Who’s afraid of the NRA?

Well this article is not starting well, my first picture comes from “Think Progress”(1) where they did a similar article.  ( and I sourced it to give our liberal friends ammo for this battle)  We hear a lot about the NRA and the influence they have on elections.  I agree they are a force to be reckoned with, but they were not able to stop Obama in 08′ and they did expend the effort. ( I am a NRA life member, so forgive any unintended bias.)  Does Obama winning mean their influence has diminished?  I think not.  If anything, I think it has resulted in an increase in their membership and contributions.  But they are just one organization that has a single issue that they champion.  There are others, such as the Pro-Life movement.  Strange bedfellows?  Pro-life people allied with a gun group…  We also hear about the Koch Brothers and all the money they spend.  Funny how Soroes isn’t part of that same conversation.  Chick-Fil-A might donate to anti-gay marriage organization, Amazon.com’s founder definitely has given two and a half million supporting gay marriage.

I do not think money or lobbiest will buy every election.  Influence, yes.  Sometimes that influence can overwhelm other factors.  A lot depends on the media and to whom they give a voice.  Ron Paul’s established record should have easily seen him winning the Republican nomination.  History shows he was right on nearly every issue, but the media silenced him in nearly every debate.  But they don’t control the TeaParty and their ability to bypass the media and gather support.  The NRA also contacts members directly, asking for donations and requesting we contact congressmen and senators.  Unions also contact their members and remind them who is friendly to their wants, and who is not.  And where reforms passed stopping unions from withholding dues from members paychecks, membership has taken a massive hit. ( Lucky for me the NRA can’t withhold dues or contributions like some unions)  So who else has “influence”?  I have found it strange that so many liberal actors earn their living as action movie star’s.  Why display gun violence on the big screen for millions and then go fundraiser for Obama & anti-gun politicians?  With all those special effects, they are “bulletproof”, so why not leave out the guns entirely.  But no, some of the biggest stars that cash in on “gun action” movies are anti- gun advocates like Stallone or Schratwaznager.    And we are not talking about just money, but influence.  I kinda like rock music, so having John Bon Jovie or Bruce Springsteen advocating on your behalf, that’s clout!!  Others have had the same thought…

The NRA’s Political Muscle? It’s Got Nothing on Hollywood

By Chris Frates
To hear Democrats tell it, you might think the National Rifle Association is the most powerful lobby in all of America. And there’s some truth to that. After suspected gunman James Holmes massacred 12 people in a Colorado movie theater, Republican and Democratic leaders offered their prayers and sympathy, but little in the way of ideas or legislation about how to make the country safer. In fact, Democrats have spent most of their time painting the gun lobby as unstoppable, even suggesting that lawmakers are too chicken to cross the NRA and support tougher gun control laws.
But Republicans, weary of the NRA invincibility narrative, wonder why there’s no discussion of Hollywood’s lobbying clout. After all, some argue, movie studios and television stations reap huge profits selling violence — like the kind featured in the Batman movie whose fans Holmes targeted — and have developed a sophisticated political and lobbying strategy to ensure government doesn’t get into the business of regulating it.
We hear a lot about how much influence the NRA has, and I agree they are a political force.
For instance, Time Warner, the parent company of Warner Bros., the studio that produced “The Dark Knight Rises,” has given almost $22 million in campaign contributions since 1989, mostly to Democrats. And that’s just one of the six major studios. The NRA, by contrast, has given almost $19 million, mostly to Republicans, over the same amount of time. George Clooney’s Hollywood fundraiser raised almost that much in one night for President Obama.
But more than the political money, both the gun and entertainment industries know how to play the Washington game. Both spend millions each year lobbying to keep government out of their business. And both have high-profile inside players representing them in Washington: Wayne LaPierre atop the NRA and former Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd at the helm of the Motion Picture Association of America.
When a gun tragedy befalls the nation, both industries end up in the headlines as the media and the public examines, yet again, how guns and violent entertainment may have influenced the shooters.
This time, it would be worth examining how the gun lobby and Hollywood exert their influence on Congress and to what extent that shapes public policy.(2)
Sometimes I wonder (and regret) why did I join the NRA?  It was in 96′ or 97′ and I the phone rings, one of those annoying telemarketers, nice female voice, “I would like to tell you about the NRA and how we are fighting for your rights”.
(I wasn’t interested in politics at the time, so most of my influence was from the mainstream media)  “Sorry, not interested.  I don’t think everybody needs a machine gun!”   (Remember some of the “assault weapons”ban was in the news at this time.)  Her answer, “well no, and we at the NRA don’t think that either!”   SO I didn’t hang up and she proceeded to educate me on some facts, first, she was a NRA member volunteering her time to help with a membership drive.  Second, the machine guns I was worried about were illegal in the US since a Firearms control act passed back in the late thirties.  The “assault weapons” in the media were a political/media created term for nearly any and all semi-automatic firearm.  Other things were said in our back and forth discussion, but in the end, I joined.  My regrets are how often they call asking for money and sending these damned “made in China” knives.  If you join, give them your mother-in-laws phone number or Obama’s.  DO NOT GIVE THE NRA YOUR PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER!
Not much of an endorsement there, eh?  Maybe it helps my credibility?  I think I am honest in what I post, but am human with all those faults.  I fact check most everything but still make mistakes.  I have fact checked the NRA & the best I can tell, they never lie.  Sure they spin and frame things to fit their agenda, but think about that for a moment and compare.  How many presidents, newscasters or organizations would you offer up for consideration on honesty?  Not bias, they are over the top on that, but for honesty?  If they report a number on a gun related issue, I have yet to find an error.  Having said that, here are some numbers that I have yet to confirm or check.  According to the NRA, they have contributed $189,101,213 in campaign contributions from 1990-2012.  One hundred eighty-nine, one hundred and one, two hundred thirteen MILLION DOLLARS.  Who can compete with that much spending?  Who can outspend the NRA in any election?  You don’t want to have an anti-gun platform facing a NRA backed opponent in most elections!
Is there anyone that can counter the “all powerful” NRA?  They have 4-5 million members and deep pockets!  Well, there is at least one, other, group…  You don’t here about them or see them on TV advocating for their cause, they prefer to operate in the back rooms, behind closed doors.  They quietly and legally (OH, very legally) have contributed to just a few campaigns in that same time period.  From 1990-2012, they chipped in $1,610,085,549.  Who has that kind of money(3) and would spend it every election cycle?  Sorry, some will think I’m cursing, but it’s trial lawyers.  And who is the “Lawyer’s Party?”
Lawyers have always been overrepresented in the presidency.  Seven of the sixteen Republican presidents have been lawyers: Lincoln, Hayes, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Coolidge, and Nixon.  Nine of the fifteen Democrat presidents have been lawyers:   Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Cleveland, Wilson, FDR, Clinton, and Obama.

But more and more the Democratic Party has been led by lawyers — and, at that, lawyers who are deeply mired in the legal profession.  Bill Clinton was not just Arkansas attorney general but he was also a professor of law at the University of Arkansas.  Hillary was a full partner in the Rose Law Firm. Obama lectured at the University of Chicago on constitutional law; Michelle Obama also practiced law.  Vice President Biden is a lawyer.

In the last few decades, the Democratic Party has placed on its national ticket almost exclusively candidates who have gone to law school.  In fact, since 1972, only three candidates who have not gone to law school have been on the top or the bottom of the Democrat ticket: McGovern (1972), Carter (1976 and 1980), and Benson (1988).  In stark contrast, every Republican ticket since 1980 has had at least one candidate who did not go to law school on the ticket: Reagan (1980 and 1984), George H. Bush (1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992), Kemp (1996), George W. Bush (2000 and 2004), and Palin (2008).

In 2008, all of the serious candidates for the Democrat nomination — Obama, Clinton, and Edwards — were lawyers, while there were serious candidates for the Republican nomination, like Huckabee and Paul, who never set foot in law school.  This year, of course, there are no serious non-lawyers seeking the Democrat nomination, but several serious Republican candidates, like Cain, Gingrich, and Paul, were not lawyers.

The near-monopoly of lawyers at the top of the Democratic Party helps explain the highly theoretical and profoundly impractical nature of Democrat policy.  Even Republican lawyers who went to law school, like Romney or Cheney, ran businesses and had to make payrolls and comply with federal business regulations.  Democrats on the national ticket in the last few decades have all been lawyers or lifelong politicians (like Nancy Pelosi, the child of a Democrat dynasty) or both.

This overrepresentation of lawyers in the Democratic Party extends to the Senate, where 66% of Senate Democrats are lawyers, compared to 45% of Senate Republicans.  The top five Democrat leadership positions in the Senate are held by lawyers: Biden, Inouye, Reid, Durbin, and Schumer.  Two of the four Republican Senate leaders, McConnell and Kyl, are lawyers, while the other two, Barasso and Thune, are not.

In the House of Representatives, only one Democrat leader — Hoyer — is a lawyer compared to two of the five Republicans who are lawyers — Cantor and Hensarling.  But the overall composition of House Democrats to House Republicans shows the same tilt towards lawyers: 42% of House Democrats are lawyers, while 28% of House Republicans are lawyers.  The pattern persists at the state government level.  While 43% of Republican governors are lawyers, 55% of Democrat governors are lawyers.

The Lawyers Party four years ago is the Lawyers Party still.  It is also a party with an increasingly distant connection to the real world.  Republicans, if they are smart, will make that a theme of the 2012 election.(4)

And how about a conservative that is FOR gun control laws?

Krauthammer Schools Entire ‘Inside Washington’ Panel on ‘The Cowardice of the Democrats’

During a discussion about gun control on PBS’s Inside Washington, Krauthammer gave fellow panelists Colby King, Mark Shields, and Nina Totenberg a much-needed education on “the cowardice of the Democrats” regarding this issue (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):

MARK SHIELDS, PBS: Why is it that after Katrina, we say, “We have to do something about the levees?” After 9/11, we agreed we have to do something about security and terrorism. But something like Columbine, something like Aurora, something like Virginia Tech, “No, no, we are helpless, we’re helpless, pitiable giants. We can’t do anything because the NRA is all-powerful.”


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The reason that we can’t do it is not because of a lobby but because of the cowardice of the Democrats. We don’t have a debate on gun control in the country. We have it on talk shows, but there’s none in Congress. If you have a debate, you have one party on one side and the other on the other. The Democrats will not speak up. A Democrat would not even give his name in Nina’s quotation here.

The fact is that if you want to blame it on a lobby, you are barking up the wrong tree. A lobby, for instance in the sugar quotas it’s a minority that the majority would oppose if they cared or knew about it. Hear, it is not NRA representing a minority. The reason it speaks and everybody listens is because obviously Democrats and Republicans have the idea the majority of Americans agree with them. So it’s not a lobby, it’s a reflection of public opinion, and that is why there is no debate on.

COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: That is not the case. They intimidate politicians on both sides, both parties.

KRAUTHAMMER: If the people were on your side on the issue there would be no intimidation.

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: No, you know, even as far back as, you know, when it was lopsided, at like 70 percent, they had enormous power, great skills, and they managed to intimidate a lot of members of Congress.

KRAUTHAMMER: Try once to blame the Democrats instead of some outside ogre.

TOTENBERG: I blame everybody.

SHIELDS: And the Republicans are?

KRAUTHAMMER: I’m saying on this issue the Republicans have a position, the Democrats will not oppose it because of public opinion.


SHIELDS: Republicans act out of courage and conviction rather than cowardice.

KING: Do you like that position? Do you agree with their position?

KRAUTHAMMER: I have spoken on this show for 20 years, I am not an opponent of gun control.

KING: Okay.

KRAUTHAMMER: I don’t agree.

KING: So Republicans are wrong?

KRAUTHAMMER: I don’t agree with Republicans on this issue.

KING: So Republicans are wrong, sir?

KRAUTHAMMER: But I am trying to point out that the reason this is not happening is not because of a lobby, but because of a consensus among a majority of Americans.

As usual, Krauthammer was 100 percent correct and his liberal colleagues were barking up the wrong tree.

The reality is that gun control for the most part is a liberal issue in this country, and for decades it has been the Left trying to enact tighter restrictions.

During this same period, public opinion concerning the matter radically changed. As Gallup reported last October:

A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years. […]

For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views. […]

Additionally, support for the broader concept of making gun laws “more strict” is at its lowest by one percentage point (43%). Forty-four percent prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 11% favor less strict laws.

The above chart perfectly demonstrates Krauthammer’s point.

President Obama and his Party clearly want tighter gun control laws, but because the population doesn’t agree with them, they are scared to death to bring the matter up.

If they weren’t, they most certainly would have proposed a new assault weapon ban when they took control of the entire government with huge a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009.

They didn’t because they knew this would be a loser for them at the polls.

As such, game, set, match Krauthammer. (5)

I don’t think I can add anything to that, so I’ll stop typing.


(3) source is NRA’s 1st Freedom magazine.  You can discount it if you like but I have yet to find them make up numbers like this…


  1. 🙂

  2. the Senate, where 66% of Senate Democrats are lawyers, compared to 45% of Senate Republicans.

    Perhaps there is just a correlation between being smart and being a Democrat? I dunno…just throwing it out there…


    • And I’ll take that softball and hit it out of the park cause those Dem Senate lawyers are fouling things up. And you want to be like them when you grow up? 😉

    • Yeah, because only lawyers are smart…

    • Mathius™ says:


      Perhaps there is just a correlation between being smart and being a Democrat?

      Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated … At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, vocabulary, and analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education … and performance on mathematics and reading assessments.
      -Conservatism and Cognitive Ability

      Just saying… 😉

      • zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      • Just A Citizen says:

        It would seem to me, based on those results, that we had better check on the definition of “cognitive ability”.

        And of course it is supposed to be an “advantage” because they compare better to the very measures of academic knowledge that they themselves claim is NOT a measure of ones’ ability. Perhaps the testing criteria should be evaluated as well. Given how poorly our High School and College grads compare to the rest of the world.

        Of course all this could be summed up with: Book Smart and devoid of any sense.

    • So the smart, Democrat lawyers have blocked any efforts to reduce gun violence for years? Instead they stand back and blame Republicans and the NRA.

      • Hey be fair — only 66% of the Senate Democrats are lawyers. Not exactly a majority of the Senate overall.

        • I think you and Matt have expressed a desire for “sensible” gun control laws? You buy into the liberal view that the NRA has been what stop’s any steps forward…. What if it’s been your guys all along?

          • The NRA has been part of the problem, yes. But so have the politicians — both Dems and Repubs.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Is the Sierra Club a problem? How about the Natural Resource Defense Council, or Green Peace or Wildlife Federation, or AARP or Association of Federal Employees, etc, etc.

  3. Wonder where the money goes in Detroit? And the justification for it? Check it out.

    No Horses, But Detroit Water Department Employs ‘Horseshoer’

  4. Krauthammer is by training a psychiatrist. I would be much more interested in his thoughts on keeping firearms out of then hands of the mentally unstable. I think from watching him that he would be old school on psychiatry and in favor of forcible commitment but I don’t know. Since the ’80’s we have shut down almost all facilities for cost saving reasons and have replaced commitment with pharmacology which only works if: A. the people take the drugs and B. the drugs actually work.

    While there is always the question of making a mistake in sending one off to the looney bin or, as in some 1930’s or 1940’s thrillers a conspiracy to lock somebody up to get them out of the way for nefarious reasons, by and large the system worked and people who were a danger to themselves or others were taken off the streets. With a much larger population today and a far greater array of instability due mainly to excessive substance abuse I would guess, seems like it is time to revisit the issue.

    Lawyers, well, I expect our resident attorney’s to try to make mincemeat out of my second paragraph. The concern for the “rights” of the minority, even the wacky looney tunes variety will prevent any serious action being taken. Assuming this to be the case, how then can you prevent a crazy person from obtaining a firearm unless he is “outed” and put in the national database. To accomplish that, some alleged “rights” are bound to be trampled .

    A long time ago, I came up with the little phrase, “Your rights end where mine begin”. I would think that my rights include my government making me as safe as possible from nut cases. I still feel that way and interestingly enough, since the late 1970’s in housing law, in New York State under something called the warantee of habitability, a tenant can refuse to pay rent to the landlord if a third party, the tenant upstairs for example, caused a problem which results, in the “quiet enjoyment of the premises being negatively affected” for the aggrieved tenant . Interestingly enough, the burden is shoved onto the landlord for the acts of a tenant. He must then attempt to evict the annoying tenant and the court will demand a level of proof that he alone, without the help of the the original complainant cannot provide. We refer to this in the Housing business as “Catch 22”. I wish that this could carry over to criminal law where we could charge the shrink if his patient, who he allows to walk around, commits some dastardly crime.

    Watched an interesting show the other night on one of the “true crime” channels. This pig farmer in Vancouver murdered some 60 plus women up to 2005 possibly rendering some of their bodies into sausage. In the scheme of things, that is one hell of a body count but I don’t remember ever hearing about it. I guess theater shootings, school shootings, workplace shootings are like airline crashes. Despite the fact they are rare, the sheer number killed at the same time grabs ours and the media’s attention far more than the workaday 100 or so killed on various highways or the individual street mugging gone bad.

    I appreciate the fact that the author points out that the “mighty” NRA is nothing when it comes to fundraising compared to Hollywood. That, should give pause to gun control proponents. There is a deeply ingrained desire for freedom in the American psyche that has, despite the best efforts of our betters, not been stomped out. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, despite what Ruth Bader Ginsberg may think, we are not Europe. Thank God for that.

    One final thought. The way the gun control argument has worked in the past is something like this. If someone uses a 100 round magazine to shoot up a theater then the call is to reduce magazine capacity. Let us say, both sides compromise and magazines are then limited to 40 rounds. Within a few years, someone else will shoot up someplace with a 40 round magazine. The call will then go out for restricting these. NO MENTION WILL BE MADE OF THE PREVIOUS PROBLEM SOLVING RESTRICTIONS. Assuming another compromise the magazines will be restricted to 20 rounds. Well, you guessed it, somebody then shot up a place with a 20 round mag. The call goes out to bring them down to 10 rounds, again with no back history. Now the opposition digs in its heels and says no. Chuck Schumer then goes on national TV Sunday morning to scream how the opposition WON’T EVER COMPROMISE. It’s like the commies on compromise during the cold war, what’s ours is ours, what’s yours is subject to negotiation. Ultimately, as in NYC, California or Australia, the compromises eventually result in the banning of entire classes of previously legal firearms with absolutely no effect on crime or anything else. Just a bunch of “feel good” laws.

  5. Buck says “The NRA has been part of the problem, yes. But so have the politicians — both Dems and Repubs.”

    What problem would that be Sir?

    • NRA — you are kidding yourself if you don’t believe they are a powerful lobby. This is not to say there aren’t similarly powerful lobbies on other issues, but in terms of gun legislation, the NRA is the single most powerful lobby. They do have a lot of sway over politicians in both parties regardless of where public opinion actually lies.

      The GOP — beholden to the NRA; any gun legislation is immediately wrong.

      The Dems — beholden to the NRA in a different sense; too fearful of public backlash that, based on most polls, would not occur; too cowardice; treat any mention of gun legislation as a 3rd rail of politics.

      Obviously a very brief look at each of the 3 players in this instance.

      • Yes, the NRA is a powerful lobby. You hit the nail on the head, the government is the problem. I’ll be fair and ask if you can recommend a “common sense gun control law”. Now let’s set a standard that the law cannot take any freedoms away from law abiding citizens.

        I have alway wanted to ask this question, so anyone can answer. 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Law one: If you are a violent felon (see Law Eight), have a legally recognized history of “severe” mental disorder (unless resolved), or are a Colonel named D13, you may not own, possess, or otherwise utilize a firearm.

          Law two: In order to attain a gun licence, you must complete a basic instruction course which teaches, amongst other things, that guns are not toys, proper trigger protocol, child-safe storage, how not to shoot yourself in the a$$, etc. Basic aiming is also a must.

          Law three: Strengthen straw-purchaser laws. If, for example, you are a homeless man and buy a $10,000 tripod mounted 50-cal which you immediately turn around and sell for a sizable profit, and which shortly thereafter turns up in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel, you go to jail.

          Law three (a): Any and all transfers of ammo (over a certain quantity) or firearms must be reported to the authorities and is subject to the same background checks etc as required of any gun shop.

          Law four: No one with a neck or face tattoo may own a gun. Period.

          Law five: (not sure if this is already on the books), but you must immediately report lost or stolen weapons to the police.

          Law six: close gun-show loophole. Buying a gun at a gun show should follow the same laws as at a dealer.

          Law seven: national electronic database for both gun sales/transfers and AMMO sales. This should be cross referenced with Law One, with the terrorist watch list, with the sex offender database, et cetera. The police and/or ATF shall be permitted to investigate and/or inspect anything considered suspicious, but the burden of proof shall fall on the police/ATF – that is, your ownership remains intact unless they can prove you’re doing something wrong or are crazy or have a face / neck tattoo. However, you may be called to present your arms for inspection or at any point, etc, but they can’t be taken away/seized without judicial process.

          Law eight: A restorative process for exemptions from rehabilitated felons. If you have been a model citizen since committing one crime 20 years ago, there should be some way other than a pardon to get your rights back (maybe there already is?). Note, also, the felon rule should (maybe it does already) only apply to violent felons (possibly sex offenders too).

          Law nine: Individuals wishing to possess firearms capable of fending off Turkish rebels should have to honor the first half of the 2nd Amendment and actually form a militia, complete with rifle drills and angry drill sergeants. Individuals who wish to possess shotguns, single action rifles, or small caliber handguns are not included in this requirement.

          Law ten: scopes, silencers, et cetera shall all be legal upon a special accreditation process which does a more extensive background / mental health check. Similarly for heavier artillery up to and inclusive of grenades, rockets, mortars, et cetera at escalating levels of accreditation. Though I don’t know why a reasonable “normal” person might need a grenade launcher or a proximity mine, if they deem it necessary, and if it’s not shown that they’re a threat to anyone, then I see no reason why I should have a right to tell them they can’t have one.

          How’s that?

          • You may want to modify law ten a bit. My Browning 7mm 08 rifle comes standard with a scope. That doesn’t make it a sniper rifle, it is a hunting rifle.

            • Mathius™ says:

              To be honest, I’m not particularly well versed in guns. Other than my ability to recite Full Metal Jacket at length and with great accuracy, there isn’t much I can tell you.

              I came up with this list off the cuff – it’s far from perfect, but should serve, if one were inclined to debate matters, as a first draft or a rough outline.

              Can you tell me what distinguishes your rifle with scope from a “sniper rifle” and what the distinguishing characteristics of each are? Why, for example, might a sniper rifle be considered a threat to the public safety while your browning would not?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The first three address the issues.

            The rest is just your Big Brother side coming out for all to see.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The rest is just your Big Brother side coming out for all to see.

              What’s wrong with 5,6,8, or 10?

              5. Report lost/stolen guns. Isn’t it a “public concern” when someone (a criminal by definition) steals a gun? If it’s justifiable that we control who has access to guns (as you seem to slipulate), then doesn’t it make sense that a lost gun is a de facto problem in that there is no check being done on the new “owner” of that gun.

              6. Gun show loophole (if there’s a policy in place for making sure that only the “right” people have guns, why should this be easy and legal to circumvent?

              8. Restore lost rights. Why shouldn’t upstanding former criminals be able to get their rights back? How is this possibly big brother-ish?

              10. Allow bigger arms with escalating controls. If, as you state, 1-3 address the legitimate issues, and they address who is the “right” kind of person to own guns and making sure they know how to handle them safely, then why is it Big Brother-ish to apply those same principles to larger weapons with the understanding that increased potential for harm should justify more training and better precautions?


              I’ll admit No. 4 (face / neck tattoo) is big brother-ish.. but well, I stand by it anyway.

          • Mathius,

            Law 1, already a law, except for the D13 part
            Law 2, to costly, would disenfranchise the poor 🙂
            Law 3, again, disenfranchising the poor
            Law 3a, Never, it’s noones business how much ammo I have.
            Law 4, No, violates Freedom of Speech
            Law 5, really? make it a crime to not report a crime, I don’t think so, Freedom of Speech again.
            Law 6, Why, gun show purchases have not been an issue. Media bullshit, that once again disenfranchises the poor 🙂
            Law 7, Background checks have not sptooped mass murder, more stupid expensive gigberish from the left wing media. The govt should never know who owns guns, ever! This is not even close to common sense.
            Law 8 might have some sense to it! Very good, You get 1 G-Man point.
            Laws 9 and 10, More expensive disenfranchising nonsense 🙂

            Overall, I would not vote for you for public office 🙂

            • Mathius™ says:

              1. Well it’s important and should be added.
              2. Too bad! You shouldn’t have a gun if you’re not trained in how to have it. Just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you have some magical right to be a danger to everyone around you.
              3. Screw ’em. This has nothing to do with poverty and everything to do with dodging legitimate safety controls.
              3(a). Says you.
              4. Ok, maybe.. but I still think this is a good idea.. 🙂
              5. I don’t think that’s a 1st Amendment issue. If you have a car accident over a certain value you’re required to report that, too. The point here, again, is to make ‘public concerns’ publicly known. If someone steals your gun, then a criminal now has a gun. That’s something that the police should definitely be aware of.
              6. This wasn’t my understanding, but I admit to being poorly informed. Let’s put that one on ice for now.
              7. Maybe they haven’t stopped murders because the checks are too weak?
              8. What is a G-Man point redeemable for? Can I purchase grog with it?
              9. How is that disenfranchising people? They can still have guns, just not the big nasty ones unless they are actually committed to civil defense (ie, the FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT).
              10. How is this disenfranchising people? I’m letting them have the really big nasty stuff… just insisting that they know what the hell they’re doing and that they demonstrate that they’re not a danger to society first. If they don’t want this, they can still have the regular guns for defense and/or hunting.

              Overall, I would not vote for you for public office
              I somehow don’t think I’d ever win a vote at SUFA…unless I ran as DPM..

              Dread Pirate Mathius’ Sensible Gun Control Policy:
              1. Mind your own business.
              2. See rule number one.

              • At least you tried Mathius 🙂 History has proven that gun control does NOT increase the protection of citizens, but just the opposite. I laughed thinking that you want to ensure that when a mass murderer decides to go off, he/she can at least shot straight and is well trained 🙄 I suppose you didn’t consider that? I do like that DPM though, smart dude there! 🙂

                Govt checking, or knowing who has guns or wants to buy them is useless to stopping crime. Murder is illegal, but that hasn’t stopped people from murdering. Govt can’t protect you Mathius. G-Man points are redeemable for 1 get out of the crosshairs free card. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:


                I forget where you stand on this, but I’ll just ask the question:

                There is nothing you can do about mass-murdering gunmen, if gun control won’t stop them. If no policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them, why then are hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists?

              • Good question Matt, and the other day some guy on a jet ski or some such device landed on the shore by JFK airport and walked across two runways before they picked him up. The answer is, you try the best you can. There are no guarantees. Last week some turkey killed his girlfriend and her kid in NY, got on the highway at a high rate of speed in the wrong direction and deliberately rammed another car head on. After the fire, there is barely enough of the innocent driver to bury.

              • Mathius™ says:

                So, then the question follows logically: if, for terrorists, you “do the best you can,” why is it not correct to “do the best you can” with regards to gunmen? Why is it instead “useless”?

                I do like that DPM though, smart dude there!
                DPM was considering a third rule (“3. See rule number two.”) but didn’t want to get overly complicated or bureaucratic.

        • “can recommend a “common sense gun control law”? Maybe…The NRA has outraged some supporters and libertarians because they backed the Instant Background Check system. Is it possible something like this could be done with medical records?


      • Just A Citizen says:


        WHAT makes a lobby powerful?

      • It could be that 5,000,000 membership number of people pretty dedicated to a single cause. The problem I would think from your perspective is that it is not your cause. Had 5,000,000 been dedicated to “gay rights”, “Single payer healthcare” or “undocumented aliens” you would probably find yourself not quite as critical. It is an interesting proposition. My experience with shooters, which is pretty widespread, is that they are a very, very knowledgeable voter base. Most, even the younger ones are familiar with the history of the arguments back to the Kennedy assassination. They are also very familiar with the compromises made in the past which have done nothing to thwart the ultimate intent of the gun banners. Again, what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is subject to negotiation.

        Whenever somebody like Bloomberg gets up on his high horse, he should, pardon the pun, be shot down. Perhaps the spike in gun violence in NY is the result in the thirty percent reduction in the size of the police force since he took over and his concern for sugar, saturated fats and the creation of “plazas” throughout midtown rather than crime. In my lifetime, the only two New York Mayors who gave a damn about anything other than Manhattan below 96th Street were Koch and Guilliani. Bloomberg, Dinkins, Beame, Wagne and O’Dwyer were all mayors of a very small slice of New York City. Even John Lindsay, a tragic figure in my opinion, really did not get it when it came to the City above 96th Street or any of the boroughs. ,

        Within 24 hours of John Kennedy’s assassination, the history of that rifle and its ownership was tracked. That’s before computers and national data bases. You cannot tell me that they cannot find who is behind the gun running into the North from the South. Only if all the weapons were stolen does that become a problem and yes, entire shipments have been lost at JFK airport right under the eyes of Homeland Security and the Port Authority Police. Straw man purchases are a crime, crossing state lines with handguns as in gun running are not only a crime but each state is an individual “count”. Any gun dealer who “traffics” in this type of activity not only loses his license but goes to jail. Where are the investigations? The prosecutions?

        What’s your position on “stop and frisk”. I don’t much like it but it does work. Is it profiling to search 80 plus percent minorities since that’s where the crime is coming from or not? Do we have to have searches based on ethnic composition of the City? Do we have to start searching 80 year old grannies to be correct and “fair”?

        Despite wholesale opposition to firearms by the “right thinking people”, 40 of fifty states have passed right to carry laws. Despite the destruction of most rifle teams in most public schools, probably all public schools in urban areas, the “people” are more in favor of firearm ownership than ever before. That says something which is being ignored everywhere except in the gun community.


        The above link takes you to the “Violence Policy Center” and a surprisingly very fair article on the 1977 revolt within the NRA at the Cincinnati Convention when the old guard was ousted. Those were the folks who wanted to leave Washington DC for Colorado Springs and get out of the entire debate on gun control in favor of just being “‘sportsmen”.

        • Stephen,

          I love the history and insight you share with your posts! Never been to NY, but it’s interesting to hear your perspective. Why the reduction in police? Seems odd after the billions homeland security has spent on NY alone.

          On the 5 million NRA members, the Democrats have their own power base, if they can get them on-board for a issue. Around 15 million….

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Don’t forget AARP.

          • It’s simple, see, we solved the crime problem a dozen years ago and don’t need cops anymore. The absence of memory astounds me.

            Back in 1981 there was a movie called “Wolfen”. In 1987 there was another called “Batteries not Included”. Both were shot in the South Bronx in areas devastated in the 1970’s that had not yet been demolished. I have walked those streets. They looked like Dresden in 1945. There are blocks and blocks and blocks of vacant apartment buildings with an average of 40 units or so each. None became vacant as part of some plan. All were burned, raped and murdered by their tenants, junkies and in a few cases by their owners. Nobody remembers what happened anymore. It is like selective amnesia. A square block or two should have been preserved as is by some Conservative think tank as a historical memorial to stupidity. There could be a statue of LBJ out front shaking hands with John Lindsay while a bronze arsonist in the background sets fire to a building. What a draw that would be!

            The closest you can come today is Detroit where they don’t have the money to do the demolition but even there most blocks have a few standing structures. Quite different from when there were thirty or forty vacant houses on a block. Back in 1988 I took my twins on a college hunt to Philly. I was surprised to find that the entire area around Lafayette College (a gated campus) was surrounded by blocks and blocks of vacant brick row houses. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how you lose twenty or thirty blocks of BRICK homes! My answer, of course, is tons and tons of laws that are not enforced and ten thousand bad reasons why they are not enforced. I don’t know if Bill Bratton invented it or was just a strong advocate but when Guilliani brought him in as Police Commissioner, the application of community policing and arresting for small crimes before they became big crimes was the key to changing everything.

            We are doomed however to repeat the silliness. Just wait till Christine Quinn becomes Mayor. Unlike Bloomberg’s war on tobacco, trans fats and sugar, Chrissy will be up to her eyebrows in “gay” issues. She will be the first mayor of NY”s gays to the exclusion of absolutely everyone else. In NYC now, we have overvalued buildings that cannot pay their way. It is just a matter of time till owners walk away and the banks follow suit. Nobody is talking about it above a whisper.

            Below there is a wonderful link my son sent me about being nice to junkies, how love-love works better than tough love to cure their addictions. Couple that with a return to welfare without work and you are poised to repeat the’70’s. What’s that line? “Them what don’t learn from history are doomed to be screwed again” or something like that. .


            Don’t worry about the unions, the membership understands and will do what they did in 1980 on election day.

            • Wonder why that’s never shown in the news? Bet you could make a heck of a sit-com of people living in some of those buildings, but that wouldn’t appeal to the liberals. On the unions, I think Krauthammer’s observation is correct, most members favor gun ownership and self-defense. On labor rules, they vote self interest. On gun control, could be the same thing, they are better off being able to own a gun.

              • Days are gone buildings are gone, just a bad memory to some, no memory to others. I guess the closest most realistic portrayal of ghetto-barrio life in the ’70’s was “Hill Street Blues”. It was pretty damn funny. Introduced my 30 year old son to it on re-runs a few years back he enjoyed it as much as I. Veronica Hamel as Public Defender Joyce Davenport was never hard to look at and almost made me want to become a liberal!

  6. Been reading and watching a while…..

    Interesting article – always enjoy the stick poking that somehow lawyers are by definition “not businessmen” in the mold or Mitt Romney or others. A legal practice is a business – you make payroll, you have to sell your services, etc. Just sayin’

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometimes it is worth looking back.

    What is the paranoia of the left today regarding “heavy” weapons was addressed in many towns across the country via the “armory”. This was also tied to the need to maintain a “well regulated militia”. Everyone contributed weapons and they were stored in one place, under guard. Citizens had their normal small handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns but the military grade stuff was stored at the “armory”.

    So why did this disappear? CIVIL WAR. When towns broke into factions one or the other would raid the armory and then go after the other. SK will have the accurate reference for one of these events that basically started the war.

    When I was young and traveling around for sports we were often directed to the local “armory” to meet other teams or for community banquets. I remember wondering why they called them “armories” when there were obviously no military bases nearby.

    So now you know the rest of the story.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    More looking back………..for possible solutions. Special Note: See that second paragraph? It provides a BIG hint as to what the founders were thinking when they penned “to regulate commerce among the several states”. I.E., To reduce “barriers”. Oh, this is from Wiki

    “The Annapolis Convention was a meeting in 1786 at Annapolis, Maryland, of 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) that unanimously called for a constitutional convention. The formal title of the meeting was a Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government. Long dissatisfied with the weak Articles of Confederation, Alexander Hamilton of New York played a major leadership role. He drafted its resolution for a constitutional convention, and in doing so brought his longtime desire to have a more powerful, more financially independent federal government one step closer to reality.[1]

    The defects that they were to remedy were those barriers that limited trade or commerce between the largely independent states under the Articles of Confederation.[2]

    The convention met from September 11 to September 14, 1786. The commissioners felt that there were not enough states represented to make any substantive agreement. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina had appointed commissioners who failed to arrive in Annapolis in time to attend the meeting, while Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina and Georgia had taken no action at all.

    They produced a report which was sent to the Congress and to the states. The report asked support for a broader meeting to be held the next May in Philadelphia. It expressed the hope that more states would be represented and that their delegates or deputies would be authorized to examine areas broader than simply commercial trade.

    The direct result of the report was the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which produced the United States Constitution.”

  9. Texas Gun Control

    1) It is a birthright
    2) Sight picture
    3) Squeeze trigger
    4) Shot group

    No more, no less. Come and take em if you can.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Montana/Idaho Gun Control

      Nobody knows and it ain’t nobody’s business.

      A friend in Montana even has a working TANK. It is AWSOME.

    • Special Note: Hedge fund managers are on target list……

      • Mathius™ says:

        Screw ’em. The managers here make 200x what I do and pay a lower tax rate. Fire away!


        But, err.. stop firing once I’m a manager making 200x and paying the lower rate, ok?

  10. Anyone wonder why these huge lobby groups keep “winning and losing?” Just reading the first paragraph, you can see that it’s in the NRA’s best interest to lose once in a while. More membership = more money and more power. If they won every time, people would walk away. The D and Rs do it, why not the NRA and Brady?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Followed your link, poked around a little..

      I really enjoyed this article.


    • Aaron,

      You could be right. I’m not a very active member of the NRA. They phone at times I think are off limits (kids in bed) and continue using scare tactics like it’s the end of the world. Obama won and the (gun) world hasn’t ended. It’s taken some hits but won a few too. They credit Obama as being the greatest gun salesman in history with the record number sold since before and after his election…Another point on the NRA, there are around 100 million US gun owners, but only 4 million NRA members. Not sure they should claim to represent US gun owners.

      “Anyone wonder why these huge lobby groups keep “winning and losing?”
      The Trial Lawyers that outspend the NRA around 9 to 1 seem to play a different game. They stack congress and the senate with people that support more laws and complexity. Kinda like job security…Look at ObamaCare, where you need a lawyer and an accountant to do your taxes.

      (Hope you’ll say something nice to Matt or he’ll get pouty.)

  11. 🙂 Throughout the dawning of history humankind for some reason or another have not been able to get along and go along. Please I implore anyone within reading distance to come to a modest time period — say 10 years — where two or more nations haven’t been to war, fighting over albeit, gold, wealth, slaves, material, resources, and probably the most preeminent issue is of course, women.

    The founding fathers and framers of this nation knew this fact, only too well. Therefore, at their discretion pursuant to 1) Human nature, and 2) the current circumstances they legislated (more like demanded!) that every American should have access to a firearm.

    Please take into consideration the armed conflicts the colonists had already endured with the 140 some-odd Indian Wars. Furthermore, understand the mind-set of the colonist’s back then.

    Ostensibly therefore, what I am getting at is no matter what the weapon — humankind will forever be making ordnance to protect themselves, families, or for some pathetic reason walk into a movie theater. Think about it!

    Now in closing I wish to proffer this ideal: Remember the beginning of the older film “Running Man”? The regular townspeople did not have weapons and prisoners wore an explosive device lock around their necks. Moral: Whoever has the most and are most powerful win. 😉

  12. PS Sorry about my mistake — the film was actually “Total Recall”

  13. Mathius™ says:

    One hundred eighty-nine, one hundred and one, two hundred thirteen MILLION DOLLARS.

    Whoa.. that’s a lot of dough.. That’s


    Couldn’t they have used some of that to pay off the national debt.. several times over?

  14. 😐

  15. Mathius asked “G-Man,

    I forget where you stand on this, but I’ll just ask the question:

    There is nothing you can do about mass-murdering gunmen, if gun control won’t stop them. If no policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them, why then are hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists?

    THose hundreds of billion dollars are spent because there are a bunch of morons in charge who want to search every Tom, Dick and Mary, because it’s politically correct to do so, so that they may find Achmed with a bomb up his ass trying to get on a plane. Even though Achmed looks totally different from Tom , Dick and Mary, it’s important for the TSA to hire a bunch of perverts to grope the entire flying society to scare the shit out of people. The problem isn’t the groping, it’s that our sissy society allows it, bunch of effing cowards who will soon find themselves beholdened to their new masters. Then they will wonder, just like you, why it happened. At least you know now! 🙂

  16. I just received my tax return for 2011 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!! They are questioning how many dependents I claimed. I guess it was because of my response to the question: “List all dependents?”

    I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads; 42 million unemployed people on food stamps, 2 million people in over 243 prisons; Half of Mexico; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate.”

    Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer. I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO DID I MISS?

  17. For the paranoid amongst us:


    There’s somethin’ happenin’ here
    What it is ain’t exactly clear
    There’s a man with a gun over there
    Tellin’ me, I got to beware

    I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down

    There’s battle lines being drawn
    Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
    Young people speakin’ their minds
    Gettin’ so much resistance from behind

    I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down

    What a field day for the heat
    (Hmm, hmm, hmm)
    A thousand people in the street
    (Hmm, hmm, hmm)

    Singing songs and carrying signs
    (Hmm, hmm, hmm)
    Mostly say, hooray for our side
    (Hmm, hmm, hmm)

    It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down

    Paranoia strikes deep
    Into your life it will creep
    It starts when you’re always afraid
    You step out of line, the man come and take you away

    We better stop, hey, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down
    We better stop, hey, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down

    We better stop, now, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down
    We better stop, children, what’s that sound?
    Everybody look what’s going down

    • T-Ray, Good Morning 🙂

      Paranoid, I think not, prepared, I think so. If readers go back and review my articles for the past few years, they will see that I have predicted this long ago. I have covered everything from government brainwashing to FEMA death camps (now called reeducation centers). The millions of plastic caskets that will hold 4 dead at once, the isea that the election could be cancelled. All kinds of cool “conspiracy theory ” stuff. While the articles were ridiculed at times, the knowledge on how to call out the liars in the govt and media stand true today. Now, the question begs, what will happen to cause an unprecedented cancellation of the National Elections? What could be so bad, that this could happen? I hope I’m wrong!

    • Ahhhhh….shades of the 60’s.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Love that song..

      • That was a favorite song among the military in the 60’s and early 70’s in Vietnam…..

        • Well then lets just sing along together 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Great. Now I’m having ‘Nam flashbacks..

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Stop watching the History channel then.

            • I have watched some of those…..pretty sanitary.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes they are. Some use the news reel footage we all got to see. Gruesome for those times but not the same as first hand.

                I have been meaning to ask you if you ever knew a Sgt Major Coffman or a First Sgt Baucus, or a SFC Lester.

                And before I forget my manners, a hearty good morning to you Sir. It is chilly this AM here in the land of nuts.

                Speaking of which, we had to suffer another POLITICAL visit yesterday. Ms. Pelosi was here promising FREE COOKIES to help the two local Dem Congress critters get re-elected.

                It is simply amazing to watch so many people simply accept this notion that the Fed Govt is part and parcel to everything and that is as it should be. As you said Colonel, it is Europe remade.

          • flashback=green face paint, knife in teeth, and “the stare”….until then ..no flashback.

  18. AUSTIN, Texas – A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Texas can cut off funding for Planned Parenthood clinics that provide health services to low-income women before a trial over a new law that bans state money from going to organizations tied to abortion providers.

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted a federal judge’s temporary injunction calling for the funding to continue pending an October trial on Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the law.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/21/court-rules-texas-can-cut-off-state-funds-for-planned-parenthood/#ixzz24HDXpK38

    I know I will probably be asked questions on this…so, I thought that I would try to head it off. NO, Texas is not against abortions. It is against using State funds for abortion. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE !. It is called choice, Texas chooses to spend its money as it sees fit. It does not matter on what and it is not discriminatory…….it is CHOICE. Texas will try to fight any Federal mandate to the fullest extent possible.

    I draw your attention to the last paragraph of this article….

    “The federal Commission on Medicare and Medicaid Services, however, warned Texas against banning groups from the program based on their political activities and the federal government cut funding. Gov. Rick Perry has promised the state will pick up the extra cost.”

    Pay real close attention to the wording………..Texas will pick up the cost of the Federal program that has been cut. The Feds cut the program to try to “bring Texas in lock step”…..we said nope…..we will pay our own way. This, again, is called choice. It is what Texas, as a sovereign State wishes to do and it is a State right. Feds……..go to hell…..and not “heck”.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Remember my prediction about the future of Sandra Fluke??

    Well the DNC has announced the speakers at the convention.

    “WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Convention Committee Wednesday announced a lineup of convention speakers who will further solidify the party’s standing with female voters.

    The list, passed along by a source from the committee, includes the following names:

    Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
    Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans, Affairs Tammy Duckworth.
    Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University student.
    Denise Juneau, state superintendent of public instruction, Montana.
    Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
    Caroline Kennedy.
    Lilly Ledbetter.
    Eva Longoria, Obama campaign co-chair.
    U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate.
    Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.”

  20. Joe Biden is in the Motor City today. First come first served for $500 or photo op for $10,000. Let the wise cracks begin……

  21. Fan Sues Dallas Cowboys For Burned Buttocks
    August 16, 2012 2:09 PM

    Chalk up another nuisance suit…..a cowboy fan, in August, wearing short shorts…..sits on a black marble bench that has been in the sunlight for all day, temps were over 105 degrees and suffers 3rd degree burns……..and claims she didn’t know that it would be hot. She says that the Cowboy’s were negligent in not posting a sign that says black marble benches sitting in the sun all day in 105 degree heat would be hot…..claiming disfigurement, mental anguish, pain, loss of consortium……and a lawyer took the case…unbelievable.


    • Both probably voted for Obamaloni 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:


      It’s been my experience that lawsuits like this generally have something else to them that doesn’t make the narrative.

      For example, the woman who sued McDonald’s for the hot coffee. There had been dozens of prior incidents where this happened to other customers. She originally just wanted her medical costs covered (only a few k), but McD’s refused. McD had internal research showing that this temperature coffee caused near-instantaneous 3rd degree burns. This temperature, contrary to claims, per internal documents, was not used because of customer preference but because you could use fewer beans at that temperature, thus making it cheaper. The woman was not driving, she was a passenger. McD’s defense claimed that people should know not to drink hot liquids in the car, but they were actively advertising on television people drinking it in the car. The appeals court rejected the 90mm+ verdict, and the parties settled for an undisclosed amount.

      So, contrary to the story “woman buys hot coffee, spills on herself while driving, sues McD’s, wins $90mm+,” the actual story is somewhat less inflammatory toward the judicial system, no?

      Without investigating further, I’d speculate that we’re missing a piece of this puzzle – otherwise a lawyer wouldn’t waste his time on it. That’s not to say lawyers won’t abuse the court system with a long-shot or nuisance suit, but they’re not going to go after a pure-loser just for sport. There’s probably something else to it.

      • We shall see , sir…we shall see. This is in Texas…..I doubt it will go any further…..I would not pay nuisance money to just get rid of a case….

        But any lame brain knows….DO NOT SIT ON ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN OUT IN TEXAS SUN FOR HOURS AND IT IS 105 degrees…..supposedly had skin grafts and such……as Forest Gump said….Stupid is as Stupid does……………..or words to that effect.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    What Goes Around, Comes Around
    By Joseph Salerno
    Monday, August 20th, 2012

    This is rich. Brazilizan central bank employees have gone on strike to press for a 23 percent wage increase to compensate for inflation that has taken place since June 2008. HT to Mark Thornton.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    The Nazi leader Hermann Goering warned the American occupation authorities that they stood in danger of repeating the mistakes of his own recently fallen regime. Speaking to the American correspondent (and, by the way, later American Ambassador to Switzerland) Henry Taylor, Goering said,

    Your America is doing many things in the economic field which we found out caused us so much trouble. You are trying to control peoples’ wages and prices — peoples’ work. If you do that you must control peoples’ lives. And no country can do that part way. I tried and it failed. Nor can any country do it all the way either. I tried that too and it failed. You are no better planners than we. I should think your economists would read what happened here. (p. 5)

    • Mathius™ says:

      Deputizing Goering into your arguments…?

      Doesn’t mean he’s necessarily wrong.. but still…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        As to the supposed negative external effects on the poor imposed by the wealthy, DiLorenzo makes a penetrating observation:

        The supposed “negative external effect” is the envy by poorer people. But it has always been true that intellectuals, not the poor, have been the chief advocates of egalitarianism. Most poor people want to become richer. It is the intellectual class that is so often obsessed with envy and hatred of people who are more financially successful than they are. That they can manipulate survey questions that are used to make it appear that this view comes from “the poor” and not themselves does not make this statement untrue. (p. 189)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Well it seems that one Progressive was able to recognize his fellow Progressives.

      • Back when Speer wrote, “Inside the Third Reich”, he quoted Goebbels as saying, “The only thing more dangerous than believing the enemies propaganda, is believing your own.” I know it is a lousy source but those are words for EVERYONE to remember and live by.

        • Mathius™ says:

          “The only thing more dangerous than believing the enemies propaganda, is believing your own.”

          Well that is excellent advice. Shame it had to come from such a lousy source.

          Well, let’s all get together and my ourselves believe that it came from Gandhi instead!

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    I’m posting the whole article in honor of G-Man. This ought to cause a few here some heartburn. From Am. Thinker

    Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists
    By Cameron Reddy

    Our military planners are openly discussing how to kill “Tea Party extremists” who have taken over a small town in the USA. Is this “operational lay-down” merely a “cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario,” as described by The Washington Times, or is it something much more malevolent?

    The military scenario appears in the July 25, 2012 issue of the respected Small Wars Journal and posits that, while Obama will be thrown out of office in 2012, ten years of race- and immigrant-bashing by “right-wing demagogues” will have whipped white Americans into gang-like attacks on non-whites.

    Then, in a carefully planned operation, a Tea Party-inspired militia occupies the city hall in Darlington, South Carolina, disbands the city council, detains the mayor, and disarms the local police and/or “turns” policemen to its cause. The story continues:

    With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish ‘check points’ — in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines. Traffic on … [major roads] and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for ‘illegal aliens.’ Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect ‘tolls’ from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition. They also take over the town web site and use social media sites to get their message out unrestricted[.] …

    The article goes on to explain how true Americans will expect the military to efficiently kill, dissuade, and demoralize the “enemy” as effectively “as if it were acting overseas.”

    Apart from being, as the The Washington Times opined, “dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded,” this scenario is noteworthy not only for the venomous description of the insurrectionists — leaving little doubt about the authors’ views of the American militia movement — but also for the linkage of the militia with the Tea Party.

    This raises a series of questions hinted at by Mr. Cary, which I ask straight out: should those of us aligned with the Tea Party be concerned with our government’s incendiary posturing? Who, exactly, are these “extremists”? And precisely what activity is it that may precipitate military action?

    To answer some of this, let’s go back to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security prepared its infamous report on right-wing extremism. There, we learned:

    Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

    While that report singled out disgruntled military veterans, in a footnote it explained who else is worthy of close scrutiny:

    Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

    Since we know that leftists equate disagreement with hate, this report made it clear that our federal government is “watching,” which is to say it has “linked with the militia” basically anyone who objects to the platform of the Democratic Party.

    Now look at the law under which our government is planning to act. From the same article, and referring to Title 10 of the United States Code, we learn that the president may, at the request of a legislature or governor, use the military to:

    § 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.

    § 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.) (Emphasis in original.)

    A comment following these statutory citations ought to raise eyebrows. It indicates that the authors believe that the law is “broadly written” and “allows the flexibility needed to address a range of threats to the Republic.”

    As a lawyer, I’m always concerned when those tasked with enforcement praise as “broadly written” and “flexible” a law they use to prosecute citizens. Beyond that, however, I’d like to know what the heck constitutes an “unlawful obstruction” or a “hindrance” of the execution of laws. What activity might “obstruct” or “impede” the course of justice?

    It’s not too hard to see where this is going. Listen to the likes of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other leftist shills who claim we want to kill the elderly, pollute the environment, starve the poor, suppress minority votes, etc. Is it a stretch to see these people argue we’re already obstructing, depriving, and/or otherwise impeding the course of justice? What would we be facing if they were the ones advising the president on the scope and applicability of these “broadly written” and “flexible” laws?

    Oh, wait a minute. They are the ones advising the president…

    Let’s add it up.

    First, we have this “operational lay-down” in the Small Wars Journal which is as much a provocation as it is a threat. Add the 2009 “watch list” lunacy that puts virtually all conservatives in the crosshairs. Top it off with absurd accusations from the left that we are throwing Grandma and Grandpa off the cliff and blacks off the voter rolls…

    What do we get?

    Think of it. With the federal government incessantly hammering Americans with leftist policy and politically correct dogma, with Americans reflexively and defensively moving to the political “right,” we now find the government coolly describing how Tea Party “extremists” will be killed should their civil dissent cross some very indistinct and amorphous line.

    Think about Alinsky’s Rule 14:

    RULE 14: “Push the enemy so hard with outrageous situations and allegations that he is forced to push back.” Whenever possible, cause the enemy to respond, and when he does, hold him up for ridicule; then push harder. (By threatening his security and way of life, you will always elicit a reaction that can be turned against him.)

    Of course, Alinsky created only twelve rules. Rule Fourteen, like Rule Thirteen, is my creations. But does anyone doubt their truth or applicability?

    Further, note where Rule Fourteen puts us. While on one hand, no one in the Tea Party is seriously thinking in terms of armed resistance, on the other, none of us could have envisioned that “occupying” a state house for redress of grievances might be considered “obstruction” or “impeding” of federal law, let alone civil unrest of a nature to possibly warrant military force!

    Moreover, it’s no cartoon that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams would be on Janet Napolitano’s “watch” list. Nor is it funny that today, as revealed by the Small Wars Journal, their actions in pushing back, in effectuating the Declaration of Independence, would be met with deadly military force.

    Sobering stuff — especially when we are staring in the face a second term of Barack Obama — a term in which he will be more “flexible.”

    So what should we do?

    First, we must have our eyes open to how the left is manipulating us — pushing us — with Alinsky’s Rules One through Fourteen. In baseball parlance, you can’t hit a curve ball unless you know it’s a curve ball. Next, we must reinforce and broadcast to the world that violence is not the answer. Finally, just as Tea Partiers effectively quashed the allegations of racism, we must police our ranks to insure that no one countenances anything even remotely close to what the Alinsky-inspired left is goading us to do. As Mr. Cary adroitly suggested, and as I hope I have crystallized with Alinsky’s Rule Fourteen, the threat of a manufactured crisis is not just real. It’s their goal.

    • Next, we must reinforce and broadcast to the world that violence is not the answer.

      Yeah, too bad neither the Tea Party and neither nearly everyone else believes this.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        The Tea Party, like every other “party,” believes that the only violence should be the violence in support of their own opinions. Further, because they have drunk the Kool Aid and put on the horse blinders just like everyone else, they no longer see their violence as violence. When they do it, it’s “legitimate,” and it’s only violence if they disagree.

        They’re drinking red Kool Aid by the barrel full, but they only acknowledge it when someone else drinks from the blue flavored Kool Aid.

      • Flagster, Most folks I know understand that violence, except in self defense is an acceptable action in any circumstance. The whole of the article is just more left wing propaganda that has no evidence of truth to it. If I’m not mistaken, it’s the LEFT that has the OCCUPY movement and it was the LEFT that filled the Wisconsin State House for days on end. They are loseing the infowar! They know it and are trying everything they can to stop it, the good thing is, they just don’t have the brains to do the job 🙂

    • “and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”

      I guess that makes this guy a menace to society for saying the following:

      The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

      The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government.

      The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

      I think I will side with James Madison and be an extremist.

  25. Mathius™ says:


    I’ve done as you asked. You requested a list of Muslim attacks in recent years. I’m going to confine myself, amazingly, to this month alone.

    On Aug. 4, Muslim teenagers pelted a church in Hayward, Calif., with fruit.

    On Aug. 5, a Muslim murdered six congregants and wounded a police officer – the victims were not Christian, but it is believed that the man thought they were.

    On the same day, a Muslim vandalized a church in North Smithfield, R.I.

    On Aug. 6, a church in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground (Muslims suspected).

    On Aug. 7, two Muslim women threw pieces of pork at the site of a proposed Jewish center in Ontario, Calif.

    On Aug. 10, a Muslim man allegedly shot a pellet rifle at a church near Chicago while people prayed inside.

    On Aug. 12, attackers fired paintball guns at a church in Oklahoma City.

    Also on Aug. 12, a homemade bomb filled with acid was thrown at a Catholic school in Lombard, Ill.

    On Aug. 15, assailants threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of a Christian family in Panama City, Fla.

    … boy … hard to argue with all that…

    • D-…and it’s that good only because you made the effort. I asked for a chart from 50 yrs out comparing Christian deaths by Muslims to Muslim deaths by Christians. Keep searching.

      …somehow I think this is a trap and just for the record I had enough of you guys the other day so I choose to not respond to this subject for a while 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        A trap, you say? Moi? Never!


        But, while I’m responding, it seems I made a few (pretty egregious) typos… let me correct them:

        On Aug. 4, Muslim Christian teenagers pelted a church Mosque in Hayward, Calif., with fruit.

        On Aug. 5, a Muslim Christian man murdered six congregants and wounded a police officer – the victims were not Christian Muslim, but it is believed that the man thought they were. (they were Sikhs)

        On the same day, a Muslim Christian vandalized a church Mosque in North Smithfield, R.I.

        On Aug. 6, a church mosque in Joplin, Mo., was burned to the ground (Muslims Christians suspected).

        On Aug. 7, two Muslim Christian women threw pieces of pork at the site of a proposed Jewish Islamic center in Ontario, Calif.

        On Aug. 10, a Muslim Christian man allegedly shot a pellet rifle at a church mosque near Chicago while people prayed inside.

        On Aug. 12, attackers fired paintball guns at a church mosque in Oklahoma City.

        Also on Aug. 12, a homemade bomb filled with acid was thrown at a Catholic Muslim school in Lombard, Ill.

        On Aug. 15, assailants threw a Molotov cocktail at the home of a Christian Muslim family in Panama City, Fla.

        Sorry for all the typos! 🙂

  26. charlieopera says:

    AS Capitalism rears it’s ugly head (think Sarah Palin and Putin) … middle class income shrinks and shrinks … welcome to the third world!


    • As Charlie continues incoherency of what is and is not Capitalism, he observes well the shrinking, but fails to understand why.

      • It sometimes pains me to say so, BF, but I believe that you are right in this instance. Much of what Charlie and others in his mindset state and believe about capitalism comes from a very flawed vision of what capitalism is and is not. Add to that a healthy dose of falsely claiming that so many things are CAUSED by capitalism when that isn’t the case, and you end up with the skewed view that capitalism is flawed.

        But please, stop clogging up things with facts. It is distracting.

        • charlieopera says:

          Once again, BF tries to defend the indensible.

          And USW chirps in, on cue, with the same nonsense.

          Only they know what capitalism is … not Chomsky or anybody else. Just them.

          Clog away, fellas … it’s always fun reading.

          • No, Charlie,

            Not just us – most political scientists – except Chomsky and a few others whose argument is wholly based on redefining Capitalism to be what it is not, and attacking that strawman.

          • @Charlie

            I don’t claim that only I know what capitalism is. But ridicule won’t work as a tactic on this one for you. Whether you like it or you don’t, the reality is that you consistently show that what you blame on capitalism is not the fault of capitalism. It isn’t about anything more than applying critical thought to what you are saying. I am sorry that you seem offended when I point it out, but that is just the reality.

            • charlieopera says:

              It isn’t the gun that shoots people, it’s the guy holding it.

              It isn’t communism that killed 40,000,000, it was Stalin.

              It isn’t capitalism that is putting the middle class into poverty and creating a two class system, it’s the people weilding it.

              The same people who created government to protect it (mercantalism, included), etc., etc?

              Oy vey.

              • “It isn’t communism that killed 40,000,000, it was Stalin.”

                It was a communist government controlled by one man that allowed Stalin to kill 40,000,000 individuals because they had no rights under the supposed workers utopia.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I find it interesting how, when a democracy does something evil, it’s blamed on the leader de jure, but when a communist country does something evil, it’s blamed on the system. Odd..

                Democracy goes out and starts an unnecessary war (is there such a thing as a necessary war?), well that’s the President’s fault.

                Communism goes and kills a bunch of it’s own people, well that’s because communism is evil.

                Seems.. I don’t know.. biased, maybe? Seems to me that you have to either blame the system for both or blame the leader for both, but you can’t pick and choose arbitrarily because it suits your world-view.

                (similar note, when a Muslim kills someone, Islam is evil, but when a white person kills someone, that person was just a lone nut.. just saying..)

              • Nonsense.

                I explicitly blame Democracy for the current horrific state of affairs in the US all the time.

                In fact, you will see posts where I argue it is the worse form of political governance conceivable

                It suffers the same defect that all “archy” forms share – a claim of a “right to rule over other men”.

              • I find it interesting how, when a democracy does something evil, it’s blamed on the leader de jure, but when a communist country does something evil, it’s blamed on the system.

                Communism is democratic – why do you think it is not?

              • Mathius™ says:


                I wasn’t directing that at you (though I could see why you might think so).. I was trying to reply to Bamadad’s comment re Stalin.

                Though I often disagree with you, I know that you’re at least consistent on this point.

              • Doesn’t wash unfortunately.

                The nature of the communist beast as practiced in the Soviet Union kills people as did it in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. Just a bit more “tinkering” won’t help. There was that guy Lenin too you know. The east German rebellion (1953), the Hungarian Revolution (1956) and the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia (1968) were all put down with Soviet tanks after the death of Stalin.

                Communism can indeed work but the size of the society it can work in is limited. Kibbutzim work, certain religions and religious orders work but you then reach a level where normal human greed and jealousy enter the picture. The society is then either transformed into something very different and/or must use force or coercion to maintain a semblance of what it was. Our prior discussions on the Catholic Church and the meaning of the pope as “first among equals” is probably a very good example of how an institution can change from its intent or forced into change by becoming too large.

              • …’cause most people believe what they do, is done for a “greater good” or “higher purpose” that simply can’t be articulated to others in a way that others see it too.

                If they could see it, these others would understand their deaths were necessary and for a greater good, and would accept dying for the cause graciously and willingly.

                So the People easily forgive themselves (individually or collectively) for the wrongs and misadventures because they know their own intentions, no matter how badly things turned out or how many died.

                But that just shows that the People, individually or collectively, are ego-centric.

                They measure “good/bad’ from their subjective point of view, and thus when others act is the same way for the same unarticulated reasons and insist the People need to die graciously for a cause and accept massive death and destruction, these ego-centric people demand punishments and condemnation because “it did not take their lives, etc. into consideration”!

                As I’ve pointed out before, the root belief is:

                “Freedom (and life) for me, but not for you”

              • I mean, look at our good friend SKT.

                He pillories Communists – explains why they go evil – yet! …defends the fire bombings and nuking of innocent people.

                He won’t see that the very methodology, justification, and implementation processes are identical.

                He will often correctly understand why communists are evil – but does not apply the same measures to his own political systems.

              • Flag, the difference is company policy. The further difference is, If A then B as in probability theory.

                If Rotterdam/London/Warsaw, then Dresden/ Hamburg/ Munich. If Pearl Harbor/Nanking/Manila then Tokyo/Nagasaki/Hiroshima.

                Not as vengeance mind you, never as vengeance but rather because the other guy established the rules of the game before we sat down at the table. If you can’t see that as a difference, then I can’t help. Yes, the methodology, justification and implementation processes were very similar, we just got better results. Does not change the if A then B thing though.

                My views of living in a very pluralistic and crowded society differ vastly from yours. You think your form of rational anarchy works and in fact it may for you. I look at the larger picture and the fact that I have had to live within a very large society and interact with that society. So, I settle for the best that I can get and never stop, A. Bitching and Moaning and B. Trying to improve it and make it work.

                There was a time a while back when I was reading up on the very stylized forms of personal and business relationships in Japan. The author made it a point that the very crowdedness of Japanese society and its homogeneity requires this very polite social interaction with formal do’s and dont’s. I more or less agree with that assessment. having been cut off from the rest of the world for centuries, the Japanese were a laboratory for one huge experiment.

                The psychologist in me thinks that Charlie is getting to you. A subtle change in tone I detect.

              • See, Mathius, I told you, didn’t I!

                Justify the People’s evil with a flurry of sentences

                “…because the other guy established the rules of the game..”
                “…, we just got better results…”.

                Of course, STK forgets (but one of thousands of examples) the US Marines in Philippines, circa 1900, slaughtering a million of them because they didn’t want to replace Spanish rule with American rule, and wanted independence. The Americans did to them what the Americans “shocked” that the Japanese did to them and others.

                But it was the Japanese who “established the rules of the game”… (roll eyes).

              • Nah, just a consequence of having to live and deal with the self-contradictory mental fog that most people walk around in.

                Gandhi was right.
                People want to use evil as long as they can, up until it is used against them, and then they cry that evil should be dismissed.

                People love evil too much to let go of it.

              • Mathius™ says:


                See, Mathius, I told you, didn’t I!

                I was making this claim while you were still in diapers.

                So the People easily forgive themselves (individually or collectively) for the wrongs and misadventures because they know their own intentions, no matter how badly things turned out or how many died.

                I’ve made this case before (to no avail). I consider it a corollary to the Narcissism of Differences in light of the Special Exceptions concept.

                The idea behind Narcissism of Differences is that, in a case where someone (or some group) is very similar to you (or your group), you notice the minor differences and make mountains out of molehills (it’s why despite being pretty similar, the red-shirts and blue-shirts think they’re complete opposites). The inverse, however, applies. That is, that anyone who is dissimilar gets lumped together (so, while the Albanian version of red-shirts and blue-shirts may consider themselves vastly different, American’s just think they’re the same thing). (this, by the way, is why American write off Christian terrorists as outliers, but consider Muslim terrorists to be typical of the group – because they don’t recognize internal differences within something foreign like Islam whereas differences in Christians is self-evident)

                Special Exceptions is the idea that we forgive ourselves more easily than we forgive others. If, for example, you cut someone off in traffic, you’ll instantly forgive yourself for your honest mistake, or you’ll forgive yourself because you were really late for work. However, if someone else cuts you off, you’ll just think they’re a jerk – you don’t allow them the benefit of the idea that they didn’t see you or that they, too, were late for work – they’re just a jerk or a moron.

                So, when you combine these two, you see that people notice minute difference in their own system versus others, and they excuse their own flaws while branding others with theirs. So when the US does something evil, we see a distinction between US today and US in the 1900’s: completely different. But when Japan does something evil, we don’t see it – Japan is Japan is Japan is Japan. Therefore we excuse ourselves (the scaled up version of being late for work) while holding Japan accountable (the scaled up version of them just being jerks).

              • I will copy your post, and repeat it often – claiming, of course, that it was I who wrote it all by myself.

              • “..when you were in diapers…”

                Son, your Great-Grandfather was in diapers when I wrote on this the 100th time.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Mr. Flag,

                I will copy your post, and repeat it often – claiming, of course, that it was I who wrote it all by myself.

                I believe that is the highest compliment I’ve ever received from you.

                Be my guest to repeat as needed, however I suggest you change “narcissism of differences” to “narcissism of small differences,” since that is the actual term. Mea Culpa.

                Son, your Great-Grandfather was in diapers when I wrote on this the 100th time.

                Well it seems that one of us has been violating the temporal prime directive…

              • Son, your Great-Grandfather was in diapers when I wrote on this the 100th time. Well it seems that one of us has been violating the temporal prime directive…

                Things like that happen when you have a singularity as the core of your brain.

              • Now its 1,000,000 Filipinos! Where do these numbers come from anyway? It is estimated that among the Moros in the southern provinces, between 10,000 and 20,000 died between 1899 and 1913. Americans and Filipino scouts suffered approximately 2,000 deaths.

                OK so we were the bad guys. that explains why the Japanese were welcomed as liberators and the Filipinos joined with them right? Whoops, that never happened. Instead the Filipinos were loyal to the Americans, fought with the Americans were interned with the Americans and had somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000 (real number) of their people killed as the Japanese left Manila.

                the other issue in the Philippines might be the difference between those seeking independence from the US after Spain and the Muslim Moros seeking something beyond mere independence. They continued fighting long after the other insurrectionists had surrendered in 1904. They continue fighting up to today.

                Yes, the Japanese set the rules of the game as did the GERMANS. We merely raised the ante. You leave the German contribution out, I suspect, because it does not fit the picture you try to paint.

                Matt, societies are transformative usually. What we did fifty or one hundred or two hundred years ago is no longer relevant nor should anyone alive today, regardless of their political affiliation be blamed for or saddled with guilt over it. Suffice it to say that we would have done things differently had modern sensibilities prevailed. The up side of predator drones is they cut down on carpet bombing. Japan was a closed society. Somewhere along the line between the Russo-Japanese war and the 1930’s Japan adopted a world view, to protect it’s culture I think, that was frankly a throw back to an idealized view of Japanese history. I’ve read accounts of treatment of Russian POW’s by Japan in the 1904 war that are so markedly different from the 1930’s and 1940’s you would think you were talking about a different country. When Japan opened itself to the West it started adopting western mores. This was perceived later on as a surrender to the barbarians. So, somewhere, somehow, along the line, they decided the technology was good but the cultural mores weren’t. Interesting.

              • ^ a b E. San Juan, Jr. (2005). “We Charge Genocide: A Brief History of US in the Philippines”. Archived from the original on 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-07-26.

                In an article “We Charge Genocide: A Brief History of US in the Philippines” that appeared in the December 2005 issue of Political Affairs (an online magazine that bills itself, “Marxist Thought Online”), E. San Juan, Jr., director of the Philippines Cultural Studies Center, Connecticut, argued that during the Philippine-American War (1899–1902) and pacification campaign (1902–1913), the operations launched by the U.S. against the Filipinos, an integral part of its pacification program, which he asserts claimed the lives of over a million Filipinos, constituted genocide.

                In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: “The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog….”U.S. Army Gen. Leonard Wood, who took part in the Moro Crater massacre in 1906, called for the extermination of all Filipino Muslims since, according to him, they were irretrievably fanatical.

                Gore Vidal, in an exchange of letters in the New York Review of Books about the Philippines campaign says, discussing General J. Franklin Bell’s own reporting that American troops were responsible for 600,000 dead men, women, and children on the island of Luzon alone, “If this is not a policy of genocide (no dumb letters on the dictionary meaning of the word), it will do until the real thing comes along.”

                Encarta Encyclopedia, is that between 200,000 and 600,000 Filipinos died during the war with fewer than 5,000 American deaths. More deaths occurred during the pacification program (1902–1913) following the declaration of victory in the war.

              • STK,

                You leave the German contribution out, I suspect, because it does not fit the picture you try to paint.

                Absolutely not true.

                I do not use them or the Japanese or any other boggie man you dream up as justification for the slaughter of men, women and children.

                You are moral equivalentist – as long as you kill fewer innocent people then someone else, you are “ok”, “justified”, “good” and God will love you more than they.

                God condemns you the same whether you killed one or a million.

              • Mathius™ says:

                as long as you kill fewer innocent people then someone else, you are “ok”, “justified”, “good” and God will love you more than they.


                ::stifles nose bleed::

                ::Mathius passes out from blood loss::

                Side note:

                River: “The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.”

              • That’s it, just keep missing the whole point.

                I will try to make this as simple as possible.


                In the ordinary scheme of everyday life:

                If there is no fire, firemen will not come.

                If there is no robbery, the police will not come.

                If there is no sewer leak, the DEP will not come.

                Starting to get it? Now, here is the leap……. If the Germans had not invaded Poland, France , Belgium and Holland, there would have been no war. If there had been no war, the allies would not have bombed anyone.

                Now the interesting part is that 97 years after the start of World War One, Germany wins total control over Europe without firing a shot.

                The interesting part of the interesting part is that this German bloodless takeover proves that Black Flag was right all along! HAH!

            • SKT


              In the ordinary scheme of everyday life:

              If there is no fire, firemen will not come.

              If there is no robbery, the police will not come.

              If there is no sewer leak, the DEP will not come.

              But that is completely not true of politics.

              You are confusing GOVERNMENT WAR as if it was a SERVICE.

              It is NOT a service – IT IS A WAR.

              The US government has started wars, joined wars, instigated wars, and responded with war.

              If the Germans had not invaded Poland

              So why didn’t the US declare war then?

              So why didn’t the US declare war against USSR – who, by the way, invaded Poland, Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Iran, and Mongolia.

              So why didn’t the US declare war on Poland when it invaded Czech the same time Germans took it?

              Again – you post utter moral depravity.

              You argue “response” – yet, you deny the US ever instigated, or for its own national interests, involved itself.

              Then, when innocent people die, you slough it off as “well, that’s war”

              • Ya gotta go through the A, B, C. D, E thing or as I am so fond of saying the connect the dots thing. Seems that Germany declared war on us. Now, of course, this was just a formality but had Japan not declared war on us, would Roosevelt have been able to maneuver us into a war with Germany alone? One of those great “what if” questions.

                Thanks for that Poland invades Czechoslovakia thing. A little known piece of history and more merriment brought to you by the folks at Versailles in 1919. That peace conference just keeps on giving doesn’t it?

                I’m not into moral depravity. As I pointed out, there are better ways, always have been and the ultimate proof of that is what Germany pulled off in the past few years. I gave you credit on that one Flag and I would like to see your acknowledgement of my premise at least rather than jump all over me. Just think, had Germany not initiated the 1914 nonsense, by the mid 1920’s they probably would have been the economic masters of Europe.

                We can debate forever the intent of US participation in wars. My paranoid moments have me agreeing that things have been set ups to benefit Charlies 1 per centers. Then again I see that ridiculous calling among progressives in the late 19th and early 20th century to assume “the white man’s burden”. I’ve read a bit about T. Roosevelt and his advocacy for the Spanish American war. There is at least as much liberal/progressive claptrap in there as there is , “hey kids,let’s build an empire.”

                You have always had an interesting take on things. In many ways it is very religious and similar to Dorthea Day’s. She was, as you know, a lay Catholic social worker who was both a pacifist and a socialist. If queried on “would the killing of ten evil people be justified to save 100 innocents?” She would have answered no, resoundingly. I suspect that while you are not a socialist, you would applaud her answer. I can see why but I cannot agree with it. The weakness in my argument, which I recognize is the law of unintended consequences. My killing those bad guys might just galvanize a hundred new bad guys to pop up or something even worse.

                Here’s a query. Back in Yugoslavia and Greece during the war, for every German killed by a partisan, the Germans executed 10 innocent people. In Yugoslavia, the royalist bands led by Michaelovich stopped killing Germans. Tito’s band did not. There was a similar split among the Greeks. I learned this over 40 years ago from a Serb neighbor, I still don’t know which side I agree with. What’s your take? If anybody else wants to join in, fine.

    • Charlie, Charlie,

      It would not matter what the system, when spending is continually greater than revenue, it costs everyone in that system. Yes, the poor and middle class are hurt more, but that is the reality of economics. I know a lot of people that live paycheck to paycheck. If they are sick, have a flat, etc, and their check is $10-20 short, they feel it. Record high ground beef prices, they are impacted.

      The Government Is Bankrupt and Will Destroy the Economy
      By Monty Pelerin

      Most people don’t understand the unsolvable problem the U.S. government has created for itself and its citizens. Sovereign default is beyond a likelihood; it is inevitable.

      When and which (possibly all) obligations are defaulted on will be determined by panicked politicians under duress. A complete financial and economic collapse appears unavoidable. I hope that is the worst that will occur.

      Official Government Debt

      The official federal debt is $16 trillion. This debt represents 100% of current GDP. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart studied countries with high levels of government debt. This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly contains their complete findings. The authors concluded:

      In our study “Growth in a Time of Debt,” we found relatively little association between public liabilities and growth for debt levels of less than 90 percent of GDP. But burdens above 90 percent are associated with 1 percent lower median growth. Our results are based on a data set of public debt covering 44 countries for up to 200 years. The annual data set incorporates more than 3,700 observations spanning a wide range of political and historical circumstances, legal structures and monetary regimes.

      Elsewhere, the authors state:

      Our empirical research on the history of financial crises and the relationship between growth and public liabilities supports the view that current debt trajectories are a risk to long-term growth and stability, with many advanced economies already reaching or exceeding the important marker of 90 percent of GDP.

      The U.S. has passed their danger point, and recent U.S. GDP experience conforms to their findings. The economy is growing at subnormal rates despite unprecedented stimulus efforts. A recent Rasmussen survey found that only 27% believe that the economy is improving.

      Actual Government Liabilities

      Debt problems in the U.S. are worse than stated — much worse. Three areas shed light on the problem:

      The Glide Path
      Treasury Obligations
      Unfunded Liabilities

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_government_is_bankrupt_and_will_destroy_the_economy.html#ixzz24ItMUMqP

    • It amuses me greatly that you are so quick to see the BS in some sources but not in others. I love how this “author” starts a paragraph with the statement “three years after the recession technically ended,” and it isn’t even given as a question. It is accepted as fact. So despite the fact that the economy has continued to suck and spiral, they are still claiming the stimulus spending ended the recession.

      • Yes, USW, the recession did end three years ago (despite the fact the economy continues to ‘suck’). From The Economist:

        THE American recession is over. In the summer of 2009 real GDP and industrial production hit bottom and resumed growth, and expansion in both measures strengthened as the year ended.

        • Not accepting it Buck 🙂

          When the “official definition” of a recession fits the political motives, politicians (and the economist) agree that it is a recession. When it doesn’t, they remind us that we are dealing with what is real and not limiting ourselves to silly textbook definitions. We can feel when things are not working right, after all….

          So I no longer accept their ridiculous definition of a recession, which is really nothing more than a fancy way for them to claim whatever they like. Our goods are getting more expensive. Unemployment isn’t getting any better. National debt continues to rise. Businesses are outsourcing to other countries. The middle class is getting squeezed and the lower class is tapped out. No matter what definition they attempt to throw at us, the REALITY is that we are struggling economically. The article in question actually makes my point for me!

          • No one said we aren’t struggling. Just that it isn’t a recession.

            • It’s cuz we have a moron Democrat for a President and a Senate run buy another moron who’s half way to full Altzheimers! 🙂

            • Right now we are, by many accounts entering into the double dip phase which will hit big time next year. Some would say we never broke free of the first one other than through some creative book keeping. You are starting to sound like someone who would, staring at a blue sky, say it was purple with orange clouds if the right people told you so.

              Never defend the indefensible, no matter how much it pains you to do so. Even I had to kick Nixon loose when the tapes turned up missing.

              I’d like to point out again that sitting here unemployed in forced retirement these last few years, researching and reading just because I like to dig, it is blatantly obvious that the real estate crash takes 90 plus percent of the blame for the collapse of the economy. The real estate crash was brought to you by the collusion of politics and banking interests. The very institutions that led the way have been saved by the politicians with the less obvious or less pliable ones, Lehman Brothers for example, thrown under the bus as scapegoats and outfits like Goldman Sachs getting a free pass with their senior staff then magically becoming part of the “solution” in Washington.

              A question to ask yourself would be what players from which party warned of the coming disaster and which ones, stuck by the game plan even `as it unraveled then pretended they never did? Another question might be who financially benefited and still does having not taken a hit to their personal portfolio?

              I would remind anyone who really cares that the collusion of politics and business is called fascism or National Socialism.

  27. Illegal immigrants could reap more than $7B in tax credits this year, senator says

    Published August 22, 2012


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/illegal-immigrants-could-reap-more-than-7b-in-tax-credits-this-year-senator/#ixzz24Iw1JfMc

    Ahhhhh…you gotta love the progressives………getting a tax refund….when no tax was paid. What a country……oh…..and it is to illegals….not citizens.

  28. charlieopera says:

    Praise the Lord … I’ve finally found something worse than the book, Atlas Shrugged …. the movie … sweet Jesus, what a piece of shit.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The ironic thing is that something so bad was created by the free market..

      • charlieopera says:

        How dare you, Matt. It’s the government’s fault!

      • That is the power of the free market – you don’t have to go to the movie, and that will signal the producers not to make a sequel.

        Unlike government, where if it is bad, you still are forced to watch it, and that will tell the government to make many sequels even worse.

        • charlieopera says:

          That is the power of the free market – you don’t have to go to the movie, and that will signal the producers not to make a sequel.

          But this isn’t a free market, right? So what are you talking about?

          Oy vey … when you flap your lips, which side of your mouth do the words come out?

          • Just because it overall isn’t a free market doesn’t mean that some free market decisions cannot be made. Lots of free market decisions are made every day in countries where communism, socialism and democracies are in place.

      • Just like Michael Moore’s movies. For true believers only!

    • I thought for sure you were going to say the Buffalo Bills 🙂

    • Haven’t seen the movie. Don’t really have any interest in doing so…

      • charlieopera says:

        Save yourself the time. It’s a bomb.

        The Buffalo Bills will suck again this year … so long as they keep a gimmick offense, they’ll suck. Watch out for the Texans if they can stay healthy.

        • Captain Canolli ! 🙂 I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, don’t have the time these days. As a Dolphins fan, I don’t hate the Bills, I root for them against everyone except the Fins. THey look to have a good defense, and the offense has some good playmakers as well. I don’t expect a Championship, but they should be close to even or better recordwise. Probably a few games better than the Fins, but thats sports!

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    “Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.”
    —Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams

    “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine

  31. “The evil will try to destroy the good, only to watch the good rise from the ashes and explain to the evil what hell is” G-Man, 2012!

  32. Yes, we are in a Moroncession! 😦

    The following are 24 stats that show just how much Obama has royally messed up our economy….

    #1 Under Bill Clinton, the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent. Under George W. Bush, the average unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. Under Barack Obama, things have been much worse. The month after he took office the unemployment rate rose above 8 percent and it has stayed there ever since.

    #2 Under Barack Obama, the velocity of money (a very important indicator of economic health) has plunged to a post-World War II low.

    #3 Real median household income has decreased by more than 4000 dollars since Barack Obama entered the White House.

    #4 The United States has plenty of oil and we should not have to import it from the Middle East. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has an absolutely nightmarish energy policy. Under Bill Clinton, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 58 percent. Under George W. Bush, the number of drilling permits approved rose by 116 percent. Under Barack Obama, the number of drilling permits approved decreased by 36 percent.

    #5 When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.71.

    #6 Under Barack Obama, the United States has lost more than 300,000 education jobs.

    #7 Since Barack Obama became president, the number of long-term unemployed Americans has risen from 2.7 million to 5.2 million.

    #8 For the first time in the post-World War II era, the employment-population ratio has not bounced back after a recession. The percentage of working age Americans with a job has been below 59 percent for 35 months in a row.

    #9 While Barack Obama has been president, U.S. home values have fallen by another 12 percent.

    #10 More than three times as many new homes were sold in the United States in 2005 as will be sold in 2012.

    #11 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row. Thanks Obama.

    #12 When Barack Obama first entered the White House, an ounce of gold was going for about $850. Today, the price of gold is over $1630 an ounce.

    #13 Since 2008, our economy has lost 1.3 million jobs while at the same time 3.6 million more Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program.

    #14 The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.4 milliontoday. How much more “hope and change” are we going to be able to endure?

    #15 As I wrote about the other day, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

    #16 If you can believe it (and this really is hard to believe), more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government.

    #17 The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percentsince Barack Obama became president.

    #18 Under Barack Obama, federal spending as a percentage of GDP (25 percent) is the highest that it has been since World War II.

    #19 The Obama administration has been spending money on some of the most insane things imaginable. For example, in 2011 the Obama administration spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.

    #20 The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every single year under Barack Obama.

    #21 Under Barack Obama, U.S. debt was downgraded from AAA status for the first time ever.

    #22 Since Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt has increased by 50 percent.

    #23 Since Barack Obama became president, the U.S. national debt has increased by an average of more than $64,000 per taxpayer.

    #24 During the Obama administration, the U.S. national debt has grown more than it did from the time that George Washington became president to the beginning of Bill Clinton’s second term as president.

  33. CBO: Democrats’ Fiscal Cliff Would Plunge US Back Into Recession, Spike Unemployment

    Guy Benson

    Guy Benson
    Political Editor, Townhall.com

    Aug 22, 2012 05:18 PM EST

    Often lost in the daily hubbub of the 2012 horse race is the proverbial sword of Damocles hovering over the nation’s economy. The CBO sounds the alarm. Again:

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday warned the economy will enter a recession next year if the country goes over the so-called fiscal cliff. In its most dire warning yet about the fiscal cliff, the CBO said the economy would contract by 0.5 percent in calendar year 2013 if the George W. Bush-era tax rates expire and automatic spending cuts are implemented. Unemployment also would rise from 8.2 percent in 2012 to 9.1 percent next year, the office estimates … Under current law, there will be 2 million fewer jobs if the fiscal cliff is allowed to take place, and said most of the contraction is due to the tax increases. The contraction would be very severe in the first half of 2013. CBO sees the economy contracting by 2.9 percent in the first half — deeper than the 1.3 percent negative growth it had seen previously from the fiscal cliff … CBO says the fiscal cliff will be worse than it had previously projected and that the “underlying strength” of the economy is weaker.

    The “fiscal cliff” would instantly raise taxes on all American families, as well as millions of small businesses. It would also implement severe and over-broad defense cuts, which Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has likened to the United States military shooting itself “in the head.” And it would drag the economy back into recession, shedding millions of jobs along the way. House Republicans have acted to modify the cuts in a more targeted and sensible fashion, and to extend the current tax rates for all taxpayers. Democrats are holding the economy hostage (to use their favorite expression), adamantly refusing to avoid the fiscal cliff unless the plan includes raising taxes on nearly one million small businesses. They brashly claim that they’re willing to steer the U.S.S. Tax Hike over our impending economic Niagra Falls, so long as they’re able to score some class-warfarealicious political points against Republicans along the way. Such priorities and leadership, no? The White House is spinning the CBO report to demonstrate the “urgent need” for Congress to act. The Republican-held House of Representatives already has acted. The Democrat-controlled Senate, shockingly, has done nothing. Why? Because several Senate Democrats are squeamish about signing on to Obama’s tax hikes scheme Perhaps they were actually paying attention when Obama himself made the argument against raising taxes on anyone during a “fragile” economic recovery back in 2010:

    Never mind all that jargon about economic “consensus,” and whatnot. There’s an election to be won. Cliffward, Ho!


    • What President Obama seems to forget is that the middle class is getting crushed under his watch by three millstones: gasoline prices, food prices, and household income.

      Gas prices have gone up sharply under the watch of President Obama. In November of 2008, the average cost of a gallon of unleaded fuel in the U.S. was $2.151. The price of gas subsequently dropped to $1.689 in December 2008, and when the president was inaugurated in January 2009, the average price was $1.787 per gallon. We have not seen gas below $3.00 per gallon since December 2010. In 2011, the annual average was $3.527, and in 2012, the average so far is $3.652. According to a 2011 CNNMoney data analysis, the average American household spent $368.09 per month on gasoline. This is would equate to $4,417.08 over the course of the year. This is more than the $3,100 average that the Consumer Federation of America estimated in a study.

      On June 24, 2008, Senator Obama said:

      What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

      This $4,417.08 gas bill hits hard when you look at the median annual household income, which was $50,945 as of June 2012. The rising cost of gas consumes approximately 8.67 percent of the household’s income.

      Four years after President Obama was elected, families are still struggling in this economy, and gas prices continue to consume a significant portion of families’ income.

      The rising cost of food also hits middle-class families directly in the pocketbook. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion’s most recent data (June 2012), for the moderate-cost food plan for a family of four, the average cost per week is $236.60. AOL’s DailyFinance.com explains not only how this impacts a family’s bill currently, but how the rising food prices and recent drought are only going to make the matters worse.

      The Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion estimates a moderate weekly grocery bill for a family of four with school-age children at roughly $236.60, which translates into an annual family budget of approximately $12,300 for food consumed at home.
      Assuming the anticipated 5% increase in food prices next year, a family of four is looking at an additional $615 on their annual grocery bill in 2013.

      For dining away from home, if we assume the average American family of four’s typical weekly restaurant bill is $100, or $5,200 per year. That 5% increase will add $260 to a family’s restaurant spending next year.

      All told, the unrelenting national drought could add up to an extra $875 on food spending for an average family of four.

      At a minimum, the average family of four is looking at over $17,500 a year in combined grocery and restaurant bills. Using the same median annual income amount of $50,945, this means that the average family of four is spending 34.4 percent of its income on combined food costs.

      During a growing economy, the rising cost for families at the dinner table and at the pump would be unpleasant, but American families are being forced to pay these higher prices and have much less money to do so than when President Obama was inaugurated. According to Sentier Research, in January of 2009, the median annual household income was $54,962. In June of 2012, the median annual household income was, again, $50,945. This means that since President Obama’s inauguration, the exact middle family in the United States has lost $4,017 in annual income.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/the_o-conomy_how_president_obamas_economy_is_crushing_the_middle_class.html#ixzz24N6ecCDP

      • Mathius™ says:

        ::throws BS flag::

        Gas prices have gone up sharply under the watch of President Obama. In November of 2008, the average cost of a gallon of unleaded fuel in the U.S. was $2.151. The price of gas subsequently dropped to $1.689 in December 2008, and when the president was inaugurated in January 2009, the average price was $1.787 per gallon. We have not seen gas below $3.00 per gallon since December 2010. In 2011, the annual average was $3.527, and in 2012, the average so far is $3.652.

        While this is technically all true, it is of course completely distortive of the truth.

        How convenient, yet again, that the sample starts in November of 2008, right after the economy fell apart. I mean, we all know that history began only after the election. What was the price, let’s say, just a one month earlier? The previous month it was more than a dollar higher at 3.173. Three months before that, it was another dollar higher at 4.09 (July ’08) – that’s an all time high inclusive of the entire tenure of this President.

        In fact, a price as low as your starting point hadn’t been seen in the US since 2004. It rose steadily during the entire course of Bush’s tenure from 1.139 to the peak just before he left of $4.09. Then, after the economy crashed and demand weakened, the price dropped to the anomalously low rate you use as your starting point. Then you get to credit Obama for the rise back to the pre-recession numbers. How bloody convenient.


        Some added thoughts:
        1. I don’t think a President, whether Clinton, Bush, or Obama, has too much control over (and therefore responsibility for) the price of Gasoline. This is determined by worldwide supply and demand. So, while I’ll argue the disingenuosity of your data selection methods, I can’t ascribe blame for the prices – all I can do is say that you’re being misleading.

        2. I suspect you may have copy/pasted this from some hit piece or another. If so, then I still throw the BS Flag at you for posting it here. You should know better.

        3. I didn’t address food costs above. Just quickly:

        3a. Fuel costs are a major driver of the price of food (farm equipment / transportation / power / etc), and we’ve already fuel costs, haven’t we?

        3b. Climate Change™. Whether man made or not, whether permanent or temporary, and whether it’s actually happening or not, these last few years have been pretty rough weather-wise. There is a massive drought going on, and supplies of food are impacted. Decrease supply, and price goes up.

        3c. There are more mouths to feed, both domestically and abroad. With so much more demand, prices go up, especially as a middle class emerges in places like China and India (with about 3b people combined, who are now demanding more and better food in direct competition for world supply with you and your family). Increase demand, and price goes up.

        3d. As with fuel costs, there’s a limited amount that a President – any President – can do about it. As such, while I certainly don’t see it as Obama’s fault, I can’t really bring myself (much as I’d like to) to blame Bush either.

        4. I didn’t address household income either. Income sucks because the economy sucks. The economy sucks because of what happened in 2008. Obama was not President in 2008. If you wish to blame someone, blame Bush. If you don’t want to give him all the credit, blame Bush and Clinton. The economy, while it still sucks, is massively better than it was when Obama took office.

        4a. As with fuel costs and food prices, there’s only a limited amount that a President – any President – can do about the economy. Over time, of course, he can gradually make some changes, but there is no magic wand to wave. As such, the idea that Obama should have magically fixed the economy in the aftermath of the devastating collapse of ’08 is specious at best. However, to be fair, the idea that Bush is (wholly) responsible for that collapse is similarly specious. Both Obama and Bush (and Clinton and Reagan) share, of course, some culpability, but they shouldn’t be pointed at, as if they are somehow single-handedly responsible for everything that happens in a massively complex economy. Doing so to serve your political ends, when you know better, is an intellectually dishonest argument.

        • Four years out and we can’t blame him ..for anything? He’s the leader of the country. Leaders lead. But we can’t put any blame on him? He hasn’t solved much of any problem besides wrapping up the wars, which was in place to begin with. Housing. Oil. Unemployment. Race relations. Class warfare. Transparency.

          Assume Romney wins. the reason will be that Obama hasn’t dealt with anything that has to do with the little people. Unless you want to point to ACA..which is still up in the air as to whether that ‘helps’ or not. So why is it that we can’t blame him?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            This single statement summarizes how we got to where we are and why we are not going to make any real progress towards freedom.

            “He’s the leader of the country.”

            The concept that the President is the “leader” is a manufactured myth. Unfortunately it has stuck in the American psyche. Which then begs the question: Why do so many Americans wish for a King?

          • Mathius™ says:

            So why is it that we can’t blame him?

            I’m saying that there ABSOLUTELY are things you can blame him for. But if you’re going to blame him, you need to do so honestly. Misleading sampling, missing context, etc are not legitimate ways of criticizing a President who has made plenty of legitimate missteps. Further, ascribing magical powers to the President to control things which are beyond the control of any President as a way of faulting him is also unfair and disingenuous.

            I understand that many blame him without a full appreciation of the extent of his powers and/or the complexity/intransigence of the issues, but that does not hold for those at SUFA – you are smart enough to know better. You, Anita, personally, have a grasp of the concept of global supply and demand in light of a burgeoning foreign middle class in India and China. You, Anita, have a grasp of the extent of a President’s powers, with regards to dictating global prices for commodities. You do not get to pretend you don’t. You’re not an idiot, so I won’t allow you or anyone else here to hide behind a guise of simplicity as if “he’s the President and he’s had four three and a half years” means that he can perform all the miracles of heaven and earth that we would desire of him.

            If there’s a massive drought and food prices rise, you Blame Obama – do you think he created the drought? Did he use all the water for Michelle’s garden? Should he do a rain dance or call (as did Rick Perry) for prayers for rain? Is he sitting on the top-secret blueprint to building a weather machine? If global populations rise and an emerging foreign middle class drives up global demand (in particular for meat), then the price of food goes up, you blame Obama – do you think Obama created all those mouths? Do you think he should kill a few billion of them to reduce demand and keep your prices down? Should he use more of your tax dollars or drive up the debt (more) in order to provide larger farm subsidies? She he create a trade-war and distort the market further by creating export levies on American food with the vain hope that others won’t retaliate? You tell me, what magic wand did Obama refuse to wave which would have made the food on your table cheaper?

            It’s too easy to take that shot at him. Want to blame him for something? Blame him for his methods of pursuing and continuing the “war on terror,” NSA continued spying, the way in which the bank bailouts were conducted, executive overreach (see, immigration for example), and several others. Only legitimate criticism will be allowed.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              It is not that he should be held to account for what we think he has the power to do, but that which he claimed he had the power to do. He and the others before him.

              “OUR LEADER”. The People did not create that viewpoint independently. So those who created it should get to suffer the shame they deserve.

              Now that said, I stand WITH YOU against this cherry picking of statistics. But then Mr. Obama liked doing the same to Bush, so perhaps what goes around, comes around!

              So lets explore what the POTUS can affect, and which this one is affecting. There are hundreds of Fed. Regulations in draft and awaiting implementation. Those I have seen are detrimental to our Republican govt (but that’s my sacred cow), and the economy.

              He, as leader of the Dem party, has the ability to steer the direction of Congress (a little) and the direction of his Agency’s efforts ( a lot).

              The perceptions of his action, or inaction, cause business leaders and investors to make decisions that might be different otherwise. So again he CAN affect over all economic activity by his words, leadership or lack of leadership.

              It is obvious he wants to be the leader of a unified and majority Democratic Congress. He wants to impose his version of a “reformed” America. That is why he has been unable to work with Republicans. His style is the same as all Progressives I have ever worked with. My way or the highway. And compromise means we just come back and get the rest later.

              He completely revealed his spots in signing and then celebrating the ACA. It should have been vetoed out of principle. But he has none other than his leftist dogma. So he went ahead and signed it. As with all Fascist Progressives, the Ends Justify the Means. ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

            • Mathius™ says:

              It is not that he should be held to account for what we think he has the power to do, but that which he claimed he had the power to do. He and the others before him.

              That’s not really right.

              He (and every other politician) has to make big unsubstantiated promises in order win. The teaming masses demand the red meat. They don’t know or care that it’s not withing the President’s power to deliver, but if one guy promises prosperity and the other hems and haws about how Presidents don’t really have that kind of power, the first one is going to win every time. That’s because People. Are. Dumb.

              You and I, however, see through this. We know, when they promise certain things, that it’s puffery. Yes, he claimed to be able to fix the economy, and also to give everyone their own personal unicorn. But that doesn’t mean that, as an objective observer of his Presidency, you and I should be blinded by things he had to say in order to get the office. We should judge according to what he DID (or didn’t do) in light of what he has the power to do (or not do).

              Want to accuse him of failing to live up to his campaign promises, fine. But you don’t get to call him a failure as a President for that. You can call his Presidency a failure if you want, but only for legitimate reasons.

              I stand WITH YOU against this cherry picking of statistics. But then Mr. Obama liked doing the same to Bush, so perhaps what goes around, comes around! Again, you and I know more than the teaming masses. You and I, when Obama offered misleading statistics about Bush, knew that this was nonsense red meat. Puffery. We rejected it then as we (should) reject it now. That he has to do this to win is lamentable, but it is the reality of American politics.

              If the pundits want to beat him up using tactics he’s used in the past, that’s their issue, but I hold you to a higher standard. If you want to debate the success / failure of his Presidency here at SUFA, we don’t get to use cherry picked and misleading statistics just because someone else used them.

              The perceptions of his action, or inaction, cause business leaders and investors to make decisions that might be different otherwise. So again he CAN affect over all economic activity by his words, leadership or lack of leadership.

              True. However, the perceptions of his actions, or inaction, are colored by the media. The entire AM radio dial and the biggest cable news station are all stacked against him. In addition, there’s all the Republicans and their advertising and messaging, all of whom are really (regardless of their actual opponents) running against Obama. It’s not like Obama says X and all businesses hear X. One could argue that, if his messaging were stronger, the economy would be better – who knows? Certainly not me.

              But yes, you are correct, but please don’t discount all the voices arrayed against him, many of whom have no qualms about outright lying. If businesses are uncertain about things, then it’s at least partially the fault of his opposition.

              I give you credit on this though. B-

              It is obvious he wants to be the leader of a unified and majority Democratic Congress.

              Of course he does.

              He wants to impose his version of a “reformed” America. That is why he has been unable to work with Republicans.


              He wants to move the dial to the left. He wants to move it, as Charlie colorfully said the other day about “one pubic hair” worth of distance to the left.

              He can’t work with the Republicans in office because many of them have made it clear that their first goal is to see him serve a single term and because many of them are so far to the right they are diametrically opposed to everything he believes. The Republicans aren’t giving an inch.

              He completely revealed his spots in signing and then celebrating the ACA. It should have been vetoed out of principle. Why is this?

              You think he should have vetoed his signature piece of legislation? One that he spent such an exorbitant amount of political capital on? Why? Because it wasn’t 100% what he wanted?

              As with all Fascist Progressives, the Ends Justify the Means. ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

              Perhaps. But let’s not pretend the conservatives are any different.

        • Matt,

          “2. I suspect you may have copy/pasted this from some hit piece or another. If so, then I still throw the BS Flag at you for posting it here. You should know better.”

          The link to the American Thinker article is at the bottom of the post. AT also usually has additional links to their sources. I think this indicates your BS flag is just that, BS!

          “1. I don’t think a President, whether Clinton, Bush, or Obama, has too much control over (and therefore responsibility for) the price of Gasoline. This is determined by worldwide supply and demand.” When Bush lifted the executive order blocking some offshore drilling, the market noticed. When congress refused to lift their ban, the market noticed. Setting an energy policy has market effects. Consider the Saudi’s can produce more oil when they want and cause the price to drop, or slow it and cause a rise. They don’t want the USA to expand production and will price oil at a level they think we will pay without expanding our production. If Obama wins, they can plan on US future production being limited for the next four years plus the four to eight it will take to get new wells in production.

          Another key point, Obama has the authority to temporally halt the EPA requirement on ethanol additive to gasoline. Beef prices have spiked due to corn prices spiking due to the drought and the EPA ethanol mandate. Some 40%? of our corn crop goes to ethanol, even though it’s been proven to NOT reduce any of the emissions it was supposed to reduce. Or do we have to keep doing that to support all the people employed making ethanol? If so, just think of high fuel and food prices as another ObamaTax. You can blame Bush if it makes you feel better, it was started under him. If only there was a leader that would step forward and put us on a new path, away from the failed policies of GB…..

          • Mathius™ says:

            Obama has the authority to temporally halt the EPA requirement on ethanol additive to gasoline I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, it is certainly one of those LEGITIMATE criticism.

            Ethanol is, absolutely, a partial culprit in higher food prices. How much it’s to blame… I can’t say, I’m sure someone knows. Two questions:

            1. Who created the requirement in the first place?

            2. Can you substantiate your claim that he has the authority to halt the requirement?

            • How about an EXECUTIVE ORDER. He’s pretty good at that.

              • I almost forgot, the mandate is from that EPA thing that conservative Richard Nixon gave us. And another thing…. How is it that nobody seems to be able to derail any mandate from any Federal Agency? Seems I have seen the EPA trump congress a few times. Where is their authority in the Constitution?

            • “Can you substantiate your claim that he has the authority to halt the requirement?”

              No, you threw the BS flag on me. I cannot take any action until we resolve this flag issue. I suggest you withdraw the flag, admit it was a false flag, award me ten Mathius points as a self penalty and then we can continue.


              The EPA has the authority, if they were willing to listen to their boss. Consider Obama has directed agencies under his authority to ignore written law and follow executive direction instead on illegal immigrants. I’m pretty sure he has the authority on ethanol. Therefore he either does not want to or it’s not a priority. Any poor people that are suffering must be doing so because of the mean Repug’s…..

              • Mathius™ says:

                Obama has directed agencies under his authority to ignore written law and follow executive direction instead on illegal immigrants.

                He has not. He has instructed them to prioritize differently in a way which does not target the ‘best’ and most promising subsection of immigrants in America.

                I suggest you withdraw the flag, admit it was a false flag, award me ten Mathius points as a self penalty and then we can continue.

                A challenge to the penalty has been issued.

                Upon review, we determine that penalty is correct. Team LOI sacrifices a time out. Play is to resume on the LOI 10 yard line.

                Sorry, but you threw out a blatantly misleading statistic and you knew it. BS flag will not be withdrawn, no Mathius Points will be awarded, and may god have mercy on your soul.

    • Good Morning LOI 🙂 2 things on this. One, if it is not obvious that this is a harrassment tactic by the Obamaloni administration, people are just blind. Two, Good thing there is a hurricane coming (maybe), they are setting up a false flag for everyone to see involving Biden and union members acting as Romney supporters. With all the cameras around Tampa, having a nice violent riot (aimed at Biden) started by Biden supporters pretending to be Romney supporters would make great fodder for the Left Wing whore media. The weather may postpone anything like this for awhile. Peace 🙂

      • Morning G!,

        Not sure about this. I can see a Federal dept. “borrow” agents from another dept. If SS is responsible for security at all these events, they could be overextended and TSA has the training for crowd screening. I have read that Tampa’s GOP event will have armed citizens reflecting state law. Picturing myself attending and a TSA agent searching me, ” sir, you cannot take thins knife in with you”. “OK, it’s a cheap one I brought just in case that was the rules”. ” Your permit allows you to carry any pistol, and is allowed at this event. Be sure it’s in checked baggage, not carry-on if you are flying home”. “Yep, thanks. Been thru that dance before”.

        Or just wondering what happens when a TSA agent is out doing theses stops where it’s legal to be armed and they encounter people like us?

  34. @LOI, The TSA should be disbanned, or, are they part of Obamaloni’s National Security Force he wanted?

  35. Want to see Charlie’s and Matt’s head explode?

    The reason why the ideological bubble of mainstream liberalism is so resistant to being punctured is that it is part of a moral bubble: an unchallenged belief in the morality of welfare-state altruism. In the altruist worldview, supporting yourself and providing for your own needs has no moral significance, but providing for the needs of others makes you virtuous. And the best position of all is to be the middleman distributing those handouts from the haves to the have-nots. It doesn’t require you to sacrifice your own prosperity, but it still gives you the moral high ground of being the agent for the redistribution of wealth.

    But Chait’s own column gives a clue to the profound moral failure of this approach. It encourages the individual to outsource the responsibility for supporting his own life, waiting for largess from distant bureaucrats who are not necessarily benevolent. And precisely because these middlemen live off of an unlimited stream of free money—tax money taken from our paychecks, or dollars summoned out of thin air by the Federal Reserve—they continue to prosper and advance regardless of whether their vast federal projects actually help anyone.

    Lots more fun here:http://www.tracinskiletter.com/2012/08/butcher-brewer-baker-bureaucrat/

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    THIS is the reason that Barack Obama should be sent to early retirement. But then it was the reason he should have never been allowed in the White House to begin with:

    “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. (Emphasis added)”

    Barack Obama

  37. Mathius, I throw the BS flag on you my young friend 🙂 Obama inherited what a Democratic Congress gave him. The Democrats pushed the housing market into oblivion. Barney Frank is the biggest culprit and you know it 👿 It’s the Democrats that caused the housing bubble, which burst and screwed up the economy.

    Gasoline demand was at an all time LOW in July, but the price went up! Imagine that? Maybe because Obama and his cronies are puroosely devaluing the dollar. That explains alot of the price increases, do the math.

    Climate Change is such a BS political cult that I can’t believe you even mentioned it. It’s called weather, and we have had it forever.

    Yes, Mathius, it’s all Obama’s fault! Him and Harry Ried, Pelosi and all the rest of the bleeding heart Liberals in Congress. Our National debt is totally out of control, Obama has done great harm to that. Obamaloni will go down as the worst President EVER!

    • Mathius™ says:

      Obama inherited what a Democratic Congress gave him.

      I throw the flag right back at you! Huzzah! 🙂

      If the Democratic congress is to blame for creating the mess, rather than the Republican President, then the Republican congress (now) is to blame for the failure to fix it, not the Democratic President.

      You can’t blame congress with red-shirts are in office and Presients when blue-shits are in office. Be consistent – either blame BOTH Presidents (Bush and Obama) for getting us into the mess and failing to fix it, respectively, or blame both Congresses (blue shirt and red shirt) for getting us into the mess and failing to fix it respectively.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      Climate Change is such a BS political cult that I can’t believe you even mentioned it. It’s called weather, and we have had it forever.

      Re-read what I wrong. “Whether man made or not, whether permanent or temporary, and whether it’s actually happening or not, these last few years have been pretty rough weather-wise.” That’s not blaming Clime Change.. I’m saying that, for whatever reason, the Climate has sucked for the last few years. Whatever the cause, you’d be hard pressed to assert otherwise. If nothing else, at least acknowledge the massive droughts.

      So don’t want to blame clime, that’s fine, blame “weather,” but either way, it’s reduced supply and/or made the supply more expensive.

      Our National debt is totally out of control
      The leading driver of the debt is.. wait for it… wait for it… the BUSH TAX CUTS. Which are going to end soon, thanks to Obama. The second biggest driver is.. wait for it.. THE WARS WHICH BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS STARTED, which Obama ended. The third biggest driver is the RECESSION WHICH STARTED UNDER BUSH. That’s number 1, 2, and 3.

      Obamaloni will go down as the worst President EVER!
      Worse than Carter??

      Personally, I don’t see how anyone can top Bush.

      • Start a war with Syria after China and Russia warn us to back off?


      • Mathius

        I’m saying that, for whatever reason, the Climate has sucked for the last few years. Whatever the cause, you’d be hard pressed to assert otherwise. If nothing else, at least acknowledge the massive droughts.

        Utter nonsense.

        Climate is not measurably different now as in the past 15 years. Nothing “abnormal” at all.

        Yes, droughts happen – follow El Nino/Nina for the answer.
        Yes, floods happen – ditto.

        Any actual statistical and scientific evaluation of current climate comes to a conclusion of:
        “nothing here”

        • Mathius™ says:

          Is there no drought in the US?

          Does not a severe drought raise prices and/or reduce supply?

          Does this not move the supply curve up and to the left?

          • Yes, there is drought and yes, it impacts economics (indeed, it is among the most significant influences of geopolitical and geo-economical change) – but to claim this is some sort of systemic weirdness out of the ordinary flux of Earth’s climate is the nonsense.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Mr. Flag,

              Please, dear god, re-read what I wrote.

              3b. Climate Change™. Whether man made or not, whether permanent or temporary, and whether it’s actually happening or not, these last few years have been pretty rough weather-wise. There is a massive drought going on, and supplies of food are impacted. Decrease supply, and price goes up.


              I was making no assertions about climate change / global warming / cow farts / el nino’s / or anything else. All I was saying is that “last few years have been pretty rough weather-wise.” Surely a massive drought, several thousands of record-setting high temperatures, massive wild fires, major out-of-season snow storms, et cetera, count as “pretty rough weather-wise,” no?

              but to claim this is some sort of systemic weirdness out of the ordinary flux of Earth’s climate is the nonsense.

              Where did I make this claim?

              • You said, right there … “…man made…”

                But otherwise, yes, you are right – climate does impact human action, ergo, economics.

              • Mathius™ says:

                If “otherwise, yes, [I am] right,” then you assert I was wrong before, in saying “..man made…”

                I said, “whether man made OR NOT“.. this cannot be “wrong” because it is not an assertion by any rational interpretation. It is a qualifier that, for purposes of the statement I made shortly after (that the weather has been rough), that it was irrelevant the “why.”

              • Mathius™ says:

                In WWII, after the British developed radar, the Germans noticed that an awful lot of their planes were getting shot down and started to get suspicious that something was up. It was, after all, almost like the Brits could see them coming.

                The British decided that they didn’t care to have the Germans know about radar, so they planted a story. The story was about a (fictitious) British pilot with near super-human vision. They credited his diet for this – a diet containing a lot of carrots.

                The Germans bought this (for a while at least) and began including carrots in the rations of all German pilots. To this day, many people still believe the legend that “carrots are good for your eyesight.”


                Adding: Would it kill you to admit when you’re wrong, or would that crash your programming?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ahh… so your program has already crashed, and now you’re just behaving erratically now.. got it.

                ::SUDO Restart::

  38. @ Charlie, While you complain about the indians of the past, you would wish us all to live like the indians of today, shame on you! 😉 http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/what-life-is-lie-on-the-liberal-reservation/

  39. @Mathius, You obviously have been watching too much of Chris matthews and his tingly leg 😆 (then the Republican congress (now) is to blame for the failure to fix it, not the Democratic President.) The Senate is run by a Democrat majority, as it has since 2006. They havn’t even passed a budget since Obama took office. So yes, it’s the Democrats fault for not fixing the spending problem 🙂

    Yes, we have droughts, which we have had in the past. It is not Climate Change, it is the weather. WE THE PEOPLE have NOTHING to do with it! 🙄

    Blaming tax cuts on our debt problem is like blaming the toilet seat for pregnancy, 🙂 It’s called government spending, which is way more than they bring in. Maybe, they should live within their means like all of us? We have ONLY had deficits over a trillion dollars under ONE President, your Messiah 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      So yes, it’s the Democrats fault for not fixing the spending problem

      The Republicans won’t let the Democrats do anything. It’s not that they haven’t tried. Maybe the Senate is blue-shirt majority, but the red-shirts sure do love the filibuster.

      Yes, we have droughts, which we have had in the past. It is not Climate Change, it is the weather. WE THE PEOPLE have NOTHING to do with it!

      Whether we do or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that droughts reduce supply (or make the same supply more expensive to produce) and thus drive up prices. To blame Obama for higher prices driven by droughts is unfair unless you think Obama created the drought or is somehow failing to end it.

      your Messiah

      I really wish you would stop pretending I’m an Obama-bot. I criticize him plenty. I just think he should only be criticized for legitimate reasons. That there are more middle class mouths to feed in the world (demand shifts up and to the right) and the climate weather is lousy (supply shifts up and to the left) is not a good reason, it’s not reasoned discourse, and it’s beneath your intelligence to pretend that you don’t know it.

      • “So yes, it’s the Democrats fault for not fixing the spending problem

        The Republicans won’t let the Democrats do anything. It’s not that they haven’t tried. Maybe the Senate is blue-shirt majority, but the red-shirts sure do love the filibuster.”

        Harry Reid has not allowed the senate to propose a budget, even though it’s required of them. The Repug’s used procedural tricks to get one from congress heard. It was DOA, as Reid promised. The Repug’s used tricks and brought Obama’s budget to the floor and it was defeated 99-0. If the Democratically controlled senate passed a budget or attempted to do so, you could claim Repug’s were blocking. I don’t see how you can claim the Dem’s are trying to fix spending with a shred of honesty…..

    • August 23, 2012
      Obama’s Oil and Gas Folly
      By Jeffrey Folks

      Obama’s campaign speeches always seem to include a line about how he can take credit for increasing domestic oil and gas production. As the official White House website has it, “domestic oil and gas production has increased every year President Obama has been in office.”

      On Wednesday, however, his administration put into effect yet another new regulation making it harder for America’s oil and gas companies to increase production. In fact, that regulation, as the head of the American Petroleum Institute recently wrote, would make American companies unable to compete with foreign competitors. That may be exactly why the president supported it.

      The new regulation, Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank bill, would require American companies to release information detailing expenditures on foreign operations. That proprietary information would immediately be available to foreign and domestic competitors alike, and would be used to undercut whatever advantages American companies have achieved as a result of their own hard work. Section 1504’s “extractives transparency rules,” as interpreted by Obama’s activists at the SEC, force American companies to compete with one hand tied behind their back. Competitors in Moscow and Beijing must be dancing for joy now that the rules have been finalized. Obama has just handed them the keys to the world’s oil riches.

      The problems with Section 1504 go beyond the “competitive disadvantage” to which it puts American energy companies. When implemented, Section 1504 will also place American companies in conflict with foreign countries which prohibit the very same disclosures that 1504 mandates. As a result, American companies might well be forced to cease operations in nations where they have already invested tens of billions of dollars in order to avoid running afoul of the law.

      As one study pointed out, there are also serious security implications involved in implementing Section 1504. American companies working in dangerous environments overseas may be placing their employees at risk if they fully disclose the locations, funding, and status of their operations. The safety of American workers and their local employees overseas should be a paramount concern, but the SEC ruling does not appear to address this concern.

      In addition to the risk of violence, Section 1504 exposes American companies to the risk of greater shareholder litigation. Like all complex securities regulation, Section 1504 is a boon for trial lawyers, but not for American workers or consumers, who will end up paying the costs of litigation.

      In fact, it appears that the SEC has proceeded in the most intrusive manner possible, though it need not have done so. Dodd-Frank allowed the agency broad leeway to interpret transparency rules in a manner that would not have materially harmed American companies. It appears that, under Obama’s direction, the agency has gone out of its way to punish American companies. Yet nothing in Section 1504 applies to foreign state-run competitors that are not listed on U.S. markets.

      All of this raises the question, of course, of why Dodd-Frank should have singled out oil and gas (and mining) companies for a transparency ruling that does not apply to other industries. That decision, in and of itself, would seem to be blatantly unfair and discriminatory. It is another manifestation of the left’s obsession with creating a carbon-free future that fails to take into account economic impact or even basic feasibility. In the absence of fossil fuels, America’s economy would be reduced to the level of Mali and then some.

      Far from increasing domestic oil and gas production, Obama has already cut future production from what it would have been. As the American Petroleum Institute states, current policies “prevent us from adequately preparing for the long-term.” Energy production has a long lead time — as long as two decades, if one includes locating promising acreage, leasing, permitting, drilling, and building the infrastructure for getting production to market. This means that the consequences of current policies don’t become apparent for at least a decade. When they do, Obama’s policies will be seen to have curtailed domestic production and placed America’s energy security in jeopardy.

      The increased production for which Obama is taking credit can be attributed to leasing and advances in drilling technologies that took place during previous administrations. By contrast, Obama has been consistently hostile to fossil fuel development.

      Since Obama likes to boast about his so-called achievements in domestic energy production, here is a brief list of what he has actually done:

      -reversed commitments to allow development of offshore Atlantic reserves, and failed to expand drilling on Alaska’s North Slope and offshore Alaska

      -shut down Gulf of Mexico deep-water drilling entirely for six months and slowed new permitting there indefinitely

      -reversed previous commitments to allow drilling for oil shale on federal lands in the Rockies

      -vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline, shutting off major supplies of oil from Canada

      -slowed hydraulic fracturing on public and private lands by imposing new EPA regulations, and allowed the EPA to issue hasty determinations of fracking pollution that have since been discredited

      -proposed $44 billion of new taxes on oil and gas companies at the same time that he squandered $80 billion on unproductive solar and wind companies such as Solyndra

      -continued to support a devastating corn ethanol program that is raising food prices worldwide and costing U.S. taxpayers billions in taxes to pay for subsidies and additional billions in higher fuel costs

      -driven up the cost of electricity by mandating and subsidizing wind and solar generation instead of promoting use of natural gas (and coal)

      -accused “speculators” of driving up oil prices (except when those prices are falling, which is then not attributable to speculation) while it is his own actions that are driving up those prices in anticipation of future declines in U.S. oil and gas production

      To this long list of Obama’s policy mistakes we can now add Section 1504, the SEC requirement that American oil and gas companies reveal much of their proprietary information with regard to foreign exploration to their foreign competitors.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_oil_and_gas_folly.html#ixzz24OfXMNVp

    • Mathius™ says:

      No need to even click the link. Answer: all holy hell would break loose.

      And, yes, I do think this is a double-standard which is, itself, a type of reverse-racism. Just like when a black person votes for Obama just because he’s black, it’s just as racist and wrong as a white person who refused to vote for Obama because he’s black. Both should be condemned and, for the sake of future generations, castrated.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Just saw a new headline: Jobless Claims Take “Unexpected” Jump.

    Really? Unexpected?

    Perhaps the media should stop listening to ONLY their own pundits. Many economists have been predicting a rise in unemployment as we get through August. Good grief.

    • Mathius™ says:

      This is my shocked face.


    • Obama: “You Can’t Just Make Stuff Up. That’s Something That You Learn As President.”
      Is Obama serious? Where does one start on his obviously false claims that the media never calls him on? From Obama’s brief press conference on August 20th:

      So the contrast I think is pretty stark. They can run the campaign that they want, but the truth of the matter is you can’t just make stuff up. That’s one thing you learn as President of the United States. You get called into account. . . .

      This statement from Jake Tapper might explain why he gets away with this:

      “I have said before — I said that I thought the media helped tip the scales. I don’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, you know, campaign narrative, it wasn’t always the fairest coverage and I hope that doesn’t happen again.”

      Chuck Todd seems to agree in explaining the coverage of the abortion debate instead of the economy:

      Well, this is a chicken and egg conversation. This is a distraction. I don’t think it’s a distraction you can quote, blame on the media on this one. It’s not media bias, it’s media, it’s what they’re covering, and the fact is we are under-covering the economy, we are under-covering — but you cover the campaign that is in front of you. . . .

      from John Lott, links at his blogspot…

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    On the local news last night I got to see these cool new trash cans being put out around Portland. They have a trash compacter inside. This of course allows more trash to be put in each can, “supposedly” saving the city a bunch of money in trash collection.

    The compacter is run by a “solar panel” installed as part of the can.

    These trash cans are just now being put out. They were purchased with STIMULUS money.

    I do not have the price tag for these yet, but will post it once the “full story” is told.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    I’m surprised this took so long. Perhaps it was held until they knew how close the polling data was in August? Don’t know for sure, except that Republicans are soon going to experience a “sinking feeling” in the pit of their stomach.


    • Mathius™ says:

      Republicans are soon going to experience a “sinking feeling” in the pit of their stomach.

      He’s lied so much in this campaign, I doubt one more will do him much harm. (not that Obama hasn’t lied, or that every politician doesn’t lie on the campaign trail, but Romney seems (to me) to lie more flagrantly than is the norm).

      Romney is safe because the story isn’t juicy enough. Us politics junkies will notice, but do you honestly think that the “man on the street” is going to give a flying sh*t whether some released documents from over a decade ago show that Romney had a stake in some company which shows that he was still active in another company which participated in outsourcing?


      As Charlie’s (?) link the other day said “unless someone discovers that Bain Capital secretly shelled the Golan Heights,” nobody cares. Wake me up if it’s discovered that he murdered a prostitute and hid her body in Mormon temple’s inner sanctuary.

    • Be fair to Romney — he retroactively retired in 1999…

    • JAC…the first problem here…..is believing anything that Huffington puts out…….

  43. A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.

    Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates — which refers to patients who return within a month — by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.

    Doctors are concerned the penalty is unfair, since sometimes they have to accept patients more than once in a brief period of time but could be penalized for doing so — even for accepting seniors who are sick.

    “Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates,” said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. “So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/more-than-2200-hospitals-face-penalties-for-high-readmissions/#ixzz24OHt4H18

    • So, to protect themselves, they will just not discharge any patient who may possibly have to return driving up rates for everybody, not to mention overcrowding.

      Don’t say it can’t happen because I would implement that policy if I were a hospital administrator. It’s common sense.

      Now, there is the issue of time limits for certain illnesses/surgeries in the hospital. Want to bet that they will find other illnesses through more testing that will enable them to prolong the stay? The alternative is kick some out and let em die.

      This, is really supposed to save money, right?

      • Shows the “death panels” were a lie. “Death panels, we don’t need no stinking death panels”. Already have it covered on the front end. The death panels are in case we missed anything.

        “This, is really supposed to save money, right?”

        IT WILL! No question about it, dead people are much less a cost on medical expenses because they are dead. Penalize hospitals for keeping people alive with too much care, more people will die. Costs go down. Imaging if they were to only treat the young and healthy? That’s how you save some money! Kinda like taking 700 billion out that was for treating the elderly and spreading it out to treat everyone (what’s special about being old anyway?). The same number of doctors must now treat 15 million more for the same amount of funding, from the same number of hospitals. Our health care system just became a triage system.

  44. Just A Citizen says:


    re: Business perception of Mr. Obama.

    You commit a serious error in thinking their opinions are based on talk radio, or even Fox News.

    These people pay millions a year to various Trade Associations who stay on top of all proposed changes to Fed Regulations and other rules.

    This is where the aversion to this Administration is coming form.

    The other sources are the Fed and Treasury action, and the President and Dem leadership rhetoric.

  45. A Democratic election official in Pennsylvania says he won’t enforce a new voter ID law, ahead of a state court ruling and Justice Department findings on the issue.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/30/dem-official-in-pennsylvania-says-wont-enforce-voter-id-law/?utm_campaign=Feed:%20foxnews/politics%20(Internal%20-%20Politics%20-%20Text)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&intcmp=obinsite#ixzz24PEsHmkW

    Then he should be fired.

  46. Ten federal immigration agents have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claiming recent directives are forcing them to break the law and ignore their duties when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.

    The suit was filed Thursday in Texas federal court by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. It challenges recent directives allowing some illegal immigrants — particularly non-felons and those who came to the U.S. as children — to stay and, in some cases, get work permits.

    Kris Kobach, lead attorney on the case, equated the move to give thousands of illegal immigrants a reprieve to the failed Fast and Furious gun-walking operation.

    “In both instances, the Obama administration ordered federal law enforcement agents to break the law, to ignore the laws that they’re supposed to enforce, and, in the case of the ICE agents, to actually break federal laws that say you’re supposed to deport certain people,” he said. “And in each case, the Obama administration seems to be doing so for political reasons.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/immigration-agents-file-suit-against-napolitano-over-amnesty-program/#ixzz24POOXNcg

    “prosecutorial discretion” = Bull Shit

  47. Judge Orders Release of Detained Marine Veteran

    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

    HOPEWELL, Va. (WTVR) – A Hopewell circuit court judge has ordered that a Marine veteran detained over anti-government Facebook posts be released from a psychiatric hospital.

    CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the judge dismissed the case Thursday against Brandon Raub. The judge said the original petition for Raub’s detention contained no facts. In other words, there was no information on why Raub was being held — and the judge deemed this violated his civil liberties.

    As a result, the judge ruled law enforcement has no grounds to hold Raub.

    Beck said the judge is in the process of writing an order for Raub’s release. He is expected to be released from a the hospital in Salem, Virginia Thursday afternoon.

    And now everyone knows why we have the 2nd Amendment!

    • Good Morning SUFA 🙂

      Putting politics aside for a moment, this case poses several things that should be discussed. First and foremost, this is proof that BiG Brother is watching and acting on what is written on the internet. I’m sure they are reading here as well, afterall, most of us are on some sort of watch list they made up.

      Second, the illegal arrest and detention of a citizen. A judge has deemed there was not cause for this to happen. my question is this, should those who were invovolved in the arrest and detention be arrested and charged with the crimes they have committed? My answer is a big YES. The Judge, and every cop should be cuffed and stuffed and formally charged with depriving a citizen of his Civil Rights, and any other crime on the books. Will that happen, not likely. This is a time when the people should rise up and demand proper action. If this Marine was black, the race pimps would be all over this. What say you?


    The brand new robot that has just landed on Mars and has sent back proof in the most clear pictures…..There is NO ESPN, NO Beer, and NO porn……………….proving once and for all that men are NOT from Mars.

  49. Say it ain’t so, the Liberals are lying again? Oh my, what a strange turn of events 😆 http://www.conservativevideos.com/2012/08/wasserman-schultz-torn-to-shreds-over-false-claims/

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Shultz is correct in what the platform says, but as usual she then “infers” what that means and then falsely links Romney to the plank within the platform. As we all know, NO politician supports their party’s platform 100%, some not much at all.

      Any way, here is the actual plank language regarding abortion, from the 2008 platform. Which of course was McCain’s platform, not Romney’s.

      Maintaining The Sanctity and
      Dignity of Human Life
      Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration
      of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and
      sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn
      child has a fundamental individual right to life which
      cannot be infringed. We support a human life
      amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation
      to make clear that the Fourteenth
      Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
      We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform
      abortion and will not fund organizations which
      advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
      who respect traditional family values and the sanctity
      and dignity of innocent human life.
      We have made progress. The Supreme Court
      has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice
      of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to
      extend health-care coverage to children before birth.
      And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has
      become law; this law ensures that infants who are
      born alive during an abortion receive all treatment
      and care that is provided to all newborn infants and
      are not neglected and left to die. We must protect
      girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a
      parental notification requirement. We all have a
      moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women
      struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy.
      At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault
      on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women
      deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be
      made to work with women considering abortion to
      enable and empower them to choose life. We salute
      those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy
      care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous
      increase in adoptions that has followed
      Republican legislative initiatives.
      Respect for life requires efforts to include
      persons with disabilities in education, employment,
      the justice system, and civic participation. In
      keeping with that commitment, we oppose the nonconsensual
      withholding of care or treatment from
      • 53 •
      people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and
      infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide,
      which endanger especially those on the margins
      of society. Because government should set a positive
      standard in hiring and contracting for the services of
      persons with disabilities, we need to update the
      statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the
      main avenue by which those productive members of
      our society can offer high quality services at the best
      possible value.

      • The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

        Barbaric, absolutely.

        Yet, blowing kids up with nukes, fire bombings, predators-drones, scathing 30mm cannon fire is … regrettable but necessary collateral damage – and all part of delivering civilization to barbarians.

  50. Mathius™ says:


    I’m spoiling for fight… who wants to give me one?

    Suggested topics:
    1. Rape: Magical pregnancy stopping powers
    2. Muslims: Normal people or bloodthirsty terrorists
    3. POTUS: Does he have magical powers, and why is he withholding them?
    4. Hot dogs: Sure they’re delicious.. but just what, exactly, is in them?
    5. Homosexuality: Defining “natural”
    6. Global Warming™: Just how fat is Al Gore?
    7. Black Flag: Will admitting error actually cause him to die?
    7a. Black Flag: Just how thick is his skull?
    8. D13: Holy Sh*t! Only steers and queers come from Texas.. and he doesn’t look like no queer to me. (Is D13 actually a steer? And if so, is he a longhorn?)
    9. Predator drones: How long do we have left before the robot uprising?

    • 🙂

    • 7. I never wrong, though I may err once in a while – it is your definitions of “being wrong” that are faulty. ;P
      7a. 5/8″ thick

      • The Flaming Carrot says:

        7. Will you admit “err” above when you accused me of being wrong re climate change, considering that I made no claim regarding climate change and thus couldn’t have been wrong?

        7a. At the high end, but still within normal tolerance. Tell me, does your skull have an abnormal density equivalent to, say, a neutron star?

        • 7. You were wrong in entangling doubt to the cause of climate change. By merely suggesting ignorance, you turned certainty into doubt (well, it COULD BE human or not).
          Understand with no doubt, humans do NOT cause climate change, and any statement that reflects ignorance or doubt into that understanding is wrong.

          It would be equally wrong to say “well, 2+2=4 …or not” – and such a statement would be worthy of equal assault, too, for the same reason.

          7a. Mrs. Flag has wondered, too, that if at the center of my brain exists a hyper-computer with a Googolplexian-byte storage system – which, if true, must be of a density approaching singularity.

          • More on point 7.

            If you do not know, it is proper to say “I do not know”
            This is completely different then saying “It could be this or that”

            The former is justified ignorance and there is no crime or fault there.

            The latter is unjustified doubting and feigning knowledge – it is saying you know something that causes you to argue for this or that, but at the same time, saying you really don’t know anything for sure.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Your certainty continues to astound me.

              That aside, you’re still wrong. Saying “whether yes or no” is saying “regardless.” Regardless of cause […]. That can’t be wrong.

              • That is not what you said – you did not say “regardless of cause”.
                You said “Whether man made or not

                If you said the former, you’d be fine – the cause could be the sunspots, cosmic rays, clouds … or something else.

                But you said the latter – you said “HUMANS … (or not)” … where humans are not the cause!

                It would be similar in saying “2+2=5 … (or not)” … well, it is ALWAYS “not”! though the statement doubts that!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Whether 2+2=5 or not, you’re still the most stubborn human I’ve ever known.

      • My children have strict instructions that on my headstone, the following is to appear:


        Failure to inscribe this will result in haunting.

        Surprisingly, Disney just issued a T-shirt with similar phrasing. Unfortunately the character is Grumpy. Would have preferred Donald Duck. Quackkkk!!!

        • Mathius™ says:

          Given my druthers, I’d like my body to be launched into the sun.

          However, as I’ll be dead, and that may be prohibitively expensive, I’ll settle for them strapping a half-ton of ANFO to me and detonating from a safe distance.

          No grave for me.

          • I wouldn’t mind a mausoleum in a central park, where the future of humanity could place gold coins in awe and admiration of such an existence – coins latter gathered by my progeny to be spent on great works of industry and discovery.

    • Given the extreme media interest in the subject of abortion of late and the press’s imaginary link between views of a Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin and Republican GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, it’s worth considering the actual position of President Barack Obama on the issue.

      Doing so shows who the real extremist on the subject of abortion is. The candidate whose positions are further removed from the majority of Americans is Barack Obama, something the media will almost certainly never tell voters.

      As National Review’s Rich Lowry notes:

      From a neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite side is equally “extreme.” It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact, he did.

      In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic Convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation.

      But he couldn’t bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.

      President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.

      He opposed a partial-birth-abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House and the Senate easily and was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.

      Instead of obsessively asking Mitt Romney and every Republican imaginable about Todd Akin, the pro-Democrat media ought to ask Obama about his own words in the past complaining about how babies just wouldn’t die in the abortion process.

      “In fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead,” Obama described a botched abortion, before then coming out in favor of allowing an abortionist to let a born alive infant die outside of his/her mother’s womb.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/08/24/media-want-talk-abortion#ixzz24TMyWdyw

      • Mathius™ says:

        From a neutral perspective, if one side of a debate is “extreme,” the opposite side is equally “extreme.”

        This is patently false.

        If I you hold the “extreme” view that the Earth is false, the opposite side (that the Earth is a sphere) is not extreme – it is simple the truth.

        Given the extreme media interest in the subject of abortion of late and the press’s imaginary link between views of a Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin and Republican GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, it’s worth considering the actual position of President Barack Obama on the issue.

        Boy.. we sure do seem to be throwing around a lot of “You Too’s”… If – IF – B.O.’s views are extreme, that doesn’t change or impact the fact that Akin and Romney Ryan are also extreme.

        In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times.

        He has explained, repeatedly, that he viewed the language in those bills to be designed as a back door to limit abortions. In his view, these bills were less about live-born babies and more about unborn-fetuses.

        Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

        Now, you can agree or disagree with whether he’s right about this, but he has also said that he would support a bill if it contained language clarified this issue (such that it was only about live-born babies and not fetuses). So it’s not really right to suggest that his “views” are extreme in light of this, but that he’s willing, perhaps to go to “extreme” lengths to protect what are considered “normal” views (ie, that abortion should be legal).

        President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.

        It’s odd how people are so militantly against government interfering in people private lives… you know, unless it’s a woman and her uterus. Obama just doesn’t think that government should be involved in a private medical decision. I know that’s extreme to you, but to me, that’s kind of refreshing.

        He opposed a partial-birth-abortion bill in Illinois

        See above. He saw it as a back-door to limit abortion and end-run Row v. Wade.

        “In fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead,” Obama described a botched abortion, before then coming out in favor of allowing an abortionist to let a born alive infant die outside of his/her mother’s womb.

        I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

        Read that again, and get over your knee-jerk reaction.

        He’s not talking about an unwanted (born) child who the doctors just let die. There’s a specific word you’re ignoring. “it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead,”

        See that NONVIABLE. The bill would require that a fetus which was born, but which stands no chance of living (that would be pretty much the definition of nonviable, no?) can/should be allowed to die. If you have a (god forbid) anencephalic baby, it’s going to die – because it’s nonviable. Should you be forced to keep it on life support, resuscitate it, and, more to the point, call in a second doctor as an extra layer of bureaucratic red tape, before you can finally let it die? Of course not. So, in the case of a botched abortion, when the fetus is ‘born’ and is nonviable (that is, it WILL die), this bill would have required that they try to revive it, keep it alive, and call in extra doctors.. and why? To what end? The fetus or baby, whichever, is not going to survive – the only question is when. So why should a woman be forced to be put through that?

        This bill, as interpreted by Obama (I haven’t read it), is not designed to protect babies. It’s designed to make it more difficult and heartrending to have an abortion. It’s designed to look like it’s protecting children, but what it actually does is add layers of red tape to a private medical procedure and intrude into private medical decisions.

        At least, as Obama interprets it. You can argue he’s WRONG, but his rational for this wasn’t that he supports killing infants. It seems he just doesn’t support women being forced to keep them alive when they’re nonviable. I, personally, see this as akin to pulling the plug on grandpa once he’s terminal and after his brain is a pile of mush. Why should the government be able to step in and force me to keep him alive when he’s going to die soon regardless? This is NOT the same as protecting grandpa when he’s not a dying vegetable, similarly, it is NOT the same as killing a child who is viable.

        You (or your news source) ignores a vitally crucial word, and then uses malign him. But, then again, what else should I expect from NewsBusters.

        • Oh my God-You find a way to justify anything when it comes to abortion.

          • VH, Mathius isn’t justifying anything here; he is putting your post into its proper context.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Actually he is not. He is making assumptions based on a few excerpts of Obama’s arguments. He has to rationalize away the garbage logic of THE ONE in order to argue against the article attacking him.

              While the article does contain logical flaws as well, the justification used to protect a child born alive was irrational in and of itself. “……that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it …..”

            • Yes he is-and the proper context-is that if the baby is born alive following an abortion attempt-it should be given medical treatment just like any other baby is given.

              • Mathius™ says:

                He’s not arguing against that in the general sense.

                Only when the child is nonviable. That is, the newborn is about to die, regardless. This is not “right to life” stuff, but “right to die” stuff. And if a newborn is doomed, then I see no reason why the government should dictate the terms rather than a parent.

                This is no longer an abortion debate at this stage. Abortion is pre-birth. This is an infanticide debate. And the question is: if an infant – any infant – is short-term terminal (ie, nonviable), then should a parent have to keep them alive or can they allow the infant to die quickly.

                Personally, I think they should be allowed to administer a lethal dose of morphine to make it painless and faster. No reason the child should suffer at all. But, I guess, I’m just an extremist. I just don’t see any difference between taking a nonviable newborn off life support versus taking a terminal late-stage Parkinson’s patient off life support.

              • No, that is not the debate-not as far as this law is concerned-the basic premise from Obama while this ugliness was being talked about-was that the mother has already decided that she wanted an abortion-so the doctor could just decide on his own that no medical treatment should be given. I suspect her opinion before the BABY was actually born alive-might be different when faced with the reality of a living baby. And no. I cannot find his exact statements recorded anywhere on the internet-but I remember vividly his basic words because I almost got sick listening to the sick son of a bitch.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I have a habit of trying to understand what people meant instead of just blindly getting mad at them. Sorry. I understand that this upsets people sometimes.

            I’m not justifying just killing babies. I’m justifying not forcing women to have NONVIABLE babies resuscitated, put on life support, and having extra doctors called. If a baby (and it is a baby once born, make no mistake, so we’re not actually talking about abortion, but infanticide) – if a baby isn’t viable, it is going to die. Minutes or hours, maybe even days, but it will die. That’s the definition of nonviable. This isn’t killing babies – this is about not futilely trying to keep them alive for a little longer – or more to the point, not forcing the mother to futilely try to keep them alive for a little longer.

            So why should she have to keep that child alive, prolong it’s suffering and her own? It’s absolutely no different than pulling the plug on grandpa. It’s a private decision which should be made by family, not bureaucrats.

            Just take the ‘botched abortion’ piece out of the equation. If a woman has a baby, but the baby is encephalitic, it’s doomed. Should she be forced and required by bureaucrats to keep it alive for a few extra minutes, or should she be able to just let it die? I consider this a deeply personal decision.

            So, apparently, does Obama.

            • Why should this baby’s birth-being born alive- be handled any differently than any other baby that is brought into this world?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Why should this baby’s birth-being born alive- be handled any differently than any other baby that is brought into this world?

                It shouldn’t.

                The only question is, after being born, is it viable. If the answer is no, then the government has no business in the matter. If it’s doomed, the parent should be able to dictate the terms – everyone else should butt out.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Your argument isn’t even supported by the legislation. It required nothing more than “normal or standard” medical care as defined by the profession in that area.

              You previously argued that viability was related to the ability to survive outside the womb. So now that the child is outside the womb and IS ALIVE you argue that it depends on whether they could be expected to live…………what? …………. on their own?

              Is FUTILITY now the measure of viability of a living thing to remain alive?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Your argument isn’t even supported by the legislation. I can’t argue the legislation. I haven’t read it. I can only argue for or against what Obama has stated were his reasons for his vote. Give his reasons, I agree with his vote.

                If, however, he was wrong, then of course, his reasons are irrelevant and his vote was ‘wrong.’

                You previously argued that viability was related to the ability to survive outside the womb. So now that the child is outside the womb and IS ALIVE you argue that it depends on whether they could be expected to live…………what? …………. on their own?

                More or less.

                Viability doesn’t mean a fetus or child can live for 2 minutes before dying. That would still be nonviable. Just because a fetus made it to birth and became a child doesn’t mean it’s now magically viable – it may still be doomed for a number of reasons, for example I keep offering encephalopathy. That’s not a question of whether the child can ‘live on their own,’ but whether they can live… period. In this case, the answer is no. Medical science simply cannot save them. They will die. Every. Single. Time. Thus they are nonviable.

                So, ask yourself, should a parent of such a baby be required to keep it alive? And what business is it over anyone else’s?

                Is FUTILITY now the measure of viability of a living thing to remain alive? I suppose you could make that case depending on just how futile.

                Nonviable means NO HOPE. It doesn’t mean slim hope. It means NO hope. Trying to save such a baby is futile and needlessly prolongs suffering in the parents and (possibly) the baby. Why, then, should this decision be made by a bureaucrat and not the parents?

                If I am terminally ill and my brain is mush from Parkinson’s, I cannot make the decision for myself. But should someone else be able to tell my family whether they can or cannot allow me to die? Should someone outside my family be allowed to require them to try to keep me alive?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “I have a habit of trying to understand what people meant instead of just blindly getting mad at them. Sorry. I understand that this upsets people sometimes.”

              OK, then let me help you. This is what Mr. Obama “meant”.

              “I am a Democrat and I will not vote for ANY limitation on abortions because I cannot afford to lose support of NOW or the Progressive Caucus.”

              • Mathius™ says:

                “I am a Democrat and I will not vote for ANY limitation on abortions because I cannot afford to lose support of NOW or the Progressive Caucus.”


                I can’t positively say that this is not the case.

                However, since most other people voted for these, I don’t think that this necessarily is the case. I’m inclined to say that he saw the troubling implications that he mentioned.

              • My wife has a few friends who are nurses, some pediatric nurses. There was a time, not that many years ago, when a baby delivered at 3 pounds was a 50-50 proposition, Now it’s been reduced to one pound and a few ounces at 50-50. So, the moral qualms in this brave new world get tougher and tougher. .

              • Mathius™ says:


                So, the moral qualms in this brave new world get tougher and tougher.

                Actually, they get easier.

                Eventually, all fetuses will be viable at all stages.

                Once this happens, there will be no more abortion. If you don’t want your fetus in your body, it will be removed, put in an incubation chamber, and then put up for adoption at ‘birth’. Give it 20 years and this will be safer than the old way. Give it 50 years and this will be ‘normal’.

                This whole debate has a clock on it and it’s ticking down. Soon, none of this will matter because abortion will be a thing of the past and politicians will need to find some new culture-war wedge issue.

              • Now you have gone and done it. I see a future for more lawyers. Jenny doesn’t want the baby, she wants it out, she’s mad at Bill, the baby, even brought to the lab to gestate is a reminder to her of Bill. She wants it destroyed or, Jenny is fine with the creche but Bill is afraid that a living breathing baby with his DNA will somehow come back and bite his ass in 5, 10 or 20 years. Bill wants it destroyed.

                I knew you would come up with something to justify even more lawyers in the future. Sure that once you pass the bar you don’t take some kind of pledge to the Illuminati or the tri-lateral commission or something?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I knew you would come up with something to justify even more lawyers in the future. Which is worse? More lawyers or continued abortions? Close call, I know..

                Sure that once you pass the bar you don’t take some kind of pledge to the Illuminati or the tri-lateral commission or something? Both, actually, but I’m not taking the bar.. I don’t think I could stomach law school.

                Bill wants it destroyed. Tough sh*t. The only justification I see for abortion is that a woman has an absolute right to her body – that is, she shouldn’t have to have something inside her which she doesn’t want there. I see zero justification for aborting/killing a fetus when it is not parasitizing the mother. You can no more abort a viable living entity which is not inside you than you can murder random strangers.

            • Matt,

              Obama is an extremist on abortion. We can qualify most as pro-life or pro-choice. He is Pro-Abortion. Remember his comment,
              “he wouldn’t want his daughter to be burdened with a baby”
              This is supposed to be the most eloquent speaker of modern times. If as it’s later explained, he talking about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancy, he used the wrong word.
              Unwanted pregnancy.
              Unintended pregnancy.
              Vastly different than burdened with a baby. With those words, you are past preventing a pregnancy and now looking to prevent a birth. This is his true feelings revealed, that he see’s abortion used as a form of birth control to be acceptable.

              (had enough, Mr. spoiling for a fight?)

              • I guess I’m pretty extreme as well then, because I certainly wouldn’t want my teenage daughter to be burdened with a baby!

              • Mathius™ says:

                He is Pro-Abortion

                If as it’s later explained, he talking about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancy, he used the wrong word.
                Yes, because he never misspeaks (*cough* 57 states *cough*).

                With those words, you are past preventing a pregnancy and now looking to prevent a birth.
                Not necessarily. Maybe you’re just looking to prevent a birth by preventing a pregnancy.

                You seem to imply that he would want his daughter to get pregnant than abort. That’s preposterous.

                he see’s abortion used as a form of birth control to be acceptable.
                He sees abortion as a private medical matter and none of his business.

                (had enough, Mr. spoiling for a fight?)


                We Jews, you know.. we love to argue!

              • Mathius™ says:

                Old: You seem to imply that he would want his daughter to get pregnant than abort. That’s preposterous.

                New: You seem to imply that Obama would want his daughter to get pregnant, then have an abortion. That’s preposterous.

              • Old: You seem to imply that he would want his daughter to get pregnant than abort. That’s preposterous.( not at all, his words, remember. Maybe he gets confused on the whole pregnancy/abortion thing.)

                New: You seem to imply that Obama would want his daughter to get pregnant, then have an abortion. That’s preposterous.( It’s is preposterous or outrageous that he talks about abortion in the same context as birth control/safe sex/sex education. If sex ed works and safe sex is practiced, you rarely end up talking about abortion. I am not implying, I am stating by his words in the context he spoke them, he see’s abortion as an acceptable method of birth control.)

                Buck says:
                August 24, 2012 at 1:33 pm •

                I guess I’m pretty extreme as well then, because I certainly wouldn’t want my teenage daughter to be burdened with a baby!
                ( yessir, you are. I can respect your honesty and willingness to state it in public. I think if you were to face that situation and closely look at what you are advocating, it would rock you…Might not change your mind, but you would consider adoption or other actions)

              • Question: Would you want your teenage daughter to be burdened with a baby?

                Now, you may disagree as to whether abortion should be the answer, but that’s another story altogether. My only question here pertains to your thoughts on having a pregnant teenage daughter.

              • So you are suggesting that because my daughter is pregnant with my grandchild, I should suggest to her that she should murder the baby so she can “enjoy” her life.

              • Oh, and no, he is not saying (nor am I) that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. Rather, in the event birth control fails, the decision whether or not to carry to term should be a private medical decision to be made by the woman and her doctor.

              • BS, He is saying it is okay to kill a fetus or a baby -if that’s what it takes to keep a woman from being burdened by a BABY.

              • Get this-this “man” said that we should honor the woman’s decision-a decision she made before the baby was born-and let the baby DIE-because that was what she wanted when she decided to have an abortion-he supported infanticide as a part of a woman’s supposed “Right” to choose. Because after all, we wouldn’t want our children to be burdened by a BABY.

              • Mathius™ says:


                Read this very carefully.

                N-o-n-v-i-a-b-l-e. He supports a woman’s right to let her NONVIABLE child die.

                He does not support a woman’s (non-existent) right to kill a viable child.

              • You read this very carefully-BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • It depends on who is calling the child non-viable. Let’s face it. You gotta be a pretty cool customer to perform a third trimester abortion. Cool enough I would think that you could justify it to yourself to call non-viable while the doc across the hall who is struggling to save a 1 pound preemie might just call it viable. So maybe we need a quick three or five person panel to call it. Majority wins. The key is quick. These should be obstetricians and pediatricians.

              • Mathius™ says:


                I don’t think you put enough exclamation points on that..


                A VERY legitimate point. I am NOT an expert in this. I am not a doctor, what the hell do I know? That said, I don’t think that this is meant exclusively for late term abortions, but mainly for early term abortions (ie, that 1lb preemie). That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t/couldn’t apply for late terms, so we have to respect your criticism.

                Personally, I’d prefer to get a lot of opinions and be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that nonviable means nonviable, not “probably nonviable.” Because deliberately failing to save a “probably nonviable” fetus baby is, simply put and unequivocally, murder. Period.

                So the question becomes, if I understand you correctly, how does one determine which category a newborn falls under. And the answer, again, is I don’t know. I don’t know. I’d certainly hate to be the one playing god under those circumstances. Most times, I imagine it’s clear one way or another, but sometimes, I’m sure, it’s in the hazy middle. My, personal, opinion is that you should ALWAYS err on the side of caution – if there’s even the slightest ray of hope, do everything you can for that HUMAN BEING.

                But that’s a different matter. I’m not going to debate with you who knows what and how. There are, I’m sure, plenty of examples, such as the one I keep giving (encephalitic babies – or where a (botched) abortion rendered a fetus as brain dead/blatantly terminal) where there is no chance, and in instances like those, just because it’s born, doesn’t mean it has a chance. So, insofar as THAT is how I’m reading B.O.’s objections, and insofar and THAT is my interpretation of the law he voted against, I see no reason to think he’s wrong or immoral.

                Now, it’s entirely plausible that he’s wrong about his reading or that he’s lying about his motives or what the bill says – I can’t speak to that. If either of those are the case, then I of course withdraw all objections. But within the narrow confines of what we’re discussing here (that is, nonviable fetuses babies), I think he’s right that the government should not interfere.

              • No, I’m not saying you should suggest to your daughter that she get an abortion in this case. I’m saying that abortion should be an option that your daughter has, if she so chooses. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be forced against her will to carry to term.

              • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

              • The Philadelphia Inquirer (Sunday, January 28, 2007) and lo’ and behold there was an article about abortion. The article was heavy on the gruesome statistics and tended to downplay the moral concerns of women’s cultural and socio-economic environments, except for one passing statement that is worth citing (in bold below).

                In fact, the numbers show that the individual abortion usually does not involve one of those tragic, heart-wrenching archetypes [referring to women who become pregnant as result of being raped by her father/uncle/minister]. Rather, it is simply a matter of an adult woman deciding she doesn’t want to be burdened with bearing the child she has created. A 2005 survey in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health reported that in 93 percent of all cases, mothers cited “social” concerns as the primary reason for aborting their children

        • Just A Citizen says:


          McCarthy responds to your irrational rationalization. Please make sure you read the second page where the testimony of what caused the bill is described.

          Bottom line, Mr. Obama used a concern over Doctor Liability to rationalize a vote against saving a human life. One by the way as defined by YOUR own arguments previously on this issue.


    • Matt: The use of predator drones in California would eliminate all those inane highway chases that dominate TV coverage.

    • 4. Delicious, yes – but your reeaaalllyyy do not want to know what is in them. Let’s just say its the generalized term “Spices” in the ingredient list that is vital to making them tasty and popular.

    • @ Mathius

      #8 redux……..Hook Em!!!!

      #6…he is now classified as an environmental hazzard.

      ****Special Note***** Where is The Walla……..I wish to make a citizens arrest on Mathius…..I thought that you progressive chicken hearts were supposed to practice tolerance and be politically correct. Mathius used the “Q” word………citizens arrest…citizens arrest (using best Gomer Pyle voice)

  51. Common Man says:


    Just got this in my email. Never saw it before, but new the answer before I finished. Interesting:

    I was born in one country, raised in another.
    My father was born in another country.
    I was not his only child.
    He fathered several children with numerous women.
    I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
    My mother died at an early age from cancer.
    Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me, I later wrote a book idolizing my father, not my mother.
    Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
    My birth records were sketchy.
    No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
    I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
    I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
    That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and embarked on a new career.
    I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
    It was clear to those who read my memoirs, that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
    I became active in local politics in my 30s. Then, with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s
    They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything
    I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history and no experience in leading a single organization.
    Yet I was a powerful speaker, and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
    I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
    This bolstered my ego.
    At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy…
    I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
    But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy.
    I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.
    I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
    It was the free market, banks and corporations.
    I decided to start making citizens hate them; and, if they became envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.
    I called mine “A People’s Campaign.”
    That sounded good to all people.
    I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.
    I knew that if I merely offered the people ‘hope’, together we could change our country and the world.
    So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities.”
    My true views were not widely known, and I kept them unknown until after I became my nation’s leader.
    I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. I’m glad they didn’t.
    Then I became the most powerful man in the world.
    And then the world learned the truth.
    Who am I?
    Answer: ADOLPH HITLER. If you were thinking of SOMEONE ELSE, you should be scared … very scared!


  52. charlieopera says:
    • Mathius™ says:

      as a five year old confronted with a rubix cube

      I knew how to do a rubix cube around that age.. Maybe 6 or 7 tops, to be fair.

      • charlieopera says:

        I’ll change it to infant …:)

        • Mathius™ says:

          Maybe it’s just my browser (chrome), but I found your pictures hard to see – I couldn’t enlarge them or anything. Not sure what, if anything, you can do about that, but I thought I’d mention it to you.

    • Mathius™ says:

      It was inevitable.


      Steve Zorowitz: @KagroX @thinkprogress I demand to see Romney’s End User Licence Agreement.


      PPS: eeeehhhhhh…. I don’t know if that’s birther…. maybe trending in that direction… but still, in my humble opinion, on the safe side. Tasteless, perhaps, but birther? ehh……..

      • Oh I agree, this is not ‘full on birther’, but I would argue that it is tasteless and indicative of a presidential candidate trending towards the lowest denomination of his party.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Agreed. Though I don’t think it’s so beyond the pale given our current climate. But wait for it.. he’ll get there..

        • Obama was THE FIRST birther. Where’s that brochure?..I have it here somewhere. Here it is:

        • Just A Citizen says:


          From Anita’s link:

          The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama–or the people representing and supporting him–manipulate his public persona.

          David Maraniss’s forthcoming biography of Obama has reportedly confirmed, for example, that a girlfriend Obama described in Dreams from My Father was, in fact, an amalgam of several separate individuals.

          In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: “I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”

          Several weeks later, Obama left Wright’s church–and, according to Edward Klein’s new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to “do any more public speaking until after the November [2008] election” (51).

    • Has the predicted play of the Mormon Card against Romney begun?
      Lee Cary

      A recent AT article predicted that the Obama campaign would play the Mormon Church card after Labor Day. It’s begun early.

      On June 25, 2012, an American Thinker article entitled “Obama Campaign’s Hole Card: Romney’s Church” predicted that, through its loyal supporters in the liberal media, the Obama campaign would play Romney’s affiliation with the Mormon Church against him.

      In part, the article read:

      And, as November nears, does anyone think that the two Davids — Plouffe and Axelrod — will hesitate to play it [the Mormon Church card] after Labor Day?

      Of course, they won’t play it face-up, overtly. It’ll flip over on the political game table via a circuitous, but transparent, route — through their allies in the legacy media.

      One of the “C” media outlets (CBS, NBC, CNN, or ABC) will produce a special expose on Religion in American Politics – 2012. The correspondents will review the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s role in the ’08 election, emphasizing how Candidate Obama distanced himself from his embarrassing, crazy-uncle pastor.

      The meta-message will be how the attempt to tarnish Obama through his long association with Wright failed back in ’08, and conclude that there is no sacred ghost around to haunt Obama this time.

      Then the exposé’s focus will shift to Romney.

      With nuanced delicacy, the reporter will, purely from an historical point of view, note past polygamist and racist aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church), adding that, of course, LDS practices have changed considerably over time. The script will lightly touch on several of the more obscure, less-known beliefs present in current LDC doctrine. Then, in a faux spirit of open-mindedness, the narrative will, in a spirit of fairness, acknowledge how beliefs among LDC Church members differ, just as do those among faithful Roman Catholics.

      But the intended innuendo will have been etched into the minds of gullible viewers.

      So expect the legacy media to do with Romney what it never did with Candidate Obama — thoroughly examine his religious beliefs, from a variety of angles. It will, of course, all be presented in the spirit of educating the voting public, while maintaining the façade of intellectual impartiality.

      The meta-message, though, will be heard: voters should be somewhat concerned about Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs, since they’re not mainstream, like Obama’s.

      It will come as no surprise if the legacy media, once again, carries Obama’s water as Romney’s religious affiliation becomes a soft target in the fall.

      The move seems to have begun sooner than predicted.

      First, ABC World News, with Diane Sawyer, has begun a two-part series on the Mormon Church. In the first four-minute segment, Sawyer sets up the report by saying — with a concerned face — that “the Mormon faith is still a mystery to a lot of people.”

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/has_the_predicted_play_of_the_mormon_card_against_romney_begun.html#ixzz24UMfkVAz

      • Mathius™ says:

        Sawyer sets up the report by saying — with a concerned face — that “the Mormon faith is still a mystery to a lot of people.”

        The Mormon faith IS a mystery to a lot of people.

        Myself included.

        Adding, I tried to read the book o’ Mormon, but sweet jumpin’ Jesus was that thing torturous. I just couldn’t do it – maybe I’ll give it another shot some day. Maybe, here’s a suggestion for the Mormon elders, if they want more converts, they should release a revised “plain English” edition. There’s a great version of the New Testament which is a line-by-line translation which gives a pretty good fidelity to the KJV, but is infinitely more readable (wish I’d read that instead) – by changing “thee” to “you” and clearing up convoluted sentence structures, etc. It reads more like a odd and rambling novel than some archaic text. Maybe the Mormons ought to try it? They could even do it like the Muslims – consider it a “commentary” on the real thing, encourage people to read the original, but at least make the whole thing more accessible. (Come to think of it, the Jews should do this too).

        • And I’m Ok with an honest debate. There is no question this has been brought up because Mitt could become POTUS and his religious beliefs could concern some voters. Same goes for the current POTUS. What they refused to do last time, give equal time and study to the pews where Obama spent 20 years. Do they have ANY white members? Is this their policy? Can we ask about a religion that preaches it’s OK to discriminate against someone because of their skin color? (and are they going to mention Harry Reid at all?)

          • Mathius™ says:

            What they refused to do last time, give equal time and study to the pews where Obama spent 20 years.

            You’re kidding, right? Rev. Wright was on the news cycle for months straight. McCain and Fox beat that drum ’till it burst. We heard alllll about “god damn America” and how Wright baptized Obama’s kids. Everyone in America heard about it in great detail and at great length.

            Do they have ANY white members? Definitely addressed. This was repeatedly referred to as a radical black church.

            Can we ask about a religion that preaches it’s OK to discriminate against someone because of their skin color? Until 1978, it was official LDS doctrine that black people were the devil / inheritors of the curse of Ham. That would be long after Romney’s indoctrination into the religion. Ostensibly, Romney grew up being told that black people are cursed and/or evil.

            Brigham Young: “What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro?” Young responded, “The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”[1]

            I’m positive that Wright’s church did not have an official no-whites allowed policy, but it’s not uncommon for black churches to have no white faces. I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t a fair number (albeit smaller) of white churches with no black faces. Does this self-segregation make it ok? Well, I’m not a huge fan, but probably not in official force. As for the Mormon church, does it have a problem with racial issues? I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. My mother is from Utah, I’ve been to Utah a number of times and have met plenty of Mormons, but never a black one. However, that’s just a personal sampling and means diddly squat.

            Now, of course, the $100mm question: Is ROMNEY racist? I sincerely doubt it. He has never done or said anything which I can point to which would suggest that he is at all. Now, of course, that doesn’t mean anything, but that is my considered opinion.

            and are they going to mention Harry Reid at all? No. Harry Reid will stay silent as the grave for the duration of this debate. I’m surprised the blue shirts haven’t shipped him off to a non-disclosed location.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Funniest Pundit joke made last week after Biden’s latest gaffer.

              “Vice President Biden has been sequestered in the White House, where he is being fit for a shock collar”.

      • Well we should be happy because at least the Mormon Pope is home grown not that Eyetalian foreigner JFK was taking orders from.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      What do you mean “sigh”?

      That was pretty damn clever and F..UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU….NY!

      • The presumptive nominee for President of the United States of America should not be making lame attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the far reaches of his party.

        And before you say anything, yes, the same holds true for the candidates of both political parties.

  53. Mathius™ says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      What a hypocrite you are.

      Above you and Buck claim Romney despicable for his joke about being well known in his birth place, then you find humor in such a blatant attempt to tie Ryan to the current problems of the other guy.

      • How is this hypocritical?

        Romney’s ‘joke’ is a baseless attempt at making in-roads with the lowest common denominator of his party.

        Mathius’ link demonstrates the fact that Akin’s comments were not some extreme outlier, but based upon a view held by many within the party….including the presumptive nominee for Vice President. Why should the Vice President’s actual record be off limits?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Actually, the statements made by Akin that got him in all the trouble have NOTHING to do with the points made in that comparison. Those are legislative points. Which was not the focus of the RAGE ginned up by the Dems and their minions.

          In fact, the bigger point that he thought abortion should be outlawed period, was lost in the whole dust up.

          So this clever little post has one purpose and one only. To tie Ryan to Aken’s statement about “legitimate rape”.

          If the purpose was to raise questions about Ryan’s view points then all that was needed was Ryan’s view points.

          So my accusation stands……… you guys are HYPOCRITES.

          • JAC,,,did you look at the link and do further research on it? For example, HR2 was replaced with HR 3…..and the word forcible was taken out by………wait for it……Ryan who agreed that the term forcible and rape was redundant. Somehow that was over looked.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I did not. Good find. I got caught in the weeds over the Obama vs. Infanticide thing so I figured I would just stick to the obvious Dirty Political Trick being played here. Your find makes it even worse.

              The part that ticks me off is the lefts pounding on the use of the term “forcible” as opposed to just “rape”. They know damn well that legislators are trying to draw a distinction between violent rapes and those that are “reported” as rape or have traditionally been defined by law as something else. Statutory Rape was used against teen boys in my day when the parents found out their precious was pregnant.

              How are things in Texas this fine Friday?

              Still chilly here, even with the sun out it is in the 70’s or low 80’s.
              Here is to a fine weekend for you and yours.

              • Ok then, could you kindly point me to some medical study that has found women possess some magical ability to prevent pregnancy when they are forcibly raped.

              • As soon as you name the 57 states 🙄 Or defend “stand up chuck” 🙄

          • Yup, plenty of rage ginned up by the Dems Repubs.

            And let’s not gloss over Ryan’s past comments about forcible rape…

      • Mathius™ says:

        How is this hypocritical?

        One is Romney (possibly) hocking a conspiracy theory, the other is a chart showing a comparison of cosponsorships of resolutions.

        One is baseless, the other cold-hard fact.

  54. charlieopera says:


    Big Sister is Watching You BY Whittaker Chambers

    Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies.

    The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could possibly take it seriously, and that apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: “Excruciatingly awful.” I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the “looters.” These are proponents of proscriptive taxes. Government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. “This,” she is saying in effect, “is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from.”

    Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive story-telling. And, in fact, the somewhat ferro-concrete fairy tale the author pours here is, basically, the old one known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides of it are caricatures.

  55. Good choice Charlie. I have to remind myself that Chambers was one of Bill Buckley and most of the old time staff at NR’s favorite people.

    From Witness:

    What I had been fell from me like dirty rags. The rags that fell from me were not only Communism. What fell was the whole web of the materialist modern mind—the luminous shroud which it has spun about the spirit of man, paralyzing in the name of rationalism the instinct of his soul for God, denying in the name of knowledge the reality of the soul and its birthright in that mystery on which mere knowledge falters and shatters at every step. If I had rejected only Communism, I would have rejected only one political expression of the modern mind, the most logical because the most brutal in enforcing the myth of man’s material perfectibility.

    That could really set off some fireworks around here. It attacks atheists, communists, capitalists, materialists, rationalist and a host of lesser ists. Sits well with me though.

  56. @ Buck and Mathius………reading all this crap above….I have a question for you.

    If I choose not to take Obama at his word about his birth certificate or where he was born……does that automatically make me a birther? ( a label that progressives have come up with…some more of that tolerance ).

    I have never asked to see it…..I do not give a rats ass if he produces it or not….the man is President of the United States…..and that is fact.

    Because if it does make me one…..then it stands to reason that if I am against Obama and his policies…am I to be labeled a racist and a Tea Party activist?

    • Mathius™ says:

      No, sir.. but I think it would make you a person inclined to believe conspiracy over empirical reality, thus disqualifying you from earning my vote.

      That’s it for me. I’m out of here. Have a great Texas weekend!

      Good night, and good luck.

      • OHhhhhh…you make a statement and then run??????? You know me better than that….how many times have you seen me tell Gman that I do not believe in his conspiracy theories…..tch tch tch..

  57. @ JAC…….let us go further……I also read the entire HR 4971 which is something they believe in….no different than the myriad of bills passed when the dems had control.

    HR 614..is nothing more than a proposal to cutting funding for family planning where abortions are concerned…the same as the dems voted to add funds for family planning where abortions are concerned….both are viewpoints. Somehow, one is bad and the other is good.

    HR 212……giving fertilized eggs the same rights as human………you mean the stance that life begins at conception issue? The same stance that most dems take including Barrack, mm mmm mmm Hussein Obama?

    HR 3805…..Forces women to look at an ultrasound of the fetus before an abortion is performed….you mean akin to the ObamaCare motion to force people to look at pictures of diseased lungs in smokers? Somehow, this is different?

    HR 5276…..I LOVE this one……..the link says….”Requires doctors to provide biased information about how the process of being killed in an abortion causes the child pain…….” Chris Smith introduced this bill that died on the floor and referred to committee, where it subsequently died….and I did not see a co sponsor by the name of Ryan anywhere, nor was the term “biased” anywhere in the bill.

    HR 748……”H.R.748 Latest Title: To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from authorizing the use of gasoline containing greater than 10 percent ethanol in certain vehicles, and for other purposes……ooookkkkkkk…I guess this goes no further.

    HR 3803…………. To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Hmmmmmm…an amendment to a bill originally sent forward by dems…….this bill was sponsored by Trent Franks…..and co sponsored by 215 others.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by the way, this also failed under suspension. BUT…..a viability argument that Mathius and Buck have supported, if I remember correctly.

    AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST……..all of these in the link were posted by Think Progress…..hardly a viable source by any stretch.

  58. Just A Citizen says:


    Why should I go to this effort?

    “Ok then, could you kindly point me to some medical study that has found women possess some magical ability to prevent pregnancy when they are forcibly raped.”

    It seems you are trying to pull the very thing I claimed was being attempted with the Ryan/Akin comparison.

    Did RYAN ever say anything like that?

    I will offer something I heard on the radio the other day, since you seem curious about this. Apparently there were several reports issued back in the 70’s, or around then, that reached this conclusion. These reports were circulated far and wide.

    What was found later was that the guy putting them out, who was a Doctor, was also a huge Pro-life advocate. The study he cited was later disproved by other medical researchers. The original conclusion was not that it involved “magic” but that the “trauma” to the woman created stresses that reduce the likely hood of pregnancy.

    So it turns out that Akin may be correct when he said that some Doctor told him. What he did not include was the later research disproving this theory. Given his views there would be no reason to investigate it anyway. It was NOT RELEVANT to his position on abortion.

    But here is the critical thing, now as it was then. None of this was presented as some attempt to diminish rape or make it even remotely acceptable.

  59. @ Buck…….as to this guys statement of being forcibly raped has some sort of magically induced preventative to pregnancy…..I am reminded of a line John Wayne (stand up and salute, waaa haaa)….in that “You can’t fix stupid! ”

    But I am sure that Akins had foot in mouth disease…..which he later apologized for…….but also over looked. But, I can see your point……….somewhat….wait……..isn’t this like taking Romney’s statement about no one asking him for a birth certificate…..as a fact that he is a birther? Now, I did go back and look at statements made by Romney when all of this came up……NO WHERE have I found where he supported the “birther” movement at all….

    However, if you could point me in that direction where he did….I stand corrected and will admit so….but you and Think Progress are really stretching this one…in my most HUMBLE Texas opinion. ( Picture bowing low with Stetson in sweeping gesture).

    • Colonel,

      Allow me to clarify a few things this fine Friday evening.

      1) Akin — a completely stupid line, and one that he may have ‘apologized’ for (in the sense that he changed his statement from legitimate to forcible), but a sentiment that as far as I can tell he continues to hold and believe.

      2) Ryan — I will concede that as far as I can tell, Ryan has never said anything along the same stupid lines (in terms of magical lady parts that can distinguish between good and bad); though I do feel it is fair to use Akin’s remarks to highlight Ryan’s own extreme views on the topic — though you and JAC are correct in that it should be made clear that Ryan has never indicated a belief in said magical lady parts.

      3) Romney — as I agreed with Mathius above, I do not believe Romney has gone ‘birther’ (thought to be fair I do not believe Romney believes much of anything anymore), though I will chide him for trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

      Now I do hope you have a fine Texas weekend. I do appreciate the deep bow, though in my mind’s eye, you were holding a bowler hat instead.

      • I think the birth certificate comment was a harmless slap. Lessee if I were accused of paying no income taxes for ten years, being a felon and murdering some guys wife as well as generally not giving rats ass about any other living human being, the least I would do would be to slap. Please do not give me the fiction that the president did not personally say any of those things . I wasn’t born yesterday and that two bit Chicago pol (apologies to Bill Clinton) knows and approves everything said in his name.

        • Mathius™ says:

          as well as generally not giving rats ass about any other living human being

          Let me tell you. Guys like Romney.. they don’t give a rat’s ass about any other living human being.

          That’s not to say Obama does either though…

  60. Back to our original topic. Today we had a shooting in mid town Manhattan, in front of the Empire State Building no less, where the perp and his victim died and ten other folks were wounded.

    Seems like the perp, killed his former boss who fired him last year. News reports say he lived on the upper East Side of Manhattan and had a .45 automatic. Apparently he had a total of 16 rounds with him, about two magazines full.

    Now everybody out there please keep your ear to the ground. Let us see where, in this most restrictive City, the guy came up with the.45. What is it’s history, when and where did it come from? Who sold it and what ID was used or not used in the purchase.

    This high profile shooting, about as high profile as you can get, should be able to show us the weaknesses in the system if they exist. .

    • That’s 3 this summer (that have made national news). I know what the conspiracy thoerist in would say, but my first impression is that this may be economic in nature. It will be interesting to hear how he got said weapon in NYC.

      • As of this morning, it is reported by the NY Times that the pistol was a .45 Spanish made gun (Star/Lama?) bought by the perpetrator in 1991 in Florida where he was attending art school.

        So, in less than 24 hours, the gun, an old gun, illegal in NY is traced. The perp, a nondescript white guy has been out of work almost two years apparently fired by his victim whom he had gotten into scrapes with before

        It would be interesting now to see who shot the bystanders, was it our perp or the fusillade of 16 rounds fired by the cops at him on one of the busiest sidewalks in the world. Speculation is that after the shooting he walked casually around the corner and committed suicide by cop when confronted.

  61. Just a few harmless comments after catching up. Akin is an idiot who has no business representing anyone in public office. Let me start the NEW conspiracy theory 🙂 Akin and Joe Biden are really blood relatives 😆

    Romney’s remark about the birthplace issue was hilarious. He was technically correct, nobody is asking for his birth certificate (unlike Obama). A good jab in an ugly campaign, and worth a laugh. (now let’s watch the Dems take it completely out of context and put Wasserman-Shultz back on TV) 🙂

  62. Ok boys and girls..time to get your pencils out, make a grocery list, and pull a Chick-Fil-A on the teacher’s union. Geez, how will the teacher’s get around town? Koch’s are even present in the oil and gas industries. Onward!
    From: all-teachers-bounces@list.mpls.k12.mn.us [all-teachers-bounces@list.mpls.k12.mn.us] on behalf of Lynn Nordgren [lnordgren@mft59.org]
    Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:11 PM
    To: All-Teachers@list.mpls.k12.mn.us
    Subject: Taking on the KOCH brothers by boycotting their products!

    BOYCOTT the ANTI-Union, ANTI-Teacher, ANTI-public education KOCH Brothers!

    As many of you know, the very rich KOCH brothers (poster children for the 1 %) are a major funder of the effort to take down unions and public education.
    They fund TEA party candidates and the far, far right agenda. They truly are trying to take over the government.

    An email and Facebook campaign to boycott products made by Koch Industries is growing. There is also a new film out entitled: EXPOSED: The Billionaire Koch Brothers Who Are Buying American Democracy. MFT is trying to get a copy of the film as we speak.

    What can you do if you wish to stop the Koch brother’s campaign?
    You can boycott the following paper products:

    1. Georgia-Pacific (GP) Products including paper towels, soap dispensing systems, toilet paper brand: Envision, Coronet, SCA, Tork and Fort James and Pacific Gardens soaps. They also produce ink and office paper under the labels Advantage, GP (including GP Harmon recycled papers), Image Plus, and the Spectrum family of office papers products.
    And…they produce:
    2. Angel Soft toilet paper
    3. Brawny paper towels
    4. Dixie plates, bowls, napkins and cups 5. Mardi Gras napkins and towels 6. Quilted Northern toilet paper 7. Soft ’n Gentle toilet paper 8. Sparkle napkins 9. Vanity fair napkins 10. Zee napkins

    Koch brothers are involved in many more American products that most of us are probably not aware of.
    Wood products, textiles, and plastics (PET) polymers for carbonated soft drinks, water, beer, juice.
    They produce coal and oil including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel. To learn more about how their products are embedded in our everyday lives, go to : http://inspirationgreen.com/koch-brothers-products.html

    To see more about the campaign, go to: http://peoplesworld.org/online-campaign-to-boycott-koch-industries-grows/

    The richer they get, the more power they have to take over. They have financed the downfall of unions in Michigan and Wisconsin and others.
    This is just one way to fight back and a pretty easy one at that!


    The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
    Local 59

    • Too bad these teachers don’t put this much effort into teaching 🙄

      • Here in CA there is a constant ad campaign by the teacher’s union. It runs year around. Within days after an election they have new ads out on their next topic. The money seems inexhaustable.

  63. LOI..Wake up, Wake up! Get me out of moderation! 🙂

  64. Empire State Shooting: Shooter Never Shot At Police, Nine Bystanders All Shot By Police

    August 25, 2012

    The Guardian reports:

    Johnson did not fire at police, according to law enforcement, but he did raise his gun. Nine civilians – four women and five men – were shot or grazed by the two officers who shot Johnson dead.

    Initial reports suggested the shooter shot the bystanders, additionally it was suggested the cops had “returned fire,” which has also been proven wrong.

    One of the shooting victims says police fired “randomly” into the street.

    Readers may remember this story where a 65-year-old woman used a gun to defend herself against five robbers, the police “cautioned store owners about defending themselves with guns.”

    Lt. Jeff Nightengale said, “Just like a police officer, when you fire that weapon and those rounds go down range, you have to be accountable for where those rounds go.”

    Will these police be “held accountable” for where their rounds went? Don’t hold your breath.

  65. charlieopera says:

    4 camera tickets in one week … it’s official, I’m a full blown anarchist (the non-capitalist kind) … here is the corrupt government taking it out of the hides of the middle class … in Jersey a camera ticket is $140.00 (we have 3 in one week that are backed up from the suspension because the cameras were causing traffic accidents) … we have two from Staten Island (NY) $50.00 each. Which state you think is more corrupt? Fatso Christy get a caravan of police to drive him … or he uses a helicopter to watch his son play little league. Sure real estate taxes may not go up this year … he’s taking it out of our hides with bogus tickets (the “yellow warning lights” are now changing to red in less than 2 seconds).

    Take them all (pols of every stripe) out to a nice open field, fence them in and let them rot.

    • Try not speeding. Might work.

      Keep less than 10 MPH over the speed limit.

      Maryland is the same.

      • charlieopera says:

        Not speeding, Stephen. These are the right on red light tickets, that if, say, it’s 4:30 in the morning (which it was around in two tickets) and I’m going to the gym and I can’t see a car for a mile or so, instead of stopping, I pause … okay, I’m guilty (shoot me). But there are also the ones where the yellow changes to red while you’re in the middle of the turn and you get a $!40 ticket for it. It’s total bullshit. a way to keep property taxes down while bleeding people who drive to work .. and it causes rear end accidents because the guy behind you might assume you’ll look to beat the caution light and rear-end you when you stop (because you’ve already gotten 2 or 3 $140 tickets). Great system. I can’t wait to leave this fucking state. It sucks. I can’t tell you corruption that goes on in the three towns we lived … Perth Amboy, Piscataway and now Fords … makes Chicago look like friggin’ disneyland.

        • It is hard to even go there. I was picked up a few years ago for supposedly doing 85 at 5:30 in the afternoon on a Friday on Route 4 in Paramus NJ by a Bergen Co. Cop. Now I don’t know if you know that stretch but you couldn’t do that speed at 3:30 in the morning. I was so surprised being pulled over that I never looked at my speedometer. So, when he wrote me up, (first citation in over 20 years) I was shocked. He wouldn’t give an inch either. When I got to court, they offered a deal, plead out to some bogus driving without paying attention or some such nonsense, pay them $ 435.00 (twice the fine) for fees and penalties but NO points! When questioned by the judge about my plea, I said, “reluctantly guilty”. He wanted to know why I said that so, I told him, in a nice way, the ticket was BS. “then plead not guilty” he said. I said, “Yea, sure, right, where are my witnesses?” He had to admit I had a point. There were thirty other people in that courtroom that day pulled over by that cop. I wonder if he was earning pension points since he was about my age. .

          • Mathius™ says:

            I got pulled over once, a while back, early in the morning, no one around, and had rolled through a stop sign (known in some parts as a “California Roll”). The cop could not have been nicer. He explained that he was sorry, but the law was the law. However, since I hadn’t been a danger to anyone, he would give me a ‘failure to carry registration.’ It cost me maybe $150, no points. Annoying, but c’est la vie.

            HOWEVER, another time, I got pulled over (as I said below) for going 60 in a 40 (the one which should have been a 65). The cop kept calling me “son.” I wanted to snap his neck. I’m not your son, you call me sir, goddammit. You work for me, you show some respect. However, I swallowed my pride and called him sir and officer. He just kept calling me son – I swear he was doing it deliberately. He gave me a ticket for 61 in a 40 – which magically rounded it into the next category of speeding, doubling the fine and points.

            My take: there are two types of people in this world who become cops. Those who just want to do the right thing and uphold the law. And those who are just grown up bullies and want the authority and power. The later should all be put out to pasture. The only thing I’m not sure of is what the mix-ratio is.

        • @Charlie,

          A thought my friend. In some sates the length of time a light must remain yellow is written into the law or regulations issued on traffic lights. Some people have beaten those cameras by proving the yellow light was not within the law or regulations (I can think of one city in California that suspended the use of cameras after they were proven to be too short in timing – the company running the system got hammered for altering the timing since they made money on every violation).

          You might want to look into that as an option.

          • charlieopera says:

            Wish I could, Plainly, but it would require (in the end) going to court. They have me beat. I know will take the rear-end hit but try really hard to keep a copy of the ticket in my car so I can hold it out the window when I refuse to make a right on red and the line of cars behind me is cursing and beeping at me….:)

      • Mathius™ says:

        I have to say, my last ticket was BS.

        I was doing 60 in a 40 (theoretically, anyway, I admit nothing!). But the road might as well have been a freeway. Four lanes (two each direction), wide open, flat, and straight. If you’re doing 40 on that road, you’re a hazard. If it weren’t for the police, I’d have no qualms about going 70-75. But it’s zoned at 40. Why?

        I don’t mind – too much – tickets for legitimate speeding, but it seems to me that they artificially zone roads at ridiculously low speeds just so they can write you up. It’s preposterous to assume anyone would travel at 40 on this road.

        On my way to work, there’s a 25mph stretch. I’ve never seen anyone go less than 45. But every so often, the cops will show up and… well, it’s BS

        • You pose a good point here, Matt. This is something I have often pondered. Let’s think about it.

          Do you think that it is immoral to break the law?

          Now, it is important not to misunderstand something. Some laws are moral (do not kill). Some laws are immoral (hypothetical: do not pray except to XXX). Some laws are ambivalent (speed limit is YYY). What I want to get at is whether the act of breaking a law (no matter the “goodness” of the law itself) is an immoral act.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Do you think that it is immoral to break the law?


            The law is created by man. It often is designed to reflect morality, but the two are no perfectly analogous.

            There are plenty of legal things which are immoral (lying, for example).

            And there are plenty of illegal things which are not immoral (using drugs, for example).

            “Because I said so” (where I = “the state”) is not a good reason to do (or not do) anything. Violation of those terms may carry a risk, but no intrinsic moral implications.

            Caveat: breaking the law is dangerous in that it may incur punishment. As such, a decision to break the law may cost me my job, may get me thrown in jail, etc. As such, it is a risk to the wellbeing of my family. To take such a risk might be considered immoral, but I think this is beside your point.

            What I want to get at is whether the act of breaking a law (no matter the “goodness” of the law itself) is an immoral act.

            They’re more of what I call…. guidelines.

            • “Guidelines”… I like that ;).

              This analysis is really based on the origination of morality. I assume your morality is whatever you decide it is. My morality is based on the Bible.

              The Bible teaches that government authority derives from the authority of God. As such, we are commanded to obey the law as if it came from God. The distinction comes when the two are in conflict. I must obey God’s law above man’s.

              My morality then implies that it is immoral to break the law, not matter whether you deem the law itself immoral. It is certainly reasonable to work to change a law that conflicts with one’s morality, but that does not excuse one from obeying that law. In your case, you can petition the government to change the speed limit, but you must obey it. Make sense?

              Your morality (like most people’s) implies that it is not immoral (and is sometimes even preferential) to break the law.

              Now, here’s the kicker. If you decide that the speed limit is unreasonable, but someone else (a parent who lives in the area with their small children perhaps) thinks that it is perfectly reasonable, what should be done? Should everyone just drive whatever speed they think is proper? (Aside, I’ve seen this happen on the Autobahn and it does not seem very safe!)

              The danger here is that people who decide their own morality are not bound by the law at all. It is easy enough to decide that something (even killing) is not immoral if your morality is based solely on your whims.

              How then does society survive if the law holds no power except to punish after the fact? Fear of punishment does constrain some people, but it certainly does not give the law enough power to do what is intended (eg. speed limits).

              • Mathius™ says:

                I assume your morality is whatever you decide it is.

                My morality is logic based – perhaps it’s not perfect, but it’s a work in progress. My moral compass is not authoritative in nature – that is, something isn’t so just because someone in authority says it’s so.

                The Bible teaches that government authority derives from the authority of God.

                Can you site this for me? Not being argumentative here, I’d just like to see your sources.

                The Bible teaches that government authority derives from the authority of God.

                This was the basis for much evil in human history – from the feudal system to slavery (not extensively in America, but elsewhere) and beyond.

                The argument goes, as I’m sure you’re aware, that God selects the leader, therefore the actions of the leader are the will of god and his laws are god’s laws. This is tremendously dangerous.

                If you were subject to a military draft, you would submit?

                If the government passed a law that you must paint a mural of Obama on the front of your home, would you consider it immoral to fail to do so?

                And, further, since the (obvious) goal of certain speed limits is revenue generation, shouldn’t you consider failing to speed to be failing to fulfill the (real) object of the law (that is, giving them money)? Is it, thus, immoral to obey the speed limit?

                Should everyone just drive whatever speed they think is proper?

                The role of the law in this equation is to keep people from deviating too far from the mean. They expect that I’ll violate it by 10 mph. Then they’ll fine me at 15 mph, heavily fine me at 20+ mph. Then at 30-40+ mph, they’ll arrest me and impound my car. It is the FEAR of the law which keeps me close enough to obeying it that the goal (protecting that woman with a kid) is still achieved. I’ll never drive 50 over because I don’t want to lose my license and car and spend a night in jail followed by a big trial. At least in theory. We could debate the efficacy of this until we’re blue in the face, however.

                The goal of law is to maintain social priorities by government fiat. Since fiat alone is insufficient, it is the fear of repercussions which keeps The People in line. This, alone, does not make it moral, however. This is just what keeps society from devolving into anarchy.

                The idea that “because I said so” could ever dictate morality is repugnant to me. Laws are made by human beings. Human beings are ignorant, greedy, stupid, selfish, shortsighted, and lazy. Authority does not change that.

              • Romans 13:1-5
                Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

                Martin Luther makes the following comment on this passage (emphasis mine):

                “In the thirteenth chapter the apostle instructs us how
                to honour and obey the civil government, which has been
                ordained for the following purpose: Although it does not
                make people pious in the sight of God, still it effects this
                much, that the godly enjoy external peace and protection,
                and the wicked are not free to do evil without fear, with
                impunity, and unmolested.
                For this reason the civil
                government must be honoured even by the godly, although
                they have no need of it. Finally, he comprises everything
                under the head of love, and encloses it in the example of
                Christ; as He has done for us, we are to do likewise and
                follow after Him.”

                One thing to keep in mind here is that the AUTHORITY derives from God. How that authority is used is based on the free will of the ruler. As is evidenced from history (as you say), this authority is often used for ill. This is obviously completely contrary to the will of God. The fact that some people can twist the Bible to “condone” whatever they want does not change that fact.

                If you were subject to a military draft, you would submit?

                Of course.

                If the government passed a law that you must paint a mural of Obama on the front of your home, would you consider it immoral to fail to do so?

                Yes. The action itself is not moral or immoral, but breaking the law is immoral.

                And, further, since the (obvious) goal of certain speed limits is revenue generation, shouldn’t you consider failing to speed to be failing to fulfill the (real) object of the law (that is, giving them money)? Is it, thus, immoral to obey the speed limit?

                I assume you are shooting for an apparent contradiction here. Let’s make it more clear. Say a law is passed that says I cannot worship God. I will break that law, no matter the consequences. Thus, my worship becomes immoral. The point is that it is more immoral to fail to worship than it is to worship because the former is sinning against God and the latter against man.

                The idea that “because I said so” could ever dictate morality is repugnant to me.

                I think this is a common misunderstanding. Let me try to elucidate.

                When my daughter is able to understand speech, I will begin to tell her what is right and wrong. “Don’t do that” will probably be used a great deal. Of course, until she reaches the age at which she can understand the reasoning, she will have to just take me at my word. That does not mean that my reasons are bad.

                In the same way, we shouldn’t follow God’s laws only because He says so. God’s morality is introduced for a specific reason: to benefit us and bring us closer to God. (Let’s be clear here: by “laws” I mean morals, not things like rituals: Hebrews 8:13 – By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. This is a discussion of its own. Let’s leave it alone for now.)

                Galatians 3:24: ‘the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.’

                What I mean is this: the fact that we follow God’s law “because He says so” does not mean that those laws are not made for a good reason. With study and prayer, one can understand the purpose for these morals.

                Something that many people seem to ignore is the fact that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is no way I can act in a completely moral manner, I am human and prone to sin. The fact that I break the law is a given. That does not make it any less immoral. Nor does it mean I should feel free to break the law. We are all just doing the best we can!

                Thanks for the discussion, I think this was fun.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Thanks for the discussion, I think this was fun.

                Always a pleasure, sir.

                So nice to have a conversation with a well informed person of faith.

        • charlieopera says:

          The road to the highways where I live (one block from where I live–New Brunswick Avenue) is 25 mph … with 440, turnpike/garden state exits nearby. Come off of 440 and try doing 25 for 1 mile or so … it’ll make you nuts, but after my wife was bagged (they actually park on the curb behind a tree in the dark, these losers), I never go above 30 … makes some drivers absolutely crazy (as they try to veer around me) … and I can’t blame them.

%d bloggers like this: