramount. Acts or laws enacted as controling or in favor of the ‘common good’ do in fact reduce individual liberty and freedom, but those type of acts or laws are not ones ‘Free men and women’ allow in a true free environment.


        • Acts or laws enacted as controling or in favor of the ‘common good’ do in fact reduce individual liberty and freedom, but those type of acts or laws are not ones ‘Free men and women’ allow in a true free environment.

          Which is one reason that particular Utopia doesn’t work (nor has it ever worked–not even for Adam and Eve (or Steve). Absolute freedom leads to absolute chaos. It’s a nice buzz word (“liberty” is) to hide behind, but it’s also a fantasy (more so than socialism or communism). I’m not too interested in what “free men and women” allow in their fantasy environment (since it is absurd to assume it can happen). I’m more concerned with people co-existing in a manner that is beneficial for the greater good; that which is real and attainable. We’re not going to do away with government. Our current state of affairs turns this country into a third word country daily (as more and more of the middle class join the ranks of poverty).

          You can cry liberty all you want but it is the ultimate strawman in any argument regarding big vs. small government (for the simple fact that a “true free environment” exists on Pluto, not mother earth.

          Now, after all the spoils have gone to the victors over time (the raping of cultures, etc.), liberty is the war cry? Funny stuff.

          Did you miss me?

          My foghorn?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Charlie… Absolute Freedom leads to Absolute Chaos?

            Really? Either you jest, or you don’t understand what freedom is whatsoever….

            Enlighten me….

            For example, if you are absolutely free, and your neighbor is absolutely free, are you free to murder your neighbor?

            Let’s start there….

        • commonman55,
          now it’s your turn to provide one example of any society, in the history of man, that fits your definition of liberty and freedom.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        We do not completely agree if you can still make this statement:

        “But each choice leads to changes in freedom and security,”

        Choices do not change your freedom. That is, at least not the fundamental concept we are dealing with here.


        • It’s the lack of choice (due to lack of opportunity) that sure makes one man’s freedom and lot more powerful than another. All your facts (with all your objective reasoning) is based on assumptions that hold as much water as a tissue.

        • Splitting hairs on definitions JAC?

          Whatever – move along!!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Not splitting anything.

            I am pointing out that your last statement does not match up with the definition I presented which you then say we agree on.

            So if your statement is inconsistent that means we either do not agree or there is some miscommunication.

            Do you want to have this discussion or don’t you?

            • So are you saying choices don’t affect freedom?

              You either have it, or you don’t?

              That means we all have “freedom,” because we have chosen to live where we live, under the laws and oppression of that society.

              Guess there’s nothing to talk about?

              And nothing to complain about, right?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


                Choices, provided you are not forced or coerced into making those choices, DO NOT AFFECT FREEDOM, they merely have consequences. If you do not wish to ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES, then you are free to NOT MAKE THE CHOICE.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Stop confusing the consequences of FREE CHOICE with A LACK OF FREEDOM.

        All choices have CONSEQUENCES. You are free to make the choice, and if you are sane, you realize that the choice naturally has consequences.

        You FREELY make the choice, and FREELY accept the consequences.

        It is only when you are FORCED to make a choice and FORCED to accept consequences that your freedom is taken away.

  3. 🙂

  4. Something for all you Ayn Randers to contemplate (though I doubt you can or would try):

    People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind. — William Butler Yeats

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yeats had a life-long interest in mysticism, spiritualism, occultism and astrology. He read extensively on the subjects throughout his life, became a member of the paranormal research organisation “The Ghost Club” (in 1911) and was especially influenced by the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.[23] As early as 1892, he wrote: “If I had not made magic my constant study I could not have written a single word of my Blake book, nor would The Countess Kathleen ever have come to exist. The mystical life is the centre of all that I do and all that I think and all that I write.”[24] His mystical interests—also inspired by a study of Hinduism, under the Theosophist Mohini Chatterjee, and the occult—formed much of the basis of his late poetry. However, some critics have dismissed these influences as lacking in intellectual credibility.

      In particular, W. H. Auden criticised this aspect of Yeats’ work as the “deplorable spectacle of a grown man occupied with the mumbo-jumbo of magic and the nonsense of India.”[25]

      • Mysticism, a God … explain to me the difference JAC … the Declaration mentions a God and a Creator … does the mumbo-jumbo apply there?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Yeats also spent the majority of his adult life hopped up on heroin. His rationality is a bit suspect as a result 🙂

  5. Charlie:

    Down here cause I can’t reply under you. Something going on with WordPress today.

    I do not under any circumstance condone or applaud what the then US Government did with and to the Native Americans. But I will use them as an example of a free and individual example. Yes there were wars and battles between tribes, but they were really minimal with a few exceptions. As a good example the Iroquois people lived in hamorny and freedom for decades. Their laws and individual rights even recognized the importance of the women. As a matter of fact women of the Iroquois held positions of influence, owned land and possessions and even in a divorce the children were maintained within the women’s family.

    As a matter of fact in 1988 the US congress passed a resolution recognizing the Iroquois League bi-laws as having a significant influence on the development of both the Constituion and the Bill of Rights.

    So, you wanted an example of a utopian nation, there you have one. One that practiced individual responsibility, and individual freedom and liberty.


    • CM, I think you’re ignoring the obvious …

      So, you wanted an example of a utopian nation, there you have one. One that practiced individual responsibility, and individual freedom and liberty.

      They were indian NATIONS … at the least, as you stated, TRIBES. That is a form of government (accept it or not). So the Utopian you imply (especially with the Iroquois league bi-laws influencing the constitution and bill of rights, suggests government works better than absolute freedom without government.

      • Charlie;

        POssibly you could provide us with an example of a truely free society, and then we could compare ideals.

        Additonally, There were tribes or clans, but the Iroquois was a consolidation of tribes into a league of nations, as NY was, from their perspective, a nation. Every tribe had laws and each individual had responsibility, however each member of the tribe was free to come and go as he/she pleased. There are many examples of this in a great many of the tribes, no one was obligated to stay. There were elders that provided direction and guidence, an honor bestowed through respect; much like the respect we show our fathers and grandfathers. The members looked to the elders for leadership and problem resolution, but at the same time everyone had an equal say; as all were part of the people.

        I will also add that our current government is no longer one that operates as a constitutional one, it is for all practical purposes is now a preverted form of Socialsm. That however is the clue in all of this, and a detriment to how most view Capitalism, because the majority of those still walking around have not seen Capitalisum function as it is suppose to.

        People/society does need some form of guidance, but Universal Law is sufficent for a peacefull people. Government (any form) is and always has been a cancer, because it is ruled by evil and evil is predicated by people.


        • Charlie;

          I want to make a slight change. In the statement above I mentioned that the Iroquois was a combinaton of tribes and as a result considered NY a nation. That was worded wrong. NY, or the land as now know it was the land the Iroquois populated, but they did not consider NY a nation, they considered the people of the League a nation; the land where they chose to live was not relevant to the declaration as the people made up the nation.


        • CM,

          I will also add that our current government is no longer one that operates as a constitutional one, it is for all practical purposes is now a preverted form of Socialsm.

          You’re mixing up governments and economies again…

          Government (any form) is and always has been a cancer, because it is ruled by evil and evil is predicated by people.

          You’re saying government is evil because of the people?

          If you take away government, you still have the people, which are the root of the evil?

          Government isn’t the problem, people are the problem?

          So government would be fine, if we just got rid of all the people?

  6. Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

    “Previous ocean models … have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,” says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years’ worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica – the first ever to be taken.

    According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:

    It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

    The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted …

  7. I’m gonna throw out a word here-Ordered Liberty-anyone know anything about this idea-that our founding was based on Ordered Liberty?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      After a bit of reading, it seems to me that it is more liberal bullshit to brainwash people into believing in the “greater good” concept that has proven to be unattainable without the deaths of millions, so that those left, the “greater good’, could prosper.

  8. gmanfortruth says:


  9. It starts….

    Stockton, Calif., is set to declare bankruptcy as early as this week, according to local officials, a move that would make it one of the largest U.S. cities ever to file for reorganization.

  10. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Charlie says: “Please show US where and when a truly free environment existed? Further, where it has benefited anyone other than those it enriched?”

    Charlie, while this country after 1776 was never 100% free, it allowed the “5000 year leap” for mankind. (Tnx Jac!) Please read it! It gives me tingles up and down my leg! 🙂

    Who has it benefited???? Are you truly serious???
    You are NOT an ignoramus, so why do you pretend to be one?
    If you believe envy is a sin, then you might have a Big problem.
    And while I am at it, what is with the Indian/slavery arguments attached to half your posts?
    Later, I will check back tomorrow. Maybe I qualify for a blowhorn? 🙂

    • Puritan, no, you’re not a blowhard … moron is closer to the right word but I am doing my bestist to be civil. The 5000 year leap is a figment of your imagination (I suspect). I won’t waste my time reading anything you suggest (I suspect).

      I can only assume that your 5000 year leap ignores the Indian/slave arguments the same way you do (many of you here do). And then launch “Liberty” as the mantra … interesting … in a very insane sort of way.

      So, with all due respect Puritan (and I mean that). Moron is the word for you.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie, While you whale away at your Indian/slave arguments, you espouse Communism, which is equally evil and led to the deaths of tens on millions of innocent people (just like the indians and slaves). Yet you do not see the moronic tone you take with people who disagree with you. I have not heard one person wish for the days of slavery or going back in time to redo the indian wars, yet you choose to bring back Communism, whose history is far closer than what you use to whine about.

        While I do like you, you ideals have lost credibility. You can’t piss and moan about one atrocity and then aspouse another, it is foolish and moronic. Maybe you should try fighting for peace, as in no wars or violence against others. 🙂


        • Oh, G-man, please use caffeine in future cups of coffee. I’d explain myself AGAIN to you, but it doesn’t seem to penetrate, my man.

        • Charlie is being so obsessed with his closed mind, that he fails to see that his very beliefs in government invariably lead to our modern era of slavery; in which the ruling elitist class we “choose” to represent our interests have somehow become all the more ENRICHED.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        So you actually “choose” to behave as an ignoramus. What does that make you?
        Charlie, the 5000 year leap refers to the fact mankind lived for 1000s of years making little progress. Once an EDUCATED group of men (our revolutionary founders) came together and wrote the declaration/constitution, the world began the 5000 year leap to the moon in just 200 years. All this because man had a chance to produce, create wealth, and innovate, without anyone’s thumb on their neck.
        The indian/slave injustices did not make all this happen. Freedom made it happen.
        Today the whole world’s economies are on the verge of collapse because this freedom is no longer to be found, having been replaced by various control freaks such as yourself.
        Honestly Charlie, as much as we all love you, you have to be the densest/most stubborn individual in self distruct mode I have ever witnessed.

        • Kristian says:

          I’ve been thinking about this and I’d be willing to bet that Charlie isn’t as obtuse and he would have us believe. I think he’s just saying all of this outrageous stuff to see if he can get a rise out of you guys. I find it very hard to believe that someone as accomplished as Charlie is actually believes the drivel that he spouts. I could be wrong, I hope I’m not wrong. Charlie, please tell me I’m not wrong and you don’t really believe all that communism nonsense!!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie benefits from freedom every day, but he is apparently too moronic (to use his own “polite” word) to realize it. For example, he writes books. He probably NEGOTIATES THE TERMS of his book deal with a publisher in order that he can PROFIT FROM HIS OWN WORK. I doubt VERY seriously that Charlie would agree to a contract that stated that EVERY WRITER, regardless of the quality and popularity of their books, was only entitled to the SAME EXACT CONTRACT and further, could make no more or no less than the AVERAGE WORKER, and yet, that is what he TELLS US that he believes….

      I am relatively certain that Charlie FREELY CHOOSES to do things on a daily basis which are designed to BETTER HIS OWN POSITION and have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his “ideals” of the “greater good”.

      You see, like anyone else, I strongly suspect that his ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST comes first, and other concerns are further down the list.

      • Kristian says:

        You are more than likely 100% correct. I know that my self interest is what motivates me on a daily basis and is why I choose to do the things that I do, such as go to work. I am not a slave to my wages but as I don’t choose to live on the government teat, I have to support myself somehow. It’s a stroke of luck that I love my job. That makes it easier to come in every day.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Yeeeeeeeee Hawwwwwwwwwwwww


    Whew, what a finish.

  12. JAC,
    I find this statement interesting:

    So once married, nobody is stopping you from leaving except YOU.

    You make a commitment to someone, and you feel you can just change your mind and leave?

    Does this apply to kids as well? If you get sick of them, can you just leave?

    What about personal responsibility for your actions? Does that have a place in your fundamental concept of freedom?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Responsibility is a duty you take on with a choice you make.

      If you choose to abandon that responsibility then you will pay the consequences.

      But responsibility freely taken or freely abandoned does not change the fact you are FREE to exercise YOUR free will.

      You are touching on the next level of human concepts that relate to the ethics needed to protect freedom. So your abdicating your responsibility could impact the lives of others. If doing so causes retaliations it could jeopardize your freedom. Thus initiating violence against innocent people is not a product of freedom but the agent of its destruction.

      As I said earlier today, we have to make choices. How we make those choices, whether by some rational thought process or simply by whim, will dictate our success and could determine whether we get to live or perish.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Let me add another thought before you respond.

      Many people create in their own mind the belief that they are “forced” into something or that they “have no choice” in a matter. This if often called a loss of freedom.

      The spouse who thinks she is not free to leave a cheating husband.

      The employee who thinks they have not choice about quitting because the need the retirement.

      In all these cases FREEDOM, as the core principle, is not lost at all. It is the person’s will and ability to think rationally and then willingness to accept their choices that is lost.

      But in each case they are FREE to choose another course of action, as long as someone else is not forcing them to act according to the other persons will.

      So in the case of the cheating spouse, some argue that mental abuse and intimidation is a form of force and can impose on the other’s ability to make a free choice. But if it is simply a matter of not wanting to take a chance then that is not a loss of free choice, just a bad choice.

      • JAC,
        So, for everyone on this blog, FREEDOM, as the core principle, is not lost at all. They are FREE to choose another course of action, and go live somewhere else, if they feel the Obama REGIME is infringing on their ‘freedom’.

        It is simply a matter of not wanting to take a chance, so it is not a loss of free choice, just a bad choice.

        Like I said just a few minutes ago:

        Guess there’s nothing to talk about?

        And nothing to complain about, right?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          No. You are confusing the ability to make a choice with whether that choice is made per your free will or not.

          It is not the ability to make a choice that is freedom. It is LIVING.

          It is living according to ones will WITHOUT suffering the coercive force of others.

          Or more simply, living according you YOUR will and NOT according to the will of others.

          So now restate your argument. Are others here free to leave to a place where they are not forced to live according to the will of others?

          They can choose to move to another place. But they are not FREE here nor will they be in any other place.

          I also see another thing you have done here that may confuse the issue.

          One can be free to make a particular choice, such as leave here or a spouse or whatever, but NOT be FREE.

          FREEDOM is not a condition of a “single” choice but to ALL CHOICES for a LIFETIME according to YOUR desires.

          It is the ability to LIVE your LIFE according your own will.

          I understand the word is used in many contexts. That is why I stated up front the definition I use which is close to the one supposedly used in constructing this country.

          At this point I am limiting my comments to the Root or Fundamental of FREEDOM as a state or condition of existence. Not, for example, a particular “freedom” such as speech or the ability to decide to leave the country, or cross the street where ever I choose. We obviously can lose individual freedoms. If we do then you do not have FREEDOM, itself.

          To answer your question above. If you choose to submit to NOT FREEDOM then you will no longer be Free. Because you will no longer have the option to LIVE according to your will. You will live according to the will of others. Even if that is “partial” it is still not Freedom. You know, that old adage about a drop of sewage in a glass of clean water 🙂 .

          So now you must explain how you view this thing FREEDOM. Do you limit it to specific decisions or actions? Or do you recognize the broader and more fundamental principle?

      • But in each case they are FREE to choose another course of action, as long as someone else is not forcing them to act according to the other persons will.

        Todd, this is the black & white theory of life JAC accepts as fact. It is absurd, of course. Choice is always affected by the gray areas (mitigating circumstances). Yes, a man earning $35K in a mail room and supported his family is FREE to quit when he feels abused … he’s free to starve his family. Thus, his freedom is obliterated (assuming he’s a decent person). The concept (freedom) remains, but it is completely skewed by the FACTS of life. And this is why I ignore the strawman “liberty” argument. It is a false choice.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The fundamental concept of FREEDOM is that circumstances do not affect it.

          ONLY other people can affect it. It is the FORCE of OTHER PEOPLE that reduces Freedom, not your situation in this world.

          This is the definition not some abstract constructed by me.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Charlie, you fall prey to your own fallacy that the guy making 35K isn’t FREE to go out and find himself a better job, (which he patently obviously IS), so find an argument that actually makes sense, and then we can go from there.

          • My fallacy? You guys kill me.

            The fallacy, my oblivious buddy, is that the guy making 35K does have the “freedom” to up and find a better job ipso facto. It is as absurd as people throughout the country dropping everything and flocking to North Dakota for a $25.00 an hour burger flipping job. There are mitigating circumstances which turn your freedom on its head. I’ll repeat (for the sake of beating my head against the wall) that the world is not black and white; the concept is there, not the fact/reality.

            Then again, all men are created equal on paper was a pretty good fallacy as well. By your standards, all slaves were free. They didn’t have to be slaves, even under threat of violence, they could’ve chosen to fight for their freedom and gotten their heads blown off.

            Your liberty arguments couldn’t be more false.

            In fact, if you are claiming liberty is the determining fact, then at least be fulltime sycophants and join BF’s army of self serving anarchists. No government should be your cry; never accepting an iota of it (which would lead to absolute chaos and like the “truly free market” would last about 5 minutes) …

            Rational thinking, huh? In your dreams.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Charlie, please give mankind more credit. You make it seem we are all victims. As if we can’t have what we want right here and now, then life is hopeless. Ever hear of pulling up your own bootstraps? The guy making 35,000 is free. It does not mean he can expect to get whatever he wants immidiately. Freedom consists of effort and responsibility to oneself. (“The freedom to PURSUE happiness”).
              The slavery/freedom contradiction was/is obvious and has been corrected with the blood of many including my very own ancestors. Slavery was/is a long standing error/injustice. Please give credit to our nation for having ending it here. I doubt there was ever a nation on earth without ghosts in the closet. To deny this country it’s monumental achievements because of slavery/indians makes no sense at all. Without this country coming to existence, Charlie/all of us might be wallowing in the dirt.
              As for me, I am a Statist! But only in so far as government defending our freedom and private property, ……… “VDLG”. (Oh! and the traditional definition of marriage!, 😉 )

              • You’ve got it mostly wrong, but I don’t have to time (or energy) today to lay it out (AGAIN). But if you’re a statist, then you can’t be for freedom (according ot the false liberty argument). If it’s black and white, my friend, then it’s black and white … and if it isn’t (which is correct), then you’re proof there is a gray area between the two extremes. I, by the way, am not on the polar extreme … but it serves the extreme opposite end of the spectrum well to ignore that (the same as it ignores the gray area).

              • Puritan,

                I agree with this:

                To deny this country it’s monumental achievements because of slavery/indians makes no sense at all. Without this country coming to existence, Charlie/all of us might be wallowing in the dirt.

                But then in your next sentence you want to stop all of the “monumental achievements” of the future:

                But only in so far as government defending our freedom and private property

                And I guess this “freedom” doesn’t apply to everyone, because you want to use the government to oppress those you disagree with:

                (Oh! and the traditional definition of marriage!, 😉 )

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Todd, I don’t get your meaning here > “But then in your next sentence you want to stop all of the “monumental achievements” of the future:”

                I simply want a government which defends our freedoms/private property rather than attacking our freedoms/private property, thus allowing more monumental achievements in the future. As far as gay marriage, I can certainly understand where I appear to be hypocritical. However, I find the traditional definition of marriage part of the foundation of civilization and thus far to important to having it redefined. (civil unions fine by me). Yes it would be a gray area for me. With that I would agree with Charlie.
                I hope this helps clear up any confusion as to my statements.

                BTW, I thought your original post on liberty/government…. was a good thought provoking post.

              • Puritan,
                Many of the “monumental achievements” in this country had at least some government involvement. The past 100 years, which many here have claimed to be a “march to socialism,” have been the most productive in the history of mankind, and many of the advancements are based on government/military/NASA research and development, that the private sector then turned into products, like the internet and GPS.

                This is the heart of my original post – if the 13 colonies had become separate nations, we’d now be 50 separate nations (maybe, maybe not, but you get the idea, I hope). 50 separate states would hinder interstate (inter-nation) commerce (would the railroads and interstate hwy system have been built without federal help?) and there wouldn’t have been the economy of scale of the federal government to fund R&D.

                If all the government did was “defend our freedom and private property,” many of the “monumental achievements” in this country would not have occurred.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Todd, we will never know for sure. How much wealth/capital was wasted transfering it to government/military/NASA? What might have been accomplished if not for this transfer of wealth from free hands…….. What don’t we have today because of this transfer of wealth…. I think we are in a gray area. 🙂

                The freedom to produce, create wealth and innovate, is what brings about enough wealth in the first place, allowing for socialism. Once socialism expands to far along with excess freedom killing regulations, the wealth drys up.

                Fans of big government need to be aware of where wealth really comes from. It doesn’t come from government, money presses, fractional reserve lending, or massive debts. It comes from free men. More and more government and socialism is not a good thing. If NASA is a ‘good thing’ it does not mean more and more government/socialism is good thing too. We need to know when to stop. I think having 16 trillion in debt is a clue.

                One last thing. Free men can cooperate too, especially when it is in their own self interest. Free men all working seperately yet together in community, all for themselves yet in the common good, without stealing from one another.

                I could babble on forever here, but good post Todd.

              • Puritan,
                Look around the world – what do all of the non-third-world countries have in common? Strong governments and social institutions. Without them, you have chaos and constant fighting/battles/wars.

                What do all the third-world countries have in common? No strong governments and social institution.

                How much wealth/capital was wasted transfering it to government/military/NASA? What might have been accomplished if not for this transfer of wealth from free hands…….. What don’t we have today because of this transfer of wealth….

                I don’t know. If you want to make your point, you’ll have to answer these questions.

                And actually, it is fractional reserve lending that drives our economy and makes capitalism possible.

                More and more government and socialism is not a good thing.

                I actually agree. The right balance is a good thing.

    • “So once married, nobody is stopping you from leaving except YOU.

      You make a commitment to someone, and you feel you can just change your mind and leave? Does this apply to kids as well? If you get sick of them, can you just leave?”

      Funny thing, i know of this liberal guy that likes that ideal so well, he wrote a song about it!

    • Charlie/Todd;

      Do either of you rerally understand the concept of “individual freedom and individual choice?”

      Because of compatibility, friendship, love and desire you chose to enter into a mutually agreed arrangement with an another individual. This can be done in a formal way (marriage license, wedding) or a legal document filed in a local court. Of course you can also just chose to live together and make a covenant. Since the two of you want this it is an individual choice, and depending upon the expectations you both set and agree too you are still exercising individual free choice. It is your choice to involve the government.

      Should one of both of you decide to stop the arrangement that too is an individual choice. Depending upon the conditions you both initially agreed too determines the conditions of the breakup. Had you initially decided to follow the laws pertaining to marriage in the particular state you started this arrangement, you are then obligated to follow the conditions outlined by same state. All the above was your choice and initially accepted and entered into freely.

      Freedom and individual liberty comes with commitments when others are involved and does not require government involvement, unless of course those involved in making the commitment ‘chose’ to involve the government.

      When my wife and I decided to get married some 31 glorious years ago she wanted a church wedding. That involved getting a marriage license from the State of Indiana and securing the services of a preacher and church. By agreeing to this we are now bound by the laws of marriage outlined by the state of Indiana and the church the wedding took place in. We could have decided to just commit to each other and not involve either a particular church or the State, but we chose to do so for the benefit of the family. The conditions set by the state and the church met nothing to me at the time, my commitment, my covenant was to my wife; and it is that covenant that has enabled us to stay together. It is an individual choice and not one subject to government or religious rules.

      Freedom and individual righteousness does not allow for one to be indignant of others individual rights and feeedoms.


  13. Gooood moooorrrning, Canoli Meister (aka Charlie)….I was going to stay out of this one but you have piqued an interest in choice and Gray areas….so, with your permission, I would like to get you to define a little more….BUT….before you do so, please allow me the time to pose the questions to you….inquiring minds, you know……

    BTW……it finally got to living weather here…..100+ degrees. I sure was beginning to worry that we would not have any….but they have arrived. Be back to you in a little bit.

  14. Ok Charlie…..what a day this is….I am going to change my mind on what a great country this is and say,,,,,WOW!!! WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THIS IS !!!! About 6 months ago, I mentioned that I was going to apply for the SNAP program. No one said anything so, I applied……It has taken about 6 months but here it is.

    D13 applied for the SNAP program. On the application forms in Texas, I listed my address, full name, ssn, age, place of birth…etc. Then on the line that was asking for income, I reported my income….which is in six figures BEFORE the decimal point. I also listed that I was working in a full time position. In other words, I told the truth because I did not want to be accused of scamming the system ( the rules say everyone is eligible). So, can you believe what happened….I have now received my food stamps …… (aka. EBT)….with…..get ready for this…$200 per week on it. So, I got to thinking how easy that was and found out that since we also have a permanent residence in Oklahoma (being a property owner and paying taxes in Oklahoma), I could apply there as well. So, with an adjusted income of mid six figures, I was approved for the government assistance program and can do it again because of addresses in other States. According to the SNAP program in Oklahoma, I will qualify for as much as $250 per week. So, I will apply there as well and see what happens. Just so you know, I told the officials in Oklahoma that I had already qualified in Texas and they said…no problem if you have a legal residence in Oklahoma. SIGH !!!!

    My next step, listing my current address, is to apply for government housing. I will do that this week. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THIS IS?

    (Caveat: I will not use these, of course….I hope to make news with it and the how easy it is to scam the system….WITHOUT lying……wonder how much scamming is on…WITH LYING?)

    • Oh, sorry, I was remiss………A big hearty thanks to all the taxpayers out there ( me included of course) for your assistance in my hard times. (sarcasm intended).

      • Your welcome

        • LOL…isn’t that something? I called the local news and they were not interested in how I qualified for SNAP…..not yet….but they were interested if I got it from Oklahoma as well and then qualified for housing….we shall see..

          • Be careful Colonel or you will become a candidate for reeducation. I here those camps don’t get food stamps.

          • I heard a call yesterday to bring back physical food stamp. The purpose being to reintroduce the embarrassment factor when using them.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    FREEDOM continued

    I know I have raised this before but do so again here to reveal the source of the disagreement with Charlie and to some extent where I think Todd is leaning with his arguments.

    It is the difference between Negative and Positive Freedom or Liberty. From Wiki, the following is a summary about Positive Freedom.

    “Positive liberty is defined as having the power and resources to fulfill one’s own potential (this may include freedom from internal constraints);[1] as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint.[2] Specifically, the concepts of structure and agency are central to the concept of positive liberty because in order to be free, a person should be free from inhibitions of the social structure in carrying out their free will. Structurally speaking classism, sexism, and racism can inhibit a person’s freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency. Positive liberty is enhanced by the ability of citizens to participate in their government and have their voice, interests and concerns recognized as valid and acted upon.

    Although Isaiah Berlin’s essay “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958) is typically acknowledged as the first to explicitly draw the distinction between positive and negative liberty, Frankfurt School psychoanalyst and Marxist humanistic philosopher Erich Fromm drew a similar distinction between negative and positive freedom in The Fear of Freedom (1941), predating Berlin’s essay by more than a decade. In fact, the concept as opposed to the name is probably as old as that of negative liberty, both referred to simply as “liberty” or “freedom”.


    The word liberty can refer to many things, but Isaiah Berlin recognized two main types of liberty. Berlin described a statement such as “I am slave to no man” as one of Negative Liberty, that is, freedom from another individual’s direct interference. He contrasted this with a Positive Freedom statement such as “I am my own master”, which lays claim to a freedom to choose one’s own pursuits in life.[1]

    Charles Taylor’s clarification may be even more useful. Taylor explains that Negative Freedom is an “opportunity-concept”: one possesses Negative Freedom if one is not enslaved by external forces, and has equal access to a society’s resources (regardless of how one decides to spend their time). Positive Freedom, says Taylor, is an “exercise-concept”: possessing it might mean that one is not internally constrained; one must be able to act according to their highest self – according to reason.[1] Suppose a rich and powerful actor is also a drug addict. This actor may possess a great deal of Negative Liberty, but very little Positive Liberty according to Taylor. Recall that, by Taylor’s definitions, Positive Freedom entails being in a mature state of decision making, free of internal restraints (e.g. weakness, fear, ignorance, etc.).[1]”

    The summary per Occam: Negative freedom is the freedom to. Positive freedom is the freedom from.

  16. Just A Citizen says:


    I almost forgot to address your question. But first, please tell me what your source was for “Ordered Liberty”.

    I am betting it was NOT a “liberal” publication as gman concluded.

    • Hmmm, I don’t remember where I first came across this concept-but it was definitely a Conservative publication. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is what I thought. I know Mark Levin has used the term and I happened to see it in a book I just finished: The American Spirit, Celebrating the Virtues and Values that Make Us Great; by Edwin Feulner and Brian Tracy.

        It appears that this is the conservative answer to the issue of “unconstrained” freedom or Liberty. They pose the theory that “order” is dependent on “laws” or chaos will ensue. Thus the justification for Govt with a strong, but limited, hand.

        Or in my terms, a pact with the devil. 🙂

        • 🙂 Well, from what I’ve read- part of the reasoning they use to say we were founded under this concept is:

          That the founders were against anarchy and tyranny-that they believed and wrote a Constitution which stressed – justice, order, and freedom- based on a societies values.

          This does seem to be our basic structure-democratic vote, court system, military, police. And the State definitely has the ability to take away freedoms-most of the arguments even on the libertarian side seems to be based more on the Federal government usurping the power of the individual states. Not that the states don’t have the right to vote or pass laws based on values.

  17. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I have heard “liberals” occasionally claim “Jesus was a communist” because of his teachings. However, I have it on good authority that Jesus was an anarchist: for example, he said “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. He did NOT say, “Force people to behave the way you think they ought to behave”.

    There are plenty of other examples of this, so I am only going to provide that one… the rest of you can come up with more if you like 🙂

  18. Interesting, just lost an entire post it didn’t show up after I hit “Post comment”


    Trying again:

    It is interesting that one or both of you tout the idea that we need government to control how we as individuals and/or societies function, and a lack of government ensures caos. Why do we need a government to dictate how we function, and at the same time why can’t we maintain a society with just some basic rules and standards?


    From some of the posting here on SUFA if appears that you are living comfortably. If in fact that is the case are you not a slave to your employer? Or do you work for yourself? If that is the case and you have people working for you are you not then also a master? Regardless of your employment status wouldn’t you be better off without government restrictions? If so, how can you tout communisum or socialism which dictates how the people will function and allocates individual lifestyles based upon individual value to the overall? As an example: If you were a Master Carpenter and made the best dressers thoroughout the land and everyone was willing to pay $10K each and you could produce 20 a week, but the government wanted you to train others to ensure everyone could have dressers at a third of the price, would you consider that to be best for the common good?


    From what I have seen here on SUFA you are at least semi-religious. If in fact that is the case and you agree that men and women were given the ability to know right and wrong as well as the free will to chose accordingly, how can you tout government rule as required? Wouldn’t individuals conducting their lives according to the basic laws of the Creator act righteously without government intervention?

    My confusion with the two of you comes from the fact that you argue ‘no government = chaos, but at the same time a Capitalist (Free Market) goverment surpresses individual liberty.

    And in Charlie’s case a repressive government (Socialism/Communisum) promotes fairness and equality.

    And in Todd’s case whose morals and spiritual direction is dictated by a sense of righteousness endowed by the Creator, Todd promotes government rule to ensure a specific standard. The government cannot control a righteous man, but a righteous society can control a government.


    • CM,

      Why do we need a government to dictate how we function, and at the same time why can’t we maintain a society with just some basic rules and standards?

      I don’t know – why doesn’t that work?

      Todd; From what I have seen here on SUFA you are at least semi-religious.


      If in fact that is the case and you agree that men and women were given the ability to know right and wrong as well as the free will to chose accordingly, how can you tout government rule as required?

      Because not all use that ability and choose accordingly.

      Wouldn’t individuals conducting their lives according to the basic laws of the Creator act righteously without government intervention?

      I would think so – but I’ve seen many Christians who choose to oppress others.

      a Capitalist (Free Market) goverment surpresses individual liberty.

      Capitalist (Free Market) is not a type of Government. It’s a type of economy.

      I’ve never said that Capitalist (Free Market) suppresses individual liberty. It just doesn’t work out like everyone thinks it will…

    • Charlie;

      From some of the posting here on SUFA if appears that you are living comfortably. If in fact that is the case are you not a slave to your employer?

      Yes and yes; no work not only makes Jack a dull boy, it makes him hungry, etc.

      Or do you work for yourself? If that is the case and you have people working for you are you not then also a master?

      I earn off books but not enough to sustain my lifestyle (which isn’t all that expensive). When I was a criminal, boyo, I led the good life and my slaves were those who owed money (sound familiar)?

      Regardless of your employment status wouldn’t you be better off without government restrictions?

      Sure, of course … that is the nature of the beast (capitalism), as I proved by being a criminal (I ignored government restrictions and did what I wanted–absolute freedom), which is what most people (I believe–albeit to a lesser degree, perhaps) would do once profit is realized–try to enhance it).

      If so, how can you tout communisum or socialism which dictates how the people will function and allocates individual lifestyles based upon individual value to the overall?

      The communism/socialism you refer to is the propaganda jammed down our throats as kids growing up in America. Not all forms are that restrictive (but let’s not get into that debate). Also, I tout neither. MY position (stating this over and over) is we will have no choice but to go in a socialist direction because of the inherent inequity of capitalism (the closer we get to a third world status, and I think we’re there already, the sooner socialism will have to take hold here).

      As an example: If you were a Master Carpenter and made the best dressers thoroughout the land and everyone was willing to pay $10K each and you could produce 20 a week, but the government wanted you to train others to ensure everyone could have dressers at a third of the price, would you consider that to be best for the common good?

      Absolutely. So long as the majority could live with some measure of dignity, have the basic necessities of life (Health/education/shelter), I’d be okay with the above scenario. The problem with your example above is stating “everyone” was willing to pay $10K. They’d all have to be pretty rich and in a capitalism system, the rich get there off the poor (so you can drop that “everyone” assumption).

  19. Dear Mr. President……..with the new elections in Egypt going to the Muslim Brotherhood, sworn enemy of the United States, you now have the opportunity in an election year to make huge points with the public to help your re-election bid. There is 1.5 billion in aid that you can now direct elsewhere,,,,,,,,unless you wish to remain in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. I am certain, however, that you do not wish to fund our enemies…..right? Of course not as I have been assured by your supporters that you DO have the best interest of the country at heart (which I highly doubt but here is your chance to prove me wrong) … there is 1.5 billion that you could give to the unemployed or your favorite social program…at least it would be to Americans….so…..what do you say sir? I await with bated breath.

  20. OK JAC,
    This is why I said “move along” yesterday – let’s skip over the family stuff.

    You said the correct amount of freedom is:

    100%, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM = Correct Amount.

    That really means no government, right?

    Because even in its most limited form, government, even a local government, is going to impose on someone, right?

    The only way a government wouldn’t impose on someone is if EVERYONE agrees with EVERY decision. Maybe that will happen on a few “easy” issues, but not very many.

    You’ve been more in the “limited government” – VDLG – vs the “no government” – group.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I do not believe that Absolute Freedom requires NO GOVT.

      If we construct Govt in a way that does not use FORCE against people who are not imposing upon others then it will not affect freedom.

      For example, police that deal with thieves and murderers is not imposing on the innocent and can support freedom.

      But therein lies the challenge. History, to date, has shown that no matter how small Govt starts it will GROW and GROW and GROW.

      • JAC,

        If we construct Govt in a way that does not use FORCE against people who are not imposing upon others then it will not affect freedom.

        So how do you construct Govt in a way that does not use FORCE against people who are not imposing upon others?

      • For example, police that deal with thieves and murderers is not imposing on the innocent and can support freedom.

        Unless, of course, thieves and murderers are convicted falsley (which has happened way more times than this country will ever admit). Then you have FORCE against people, no?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      While I do not subscribe to this as an absolute answer it does lend to the discussion of options that would increase FREEDOM within a large nation. It fails to address certain laws of the universe regarding flow and hierarchy.

      “A modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the twelfth until well into the seventeenth century (with the emergence of the modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominantly feudal social structure. By choosing this model and striving to create a U.S. punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities–a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos, and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent–two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished.”

      –Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed

      • JAC,
        You think the Middle Ages are a good example?

        Peasants that owed rent and labor services to the nobles.
        The Crusades
        Famine and plagues
        Black Death

        Am I missing an “up-side” here?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I hope that response was just you having a little fun.

          Otherwise I am greatly disappointed.

          • JAC,
            I guess you’re going to be greatly disappointed, unless you can explain this to me?

  21. Note to Arizona: Do not get up tight about the SCOTUS ruling. It does not hurt you at all. Simply follow the Texas/New Mexico method of dealing with illegal entrants into your state. Read the ruling very carefully….all it says is that you cannot make your own state laws that circumvent Federal Law in matters dealing with immigration. The ruling does not stop you from anything else. You are still required to call ICE when you find an illegal immigrant. So, simply pick up the phone and call them and tell them you have some illegal immigrants for them. When they refuse to help..take them to the border yourself and turn them loose.

    Want to really piss them off….use their own rules against them. If you have 100 illegal immigrants, take them to the BORDER (not nearest) ICE processing station and make them log them in and give you a receipt for each one. (Their rules require that). Whether or not they decide to process them or let them go….is no longer your business. But the SCOTUS did NOT say you could not enforce Federal Law….it says that you cannot make your own laws in addition to theirs. If the Federal Government refuses by “selective enforcement” to not process illegal immigrants….ok. But that does not prevent you from due diligence to enforce laws already on the books.

    Oh… not pick a nice resort area to return them to ICE…..pick the most remote area where the nearest ICE processing station is to that remote area… our case it is Presidio, Texas….the border town is Ojinaga. It is very unique in that it is over 200 miles from the nearest big city other than Ojinaga itself. Just drop them off, get your receipt and leave them there. IF they walk…it is over 200 miles of snakes, scorpions, and private property that will be defended. Force the Federal Government to deal with them using their own rules. They hate that. This year, 2012, Texas has already delivered over 15,000 to the ICE processing there. Ojinaga hates it because there is nowhere else to go….except back across the border. It is very effective.

    • I might also add that there is a way to deal with the juveniles….We have found that most of the curfew violations in our cities are Hispanics….and most cannot prove citizenship or a legal residence when arrested. Instead of calling the parents or turn them loose….we call the Department of Public Safety who then processes and transports them to Presidio with all the other illegals that are found, make ICE take them and ICE cannot turn them loose as they are juveniles and call their relatives to come and get them and then incarcerate them in juvenile halls until the parents come and get them. Guess what…..curfew violations have fallen over 70%. Amazing how that works.

      • I forgot to mention that Presidio is over 400 miles from the Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston areas. A really long way for parents to have to go to pick up their illegal children….not to mention that the parents are illegal as well. It really works.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Curfew violations!? Curfew!? But…this is Texas, land of the free!!

        • Yep, but unfortunately, in our parks we have increased Latino gang presence,,,,but culturally there are other significant differences…and trying to mesh cultures is extremely difficult. The curfews run from midnight until 5 am…..However, one thing that I have noticed is that Hispanic families tend to stay up late…with their kids on the swings and slides and stuff and by late, I mean after 10 pm…..and by kids, I mean toddlers and such. The other cultural difference is very loud music in the middle of the night. And by loud, when you can hear it two blocks away..that is loud and it is in public park areas. One more cultural difference that I have noticed is that the parks are left trashed out when there are trash cans readily available….By this I mean,,,,,pinatas left hanging in trees and such and soiled diapers all over tables and ground. The other cultural difference is the amount of young people not accounted for and by this I mean, the number of juveniles on the streets are primarily Hispanic….Note…I said primarily not 100 percent. However, in the interest of equality, any non hispanic juvenile that tries to avoid having an address or phone number when asked by the Gendarmes, will find them selves being treated as an illegal immigrant. You only have to ship one to Presidio once…..and that problem gets solved the next time. So, unfortunately, for the Greater Good (you should like this)…curfews were introduced and when done so, the crime rate dropped significantly. It is a shame that the good have to suffer with the bad but that is the reality.

          • BTW, Sir Walla… are you? I do hope you and yours are doing well in the land of high taxes….

            • Buck the Wala says:

              I’m doing well Colonel, as is the Mrs – thanks for asking. Leaving Thursday for Charleston as a quick little getaway. Which reminds me…whatever happened to my little chartered flight!?

              Taxes may be a bit higher out my way, but no curfews to speak of!

              • Yeah…but everybody knows to stay out of your parks after 8 pm….I remember that in my one of two visits to New York, I really got chewed out by a policeman for walking in Central Park at midnight.

              • I’m sorry Colonel, I don’t mean to pry, but WHAT were you doing walking around Central Park at midnight?

                I am assuming this was a number of years ago, but even today I wouldn’t be taking a midnight stroll through the Park…

  22. A Stealth Coup d’État in the United States
    By Lawrence Sellin

    On November 19, 1863 during the Consecration of the National Cemetery following the July 1-3, 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln pondered whether the new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal could long endure.

    Contrary to Lincoln’s hope, the government of the people, by the people and for the people is now perishing from the earth.

    Military historian Edward Luttwak described a coup d’état as an infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.

    The U.S. government has been infiltrated by ambitious and greedy men and women whose allegiance is not to their country, but to themselves and their political party.

    The aims and conduct of the Democrat and Republican establishments have become antithetical to the principles upon which the nation was founded. Their aims are driven by political expediency and winning elections for the sole purpose of attaining and maintaining personal power and profit. Their conduct is based on remaining unconstrained by the Constitution and the rule of law and unaccountable to the American people.

    Elections are in no way about representative government, but instead are contests to determine who will possess the power to allocate favors and redistribute wealth from ordinary Americans to a small group of political supporters.

    Corrupt politicians, the front men and operational arm of networked financiers, siphon off the wealth created by hard-working Americans while preserving the illusion of democracy for the now disenfranchised voters. Faux journalists, who falsely proclaim themselves as tireless defenders of liberty, then distort the news in an effort to manipulate public opinion to further the goals of selected politicians and their wealthy benefactors.

    The real issue of the 2012 campaign is not Obama’s record or Romney’s business acumen. It is the endemic corruption in the federal government perpetrated by a permanent political class, financed by crony capitalism and facilitated by a fawning media.

    The United States is on the verge of collapse because without adherence to the Constitution and respect for the rule of law no economic or any other policy can succeed. As long as the corrupt status quo continues, it matters little who wins in November because, ultimately, the ordinary American loses.

  23. Eeek! I don’t even know what else to say about this:

  24. There are 3 parts to this interview-I found it entertaining and interesting -I loved part 3 at the end.

    • Sorry go here for the extended version—marco-rubio-extended-interview-pt–1

      You can get part Part 2 & 3 is on the right side of the page.

      • Watched all three. Stewart really is a big government partisan hack, isn’t he? I actually didn’t think he came across as very intelligent here. Government, government, government, more, more, more. We just need to do things “better”. Boy, where have we heard that before?

        Is Rubio a Natural Born Citizen?

        • For an interviewer, Stewart made the mistake of not being a listener. His bias did show through. As I understand it Rubio was born in the US to non-citizen parents who later became citizens. So if boils down to the definition of natural born.

          Years ago, I saw an interview with Barry Goldwater. I was too young when he ran for president so did I did not listen to him at that time. The interview was either after or near the end of his Senate career. He demonstrated a command of facts, a comprehensive understanding of government and a command of government philosophy. He was obviously well read. Rubio reminds me of that interview. He, Rubio, is articulate, cool headed (more so than I would have been with Jon), well grounded in the basic principles, and forthright about the problems we face. I like the fact that he consistently hammered on how poorly the Senate was functioning and that it was a leadership problem. I wish he had responded differently to the the constant accusation that the Republicans are the ones blocking progress. He should have countered with why do you assume the problem is us not them?

  25. @ Buck…re: Charter flight………There is a little issue out there called Debbie that has changed my plans somewhat.There are old pilots and there are bold pilots…….there are no old bold pilots. I do not mind flying in bad weather where visibility and rain showers are of concern…..but I do not fly into known icing conditions, regardless of he equipment I have, and I do not fly into tornadoes nor imbedded thunderstorms. I do hope that you understand There are two major items guaranteed to bring a plane down before its time…(1) bad weather and (2) lack of fuel and/or oil. I am an instrument rated pilot wint on board weather radar, but I am a safe pilot…..Debbie is a pissed off lady still and spawning all sorts of things in the unstable air……..I do hope you understand.

    • Oh….and if that makes me a chicken…then I have but one thing to say……………….cluck!!!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I knew you were an old retired colonel, but I always thought you were a brave old retired colonel. Who knew!?

        Caveat: I myself would not fly into Debbie so count me as a clucking chicken as well! Commercial air here I come!!

        Oh and by the way, my comment above seemed to have gotten lost as I tried to change my alias to “Buck” — what pray tell where you doing walking through Central Park at midnight!? I’m assuming this was a number of years back which makes matters even worse but even now, I wouldn’t be taking a midnight stroll through Central Park!

        • Funny…that is what the policeman was saying…..This was in 1985. It was across the street from the hotel…and I was not sleepy and I was taking a walk….The policeman I was talking to was on horseback and he scared the hell outta me by just appearing out of some trees…he did, however, give me a ride back. I was still young and full of the proverbial piss and vinegar…That was back when my Special Forces training made me bulletproof (in my mind)….When I talked to the Hotel Doorman, who had a surprised look on his face when we rode up……he just looked at me as if I were from Charlies home planet, shook his head and muttered “crazy Texan”……My next thing that I wanted to do was ride the subway around since I had never done that…..but I got the same reaction when I asked about riding in it unless I knew where I was going…….BTW…other than the local Gestapo, I did not see anybody else in the park,,,,,perhaps for good reason.

          As to bravery….well,there is a difference between bravery and stupid….Commercial Air has the speed and service ceiling that I do not have….but Debbie will be gone by then,,,,some nasty rain showers probably…We will be making the trip later….but I understand the damage that was done to North Florida was pretty extensive….

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Well the subway is perfectly fine now…certainly not back in ’85 though! You were saying something about bravery and stupidity?

            • Yeppers……I heard that it was pretty rough back then….but I was not sleepy…thought a little stroll through the demilitarized zones would be a nice nightcap………had to settle for I Love Lucy Reruns in he hotel room..

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    In a remarkable exchange that shows exactly why it pays to know your rights, a law student in Portland, Maine backed down a police officer who had stopped him for no reason other than he was carrying a gun.

    After clearly stating that he did not consent to any searches or seizures, the student asked the officer what crime he had been suspected of committing.

    The officer stated that he had received calls about a man carrying a gun.

    “That is not illegal. Can I have my gun back and be on my way?” the student notes during the incident while filming it on his phone.

    “In order to stop me you have to suspect me of a crime.” the man notes.

    As Maine is a traditional open carry state, it is perfectly legal and acceptable to carry a firearm openly.

    The officer, J McDonald, asks for ID, which the man declines to provide on the grounds that he has not been told he is suspected of any wrongdoing.

    The student then notes that being detained without suspicion of any criminal activity violates Delaware v Prouse, and that stopping someone over a legally carried firearm violates US v DeBerry.

    Seizure of the weapon with no reasonable suspicion is a violation of Terry v Ohio, and demanding ID without reasonable suspicion is a violation of Brown v Texas, the student also notes.

    In a hilarious moment, a female police officer, off camera, asks the man what he has under his shirt, to which he replies “suspenders to keep my pants up”.

    Eventually the officer concedes that the man is free to go and take his gun with him.

    Although in this instance the stop was handled calmly by the officer, his assertion that it was “routine” highlights how the Fourth amenment to the Constitution is under constant attack every day. Thankfully some Americans are still choosing to learn and defend their rights.

  27. Just A Citizen says:


    Good morning Colonel. Glad you are warm these days.

    Just wanted to take a moment and brag a little. Seems Montana has outdone the Republic of Texas on this one. 🙂

    “The researchers found Illinois to be the most Muslim state with around 2.8 percent of the population identifying as Muslim adherents. The researchers found Montana to be the least Muslim state with only 0.034 percent identifying as Muslim adherents.”

  28. Chickens Come Home To Roost: Largest Municipal Bankruptcy In US History Set To Be Filed Today

    Stockton, California…busted.

    The budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 calls for defaulting on $10.2 million in debt payments and cutting $11.2 million in employee pay and benefits under union contracts that could be voided by the bankruptcy court. The city of 292,000 may file its petition as soon as today.

    The city has cut services so much the last two years that “public safety is at a crisis level,” officials said in a June 5 fiscal report. Unemployment, at 15.4 percent in April, was almost double the national average according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

    Stockton ranked third in murders last year among large California cities, behind Los Angeles and Oakland, according to FBI data.

    The collapse of the housing market left Stockton to contend with mounting retiree health-care costs and eroding tax dollars in the wake of the recession, amid accounting errors that overstated municipal revenues. One in every 195 homes in Stockton’s metropolitan area received a foreclosure filing in May, the fifth-highest rate in the U.S., according to RealtyTrac Inc.

    If it’s any consolation to Stockton, they probably won’t be the biggest municipality to file for bankruptcy for long.

    I bet the bondholders, workers, retirees and residents wish they had gotten their own Chris Christie or Scott Walker a few years back. Lower pay and benefits > no pay and benefits.

    It is a hard fact of life-but the Federal can demand, the unions can demand-but in the end the States are forced to file bankruptcy and the people lose. So keep on with the fair BS-there is no fair-there is fiscal responsibility-all the rest is just a lie. That’s whats so bad about the liberal arguments-even if they are right sometimes about what is fair-it’s all just hopeful LIES which destroy people.

  29. “With assets of over $100 billion, the largest concentration of money available for political purposes ever amassed, and more than ten times the size of its conservative counterpart,” the authors report on how it has “spawned a secondary network of 501c3 policy think tanks and advocacy groups that number in the thousands, and that, in areas of critical social and political import, can deploy resources that exceed those of their conservative rivals by as much as a hundred to one.”

    This is the juggernaut against which conservatives must struggle. Supporting environmental, immigration, and other groups, this matrix of funding is a fifth column within America, working and spending to destroy it.

    As the national elections loom in November, the authors note that “J. Christian Adams, an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, has documented how millions of dollars from leftist foundations have established a permanent infrastructure of left-wing litigators and law firms designed to alter election outcomes through policy advocacy and strategic litigation.” And you wonder why Democrats oppose the “Voter ID” program and the Obama Justice Department has demanded that Florida stop culling its registration records to eliminate dead voters, felons, and ineligible voters.

    The role of public service unions, looting the treasuries of the states was seen in the virulent assaults in Wisconsin and, fortunately, the defeat of the recall election against a governor who stood up against them. The authors document how dependent on these unions the President was and is. It explains why Obama filled many cabinet posts with SEIU officials.

    In a similar fashion, it explains why billions have been wasted on “clean energy” companies at the same time a war on coal (and oil) has been conducted by the Obama administration. With the wealth our natural resources could create, America’s manufacturing base, if given the protection it needs, could create thousands of new jobs, and could resuscitate the economy if only given the opportunity.

    In so many ways the Left is waging a war on the entire nation to undermine its Constitution, its economy and its institutions. “The New Leviathan” documents who is funding this war and why America has a Marxist in the Oval Office.

    The vote remains the last recourse to save the nation from the Left.

    © Alan Caruba, 2012

    • If only-all the money that was spent to elect politicians in order to demand that the government PAY for everything-would be used to Pay for everything instead..

  30. President Obama ordered the stoppage of Section 287 (g) of Immigration policy…..or did he? He ordered it ONLY for Arizona….apparently in an attempt to coerce other states into not following Arizona’s way. Texas has just stopped the program on its own saying that ICE can go home and Texas is kicking them out their offices. The leases are up. Like Arizona, we do not need ICE or the failure of an administration to enforce immigration law…..we will enforce it….so…Feds take a hike.


  31. Clerk loses job over stand

    Won’t take welfare card for cigarettes

    Posted: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:15 pm | Updated: 12:05 pm, Wed Jun 27, 2012.

    By Garrett Brnger Sentinel Staff | 47 comments

    PETERBOROUGH — Jackie R. Whiton of Antrim had been a six-year employee at the Big Apple convenience store in Peterborough until a single transaction sent her job up in smoke.

    The store clerk was fired after she refused to take a customer’s Electronic Balance Transfer card to pay for cigarettes.

    Whiton said a young man came in to the store to buy two packs or cigarettes on May 29. When she asked him for his ID, he handed her his EBT card.

    EBT cards are used for both food and cash assistance programs. There are two types of cards: one can only be used for food. The other can be spent on anything and used just like a debit card.

    Whiton said she did not think EBT cards could be used to purchase cigarettes and refused to sell to him. The two “had a little go-around” as the line got longer behind him, said Whiton.

    “I made the statement, ‘do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?’ and he responded ‘yes,’ ” Whiton said.

    The next day Whiton said the customer’s foster mother came to the store to complain. Whiton received a call later that day from the company’s home office in Maine, telling her it had received a complaint about her and reprimanded her.

    “I said I would bow out gracefully and give my notice because I didn’t want to be a part of it. I’m 65 years old, you know?” Whiton said.

    Charles E. Wilkins, the general manager of the C.N. Brown Co. that runs the stores, said the EBT cards in the cash phase could be used for any items, including alcohol, tobacco and gambling. Wilkins said the company gave Whiton the option of staying but she said she would not accept the cards anymore.

    “She didn’t think it was right and just wasn’t going to sell to people in that program anymore,” Wilkins said.

    Whiton said when she came to work the next day, her manager asked her how much notice she was giving. When she responded “a week,” she was told the home office had just called and fired her.

    Wilkins said she would have had to accept the cards within that week.

    Whiton said she was not looking for another job.

    Whiton said she does not object to using the programs for food assistance, but does not think a person should be able to use public funds to buy cigarettes.

    “They can’t even buy toilet paper with the EBT grocery cards but they can buy beer and cigarettes with the EBT cash cards,” Whiton said, “Go figure.”

  32. @Puritan/Todd:

    To deny this country it’s monumental achievements because of slavery/indians makes no sense at all. Without this country coming to existence, Charlie/all of us might be wallowing in the dirt.

    Those monumental achievements, not one I can think of, came about on the backs of others (whether international exploitation or domestic exploitation). Ask native Americans how they feel about those monumental achievements, Puritan/Todd. Are you kidding me?

    And if you think the racism of slavery can fade (never mind disappear) when as recently as 1965 blacks didn’t have full voting rights, you’re kidding yourselves. That is not to say there are as many racists in America today (both white and black) as there were 100 years ago, but to assume minorities living in poverty for generations have the same opportunities (again, not the concept of opportunity, but the reality), then you need to remove your blinders.

    Finally, to assume we’d all be “wallowing in the dirt” suggests a hubris of Americana that defies logic. The industrial revolution was brought here from Europe (not the other way around).

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, As you continue to rant about indians/slavery, of which none of us alive had anything to do with, I can only state this a simple as possible. Who effing cares? Really, who gives a shit what happened hundreds of years ago? Idians, sorry, sucks to be you. Slaves, sorry, sucks to be you. Now, I appologized, and I still don’t give a shit. What is your point in all you incessive rantings on this subject. Noone can change the past and noone is going to give anything up because of the past. In other words, nobady gives a shit! 🙄

      • gmanfortruth says:

        And my effing keyboard can’t spell 😆

        • Gman,
          Maybe you should take responsibility for your mistakes, instead of blaming some inanimate object.

      • Gman,
        Just remember this the next time you’re pissing and moaning about something – nobody gives a shit.

        • Good one, Todd. I was going to re-address his apparently overtly racist attitude but your resposne was much better. Gman likes to flutter on the margins … he’s a flutterer.

        • Todd, I never believed I was listened to anyway, but, like most Liberals who invite themselves into others business, all I can say is keep taking the little blue pill and enjoy life 😆

    • A Puritan Descendant says:
    • Charlie,
      I understand your point – and the sins of the past really do suck. It’s an unfortunate part of human history, which I do not deny or take lightly. The best we can hope for is to correct those issues that are still occurring, and make sure they do not happen again.

      And we’re not doing all that great in the present – it’s still an uphill battle.

  33. A Puritan Descendant says:

    To expand a tiny bit on my earlier response to Todd.

    Obamacare is an example of a government attack on Freedom/private property. The purchase mandate, places an additional ball and chain on future innovation. Money (private property) stolen for one purpose can’t be used for new innovations by the free. It is just one small example of many where government stifles future innovation with takings and excessive regulation.

    Watching the Eu crisis and our own debt problems I see all this debate over austerity vs. “growth”. Growth is the answer, but NOT by more money printing and borrowing. Real True growth brought about by DEregulation and governments getting out of the way of free men to create wealth, produce and innovate.

    While austerity is needed, it will certainly cause short term problems. “Growth” by funny money and debt is just more of what got us where we are today, at the edge of the abyss.
    We need Real Growth/innovation/production by all. This will only be brought about by economically free men. Not by more funny money.

    • Puritan,
      We can talk about reducing the government attack on your Freedom/private property when:

      1. You can list the EXACT impact it is having on you
      2. You drop your hypocritical stance on gay marriage (because I can list the EXACT impact it has on several people)

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Todd, I have no need or desire to “list the EXACT impact” with you. There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, check your dictionary, end of story.

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting story. When the cards don’t work one day, the Zombie Apocalypse will begin. So, who thinks that welfare dollars should be allowed for cigarettes?

    • They’ll die sooner? It’s like free drugs, I am all for legalization so long as drugs are given away to addicts free and in any quantity or frequency they want. Let’s see if we can replicate that monkey study with cocaine back in the ’60’s where the monkeys were given the same access to coke as to food and all starved themselves to death.

  35. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I tried to post a link to a SC live blog but it failed. It will probably appear after all is done. i will try it once more in a moment. (for anyone who cares)

  36. Numbers from the Sunlight Foundation show that organizations supporting the Obamacare spent more than $62 million lobbying this cycle, and opposition groups spent nearly $42 million during the same period.

    The AFL-CIO, which spent $29.7 million on lobbying this cycle, was Obamacare’s biggest backer. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has said a decision overturning Obamacare “would stand the country on its head.”

    The American Hospital Association (AHA) and the AARP each spent nearly $13 million on lobbying this cycle in their efforts to see Obamacare upheld.

    Read more:

  37. A Puritan Descendant says:
    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      About 12 inches of rain here in Maine over the past week with flooded roads. So I have nothing better to do, 🙂

  38. Interesting definition from Justice Kagan………if money is exchanged for any product or service, it is commerce and, therefore, subject to the Commerce Clause.

    Very scary.

  39. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled there was nothing in federal voting laws that prevent the state from identifying ineligible voters even if it is close to the upcoming Aug. 14 election.

    The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit earlier this month to halt the purge, saying federal voting laws barred the effort since it was within 90 days of a federal election. U.S. officials also said the list used by Florida had “critical imperfections, which lead to errors that harm and confuse voters.”

    Hinkle in ruling from the bench said federal laws are designed to block states from removing eligible voters close to an election. He said they are not designed to block voters who should have never been allowed to cast ballots in the first place.

    Although he said “questioning someone’s citizenship” is not a trivial matter, Hinkle also said that non-citizens should not be allowed to vote.

    ***The most interesting part of this is the statement by DOJ officials that ” Florida had “critical imperfections, which lead to errors that harm and confuse voters.”…….but when Florida asked for the Data base from the government to correct POSSIBLE imperfections….the Feds said……..NO. You cannot use our data base.

    The only possible explanation that is available is that…….the Federal Data base would help Florida actually purge the rolls….and if they do that….then Obama loses votes. I know of no other explanation….anyone?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Their Data Base is shit and they don’t want anyone to know????

      Perhaps, maybe?

      How are you this morning my Texican friend?

      Getting ready for my oldest son’s wedding this weekend. Then it is off on a walk about for most of JULY……..Looking forward to getting out of the rain and mold, and back to the open prairies and tall mountains.

  40. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Any geniuses around today? I noticed over the past 20 years here in Maine, it seems whenever we get excess summer rain, there are huge wildfires out west. Could all the moisture being put into the atmosphere by the fires cause this? I know green firewood holds a Lot of moisture. ???

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Don’t know if the connection is smoke or just the general weather patterns.

      But…….. smoke reflects sunlight but also traps hot air near the ground in stagnant conditions. Smoke also creates massive amounts of CO2 and other gases along with particulates. These act to gather moisture into droplets (rain) if the humidity is high enough and the dew point low enough.

      I suspect the connection, however, is related to the broader El Nino and El Nina weather patterns combined with patterns in the Gulf. Which are what affect much of AZ and Colorado, by the way.

      Droughts in the west are usually tied to years where we have a lot of air flow from south to north. Drier air in winter or spring. If you look at any jet stream maps you see a general pattern that applies. Air flowing north eventually turns south.

      So I am betting that all the hot air moving north over the west passes through Canada, cools and flows south. If the path is wide enough then the NE gets a general southerly air flow with lots of moisture.

      How does all that sound? I am not a meteorologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    • Don’t think I qualify but will make a guess. Fires are not pumping large amounts of moisture into the atmosphere. They could be putting enough particulate’s up that trigger rain. The moisture attaches itself to the very fine particles of soot or ash, resulting in your rain. But don’t discount regional effects. I was wondering while we are having a heat wave, if the UK, Europe or other regions are having a cold spell? Haven’t found anything yet..except


      In the northern corners of the United States, the weather was the opposite of infernal.

      It looks like March, not June, in Seattle. People are clad in coats and scarves, using umbrellas to shield themselves – not from the bright sun but raindrops.

      Tuesday was more than 10 degrees colder than usual, with temperatures hovering around 60 degrees.

      Patty Carlson didn’t think she’d need a sweater, but there she was, ordering a latte at a downtown espresso shop on Tuesday.

      “Take a look around the street,” the 30-year Seattle resident said. “Would you guess it’s June?”

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      This has to do with the shape of the Pacific Jet Stream. There are 2 jet streams in the Northern Hemisphere, the Polar and the Pacific. This Summer the Polar jet is WAY WAY north, and the Pacific Jet comes in around mid-California, and then rapidly shoots WAY north into Canada, and does not drape back down south until it almost reaches the Atlantic Ocean. This leaves the Mountains, the South, the Great Plains, and the Midwest exceptionally hot and dry because there is a general south to north airflow, and storm systems tend to move along the Pacific Jet. So, Seattle is cool and wet, and Maine is wet, and the rest of the country becomes a tinderbox. The particulates from Western wildfires do eventually make their way far enough north to the warped Pacific Jet, and do add (some) to the moisture which makes it to Maine, although Maine would be wet due to the pattern of the Jet Stream even without any wildfires.

      Because of the strength of the southerly flow over most of the US so far this year (since March, which is early for such a pattern to develop), this pushes the Pacific Jet even farther north and makes it more difficult to break the pattern. I suspect that much of the US will be well above normal temperatures until mid-to-late-October, and then the pattern will break, probably quite violently, resulting in what will likely be a Winter to remember (for all of the wrong reasons). We shall see…

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    I would like to offer my general thoughts on the health care decision before it is revealed today. I have been following the left wing commentary on this for the last two weeks.

    Frankly, it turns my stomach. But so has much of the “conservative” thinking in past months.

    In my view, the Feds DO NOT have the authority to regulate health care in any fashion. That includes health insurance. But that legal battle was lost many decades ago.

    This leaves the individual mandate which is clearly unconstitutional. But again, thanks to past activist courts and the progressive theory of law, this simple reality is also cloudy.

    So the TRUTH is that the court could find whatever excuses they want to rule in either direction. The decision on either side will NOT be some unprecedented ground breaking “activist” decision.

    All commentary by people like Chuck Shummer is bull shit when they claim anything other than confirmation is POLITICAL.

    The fact that a decision in either direction can be rationalized or justified is indicative of our broader problems with Govt. WE the PEOPLE completely lost control of our Govt.

    If the Court upholds the Mandate the only remaining question is whether this is the beginning or the end of the war.

  42. A Puritan Descendant says:

    decision has been reached, see the blog

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    WE ARE SO SCREWED…………………………

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      when did Roberts turn into a trogladyke?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And if you don’t know why…………here is an explanation:

      “The decision looks like a political compromise among the justices, letting the mandate stand without wading into the contentious question of whether the provision is a valid exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The majority concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress’ power under the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes.””

    • I feel like I should be dressing for a funeral-I think America just officially died.

  44. @Colonel:

    Good morning, Colonel! I think the heat is headed this way … tough stuff.

    Fire away with questions (although it may take some time for me to answer). Mom is in the hospital and not doing too good..

    Interesting about the SNP thing. Mark Levin was ranting about this yesterday while I was stuck in traffic. As crazy as he sometimes is, he’s a funny dude. Hannity (I can’t stand to listen to for his constantly interrupting so-called liberals he has on his show; always liberals who can’t argue very well) also chimmed in and said we have too many fat people who require food stamps … yuck, yuck.

    Anyway, as regards SNAP. Here is my great big answer: So friggin’ what? Is it so bad that people who shouldn’t get food stamps get them? Yes, it is waste and immoral, but no more so than Oil Companies and corporations getting subsidies (and something tells me the subsidies they receive add up to a lot more gelt than what scammed food stamps are costing us) … not to mention the profits they take in.

    Bottom line: The gray area here has to do with those who need them (food stamps). There are millions who actually do need them. I know some would like to see them “pull up their boot straps” and either plant their own food or find jobs (even if there are none to be found) and work for their food, but the realities of life sometimes don’t cooperate with the Ayn Rand philosophy on life. So, we have two alternatives: 1) help them and try to eradicate the fraud or 2) let them go hungry until the point where they’re pissed off enough to take what they need to survive (a.k.a, revoluation).

    • Just A Citizen says:


      3) they get hungry and find a way to either grow their food or work to pay for it…or both.

      Funny how you left off the one option that MOST people used to follow when faced by hard times. Wonder what changed that people don’t consider this viable any longer??????

    • Kristian says:

      I would buy into that argument except for one thing. The people who do need them don’t always get them because they make too much money. This actually happended to a friend of mine. She was going through a divorce and had a job that she made less than minimum wage at. The state told her that she didn’t qualify because she made too much. Now mind you, she was only applying for food stamps, nothing else. They told her that if she quit her job she could receive money to pay her rent, light bill, car insurance and buy groceries. She just had to quit her job. So, what my friend is your opinion on that?

      • As I said earlier (previously) … we need to work on cleaning up the fraud and helping those who need it continue to get it (or get it in the first place). Of course she should have received it … that still doesn’t mean we should abandone it because some get screwed.

        • Kristian says:

          I don’t think it should be completely abandoned but a complete overhaul is needed. The system that is in place right now is so abused that it isn’t even funny. I have always though that if you are physically and mentally able to hold down a job then you should do so. To live off the government just because it’s there is wrong no matter what you say. It isn’t my responsibility to take care of those capable of taking care of themselves. If there are physical or mental infirmities then ok, otherwise get a job!

          • Kristian, we agree … but what if there are no jobs to get?

            • Charlie,

              what if there are no jobs to get?

              Then you should lose your life savings, lose your home, lose your health, and die. It’s the American Way™!

              • “we need to work on cleaning up the fraud and helping those who need it continue to get it ”
                But doesn’t Obama have the authority to clean it up right now (as did Bush) and as he has promised, but not taken any action on? It’s clear he doesn’t care about cost or he would have some savings to brag about. And on jobs, everything he’s doing will and has resulted in fewer jobs except in the public sector. As more of ObamaCare is implemented, watch as fewer Americans stat or enter the workforce.

              • 🙂

            • Kristian says:


              There are always jobs, they just aren’t the kind that anyone wants to do. They pay minimum wage but at least it’s something till they get back on their feet. But why would anyone want to do that when they can live off the government? There are waitressing jobs, store clerk jobs, hell I even know people that work 2 not so good paying jobs to make ends meet until they can get bacjk on their feet. What is so wrong with that?

              • Kristian, you need to take off the blinders (seriously). There are jobs? So, the reason our unemployment rate is so high is because people are choosing to lose their homes? They find it better living off unemployment until it runs out and they have to lose their homes (those that own homes)? You need to stop watching Fox Noise.

              • Kristian: Here’s another good one for you. My wife and I work two jobs each … she’s a democratic-socialist (I’m winning her over). I’ll vote socialist again. So so much for the theory socialists won’t want to work and need to be taken care of.

    • Charlie, what you are missing my friend is that money-wise out there it’s a free for all.

      Everybody is scamming health care. Those stupid scooters they advertise on TV cost $ 2,000 these days but the VA and Medicare keep paying the original $ 6,000 price tag. The Ukrainian lady in Brooklyn just got busted for ripping off 42 Mil. from Medicaid. Food stamps to all, to be used for whatever you like so long as the local bodega can justify the sale of real food to people with money (inventory audits). The Pentagon gets ripped off daily, just saw a piece where the AF and Navy are paying $ 152.00 per bbl for jet fuel while the airlines and trucking fleets are paying $ 115.00. Dead people are collecting welfare, social security and voting. Get off the boat as a “refugee” and sign up for everything right away. Drop a foal in So. Cal, the day after you cross the border and the kid gets gravy for life and you get to stay. Section 8 housing anyone? Bailouts for the banks on bad mortgages and to homeowners who upped their mortgages annually for the vacation and new SUV. 15 Grand per year to educate a nine year old? Civil servants convicted of crimes while employed collecting pensions or left on payroll while they await trial?. Double and triple dipping government pensions? High three on government pensions, police, fire, sanitation while allowing unlimited OT to people in their last three years while new (cheaper) hires get none. I could continue if you would like.

      Well Charlie, each and every one of the agencies responsible “claims” that the fraud, theft or stupidity is relatively minor in the scheme of things. They are right but cumulatively, It’s a frigging fortune.

      The late Senator Everett Dirkson (conscience of the Senate) used to say with a sardonic smile, “They only want a few Billion here and a few Billion there but before you know it, it adds up to some real money!”

      • Stephen, I hear you but what you continue to ignore is how all this scamming is possible. Blaming government is kind of coming up short, my friend. This government is bought and sold by the 1% and what is “allowed” (laws that are unenforced, etc.), have much to do with keeping the masses in zombie land. That can sound like a rightwing libertarian argument (and perhaps should be), except there was a single vehicle to the corruption process: capitalism/greed (not to equate the two across the board, but as regards accumulating–the more one accumulates, the more power one has). Thus, the more the 1% accumulates regarding wealth/power, the more scamming is required to survive (except I doubt the 1% really cares much so long as there’s no revolution and they remind out of danger). The more we all play the Rep v. Dem game, the more we sink into the third world. So long as man can “earn” $2.4 million an hour vs. minimum wage, there just isn’t going to be much in the way of fair-mindedness or a one-way desire for what is fair or moral.

        Now, that isn’t saying to steal, scam, etc. is just … but in the grand scope of things, it’s justifiable.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Unfortunately, in the so-called Socialist governments such as the USSR, there was nothing that prevented the 1% from amassing all of the wealth and power either. Perhaps this isn’t what is “supposed to happen” under Socialism/Communism, but so far all “experiments” in that direction have yielded an even more rich and powerful 1% and an even more poor and powerless 99%.

          • See Holland … PLEASE SEE HOLLAND.

            • Unique circumstance. Times are changing there too due to an aging population and immigration. Slow but steady change. Won’t look the same in 50 years. Homogeneous populations always have it better than non homogeneous ones. I have pointed out many times that when immigration was limited in the US and the country allowed to absorb and internally process immigrants, times got better. Unfettered immigration is a recipe for disaster. Read Victor Davis Hanson’s “Mexifornia”. That’s coming to a borough near you.

              You cry and weep for the poor, oppressed and downtrodden in this country. I do too yet you reject/ignore the most simple solution to the problem. Make labor valuable, make labor scarce. Shut the damned door and absorb the under class into the middle class. The 1% will have no choice. It’s is not like it hasn’t been done before. With de jure and most of de facto racism out of the way, things should blossom.

        • Point is, you gotta start somewhere. There is to damn much throwing your hands up in the air and saying “We can’t do it”. I agree with what Trump once said (and probably stole from his betters). If I owe you $ 5,000 and can’t pay, I’m in trouble. If I owe you $ 5,000,000 and can’t pay, YOUR in trouble”. Have seen it time and time again. Interesting comment the other day in the “Daily News” from one of the 70 year old retired sandhogs ripped off to the tune of $ 42,000,000 by the treasurer of the pension fund. After the judge gave her 6 lousy years for ruining thousands of moderate income peoples lives, He said, “If you are Bernie Madoff and steal from rich people, you get life plus 20. Steal from poor people and you get the slap on the wrist.” Frankly, both should have been shot. I’d have been happy to run the firing squad.

          Please note, it has been four years since the economic meltdown caused mostly by using your home as a piggy bank and taking home equity loans against it every year. To my knowledge, there is nobody in jail for it! There have bee suicides, murders, ruined lives all over the country and the bastards are still out there drawing bonuses.

          So, I don’t care if its Medicaid, welfare, food stamp or whatever fraud. It is being perpetrated against me and I am being played for a fool. Start at the bottom and work your way up. It’s like community policing. Let the vandals break the windows in an abandoned building and pretty soon the whole place is out of control. Everybody plays one upsmanship. Take ’em all down. ,

          • Stephen> I have no problem shooting the bankers on Wall Street (starting with Blankfein) and I’ll be your spotter (can we take a chance apiece?). If perhaps we made those most responsible do some genuine time (Rikers, Elmira, what used to be Walpole in MA), without protective custody, you might see some of those bloodsuckers think twice. So long as the big shots escape justice, I won’t hold it against some poor SOB trying to feed his family for stealing foodstamps. For me it has to start at the top. Throw the theives in jail and let them rot (or let them face the crowds they stole from) and then work down.

  45. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Ok, I think I understand. There is no “Mandate”. Everyone is free to Not buy health Insurance. However, if you don’t buy health insurance you will pay a tax. Now that I understand that, I feel so much better now……………. 😦

    I also understand why CNN screwed up, apparently they read the part where the mandate could not be made via the commerce clause and jumped to conclusion. I can understand that error.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    My comment to the Huff Po faithful on the SCOTUS ruling. 😉

    “Time to reinforce the lesson of earlier today. In essence beware of what you ask for.

    So in the year 2014 the Republicans gain 60 Senate seats, the House and Whitehouse.

    They promptly pass a law REQUIRING every person over the age of 14 to OWN a handgun and rifle greater than .22 caliber. People will be required to report ownership on their tax returns and pay a $5,000 tax if they do not certify ownership of the same.

    Of course, lying on your Federal Tax return is a crime so you had better not cheat on your taxes.”

  47. Wait for the health care decision to be deciphered…….

    On the surface….No mandate under the Commerce Clause and that decision is a correct one. The Commerce Clause was more devastating.

    The Health Care is upheld under the tax law… it should be. Congress has the power to regulate taxes (calm down JAC, it does not mean that I like taxes, I am looking procedurally)

    Now the left has to explain why this law was championed under the fact that it was NOT a tax and it is now a tax and was argued as a tax in the Supreme Court. The other part that I like about the decision is that the funding mechanism is going to be in the form of deductions from tax refunds (for those who get them)….the middle class and the poor get hammered. They will lose approximately 20% of their refunds according to the GAO. So, everyone now pays. I like that part.

    Now, the other part that I am ecstatic about is the SCOTUS says that the penalty provisions to the States is unconstitutional. Meaning….under the Affordable Health Care Act. there was a mandatory provision to the states to expand medicaid and medicare to include everybody and if they did not do this, the hammer of not receiving any medicaid and medicare funding was there. The hammer has been taken away. States can opt out of expansion and not be penalized. This is a major issue and a win for states rights. If states opt of this and do not expand their roles, the law still requires individuals to obtain health insurance or face a tax increase. It starts out at 1% in 2014 and expands each year. You now have an IRS problem if you do not buy health insurance….it is deducted from your refund and the IRS is the collection agency.

    The other thing the SCOTUS did was hand the repubs a gift. They can now hammer the tax issue. It is no longer the Obamacare mandate…it is the Obamacare Tax. The other issue is that there are 27 more tax increases in the Affordable Health Care Act….all aimed at the middle class…..$400 billion in new and increased taxes over ten years.

    Now, the other thing that has happened is that the tax (penalty) is on the ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME……so those of us that can take advantage of depreciation and tax incentives…can lower or eliminate gross income. So, if I have tax breaks that lower my adjusted tax to 1$… cost for no insurance is……….1% up to 6% of one dollar.

    So, what has happened… is now a tax and you still have to buy it. States can opt out of it. To date, there are 26 states that have said they will opt out.

    BUT…the important part is….it is NOT covered under the Commerce Clause and THAT is historic.

    Oh…do not forget that Medicare is cut $500 Billion and the option of keeping your insurance is…no longer an option….not to mention that health insurance premiums will rise another 25% and the new tax on middle class will rise approximately the same…….sigh.

  48. So, we now have a new tax for people who can’t afford health insurance. The numbers will grow as the premiums skyrocket. This is an economic disaster on so many way. The second revolution has begun, the gorilla must be destroyed. 👿

    • Why, GMan … if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were making a racist comment above. But knowing how honorable and brave you are, it must be that I read it wrong (or that you wrote it wrong) … because you’re way too much a man to hide behind something as vague as a monkey reference. Perhaps you meant gorilla in the room (Obama/Romneycare)?

      • Yes Charlie, I did mean the Gorilla in the room, as in the whole Federal Govt. Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt. Sorry to hear about your Mom’s health as well, Hope she will get better.

  49. 🙂 Smile, right wingers!

    Now Romney can admit he wrote the editorial where he claimed his legislature was a good model for the country!

    Viva la socialism! (even though it’s not).

    I can’t wait to hear Mark Levin’s head explode tonight!

    So much for that great big conservative tea party move to the right, huh?

    This isn’t close to what I’d like to see, but just knowing how Fox News will choke on their rants tonight makes me want to spike the ball (as if we (the greater good) won something today.

    • Actually Charlie… lost. This is the largest middle and poor class tax increase in history. Making it a tax…does not hurt the 1% at all. But I do like the idea as I explained it above….so there is a mandated health insurance…you buy it or get penalized…..the cost is not picked up by anyone but the individual as most of the companies now will drop it and force individuals to purchase their own…..and the increase……..borne by the individual.

      States have the option of bowing out and they will do that..or at least 27 of them will. So, you can howl but be careful….you do have a mandate….but it is an individual mandate and a very costly one.

      • as most of the companies now will drop it and force individuals to purchase their own

        Ah, Colonel, how wrong you are (stating I lost). Even BF will agree with me on this one (regarding who won) … once companies drop the insurance there will be nowhere to turn except toward single payor (which is what the rest of the civilized world does) and that will be the next step.

        Viva SCOTUS!

        Go Bills!

        • Charlie, my jubilant friend……and the rest of the civilized world is moving away from it because they are broke……however, you are correct about a single payer system……but paid for by the middle class and poor in increased taxes…..the 1% skates again. The SCOTUS you are so happy about struck down penalties and mandates under the commerce clause……THAT was where you really needed it. And, now, you have states that are not going to expand medicare and medicaid to cover those that are not covered….where is the win, my friend? The SCOTUS actually made it easier and actually spread the cost down to the poorest of the poor. I do not think you wanted that. Also, the SCOTUS did one other thing about making it a tax issue……taxes can be repealed…but the Commerce Clause could not.

          • Colonel, when they repeal SS, I’ll start to worry.

            In the meantime, it’s party time! Romney’s war cry will be: See, I told you so!

        • Just A Citizen says:


          You are correct. You lost on the details and your dreams of helping the poor.

          But you won on the fundamental issue of STATISM.

          Thanks to Mr. Roberts the Progressive March goes forward, unhindered by the LAW.

          • But you won on the fundamental issue of STATISM.

            And it’s a beautiful thing, isn’t it?


            • Just A Citizen says:



              So I am going to spend some time with my Nez Perce, Blackfeet, Flathead and Crow cousins.

              At least they appreciate and share my understanding of Govt.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


          Watch out for the law of unintended consequences. Companies will not only drop “private” insurance coverage for employees, but small to medium companies will stop hiring, and probably downsize. Unemployment will go up, which will also mean that the government’s costs (also known as your costs and mine) will go up much higher than originally projected.

          • I have no doubt you’re right, Peter. And that will help move this absurd capitalism system more in the direction of socialism. It is inevitable.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Socialism, as shown by the USSR, Cuba, and other countries, becomes a system where the 1% firmly and totally control the 99%, AND THERE IS NO MOBILITY BETWEEN THE TWO. In other words if you are in the 99%, you are EVEN MORE SCREWED than you are under Capitalism.

              That doesn’t sound worth celebrating to me, but if you want to celebrate it, go right ahead.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Well finally, something I can agree with you on. I can’t wait to hear LEVIN this afternoon.

      Going to get a lead vest to protect myself from the radiation emitting from the radio. I figure it will take him about 15 seconds to go NUCLEAR.

      • He makes me laugh (Levin does). At least he’s funny (I was stuck in traffic yesterday trying to get to the hospital to see my Mom and he had me in stitches when he went off on Biden). “Why? Becuse he’s an idiot!” I needed the relief.

        On the other hand, Hannity pisses me off when he cuts people off (even those who can’t argue). He just talks over them with nonsense. I wish I could get a piece of that guy for 10 minutes (restrained from his cut-offs). Yesterday he was ranting about Egypt and Obama and democracy (forgetting how one of the SEVERAL Bush excuses for Iraq was to spread democracy in the mid-east (and forgetting how Hamas won in a democratic election).

        • JAC, that might read wrong (my response). Biden apparently used a Reagan quote and Levin was attacking him on it. Levin said, “Why did he (Biden) say that? Because he’s an idiot! (yelling the last). Hilarious.

          I also love his MSLSD, Associated Depressed. Morning Shmoe, etc. Funny guy, even if I hardly ever come close to agreeing with him.

    • See, when it 5-4 for the right, it’s politics, when it’s 5-4 for the left it’s fair, just, moral, righteous,sacred, God given etc. Talk about hypocrisy!

      Now, getting back to the decision, will someone tell me exactly why they ever thought that this would be overturned as an unconstitutional mandate? If that were the case, an argument could well be made that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional as well. Did you ever really think that they would ever allow that door to be opened?

      I’m watching the health stocks today. Hospitals and health related stocks are wayyyy up! Free money is on the way. Hoo Hah!

  50. Well that settles it. Now I expect that everyone will settle down and move on with their lives..


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes things are now settled. Start saving up to pay your GUN TAX.

      • I don’t have a gun. No gun tax for me. 🙂

        I do all my home defense with crossbows and nun-chucks.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          If you do not own a gun there will be a $5000 Federal Tax.

          Please designate on your 1040 whether you own the required guns.

          • Good thing the gun tax has no enforcement mechanism…


            • Just A Citizen says:

              Just wait until we find out you lied on your 1040.

              Penalties plus interest.

              Refuse to pay? JAIL TIME.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Yes, that is right.

              We call it our Sustained Yield Gun Tax. You can’t escape it, and it never ends.

  51. Have to leave work early today. Can’t wait to get in the car; 1 hour of Limbaugh and then Hannity … then coming home later Levin …. should be a fun drive!

  52. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I find it rather interesting that Obama insisted that his “healthcare reform program” was NOT a tax, and yet the Supreme Court ruled that the law was Constitutional because it IS IN FACT a tax.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Of course, based on that ruling, I would assume that ANYTHING that the government decided to tax us on would be ruled as Constitutional, which is actually pretty scary precedent.

    • Mr. Obama’s victory will be “fleeting” and argued that most Americans didn’t like the law’s individual mandate in the first place.

      “They’ll like it even less when they understand it’s a tax,” Mr. Lee said on Fox News.

      The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.

      “This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low- and middle-income taxpayers,” said a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.

      On the campaign trail four years ago and since taking office, Mr. Obama has been fond of saying that middle-class families will not see their taxes rise “a single dime” under his leadership.

  53. I keep reading all this crap about Robert’s gutting the Commerce clause-limiting what the government can do through the commerce clause-could someone explain to me-what difference it makes if limits are placed on the commerce clause-if the government can do whatever it whats, however they want using the power to tax???????????

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The SCARY part is that none of us can tell you now.

      ONLY the SCOTUS knows for sure. And that changes on their whim.

    • As I understand it, the commerce clause may only be used to REGULATE commerce, not COMPEL it. The difference that Roberts points out here is that it is completely impossible for the government to enforce the individual mandate. That is, much as making a law cannot prevent the action under scrutiny, if you choose not to buy insurance, you will not have insurance. The health insurance law then simply levies a tax on you. One analogy is to cigarettes. The government cannot force you to buy cigarettes, but it can tax the crap out of them in order to dissuade you from using them. This law has the same general structure, but in reverse.

    • While spending on the food stamp program has increased 100 percent under President Barack Obama, the government continues to push more Americans to enroll in the welfare program.

      The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embraced entire promotional campaigns designed to encourage eligible Americans to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

      A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program.

      “Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the agency advises. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”

      Read more:

  54. My 93 year old dad…just laughed at the ruling today and said…..I thought that McCarthyism and the Warren Court debacle could not happen again…… but here it is. Now you are going to have to fix it….it is a pendulum thing but this time, it is not the wealthy that is going to be hit….it is the very people they claim to want to help.

    • Naten53 says:

      I’ve been so confused as to how people believe it will help the poor ever since this started. My wife’s mother is a waitress and worked at one place that offered insurance. She thought it was great until her first doctors visit. It had a HIGH deductable and was basically worthless unless there was a catastrophic injury. She hailed Obama coming in to change things and was upset at me when I told her that nothing will change and even more upset when I told her Obamacare was the worst thing ever. She called me selfish and said people deserve care, blah, blah, blah… When I told her that the insurance that she will be forced to purchase is going to be the same or worse then her previous job, the only thing she could do was argue about the talking points not even considering that the legislation was actual crap.

  55. Just announced on WBAP 820 in Fort Worth….there is a group of doctors (74), including vascular surgeons, heart surgeons, etc. that have formed a consortium to build a private 150 bed hospital and surgical unit. Effective January 1, 2013, they will no longer take any form of medicaid nor medicare. Accepted forms of payment will be cash or pre-selected insurance. Payment terms can also be arranged depending upon financial status and the ability to pay. They will accept no Federal nor State funding and no grants, public or private.

    It is expected that another 30 physicians will join the consortium in the next year. It was stated that with the expected cuts in fees and medicare payments and the fact that medicare takes up to 6 months for reimbursement, they have decided not to continue the program.

    To go on…this consortium says that it will be a members only health program. It will have a form of Health savings program that will act the same as insurance in the event that a member needs emergency procedures outside the consortium. They said that since there is no Federal or State tax money involved, they do not have to conform to the myriad of regulations that is hamstringing health care today. Our services will be better and cheaper than what is currently out there. Without the burden of medicare and medicaid, we will be able to maximize proficiency and efficiencies.

    D13 wonders if this is a trend that will catch on nationwide. If it does, it seems to me that quality healthcare is going to take a larger hit…because quality surgeons and doctors will opt out of Federally funded programs.

    • This is a sad day for America. Freedom died today in this country as did our best healthcare. Most doctors I spoke with will opt out of all the Medi (federal/state} options. The poor will suffer the most, the very people they claim to want to help. Sickening! I hope to live long enough to see the next Revolution, we need it now!


    Dissenting arguments start on page 127.

  57. So, Mark Levin had me smiling and laughing in the two hour traffic I had to deal with AGAIN yesterday (honestly, can they just use the Belt Parkway for target practice already?).

    He went crazy a few times between 7:30-8:30 … funny stuff. Of course he’s absurd, but at least he’s funny.

  58. @ Puritan:

    Free men can cooperate too, especially when it is in their own self interest.

    Of course it can and has, Puritan. A truly free market, as Mr. Chomski claims, is an impossibility (absolute chaos). And it isn’t that we’re all for a big government. One more time (socialism is inevitable BECAUSE of capitalism). That doesn’t mean socialism will work medicinal wonders, but it does require a more level playing field (not a perfect one). Of course government is corrupt (it is owned by corporations/big, HUGE money). That came about via capitalism … it doesn’t work. It NEVER really did (unless you’re willing to ignore those exploited by capitalist(S) over time (whether home or abroad).

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Capitalism is the foundation of wealth creation. (one ear of corn (capital) can be replanted to grow 600 ears of corn……). That ear of corn will never be replanted if “socialism” consumes it first.

    • Charlie, Charlie, Charlie…………come now. The truth is that while capitalism is flawed and is controlled by an elite class, so does socialism have the same problem. There are only to societal classes under socialism – that elite controlling class and the second group being those who stand in long lines for everything they need.

      No societal structure is free from – or ever will be free from – the “haves and have-nots.” Human nature won’t change.

      (Consider this a “drive-by” comment. I just couldn’t resist. Hope you and all here are well)

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Capitalism isn’t flawed until man corrupts it. Capitalism can be as simple as my corn example. Basic capitalism is as natural as life’s reproductions. A gift from God.

        • Puritan,

          until man corrupts it

          Exactly! Which always happens. Remove Capitalism and replace it with any other form of control for a society (Socialism, Communism, *ism) and we have defined the problem with all governments. Human nature will be to set oneself above another in some manner (politically, socially, economically, etc) which bring corruption into the equation. We can argue political and/or economic systems till the end of time, but until we find a way to alter/change basic human nature we will continue with flawed and corrupt systems. They may start out “pure.” they won’t stay that way.

          Charlie does acknowledge that a socialist government would have it’s corruption too, one must credit him that much.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            One more little thing, and back to work here, the sun is out!!!

            Capital(ism) being the foundation for wealth creation is also part of the foundation of socialism and communism. They can’t exist without capital. (back to my corn example, compounding corn production is capitalism).

            Capital(ism) cannot be avoided. it is the foundation for socialism/communism.
            So when Charlie only picks on capitalism it does not add up. He should be picking on corruption. Capitalism is not a dirty word. Rather we should celebrate it.

        • Puritan,

          Capitalism isn’t flawed until man corrupts it.

          Hey, I can agree with this too!

          But how can you have Capitalist “society” if you have to exclude man?

          I mean, it’s kinda hard to have a “society” if you have to exclude man in order for that society to function…

          And since all societies include man, you’re saying Capitalism doesn’t work for man…

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your conclusion is correct given the statement you were given. However, both are in error.

            Capitalism does not fail mankind as it is simply the result of free trade between people. The vast majority of which are not corrupt.

            Some men fail mankind. You cannot eliminate them. So it matters not what the system of economics or politics, those who are corruptable will eventually seek the power. But Capitalism does not containe POWER. Because it is nothing but the economic output of free people.

    • Charlie;

      First let me say I wish your mother the very best and hope she gets well very soon.

      Now, you are confused by the issue of any government being righteous regardless of its “isum” origin. Since they (all governments) are run by people, either appointed or elected, they evolve toward corruption; although Socialism, Communism and Fascism start out corrupt. Any form of government that does not base its standards on Individual liberty and freedom results in tyranny and oppression.

      Capitaism was designed to work from the standards and foundation of individual liberty and freedom i.e a Republic. Our current government is as you say “functioning” more and more each day like Socialism, but that is only because those in elected positions chose to take it that direction.

      S, C, F forms of government cannot (ever) function as anything but a tyranical, individually oppressive dictatorship, however Capitalism can operate as designed provided those elected to represent the people do just that.

      We should not be dealing with the issue of whether Capitialism is or is not corrupt any more than S, C, or F being corrupt, because it is the elected individuals that mold the “ism” to suit their desires; and in the US today their desires are indignant of the people.


      • Thanks for the kind thoughts, CM.

        Any form of government that does not base its standards on Individual liberty and freedom results in tyranny and oppression

        The words “all men are created equal”, in this very “democratic” society, are obvious an untruth (as regards their effective power). We are ruled by the 1% … our liberty is subjec to them (day in and day out). The only way to have true liberty is via anarchy and that’s about as likely to happen as my hitting my playing weight without first getting cancer …:)

        The isms you point to were abortions of their intent (more military dictatorships than actual isms). I point to Holland (just to show socialism does work). Granted, it’s a tiny country by comparison, but I’m not saying socialism is a perfect ism, I’m saying we’re going that way BECAUSE capitalism has failed us (the greater good) significantly. It’s just a matter of time.

        • Charlie;

          Again, my point is that S, C, F are all DESIGNED to limit or eliminate individual liberty and freedom. Capitalism, by design promotes individual liberty and freedom. It is the people that corrupt it provided the people allow the corruption. Government as a whole corrupts and therefore is the virus that bastardizes any and all forms of social rule.

          If an individual surrenders their ability to chose to a government or government representative then that individual is no longer in control to chose. Any country which surrenders part or all of it’s authority to a government body is no longer a truely free country or society; the form of government is not relevant in this equasion.


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


      Unless you are a fool, you will have to admit that your phrase “Government is corrupt” applies to ALL governments, not just ours. Failure to admit such means that you are simply hopelessly naive.

  59. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, it is time to pack up the Gypsie Wagon and head out.

    Wedding first then wandering amongst the Rockies. 4th of July at Whitefish, MT then no plans but to find sun and open space.

    For those who hope to see Freedom, Liberty and Justice restored someday….DON’T DESPAIR more than a day or two. Simply become more resolute.

    Best wishes to all and see ya back here in a few weeks.


  60. June 29, 2012
    The ObamaCare Ruling and the Danger of Taxing Inaction
    J. Robert Smith

    Richard A. Epstein, writing at the New York Times, nails the danger of Chief Justice Roberts’ and his majorities’ ruling on ObamaCare. The danger as Epstein sees it is that Roberts and his allies on the bench attempt to separate regulation from taxing power. In so doing, the Roberts-led judgment manages to significantly – and ominously – broaden how Congress can lay taxes; namely, for inaction – as in not purchasing health insurance.

    Writes Epstein, who teaches law at New York University and serves as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute:

    In an ironic twist, the chief justice simultaneously accepted the conservative argument that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce did not include the power to regulate economic inactivity, like a decision not to purchase health care.

    Yet the Roberts’ ruling permits Congress to tax Americans for inactivity (not buying health insurance). That leads to a dilemma. Epstein continues:

    But his [Roberts’] decision is wrong. As a matter of constitutional text, legal history and logic, the power to regulate commerce and the power to tax should not be separated. It is not good for the court or the country that the chief justice’s position in such an important case is confused at its core.

    Professor Epstein explains why separating regulation from taxation is a false choice:

    Through the early 20th century, the Supreme Court was cognizant of this tight relationship between the power to regulate an activity directly and to the power to tax it. The basic idea relies on a simple economic insight: taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don’t do that same thing. If the Constitution limits direct federal powers, it must also limit Congress’s indirect power of taxation. [Italics added]

    The professor concludes smartly:

    Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held), then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).

    Practically, what Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling does is offer future Congresses the now court-sanctioned right to use broadened tax powers to promote policies in lieu of regulations, which may be off-limits through a stricter reading of the Commerce Clause.

    This new taxing authority includes Congress’ prerogative to tax Americans for any inactivity; in other words, for not buying health insurance, not buying vitamins, or not buying Smart Cars.

    For those conservatives who argue that taxes are unpopular and, thus, future Congresses will have a tougher time passing new taxes versus regulations that are then enabled with new revenues, the point has merit.

    But future Congresses may well choose to first levy innocuous, small taxes on Americans, like those who opt to forgo utilities’ controlled smart meters in their homes. As we know about a federal tax, once it’s in place, it’s almost certain to never go away and to grow.

    Imagine all the inactivity that future Congresses could tax in the name of the general welfare or common good?

    If some conservatives don’t see an expanded federal taxing power as a potential means for determined, clever liberals to attempt to social engineer in the future, then they need to think again.

    Read more:

    • Buck-if your around, can’t remember when you where going out of town-I want to know what you think about the way Obamacare was deemed Constitutional. You argued that there was a limiting component when using the Commerce Clause. So what do you think about calling a penalty a tax and calling this action Constitutional-do you see any limits on Congressional power now?

  61. Wow-Why would we want people who don’t care enough to vote without force or a Prize to vote?

    MSNBC’s ‘The Cycle’ Spins Mandatory Voting As Good For America

    By Matt Vespa | June 29, 2012 | 10:21

    The day before the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare’s individual mandate constitutional — as a tax, not as an exercise of the commerce clause — the mostly-liberal panel at the brand-new 3 p.m. program The Cycle explored the question of what, in the view of the panelists, that government should consider making Americans do against their will.

    For her part, panelist Krystal Ball insisted that America should be more like Australia, which forces its citizens to vote in it federal elections or else to pay a fine. Unsurprisingly, Ball’s fellow liberal panelists Toure Neblett, and Steve Kornacki were sympathetic to the proposal, with only conservative panelist S.E. Cupp denouncing it as antithetical to the notion of political liberty.

    Ball, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2010 in a safely Republican district, stated that such a measure would mitigate the influence of money in politics and lead to a more “representative democracy.” Furthermore, Ball stated that the absence of money in our elections would decrease grassroots operations aimed at suppressing the vote.’s Steve Kornacki agreed stating that it will lessen the nasty side of campaigning which seeks to turn out voters who are favorable to your side while discouraging voters favorable to your opponent. Toure, the inimitable 9/11 truther, also agreed and said that Election Day should be a national holiday and that voter registration should be mandatory as well.

    Cupp was the only voice of reason stating that apathy isn’t nor should be a crime. Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg agreed. In response to former Obama budget director Peter Orszag, who holds the same position, Goldberg wrote in the National Review on June 27 that:

    One of the chief benefits of coerced voting, according to Orszag, is that it increases participation. Well, yes, and kidnapping drunks in pubs increased the ranks of the British navy, but it didn’t turn the conscripted sailors into patriots.

    There was also an inane notion that a lottery and cash prize for people to incentivize them to vote was a free market initiative.

    Goldberg slams this and the utopian mindset that this mandatory voter participation would create a more “representative democracy.” In fact, as Goldberg states, “… fining people, say $15, if they don’t vote and using the proceeds to set up a lottery to bribe reluctant voters. If the old line that lotteries are taxes on stupid people is correct, then the upshot of this proposal is that the cure to what ails democracy is an influx of large numbers of stupid voters.”

    Sorry Krystal, but incentivizing people to vote with the carrot of a lottery and the stick of a fine doesn’t make it a free-market initiative, because free markets by definition are marked by freely-contracted exchange, not government coercion and subsidy.

    Read more:

  62. Just a thought and I haven’t had time to go back and catch up or read much so throwing this out here for other SUFAers:

    This has been determined to be a tax. Taxes must originate in the House, right? This OCare was full of crap in its development – Christmas Eve voting, other odd things – definitely not the normal procedures. So, was the final bill a House bill? Does that matter?

    • Wondered about that myself. Seems to me the ruling leaves multiple openings for future challenges to ObamaTax, but may have to wait until someone can show “harm” from the law first.

  63. Moore praised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for going “the extra mile” and coming up with the tax clause in his majority opinion.

    “Right, one of their own on their side of the political fence did the right thing,” Moore said. “I’m sure a lot of them are upset tonight — people that, conservatives, Republicans, people on the right. But at some point, I guess, I don’t know, maybe Mr. Roberts is a man of conscience and part of that conscience says that it would be immoral to upend this bill. What was so great about this, Lawrence is that — not just that he sided with the liberals. That would have been enough to just kind of blow all of our minds, right? But he then — but he was the one who actually wrote the majority opinion. And not only that, he felt that the government didn’t really make its primary argument about the Commerce Clause adequately.

    “”So he went and tried to help them essentially write their paper for them and came up with the tax clause. I mean, that — he went the extra mile to make this happen.””

    Moore went on to reiterate his belief that the momentum toward universal health care will be too much for the Republican Party and conservatives to stop, so he advised them to get on the bandwagon.

    “OK, we’ve got this piece of it,” Moore declared. “Now let’s move forward and get the next piece and the next piece. There’s no going back, though. This — we’re on the path that — of leading toward this universal health care

    Read more:

    • We have known all along that universal healthcare is the goal haven’t we? Is anyone not aware of that goal? If you are, you’ve been deluding yourself. Justice Roberts decision to hold the individual mandate constitutional was no real surprise. I believed all along the the court would uphold the law.

      The train is moving down the tracks to where we will have universal healthcare whether we like it or not (and I don’t) It will make massive changes to healthcare in America – and not for the better.

      • We’ve been aware and we’ve not argued the point when they were dismissive about their intentions, esp. the media. I was a little surprised to see Moore come right out and say it the day after it passed. Also did not give him credit for being intelligent enough to recognize how far Roberts went to get this through.

        I did not think it would be upheld since the defense insisted it was not a tax, how else could the mandate be applied? The commerce clause argument seemed to far a stretch to me. Was expecting 5-4 the other way. Have not seen any liberal response to the lie part, is it OK for the president to lie about raising taxes to accomplish what they want? Is there anything it’s not OK to lie about? Maybe we didn’t realize this was a war, any means is justified by the end, victory at any cost.

  64. The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

    “The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

    President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.

    Read more:


    I left town for some R&R and you guys let the country fall apart. WTH? Now I’m stressed out and need a vacation.

    Got to tour the inside of a submarine, The USS Silversides, a retired fighter from WWII, docked here in Muskegon, Mi. Very cool but I don’t think I’d be able to live in that tube for a year or more. Now how many of you can say that?

  66. Now here is an interesting situation…..several states are not only going to opt out of medicare and medicaid…..they are not going to institute what is in the law about creating the mechanism to make Obamacare go forward…..the Obama Administration has set a precedent on selective enforcement, in other words refuse to administer an existing law by claiming no resources…… now the states can do selective enforcement of an existing law by claiming no resources…..

    What is good for the Feds is good for the States…..

    I see NO difference in the two… one can step forward and say that health care is more important than deportation….the law is the law. The precedent has been set….so now what happens…..The Feds refuse to deport..the States refuse to implement….both for the same reasons… resources to do it and the SCOTUS has ruled…….you cannot penalize a state for refusing funds.

    Interesting situation…..Texas joined Louisiana today saying that it does not care what the SCOTUS says………we will use selective enforcement of the law as well.

    • Which is why Obamacare i a failure, Colonel … but I enjoyed listening to Mark Levin’s head explode. And Rush Limbaugh, too.

      We need to do what the rest of the civilized world does and go single payor. That’s around the corner … sooner or later … a beautiful thing.

      • Charlie, To give you credit, you are consistant in your desire for socialized medicine. Thankfully, we don’t have that yet. As you know, this nation is eyeball deep in debt, which is unpayable. So what happens to a nation with socialized medicine that can’t pay it’s bills?

        The economic situation in Greece is only continuing to worsen, as reports indicate that hospitals and care centers throughout the nation are running completely out of medicines, and many healthcare workers are now voluntarily providing care services without pay.

        Strapped with spiraling debt, the Greek healthcare, which is government-run, has had to receive gobs of international financial aid just to keep operating with some semblance of normalcy. There has also been plenty of IOUs issued, and desperate patients quietly forking over cash “gifts” to doctors to receive treatments. All in all, the healthcare situation is in utter chaos, save for those that have sacrificed their own time, often free of charge, just to help those in need.

        Now, I wonder how well liked socialized medicine is to the Greeks?

      • I do not listen to Rush or Levine……so I missed the explosion.

    • Found an interesting article at breitbart, can’t get the ‘puter to copy the link or story. The fed DoJ is sueing Texas, saying Exec. priv does not apply for the govoner and state officials when fed gov requests ALL their communications. Think about it, the law does not apply to Holder/Obama but does apply to Perry and any state officials….

    • This is the real kicker, DoJ refuses to recognize executive privilege in Texas that it is hiding behind in DC, like the law applies only to the little people & they are above it!
      from breitbart,

      As if the DOJ stonewalling of Congress is not bad enough, however, Eric Holder apparently does not believe that executive privilege is either “fundamental,” as he put it, or even legitimate to the operation of state governments. His Justice Department is in litigation with the Lone Star State over its new voter ID law. After the Justice Department objected to this common-sense election reform on the erroneous claim that it is discriminatory and violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts, Texas filed suit in federal district court in the District of Columbia.

      Trial is set to begin on July 9. The parties have been waging a discovery battle as the Justice Department has sought to take the depositions of state officials and to obtain voluminous amounts of privileged documents.

      In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.

      In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”

      DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.

      The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”

      Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.

      Note, too, that at the same time President Obama and the Attorney General are claiming privilege over post-Feb. 4th documents and communications produced in response to the congressional investigation and media inquiries, the Justice Department sought to compel Texas to produce all documents “regarding communications that post-date the enactment of [the voter ID law].” This includes all of the communications of the speaker of the Texas House of Representative “in preparation for speeches and other events” (which would no doubt include responding to media inquiries). The court ruled that because these speeches and events are “political” in nature, Texas had to produce them. It is hard to argue that Justice Department materials produced in response to media inquiries are not “political” in nature; they are the very essence of “political,” as Justice successfully argued in the Texas case.

      Finally, Justice even filed (unsuccessfully) a motion to compel the deposition testimony of the lieutenant governor of Texas. Can you imagine the outrage that would spill out of the White House if the House Committee had served a subpoena on Vice President Joe Biden seeking his testimony of what the White House knew about Operation Fast and Furious?

      It’s clear, when one compares the Justice Department’s position on executive and deliberate process privilege in the Texas voter ID litigation with its position on the privilege in the congressional investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, that neither Eric Holder nor Barack Obama want the same rules applied to them that they would apply to the governor of Texas and members of the state legislature.

  67. I am wondering….did the Chief Justice do the right thing? Or was it a crafty ploy to redefine the Obama Healthcare as a tax instead of a penalty….that has now forced the Obama Administration to loudly proclaim that the Chief Justice is wrong in that it is not a tax but a penalty……even though the Administration argued in court that it was a tax and not a penalty and now have changed their mind. Did the Chief Justice actually redefine it so that there will be a new battle cry about Obama raising taxes greater than any President in the history of the United States…..especially on the middle and poor class. Perhaps that will lead to the downfall of Obama? Most states are refusing to set up the program because of the increased taxes……..

    Makes one wonder how the middle and poor class will respond…..They are the ones in trouble….those of us that can afford health insurance….it will have no impact. Interesting thought.

    • If Obamacare is a tax, the court is not supposed to rule on it until someone has been forced to pay and and challenge it. So if they define it now as a tax and it is then implemented and challenged, does it/can it come back to the court for another hearing? At which time it can be overturned and ruled a penalty that does not follow due process. Also if it is a tax, did it originate in the house where taxes are constitutionally required to originate? Maybe Roberts was setting it up for future failure by first closing the commerce clause then opening the tax door.

      • Does make one wonder……

        But, correct me if I am wrong T-Ray……but the Obamacare was designed to make everybody purchase insurance but the people that cannot afford the insurance is the poorest among us…..

        The IRS is the collection agency……now all these people who have no insurance must now purchase it, whether from a government agency or private insurance. Medicaid will be cut 400 billion…..the states can opt out of medicare without penalty…….the employers are going to increase their profits simply by paying a tax or penalty that is lower that providing healthcare….now those that were on employer healthcare will have no health care and I would wager that most were participating at a very low rate. So the employee that was paying say 10 or 15 % at most for their copay and all….will now suddenly increase even if the Obamacare comes in with lower insurance, the middle class will pay the higher percentage that they lose with the employer paid portions… forward to the poorest. They must now purchase health care because after reading the law very carefully, there will be no indigent class for they will be in violation of the law. Even with the cheapest of insurance, there is still an increase for those who never had it. Public and county hospitals have a duty and obligation to REPORT those who have no insurance to the IRS…Now, if the states decide to opt out of medicare and medicaid……in total…..because the Affordable Health Care Act has an opt out clause….there is no obligation to accept the indigent without the government mandated insurance even if provided by the government.

        With the states having the now SCOTUS approved opt out of medicaid/medicare expansion without penalty and doctors deciding to not accept medicare now, without the expansion and with the trend that is apparently developing among the more talented doctors to form their own consortiums and building private hospitals……tell me. Where is this quality healthcare going to come from?

        NOw, I guess that the government can choose to “selectively enforce” their own law…….

        What am I missing here? It cant be this easy.

        • Col. I do not think you miss much. It is the unaffordable, unobtainable healthcare act. Nothing in it makes healthcare cheaper. In fact it is not about healthcare but about health insurance. Most people confuse the two. You do not buy auto insurance and then expect the insurance company to pay for your brake inspections. If they did the mechanic would raise his rates to cover the cost of the extra paper work and the insurance company would raise their rates to cover extra overhead plus profit. The same thing has been happening in the health industry for years. More mandated coverage, more negotiated rates for insurance companies, more paper work, …. all have driven the costs up but not improved healthcare. ObamaCare is no different. It is just more of the same. Tort reform was not addressed. We got a national medical database so the government know will know your inner workings. So much for doctor patient privacy. We have government committees to approve new hospital construction, to determine best modes of treatment.

          My company pays 100% of the health insurance costs. Costs went up 17% this last year. If they do that again, we probably will start requiring the employee pay something. If increases continue, we will be forced to decide if healthcare is something we want to provide. It might be cheaper and easier just to opt out, pay the fine, and increase employee salaries and not be bothered with all the overhead. Luckily we are under 50 people. How many companies will refuse to increase beyond the 50 people mark just to avoid the regulation hassles?

          One of our local congressmen was on the radio Thursday. His opinion is that the future costs will make our current debt look tiny. The costs are unsustainable. The only option now is full repeal. That will set off a howl from the left on the east coast that we will hear here on the west coast from the west as it travels around the world. One thing that I have learned and I hope it is right is that since it was passed by a 51 vote reconciliation process, it can be repealed by a simple 51 vote in the Senate. No filibustering. So it will be imperative that the Repubs gain control of the Senate and WH.

          It would be great if doctors can opt out of the system and start a parallel healthcare network that is cash and carry. However, government is a monopoly. I do not think they will take kindly to competition. I have heard of doctors that try to charge a flat annual fee for care. They treat their patients for free (after the annual fee) and pay for any hospitalizations. The state has declared this a form of insurance that must come under the rules and regulations covering insurance companies. So government is very good at preventing innovative solutions that violate their monopoly on control and power.

          Our only hope is shamans, midwives, witch doctors, medicine men, and leaches. Oh wait, we already have the leaches in DC.

  68. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Read this by Rush. I paste just one interesting part of it here.

    “At the same time, everyone knew that the next day, when Verrilli planned to argue that the mandate was justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, he had as a backup the argument that it was also justified by Congress’ power to levy taxes — in other words, that it was a tax. Justice Samuel Alito saw the conflict right away. ‘General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,’ Alito said. ‘Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for the purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?’ ‘No,’ answered Verrilli. At the time, some observers found the whole thing a little boring; the real action would come the next day, when the court got to the question of whether the Commerce Clause could be stretched to include the individual mandate.”

    So if it is was not a “TAX” for the anti-injunction act, how did it become a “TAX” in the end….

    Here is from Robert’s
    ***1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does notbar this suit.
    The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be main­tained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The pre­sent challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsi­bility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con­stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.***
    Again this part *** The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Con­stitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.***

    So the reasoning, is because it was “called a penalty by congress” then the Anti-Injunction act does not apply. But for constitutional purposes it is indeed a “TAX”. Also I would think that because it was called a penalty and not a “TAX” by the Senate and Congress when they wrote the bill then Maybe it was legal as a “penalty” to originate in the Senate.

    A lot of twisted thinking in my opinion.

    Now a ‘trick’ question for Charlie. If the 1% is in charge, why did they want Obamacare to pass assuming it will lead to a single payer system?

    • Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the constitution was very explicit on the federal taxing authority. They can level per capita taxes (head taxes) to be assessed and paid by the states, they can collect customs duties and excise taxes and with the 17th(?) amendment income taxes. So does this “tax” fall under an excise tax? If so how can it be a tax on a lack of commercial activity? If it is a penalty, then it should follow due process and require it to be assessed by a court. SS is sold as a universal insurance program not as a tax hence it avoids the issue. I can see Robert’s move as brilliant if he his objective was to block the use of the commerce clause from being used for non-activity and then to eventually block the tax laws from be a back door method of stopping the same thing. But this will require a second ruling which is fraught with danger since we will not know the make up future courts.

  69. A Puritan Descendant says:
    • I’ve read a couple other similar articles. This situation is not hard to follow, yet so many refuse to see the likely outcome of their desire for government to take care of them.

      One other thought on this regarding all those waivers that were issued. If this is a tax, can you just randomly waive groups from paying taxes?

    • I fear that it is all over, the jig is up if you will. Over the past 70 years the House and Senate have become debating societies. Posturing from Left , Right, Dem and Republican. Bottom line is They are there for the bennies. Coming from the Northeast, to my knowledge, we have had Lautenberg, Corzine and the late Dan Moynihan as Senators. Why? Because they wanted to accomplish something? I think not. It is the status and prestige they sought. What a way to cap off a successful career, become a Solon of the Republic! Even our wonderful NY stalwart Chuck Schumer is there to be seen on National TV and to preen. Was Teddy Kennedy or is John Kerry really any different? How about the black caucus? Charley Rangel? Those folks are elected for life. They contribute nothing to the debate just occupy space.

      I think we can go back to the Progressive era, Maybe even TR, when we see the Executive running the entire show. I suspect it was a study of Lincoln’s administration during the Civil war that demonstrated to them that the Executive could take over completely and safely ignore Congress if handled the right way. Fool the people and subvert the congress.

      The difference between then and now and even such worthies as Johnson, Nixon, the Bushes and Clinton was that they were wise enough to continue the charade that Congress still had some power.

      In a way, either through intelligence or stupidity (I can’t see or say which), the Obama Administration has done us all a big favor. They ended the charade. They have shown us that the Emperor really does have no clothes on! I sit here pondering Watergate, nobody got killed but the hatred for RN was so powerful, strong and overwhelming that the country came to a standstill as people rubbed their hands in relish at the thought of either driving him from office or preferably burning him at the stake. This clown, runs illegal wars, executes American citizens, allows his administration to traffic in illegal firearms that really do kill people and fails to obey and enforce the laws of the land duly passed by the Congress and signed by his predecessors and there is nary a peep from that same Congress.

      The Congress of the United States has no more power than the Senate under Caligula. They abdicated long ago. This is not the Senate that saw the danger in a Caesar, this is the Senate who welcomes that Caesar. I cannot see a way back. I’d love to see a scenario that differs from mine.

      • What’s next? Thats what needs to be considered. 👿

      • Okay, Stephen, but remember you asked for it (a scenario that differs from yours, albeit slightly). The hands that juggle the strings attached to all branches of our government come from the same place (high atop the economic pyramid that is capitalism) … and until we change the economic system, nothing else can change.

        • Pray tell me how different the Politburo was from the scenario you envision?

          In an exorcism, the priest must get the demon to reveal his name. Who are the demons in capitalism? Is it the historical rich and powerful, the Kennedy and Rockefeller types or does it include the Bill Gates’ and George Soros’ ? I really want to know. Is it anyone with big money in favor of the status quo or is it far more insidious than that?

          During the cold war I thought that there were those on either side who were perfectly willing to allow the thing to go on and on because it guaranteed them and their heirs positions of high standing in government, industry and academia. There was no way in hell they wanted a change. They might have to go out and work for a living. The same holds true today in every industry. Be it housing or medicine, no one wants a radical improvement or they will lose status, prestige and be out of work.

          My Dad used to say that the only true communism was to be found in places like an Israeli Kibbutz. Before you came on board we hashed this about a few times. My Israeli friends all told me that most kibbutzim were gone. They were victims of human nature when people realized that they were working harder than the guy in the next bunk but not reaping a bigger reward. That sir is human nature. Wish it were different but it’s not.

          I guess only monasteries are good examples of Communism and that’s because the goal is directed at something other than an earthly reward. Does not mean though that even abbots don’t play politics in the abbey.

  70. This is huge………..In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled against the SEIU.

    At issue in this case was whether SEIU could mandate that its employees pay a special union fee that would be spent on political activities without providing them with information about the fee and opportunity to object to it. The Court decided that this practice violated its members First Amendment rights and reversed the liberal Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of the SEIU.

    This decision marks yet another huge loss for unions in this country, showing that they are no longer the invincible political powerhouses that they used to be. Not only did this ruling limit their ability to unilaterally use union dues to fund political campaigns, but it also reflected that Big Labor in this country can no longer rely on Democrats to always support them; two of the most liberal justices on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Obama appointee, sided with the majority against the SEIU.

    With this decision coming off the heels of the massive union loss in the Wisconsin recall election, it poses this question: Is the era of Big Labor coming to an end?

  71. According to Drudge, ConEd union is threatning to strike in Jersey/NY during this heatwave over their pension disputes. Hope you guys got those generators! Spitfire lost power but did have a generator…(damn, may need to fire mine up for a check-out)

  72. New edict from Homeland Security…..

    This is to the border patrol : IF you see weapons, do not engage, do not detain….run away and hide. This is not a joke…..holster your weapon and run away. Do not shoot. Throw rocks or anything else that you can get your hands on….weapons are a last resort but only as a last resort to not being able to run away.

    This is an actual edict from the Department of Homeland Security…..This is the progressive movement. Do not defend yourself, do not stop a crime in progress if there is a weapon……run away and hide.

    Want to make bets how Texas will handle this?

  73. Bama Dad says:

    As we approach the 4th of July I think it is appropriate that all should read the Declaration of Independence and contemplate the meaning of it’s wording. Pay attention to some of the grievances listed that compelled these men to write such a document, then think of how we are governed today. Happy 4th to all.

    • I like this part Bama Dad … That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (i.e., the greater good).

      Reads like a cry for socialism to me … 🙂

    • Naten53 says:

      “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

      Czars anyone?

    • I’m still gonna say that if the Court had struck it down, precedent would have been set to strike down Social security and Medicare at a later date. Both are in essence mandatory with few and very stringent exceptions. Roberts wanted no part of that.

      • You may need to explain why you believe SS or medicare would be effected-I have a hard time naming anything that the government can’t mandate or tax-but I was under the impression that there were limits on how they implemented these “taxes”.

        • Ever try to “opt out” of social security when taking a job at a conventional employer? I admit I am not an expert but seems to me that there are few exceptions. I know some municipalities and Police departments have but the requirement was an alternative retirement system. Health care also has exceptions. So, I see the two as roughly analogous. Would be interesting to go back and examine any lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of SS or Medicare and see what they were based on and how far they got.

          Remember, the court can decide at any time to intervene or revisit any law no matter how long ago it may have been passed. Ultimately I expect a reversal on gun rights just as soon as a very liberal/progressive administration is matched with a very liberal court.

  74. Charlie, your socialist utopia is a figment of your imagination. All we would do is trade one set of clowns for another. There has been no utopian socialist society that has succeeded. The communist movement of the 20th century deteriorated into dictatorships with an elite that was power hungry and cared not how many people they killed to achieve their goals. The utopian societies of southern Indiana and Sewickley, PA eventually died out even though they had strong religious bonds to hold them together. Your trade unions should be models of socialism. However, they are corrupt with power hungry men at the top. They can’t even follow decent democratic rules, requiring card check instead of secret ballots, closed shops (forced payroll deductions), coercion, and more. The socialist European countries are spending themselves out of existence trying to keep ahead of the incessant gimme demands. In Europe it is now a right if you are sick on vacation to get a do over and to get paid for it. The demands never stop and the government always gives in to get itself reelected.

    Our country was different for many decades. Unfortunately we are following that same failed path. If in deed this last decision broke the back of the Constitution, then there will be no restraint on the federal government whether it be controlled by the mob or the Wall St. big wigs.

    • That was really interesting-makes their BS about SuperPacs having too much influence-funny-if it wasn’t totally infuriating.

  75. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, got son married off. Great show and party. Very, very happy young JAC Jr and NEW Mrs. JAC Jr.

    Now in the land of the Coeur d’Alenes. Drive through the Palouse Prarie was filled with GREEN everywhere. It has been a cool wet spring on the Palouse and in North Idaho.

    Hope all is well with everyone.
    Best wishes and many happy thoughts to ya’ll.


  76. From National Review, June 28, 2012 – Entitled “Chief Justice Robert’s Folly”

    The National Law Review concurs……

    In today’s deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution mostly right. The Commerce Clause — the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states — does not authorize the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The Court, by a 5–4 margin, refused to join all the august legal experts who insisted that of course it granted that authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.

    What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law repeatedly speaks in terms of a “requirement” to buy insurance, it says that individuals “shall” buy it, and it levies a “penalty” on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent points out, these are the hallmarks of a “regulatory penalty, not a tax.”

    The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive on the states. The Court’s solution was not to invalidate the law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution rewrites the law — and arbitrarily, since Congress could have avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.

    The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.

    The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should not follow its example — which is what they would do if they now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country’s tradition of limited government, the future strength of our health-care system, and the nation’s solvency. We are not among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the risk.

    It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for its replacement by something better than either it or the health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting experts to use the federal government’s purchasing power to drive efficiency throughout the health sector — the vain hope of Obamacare’s Medicare-cutting board — they should replace Medicare with a new system in which individuals have incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry, they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should give individuals more control over their insurance.

    Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.

  77. Obama’s New Recipe:

    The Progressive Cowardice Stew

    one dash of Jimmy Carter left over policy
    one dash of Chicago thuggery
    one dash of Nancy Pelosi
    one dash of Harry Reid
    2 grains of Joe Biden brain drain
    Stir in unlimited ILLEGAL funds from George Soros
    Add three dashes of Janet Napolitano, there is no border problem, dip shit theory
    Add three dashes of Eric Holder, I refuse to administer the laws of the United States
    Throw in a pinch of Obama, I really need the illegal vote, open border theory
    Mix in a liberal dose of “Kumbayah” and disdain for independence
    Finally add a hefty dose of armed insurgents on US Border ( not all Cartel), supplemented by Homeland Security’s new edict of run from the guns…..

    And you have the Progressive Cowardice Stew

    Note: For Liberal Progressive thinkers : Add no other ingredients, put on blindfold, and eat heartily.

    Note: For Conservatives: Hazardous to your health. Eat only if you wish to be governed, controlled, and pampered to the point of not thinking for yourself.

    For all Texas: Load yer guns.

    • Special Note to Mathius: All dancing Dallas Cowboy naked cheerleaders on D 13’s front lawn have now been replaced by D13 naked rifle drills and a dancing naked Nancy Pelosi on Mathius front lawn….in spot lights….and no make up (which did not work anyway).

  78. Oh hell, I forgot to mention to mention to Mathius…all Red Bull and grog has been confiscated and sent to the White House but you will get an invitation…
    To BUCK: All caffeinated coffee in New York and JOISY falls under Bloomberg’s new edict and will be illegal and sent to the White House…..however, since there are already enough lawyers in DC, your invitation is lost in the government mail system.

  79. July 2, 2012
    Presidential contenders respond to a weather emergency
    Ethel C. Fenig

    A devastatingly destructive storm struck parts of the eastern third of the country Friday night; millions are still without power. So the very next day President Barack Obama (D) – or one of his staffers – tweeted the following helpful advice to his workers.

    Keep cool while you’re canvassing this summer: OFA.BO/7JyjLP #Obama2012

    Not so coincidentally, to help the canvasser remain cool, the link leads to a…you guessed it…a Vote Obama tank top, “a stylish and fun way to show your support.” It even has a “unisex fit” and, at $30, is the same price as the BFD tee shirt which has sleeves. Such a deal!

    Oh yes, he also called the governors of the severely impacted storm states

    to express his condolences for the loss of life and his concern for individuals and first responders still confronting the destruction and loss of power that is impacting communities as a result. The President told the Governors that he has directed FEMA to ensure they continue to provide necessary support to state and local officials in impacted areas as they respond to these events, especially considering the power outages and the high temperatures many of the impacted areas are currently experiencing.

    He did not however offer BFD or Vote Obama tee shirts. Just as well.

    Meanwhile the Mitt Romney (R) campaign also responded to the situation

    The Romney for President bus is in Ohio this week and we’ve decided to put it to good use in the relief effort, but we need your help.

    If you’d like to make a donation to the relief effort, bring supplies to the Romney for President Headquarters located at 1335 Dublin Road in Columbus on Sunday between 10am and 7pm.

    We will load up the Romney for President bus on Sunday evening and send it to Southeast Ohio on Monday morning to deposit supplies at various relief centers.

    Here’s what we need:

    * Bottled Water

    * Non-perishable food items, such as beef jerky, granola bars, peanut butter, etc.

    Bring your supply donations to our headquarters Sunday and we’ll ensure it gets to your fellow Ohioans who are in need on Monday.

    Thank you in advance for your generosity.

    Romney did not urge his volunteers to purchase pricey campaign tee shirts.

    Read more:

  80. Bama Dad says:
    July 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm • Edit

    As we approach the 4th of July I think it is appropriate that all should read the Declaration of Independence and contemplate the meaning of it’s wording. Pay attention to some of the grievances listed that compelled these men to write such a document, then think of how we are governed today.

    I like this ideal! Any others for or against? May open a new page around noon if in favor….

    • Pay attention to some of the grievances listed that compelled these men to write such a document

      and ignore slavery … nice touch

      • You know, for someone who constantly harps on the slavery thing, it sure is weird that you have no problem with forcing people to give up the fruit of their labor to support others who are not working.

        I know you think wages are slavery, but at least they are not direct force. Some may feel forced in the sense that they cannot just quit or else they would have nothing, or they feel forced because they cannot make more than what they are being offered, but that is very subjective. Some people really do have limited choices. Some have choices but are unaware or to timid to take the chance. Some are engaged in a voluntary exchange and have no problem with their employer making money on their work. In fact, most people understand that if the employer is not making a profit on you there is no reason to hire you at all. Still, it is a voluntary exchange to some level, and the so-called force you apply to the situation is not perpetrated directly by the employer.

        On the other hand, taxes are a direct and forceful confiscation of the fruits of one’s labor. Now it could be argued, at least for some taxes, that it is an exchange for services rendered, that it is a cost charged for benefits provided. But for the vast majority of taxes, the return is not to those who pay the tax. So, by use of force, the fruit of people’s labor is stripped away and handed to others who did not earn it in any way. Forget the 1%, what about the middle class? What justifies them having to work 4 months or more of the year for free to cover the costs of government and safety nets supporting the lower class who does nothing?

        You are a fan of slavery, sir, even more so than the founders you claim to be horrified by.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          If wages are slavery and Charlie wants slavery elimiminated, then logically……………… 🙂

      • Charlie, We all know your stance on slavery.. What should be done to satisfy you about the situation?

      • You keep forgetting Charlie, 6,000 years of recorded human history and slavery has been outlawed (generally) since 1863. Even later in the Indian territories., Well into the 1870’s there before Uncle Sam broke the treaties and forced them to release their slaves. . That of course was for those wonderful folks you are always going on about. Peace loving, democratic and all that crap.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Charlie, i saved this from a post by V.H. July 1, 2011. 2:35PM ….

        “Never in the history of the world, outside of the West, has a group of people eligible to be slave owners mobilized against the institution of slavery. This distinctive Western attitude is reflected by Abraham Lincoln: ‘As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.’ Lincoln doesn’t want to be a slave — that’s not surprising — but he doesn’t want to be a master either. He and many other people were willing to expend considerable treasure, and ultimately blood, to get rid of slavery not for themselves, but for other people. The uniqueness of this Western approach is confirmed by the little-known fact that African chiefs, who profited from the slave trade, sent delegations to the West to protest the abolition of slavery. And it is important to realize that the slaves were not in a position to secure freedom for themselves. The descendants of African slaves owe their freedom to the exertions of white strangers, not to the people of Africa who betrayed them and sold them.”
        A bold statement? Perhaps. But, a proper perspective and attitude can only be had when informed by the facts — in this case, historically verifiable facts.”

        A couple of those “white strangers” were ancestors of mine. I even have photos of one and the spouse of another. Just like the slaves they were very real people.

      • The first Europeans to arrive on the coast of Guinea were the Portuguese; the first European to actually buy enslaved Africans in the region of Guinea was Antão Gonçalves, a Portuguese explorer in 1441 AD. Originally interested in trading mainly for gold and spices, they set up colonies on the uninhabited islands of São Tomé. In the 16th century the Portuguese settlers found that these volcanic islands were ideal for growing sugar. Sugar growing is a labour-intensive undertaking and Portuguese settlers were difficult to attract due to the heat, lack of infrastructure, and hard life. To cultivate the sugar the Portuguese turned to large numbers of enslaved Africans. Elmina Castle on the Gold Coast, originally built by African labor for the Portuguese in 1482 to control the gold trade, became an important depot for slaves that were to be transported to the New World.[55]
        African slaves working in 17th-century Virginia, by an unknown artist, 1670

        The Spanish were the first Europeans to use enslaved Africans in the New World on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola,[56] where the alarming death rate in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512–1513). The first enslaved Africans arrived in Hispaniola in 1501 soon after the Papal Bull of 1493 gave all of the New World to Spain.[57]

        In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. This approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism.[citation needed] However Pope Eugene IV in his bull, Sicut Dudum of 1435 had condemned the enslavement of the black inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Pope Paul III in 1537 issued an additional Bull, Sublimis Deus, declaring that all peoples, even those outside the faith should not be deprived of their liberty. The followers of the church of England and Protestants did not use the papal bulls as a justification for their involvement in slavery.

        Increasing penetration into the Americas by the Portuguese created more demand for labour in Brazil–primarily for farming and mining. Slave-based economies quickly spread to the Caribbean and the southern portion of what is today the United States, where Dutch traders brought the first enslaved Africans in 1619. These areas all developed an insatiable demand for slaves. As European nations grew more powerful, especially Portugal, Spain, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands, they began vying for control of the African slave trade, with little effect on the local African and Arab trading. Great Britain’s existing colonies in the Lesser Antilles and their effective naval control of the Mid Atlantic forced other countries to abandon their enterprises due to inefficiency in cost. The English crown provided a charter giving the Royal African Company monopoly over the African slave routes until 1712.[58]

        The Atlantic slave trade peaked in the late 18th century, when the largest number of slaves were captured on raiding expeditions into the interior of West Africa.[citation needed] These expeditions were typically carried out by African kingdoms against weaker African ethnic groups and peoples. These mass slavers included the Oyo empire (Yoruba), Kong Empire, Kingdom of Benin, Kingdom of Fouta Djallon, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Kingdom of Koya, Kingdom of Khasso, Kingdom of Kaabu, Fante Confederacy, Ashanti Confederacy, and the kingdom of Dahomey. Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa, due to fear of disease and moreover fierce African resistance.[59]

        They were all very inquisitive, but they viewed me at first with looks of horror, and repeatedly asked if my countrymen were cannibals. They were very desirous to know what became of the slaves after they had crossed the salt water. I told them that they were employed in cultivation the land; but they would not believe me … A deeply-rooted idea that the whites purchase blacks for the purpose of devouring them, or of selling them to others that they may be devoured hereafter, naturally makes the slaves contemplate a journey towards the coast with great terror.[60]
        —Mungo Park, Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa, 1795-7

        Before the arrival of the Portuguese, slavery had already existed in Kingdom of Kongo. Despite its establishment within his kingdom, Afonso I of Kongo believed that the slave trade should be subject to Kongo law. When he suspected the Portuguese of receiving illegally enslaved persons to sell, he wrote letters to the King João III of Portugal in 1526 imploring him to put a stop to the practice.

        The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa’s principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples.[61][62][63] Like the Bambara Empire to the east, the Khasso kingdoms depended heavily on the slave trade for their economy. A family’s status was indicated by the number of slaves it owned, leading to wars for the sole purpose of taking more captives. This trade led the Khasso into increasing contact with the European settlements of the west coast, particularly the French.[64] Benin grew increasingly rich during the 16th and 17th centuries on the slave trade with Europe; enslaved people from enemy states of the interior were sold, and carried to the Americas in Dutch and Portuguese ships. The Bight of Benin’s shore soon came to be known as the “Slave Coast”.[65]

        Several historians, such as João C. Curto, have made important contributions to the global understanding of the African side of the Atlantic slave trade. By arguing that African merchants determined the assemblage of trade goods accepted in exchange for slaves, many historians argue for African agency and ultimately a shared responsibility for the slave trade.[66]

        King Gezo of Dahomey said in 1840s:

        The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth … the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery …[67]

        In 1807, the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice:

  81. All;

    MIght need a new post to follow the comments after everyone see’s this vidieo:

    This is the first time I have seen it although it must have been done sometime in Feb. I cannot think or find a more racist POS

    Can you imagine the response from the Black community had a white candidate done anything like this?

    This guy is an ass


%d bloggers like this: