Lying by Proxie

rice_susan_051810.jpgPresident Obama was busy on 9/11, the day our embassy in Benghazi was attacked.  It seems he was most occupied with making sure he kept his job, not responding to the first US ambassador killed since 1979.  I remember on the original 9/11 one of the network anchors was outraged, demanding to know “WHERE IS PRESIDENT BUSH”. ” We have a right to know”.  No, he didn’t.  Bush was required to react as if we were under a nuclear attack and act as our commander-in-chief.  This did not include press briefings.
Obama’s 9/11 was different.  We knew where he was, but where were the calls for answers?  Obama responded with people in his administration.  Obama hid from the public and the media allowed this.
He made a speech in the Rose Garden the next day,(1) then flew to Vegas for a fund-raiser.  His speech was vague, which may have been proper at that time.  Where he addressed the attack, most of his remarks were about violence, not terrorism.

Is it credible to say that an attack that included the use of rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and 50 caliber machine guns was spontaneous mob violence?  That this mob armed and organized itself in reaction to a video made in the US that insulted Mohamed?  The attack was recorded in it’s entirely by two of our drones.  The US intelligence/military knew what weapons were used in the attack.  The State department had at least one supervisor watching the attack in real-time.  We hear about the WH “Situation Room”  and how Obama and his entire administration watched OBL killed.  Weeks before, Obama had  bragged OBL is dead, GM is alive.  Maybe OBL’s followers object to such comments?  I keep wondering, who was in the situation room that night?  When do we see the photo of all his advisors advising him on what could be done for our people under deadly attack?(2)
Two weeks later, our UN Ambassador was sent out to appear on five Sunday talk shows on Benghazi.  Obama has said this was done under his instructions.  She was given a non-classified briefing by the CIA that indicated the attack was mob violence in response to the video.  Susan Rice may have known no better.  Obama most certainly did.  He deliberately had Rice given false information to present to the American public to stave off damage to his re-election.  He lied, by proxie, to the American people.

Rick Moran

This would contradict the CIA timeline as well as statements from the White House.


According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed-door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.

Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:

CNN:Petraeus wants 2 testify 2 Congrss tht he knew 9/11 attacks were terrorism, perpetratd by Ansar Al Sharia ‘almost immediately’

Petraeus also told this source he believed the CIA talking points given to  Susan Rice came from within the White House or Administration. (emphasis added).(3)

the 60 Minutes interviewwith President Obama conducted on September 12.

Unbelievably, it was left on the cutting room floor even as 60 Minutes aired a long segment with President Obama criticizing presidential challenger Mitt Romney over his remarks on protests in Egypt. Given the substance of what was left out, this editorial decision shows CBS as either shamelessly biased in favor of the President or hopelessly incompetent as a news organization.

Central to the newly released segment is President Obama’s failure to describe the Benghazi attack as terrorism in his Rose Garden statement made earlier the same day. It will be recalled that he was pressed hard by Mitt Romney on this point in the second presidential debate.

This is how the exchange went:

CBS’S STEVE KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

OBAMA: Well, it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.(4)

Morning Joe at least can see the problem, but still make excuses for Obama.

SCARBOROUGH: And again, Andrea, what I don’t understand is that Susan Rice said this five days in. The president — remember, the president at the debate saying, you know, and Candy Crowley for some reason basically making up history on the run, said, well, the president did say this was a terrorist attack the day after, which he really didn’t say that at all. So there’s an inconsistency even there. In the debate, the president said, we said this the day after that it was an act of terror. No, no, he didn’t. And five days later, Susan Rice is reading a supposedly Intel that says it wasn’t a terror attack. I mean, there are — there’s confusion.

BRZEZINSKI: Why is this important, Andrea?

SCARBOROUGH: First of all, and why can’t they get their stories straight a month and a half later?

MITCHELL: Well, one reason is it’s important for us to know about the intelligence failure leading up to and coming out of Benghazi, according to the both Republicans and Democrats, there really wasn’t an intelligence failure, they knew what was happening.  Then why didn’t the State Department ask for more security and, more broadly, how should we handle regions like this where we want to have diplomatic and intelligence missions and we’re asking people to serve where they cannot properly be protected.  So there are big issues.  There’s also a proxy war going on here because Susan Rice had a very sharp tone during the 2008 campaign against some people like John McCain. And there is a disagreement there that is now being exaggerated all out of proportion, some people say, because they just are seeing this as a trophy where they can get a prominent nominee, potential nominee, for one of the top cabinet positions, there’s Treasury, there’s State, Defense.

SCARBOROUGH: That’s one side of it. The other side of it would be — and I hate to say this — but I wonder if that would be the media narrative if George W. Bush, we’re accuse of doing, what, I don’t know, politicizing –

BRZEZINSKI: It’s not a narrative. It’s just a point that Andrea made.

SCARBOROUGH: I’m not talking about Andrea. I’m hearing this a lot though coming out of the White House and I’m hearing it also that, again, there is — there is no doubt it is personal. I agree with Andrea completely, it is personal between John McCain and Susan Rice. I agree with that completely. What is surprising is it’s been a month and a half maybe, two months, and this — this looks to some, including Maureen Dowd, like it was a politicizing of Intel, the death of an American ambassador and we can brush it aside if we want to. (5)

Presidential debate question on Libya, edited.

QUESTION: We were sitting around, talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans.

Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we’re going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander-in-Chief.

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to…

ROMNEY: Yes, I — I…

CROWLEY: … quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary —

OBAMA: Candy?(6)

One thing I see in this is Obama has developed a method of operation in achieving his political goals.  He stands back and whispers in the ears of his stooges, then sends them forth to speak for him.  He then takes credit for what words suit him, denounces any that are not advantageous.  The thing is, the White House asked Susan Rice to appear on those Sunday talk shows before the election.  The WH had her briefed on the attack.  The WH provided her with a message to deliver to the media and the American public.  The WH had her state the attack was mob violence incited by an anti-Muslim video.  Obama avoided making any statements during this time, hiding  behind spokespersons.  It doesn’t wash, they are his representatives, speaking for him under his guidance.   He then claims during the presidential debate that he had stated the attack was a  terrorist attack.  And there is a legal, miniscule truth to that statement.  That then begs the question about Rice’s statements and those other stooges he had out stating the opposite.  He knew what they were saying as representative of him and his administration.  He sent them out.  If they were making false statements on his behalf, he had the responsibility to correct their mistakes.  He did not do so, he encouraged these acts.

Their lies are his lies.

The media is also an accessory.  They know he or his stooges lied.  They are now making excuses for Obama instead of asking questions.   “I agree with Andrea completely, it is personal between John McCain and Susan Rice. I agree with that completely.”  Sure you do Joe, or it’s that Republican racism.  Never mind this lie might have decided the election.  Never mind the hundreds that died because of Fast & Furious.  Never mind the media is supposed to be our fourth estate, protecting the public by keeping us informed.  Wash your hands, Judas, wash your hands.









  1. Good morning, LOI. So, what is your point? All of this is predictably true. Most people on this blog have no idea about Nixon and Watergate without reading it on Wiki, which is dubious at best. What this administration has done, is so infinitely worse than anything that happened under Nixon or Johnson or even Kennedy. Most of the sources that I see represented here are Wiki (laughable), Huffpo (more laughable), Politico (horrendously laughable), Fox (at best biased), CNN (bag man for Obama et al), MSNBC (representative of a dried up dog turd) … get the picture.

    The point should be that this is hardball politics. Hardball !!!! The Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, et al… NOT know how to play the game. You must lie. You must cheat, you must steal, you must threaten, you must cajole, you must split the opposition (never agree), you must claim racist (whether racist or not)…again you get the picture.

    Until the conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, etc understand that when you fight rats, you have to get in the gutter……..they will always lose. The so called progressive (ie, socialist) movement understands this and understands that there is no will to fight in the conservative movement………..they, the progressives, are doing exactly what I or any tactical commander would do. Exploit the weakness and do so with vigor and do so with whatever means you have at your disposal. There is no Geneva Convention rules in politics…….there are NO rules. Until that is understood…….there is no chance.

    • I’ve noticed with the Obama team, if all else fails, they just claim “They are Offended! ” It is the tactics of a child but somehow it seems to work.

      • Herein lies the problem, VH. It is not just the Obama Team…..forget politics for awhile..set it all aside and look around you. Everyone is offended. I have never in my life seen such a conglomeration of whiners and cowards. The whiners yell “offended” and the cowards do not stand up to it.

      • I agree VH, call everybody racist that doesn’t agree with you & you never have to talk about the real issues.

    • Colonel;

      Hope you are well. I mentioned to USW a few weeks back that my old fraternity brother had once again been deployed. He left for parts unknown prior to Thanksgiving and will miss his 3rd Christmas in a row at home with the family.

      He joined the National Guard about 4 years out of college and is now a full bird, although I think he has been active duty (for the most part) the last 8-9 years. I know from our past conversations he has been to both Iraq and Afganistan in the last 4-5 years, and those tours have been at least a year long. Since he was 4 years my senior in college (he had done 4 year active duty in the Marines before starting college) he is either now 60 or will be upon his return home next Oct/Nov.

      Isn’t there an age or years of service manditory out standard? He has told me that this is the last one period?

      I have no doubt that he is physicall capable, but 4-5 tours in 6 years (even for SF) seems a lot???

      Thought you might be able to shed some light.


      • To answer your question on age barriers… an officer, there are none. You are an officer for life and you do not have an enlistment period. You can be recalled at 70, if they wish to do so. However, there are limits to combat tours. I have had five and now have a choice. I now consult for the Texas National Guard on the Texas border…..but as an officer, I can be recalled at any time. Remember that Gulf War one was fought with primarily reserve forces, Gulf War II the same, and Afghanistan the same. A tremendous amount of reserves were called to active duty as “round out”. Gulf War I was fought with 60% reserve forces, Gulf War II was fought with 64% reserve forces and Afghanistan is now primarily reserve forces.

        • If you know other officers that are still here…..look at their ID card….look at the expiration date… says…..”Indefinite”.

        • Colonel;

          So does one resign his/her commision when they want to retire? If they do can they still be called up?


          • Wow…what a conundrum. To resign ones commission……..yes, you can do that but to resign forfeits your ID card. You are no longer an officer. If you have your required time in, and have your letters in possession of your time in grade, you will always retire at the highest rank achieved for pay purposes, unless you are reduced in rank due to disciplinary action. I doubt that they will resign their commission.

            Keep in mind, that any reduction in military monies as a result of cutbacks..the first thing cut is training…therefore, no specialized training for new personnel will be conducted. They can always call back the old war horses….which is probably what they would do. It is possible that they could call in retired NCO’s as well….all they have to do is declare National Emergency.

            • Colonel;

              Last question. So, if my friend decides to retire upon his return from this current tour of duty, and he has obtained the years of service needed to do so, he could up to the age of 70, get called back into active duty?


    • Colonel,

      My point is about what I’m calling our “Stooge President”. I wanted to focus on Benghazi today & Obama’s MO of having people speak for him. If possible, see if we can agree either he lied or he had Rice lie on his behalf. To me, it’s his lie in either case.

      “And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander-in-Chief.”

      Yes Mr. President, that is exactly what you did!

      “so infinitely worse than anything that happened under Nixon or Johnson or even Kennedy.”
      Makes me think of the Bay of Pigs…

      Obama has inserted himself into Egypt, how’s that working out?
      Obama has inserted himself into Libya, how’s that working out?
      Obama has inserted himself into Syria, how’s that working out?

      And there doesn’t seem to be much investigating the US smuggling arms thru Libya to arm rebels in Syria. Syria being supported by Russia, could the Russians be offended by Obama’s actions?

    • Black Flag® says:


      Immoral entities require immoral behavior.

      Why moral men accept and champion such entities escapes me.

    • See colonel, we have lived too long in that we remember these things. A blessing and a curse at the same time. Blessing to have a point of comparison a curse in that those we talk to cannot envision what we say as fact and consider it only an “opinion” .

      Watched a show the other night about the CIA LSD experiments in the ’50’s with unknowing subjects. Along the way they brought up Ft. Detrich and the bio war lab in Maryland. The narrator said, and I quote, “we were developing these poisons to use against out perceived enemies”. WTF! That language implies tons of really bad stuff. I knew someone who worked there and his position was that they did more research on countermeasures than they did on new weapons. Something that I think was not only good but based on the history of people we have dealt with in the past, a required chore for the Military.

  2. Getting your news from any TV source is a mistake at this point. Their purpose is no longer to report and be journalists, but to attract viewers and sell ads.

    • But about 20 million still rely on the big three networks. I think the internet is having an impact, but is there a single site with as much influence as ABC, NBC & CBS? I hope they continue to shed viewers & FOX grows. If economics force them to reform, we will be better informed. Washington will loose some of it’s power.

    • Agreed. I like Radio News. They tend to blurt out things that just happened which you may never hear again. Then the censorship kicks in and the story gets spiked. Most recently the story about having your baby tested in the womb for Autism spectrum disorder. The story was originally from some abortion group or other. Upon reflection it was allowed to die without being broadly repeated. Might lead to questions you know.

  3. The current POTUS is and has been since he first decided to make his living as a government official a liar. But, then so are of the majority of all those who make thier living as government officials.

    Will the truth of this particular incident ever be revealed??? Will we ever know the truth of who killed President Kennedy?

    The media, who controls the majority of information distributed to the public, is for the most part in bed with the government and the liberal/progressive movement. It all boils down to cash and control. Those that support and/or play along with government guidelines are afforded continued success and support. Those that don’t suffer.

    The era we live in now kind of reminds me of the movie “They Live” that starred the wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper. The majority are just going about thier day doing what they can to get by, following the rules, questioning little and ignoring pretty much everything that could jolt them into reality.

    If I had any questions about the Bengazi episode the first one would be:

    -Why did the POTUS and State Dept allow it to escalate to the level it did resulting in the 4 deaths? Why did they decide to NOT do anything to protect our embassy people? (That of course is predicated on the fact that they new things were getting out of control and had time to pull our people out)

    -Why did the media, knowing full well that the POTUS is briefed daily on circumstances like this, chose not to confront both the POTUS and State Department as to why they didn’t pull our people out or send in the Marines to secure the embassy?

    -Who called the shot to do nothing even though every other government had already pulled thier people out?

    -Since technically this was in fact an act of war why hasn’t Congress acted accordingly?

    -And last but not least: How could any human with above average intelligence accept the explination from the POTUS and/or appointed officials that this was not an act of terror and that they didn’t realize the situation was that bad at the time…….

    Because the majority of people are either to stupid or to indignant to give a shit


    • My thoughts on your questions…
      Never underestimate incompetence!
      The media is agenda driven, like they are frat brothers. They may not work together, but if you see a “brother” in need, you automatically try to help.
      No one called a shot, just the opposite, avoid making any decision, pass the buck.
      If it were an act of war, it would point out a failure of Obama’s ME policy. He went into Libya without consulting congress or getting any approval.
      It’s human nature, when you believe in something or someone, you make excuses. Remember Whoopie defending Polanski, “it wasn’t rape, rape”?

      • LOI;

        I don’t believe it was incompetence. I believe it was either total neglect, or there was something else going on. What, I don’t know, but obama and his handlers don’t operate on chance.

        And yes, the media sees what it wants and convey’s what increases revenue and supports the liberal/progressive agenda.

        And although I am sure someone more learnered than I will correct me, the act of breaching an Embassy and killing US representatives is an act of war; especially when initiated by an organization who claims to be an enemy. But maybe that is your point. By not calling it an act of war the US is not mandated to respond accordingly.

        As I said earlier; obama is a POS, and anyone that believes he is a righteous man solely dedicated to helping American’s is drinking way to much of the Kool-aid, or just plain ignorant.


  4. Just A Citizen says:

    A Companion Piece to go alone with LOI’s article. The propaganda machines are running at full speed, from HP.

    “Post-mortems of contemporary election coverage typically include regrets about horserace journalism, he-said-she-said stenography, and the lack of enlightening stories about the issues.

    But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

    Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false equivalency that bind so much of the capital’s media elite and publicly concluded that GOP leaders have become “ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

    The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite media’s fear of being seen as taking sides.

    “The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties’ agendas and connections to facts and truth,” said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

    “I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it — and with their editors,” said Mann. “But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance.”

    “I can’t recall a campaign where I’ve seen more lying going on — and it wasn’t symmetric,” said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who’s been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, “but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top.”

    Lies from Republicans generally and standardbearer Mitt Romney in particular weren’t limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party’s most central campaign principles — that federal spending doesn’t create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit — willfully disregarded the truth.

    “It’s the great unreported big story of American politics,” Ornstein said.

    “If voters are going to be able to hold accountable political figures, they’ve got to know what’s going on,” Ornstein said. “And if the story that you’re telling repeatedly is that they’re all to blame — they’re all equally to blame — then you’re really doing a disservice to voters, and not doing what journalism is supposed to do.”

    Ornstein said the media’s failure led him to conclude: “If you want to use a strategy of ‘I’m just going to lie all the time’, when you have the false equivalence meme adopted by a mainstream press and the other side lies a quarter of the time, you get away with it.”

    The Apostasy

    Ornstein and Mann’s big coming out took place in late April, when the Washington Post’s Outlook section published their essay “Admit it. The Republicans are worse”, adapted from their book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism, which went on sale a few days later.

    Political journalists had no doubt heard similar arguments many times before, mostly from left wing bloggers. But this time the charge was coming from two of the most consistent purveyors of conventional wisdom in town, bipartisan to a fault.

    And they were pretty harsh in their critique of the media. “Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views,” they wrote in the Post. “Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?”

    Initially, at least, Mann and Ornstein weren’t completely ignored. “We had really good reporters call us and say: ‘You’re absolutely right’,” Mann said. “They told us they used this as the basis for conversations in the newsroom.”

    But those conversations went nowhere, Mann said.

    “Their editors and producers, who felt they were looking out for the economic wellbeing of their news organizations, were also concerned about their professional standing and vulnerability to charges of partisan bias,” Mann said.

    So most reporters just kept on with business as usual.

    “They’re so timid,” Mann said.

    Some reporters did better than others, Ornstein said, particularly crediting Jackie Calmes of the New York Times and David Rogers of Politico among a few others. “They grew a little bit more straightforward in what they do, and showed you can be a good, diligent unbiased reporter, report the facts, put it in context, and yet show what’s really going on,” he said.

    Most reporters, however — including many widely admired for their intelligence and aggressive reporting — simply refused to blame one side more than the other. Mann said he was struck in conversations with journalists by how influenced they were by the heavily funded movement to promote a bipartisan consensus around deficit reduction and austerity. Such a bipartisan consensus doesn’t actually exist, Mann pointed out. But if you believe it does, than you can blame both parties for failing to reach it.

    “The Peterson world, I think, has given journalists the material to keep doing what they’re doing,” Mann said of the vast network of think tanks and other influential Washington groups underwritten at least in part by Wall Street billionaire Peter Peterson.

    Peterson’s vast spending has given rise to an environment of contempt among the Washington elites for anyone who doesn’t believe the government is dangerously overextended. And by that reckoning, the Democrats are therefore more out of touch with reality than Republicans, who at least pay the concept ample lip service.

    How Fact-Checking Made Things Worse

    Ornstein and Mann’s views on journalistic failure have not been widely shared by mainstream media critics, who have instead focused on the fact that the press, in its enthusiasm to see the presidential race decided by a nose, ignored solid polling data to the contrary and called it wrong until the very end.

    To the extent that the issue of widespread prevarication has come up at all, many media critics identified the rise of fact-checking as the big new trend of the 2012 cycle.

    But Mann and Ornstein said that in practice, the fact-checkers may have made things worse rather than better.

    “We had these little flurries of fact-checking — which I found not worthless, but not a substitute for coherent, serious reporting — and most of the time it just got stuck in the back of a news organization’s output and there was no cost to a candidate of ignoring it,” Mann said.

    And then there was this terrible irony: “Fact checkers almost seemed obliged to show some balance in their fact checking.”

    “There was some damn good stuff done, and stuff that really did hold Romney to account,” Ornstein said. But no fact-checker intent on “appearing to be utterly straightforward, independent, and without an axe to grind, is going to actually do the job of saying that we’re going to cover 20 fact checks on one side, to three on the other.”

    So, Ornstein concluded: “If you looked at where the scales should have been, and where they were, they were weighted. And they weren’t weighted for ideological bias. They were weighted to avoid being charged with ideological bias.”

    It’s hard to exaggerate just how popular Mann and Ornstein were with the press before their apostasy. They were quite possibly the two most quotable men in Washington. They were the media cocktail party circuit’s most reliable walking talking points.

    And now they are virtual pariahs.

    “It’s awkward. I can no longer be a source in a news story in the Wall Street Journal or the Times or the Post because people now think I’ve made the case for the Democrats and therefore I’ll have to be balanced with a Republican,” Mann said.

    Neither Mann nor Ornstein have been guests on any of the main Sunday public affairs shows since their book came out. Nor has anyone else on those shows talked about the concerns they raised.

    Ornstein is particularly infuriated that none of the supposed reader advocates at major newspapers have raised the issues they brought up. “What the fuck is an ombudsman doing if he’s not writing about this?” he asked.

    Their phones are still ringing, they say — but not from inside the Beltway. “We’ve gotten a tremendous amount of attention, but much of that is due to the Internet and our original piece going viral,” Mann said. They were also featured on NPR.

    There have been countless requests for speaking engagements. “We’re just selling a shitload of books,” said Mann. “There’ve been page-one stories in countries around the world.”

    Domestically, however, Mann and Ornstein said they refuse to be “balanced” on TV shows by Republicans — because they are not anti Republican. The reason they wanted the press to expose what was really happening, they said, was to give voters a chance to respond in an appropriate way.

    “The argument we’re making is that our politics will never really get better until the Republican Party gets back into the game, instead of playing a new one,” Mann said. “We want a strong, conservative Republican Party — but one with some connection with reality.”

    Their critique came not out of ideology, they said, but out of their background as devoted process junkies and honest analysts, who finally realized that their vision of collegial governance wasn’t possible any more, and it was clear why.

    Both see the rise of Tea Party influence on the GOP as a major turning point. For Mann, the moment of reckoning came in the summer of 2011. “What flipped me over was the debt ceiling hostage-taking,” Mann said. It was clear then that the Republicans would “do or say anything” to hurt Obama, even if it was overtly bad for the country and false to core Republican values.

    “That and getting older. What do I give a shit about access,” he said.

    “The fact is that one of the parties stopped being a conventional conservative party,” Mann said. “My own view is that what needed to happen is somehow the public had to take a two-by-four to the Republicans’ heads, knock them back to their senses, and allow conservative pragmatic voices to emerge,” he said.

    Democrats won soundly in 2012 of course, so the two-by-four was administered. But because the media obfuscated what was going on, the message was not entirely clear — and certainly not to the Republican leadership.

    Their Message Going Forward

    Mann and Ornstein don’t get invited to talk to the leaders of news organizations anymore.

    But if they were, again, here is what Mann would say: “First of all, I’d sympathize. I’d say I understand that you have the responsibility to use professional norms of accuracy and fairness and not let your own personal feelings get in the way.”

    But, he would add: “You all have missed an incredibly important story in our politics that’s been developing over a period of time. You’ll slip it in here and there, you’ll bury it, but you really don’t confront it.”

    Ornstein said his message would be this: “I understand your concerns about advertisers. I understand your concerns about being labeled as biased. But what are you there for? What’s the whole notion of a free press for if you’re not going to report without fear or favor and you’re not going to report what your reporters, after doing their due diligence, see as the truth?

    “And if you don’t do that, then you can expect I think a growing drumbeat of criticism that you’re failing in your fundamental responsibility.

    “Your job is to report the truth. And sometimes there are two sides to a story. Sometimes there are ten sides to a story. Sometimes there’s only one.

    “Somebody has got to make an assessment of whether the two sides are being equally careless with their facts, or equally deliberate with their lies.””

    • Seriously, the elite is concerned about being seen as biased-I see no evidence of this at all.

      And their job is to report the Truth-who’s Truth-lets stick with the facts.

      And now it is a matter of assessing “whether the two sides are being equally careless with their facts, or equally deliberate with their lies.” Equality in lying -that is what is important!

    • This whole article makes me want to scream-who the hell are these two to decide what the truth is-or to decide what the people get to think.

    • Seriously. If the GOP has been taken over by the Extremist Right, the Democratic Party has been taken over just as much, if not more, by the Extremist Left. Neither side is palatable to most Americans, as most are more Center Right than extreme in either direction. Then more of us (I fall in this category) are either right of left, but not extreme.

      If both Parties continue to bow to their extremist bases, we will never get anything done. And as bad as I hate to say this, my vote is beginning to be for not getting it done.

      After all, that’s what y’all voted for.

      • I think both sides have their extremists. I don’t think Romney fits that description. Way to moderate… Now Ron Paul, I would agree he was on the extreme right, much as Obama is extreme left. (even thought they say he’s a moderate)

  5. So, what is your point?

    What JAC asked. We know Obama and the white house were completely incompetent as regards Benghazi … we know lies were told and a coverup was initiated. We also know Bush would’ve been blasted 100x’s as hard by the media for anything close to what happened in Benghazi. We know, we know, we know …

    But you’re still stuck with the guy for another four years … the same as we were stuck with Bush for another 4 years after his first term (and I voted for him twice).

    So? Would you also like to secede? 🙂

    • LOL…only you Charlie…..only you…….but since you asked the question…..if Texas were to actually vote on secession and it were actually possible…..and there was to be a Republic of Texas………I would be the first in line. Secede from the United States, become a Republic and then apply for foreign aid. And… would be welcome…..BUT… would have to wear cowboy boots, a stetson, carry a six gun, know what a horse is and what side to mount on, drink Tequila, and say ya’ll in present and past tense, singular and plural…..oh…..and be Texas-ized in the Brazos River (but dont drink the water)…. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t6 think succession is the answer. I prefer to remove and replace the current government. THe people need to stand up and end the corruption 😉

      • I’m with you! We can’t let Buck steal our country! Sure, he’s covered himself by rewriting laws and twisting the meaning of everything. It’s still theft. If we let him get away with it, what will he want next?

        • …depends on what the meaning of ‘theft’ is, now doesn’t it? 🙂

          • I’m still stuck on two lettered words….

          • Black Flag® says:

            Yes, we are sure you will redefine it to be whatever does not include you.

          • Damn you Buck! Must your government control everything?

            While residing in Key West in the 1930s, Ernest Hemingway received the unusual gift of a white six-toed cat named Snowball from a ship’s captain.

            Hemingway fell in love with the cat, and ever since, generations of six-toed descendants of Papa’s cherished companion have resided peacefully on the grounds of Hemingway’s former home, now a museum.

            The Ernest Hemingway Home & Museum reports that it currently houses between 40 and 50 cats.

            According to a federal court ruling, however, the cats’ future at their ancestral home may now be in jeopardy.

            A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled Friday that the Hemingway Home falls under the classification of an “animal exhibitor,” subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act.

            Read more:

            • It’s always Buck’s fault. Just wait Buck..we’re going to abuse you so bad over the next four years, you’re going to pray for it to be over too!

              • the more I think about it
                old Billy was right
                lets kill all the lawyers
                kill them tonight

              • No no, Anita… do not understand Buck……He LIVES for abuse. 🙂

                Besides, we do not have to abuse him…..he has a new critter called a baby that will grow up to be a teenager.

              • Lil Buckette will be four or five by the next election. About that time, as school is starting, he may start accepting conservatism! 😉

              • LOI — how violent of you! PS – do you or do you not owe me a bottle of booze!? As I said, can’t remember the particulars of our bet and don’t have to time to search through the SUFA archives to check! I will take you on your word sir.

                Colonel — I’m sure I have a ton of abuse to look forward to over the coming years. I guess I’m a glutto for punishment…and her adorable little face!

                Anita — Betcha I don’t!

              • Buck,

                It’s NOT violence on my part, just reciting a song. You have to sue Don Henley & the Eagles. I’m clearly innocent, no matter how loud or frequently I sing their song.

                Yes, I owe you a bottle, tried to contact you by your email but no joy. Maybe USW can help? Or Matt is a facebook friend.

                I haven’t seen any comment from you on the article? Pleading the 5th?

              • Not pleading the 5th, just no time lately. Any specific questions you’d like my thoughts on?

                Have USW give you my email, or we can try Charlie’s idea and I can get you the number for a local store (save you on shipping that way too). Let me know what works.

    • “So? Would you also like to secede? :-)”

      Why Not??? 🙂

  6. Sorry, workus interrputus again.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    Are these really the type of people that the U.S. should be supporting in Syria?

  8. Unfortunately your very first sentence contained an error:

    “our embassy in Benghazi was attacked.”

    My understanding is that there was no embassy in Benghazi, nor even a consulate – a “branch” of an embassy – in Benghazi, thus it did not have any of the protections normally given.

    By all indications this was a covert CIA operation, possibly to run arms to the Muslim Brotherhood via Turkey to Syria. Whether Stevens was taken out at Obama’s direction is up for debate.

    That’s why the O people had to lie and for some reason, everyone else is still content to keep it under wraps. Guessing the blackmail and threats from this adm (it’s the Chicago way!) are at an all time high.

    • Then you don’t understand. LOL
      It was “official, diplomatically recognized property “while dealing arms there. After being destroyed by a terrorist organization that Obama had personally destroyed, it became something else. We’ll have to wait til the final draft to hear what name they decide on, illegal armory sounds catchy to me….

  9. Bottom Line says:

    The ratios between the dimensions/height/volume/etc..must be properly calculated and would have to be customized to the environment as it can vary a bit. The primary concern is that the conditions of the reservoir result in a great enough pressure to push the water all the way through the check valve and pipe.

    You can run them in series for longer distances if need be, be it that when water pressure is exhausting, you can simply feed another reservoir and restart the process.

    If you incorporated a simple system of solar cells and batteries for power, servos to turn valves, sensors and a small electronic regulator of some sort, you could effectively make it automatic. The trick is timing.

    Or you could possibly build a large unit with thin pipes to push it long distances. I idealize that method as perhaps a villager travel a few miles to turn the valve and push a thousand or two gallons to their village as needed.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Re; Using the 14th Amendment to skirt the Debt Ceiling. The following is an article at Daily Kos outlining how the 14th “requires” action by the Administration to pay debts.

    I see a very fundamental FLAW in the argument. A very basic one in fact. It is time for everyone to test their “logical” thinking and see if you can discover the error in the argument. I’ll be gone for awhile running errands so you have a little time.

    Buck, I hope you take the challenge and try to put on the “skeptic” hat to find the flaw as you think I might see it.

    Have fun:

    • IMHO, I don’t see how “shall not be questioned” and Presidential power are related at all. Congress pays the bills, cut and dry. Obamaloni has no obligation to ensure debt payment. The “debt ceiling” is a non factor. Congress can just cut govt spending to pay the bills. They won’t of course, but it would be nice. Maybe Mooshelle can lose a few of her slaves, I mean, executive assistances, to save a few bucks. Besides, all those assistants have not helped her, she is still donkey ass ugly 😆

    • Well JAC. My logical thinking tells me that, while I have heard conversation after conversation about raising or cutting taxes and raising or not raising the debt ceiling, very rarely do I hear anything about CUTTING anything.

      Why SHOULD the GOP allow the President to raise the debt ceiling? Why SHOULD the GOP allow the President to raise taxes on the top 2%? They will get the blame either way. If they don’t vote for it, they will get blamed for taxes going up. If they do vote for it they will get the blame when the economy goes in the crapper. As bad as I hate it, I see no UP side for the GOP.

      A lot (apparently the majority) of the people in this Nation will ALWAYS vote for raising taxes on the rich no matter what it does to the economy. As long as those freebies keep coming they don’t care. Why should they?? It’s no skin of their nose if the job creators have to pay more taxes.

      And let’s look at the Government itself. We don’t really have a revenue problem after all, we have a spending problem. Why can folks not see that Obama wants to not only raise taxes on the rich (and well off), he wants to actually SPEND MORE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!! How can even the most borderline idiot not see that? The answer is because they don’t care and they don’t WANT TO.

      This country is turning into a Nation of people who are nothing but whiners and responsibility shirkers. Noone wants to pay and everybody wants to spend. When will it ever stop?

    • I would say if it “requires” anything-it requires that Congress not ignore the Countries debts-which means Congress is by law required to address the debt. To pass a budget and make sure they stay within that budget including not going over the debt limit. If the Prez has any power at all in this battle-it seems to me it would be vetoing any spending which would cause the Country to be unable to pay their debts.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Maybe others are already saying the same thing in their own way but here goes.

      While we are required to pay our debts, it does NOT require raising the debt ceiling to do it. The debt ceiling limit is legal.

      Simple enough?

      • Black Flag® says:

        The debt ceiling is the most brilliant example of one of my primary arguments against government in general and concepts of “Constitutions”

        The government makes its own laws.
        You expected the government to make a law against itself and then abide by that law.

        Such an expectation is completely naive, as amply demonstrated.

  11. Calling LOI! Calling LOI!

    Need trucking company that has interest in boobs, errrr breasts, errr breast milk to help with important mission! Add “Breast Consultant” to your business card!

  12. President Obama in a Sept. 13, 2010 phone call to battery maker A123 Systems, congratulating the firm on using the bulk of a $249 million government grant to open new facilities in Michigan.

    A123 spent at least $132 million of its $249 million stimulus package grant to build two Detroit-area factories, including one in Livonia, right next door to Redford Township.

    Assuming a bankruptcy judge and the Obama Treasury Department approve of the sale of A123’s assets to Wanxiang Group, the Chinese battery maker would immediately become the dominant force in the industry.

    So for $256.6 million, the Chinese firm would get all that the stimulus package purchased plus the company’s existing operations in Massachusetts and Missouri and have the chance to pare down the company to profitability without the overhead of A123’s debt.

    A very good deal to be sure, but not one that American firms were willing to take on. As the president has often said, China and its economic central planners are betting very big on the battery business – for cars, for the electric grid, etc. And with A123, they get to take advantage of not only their own government subsidies, but those provided by American taxpayers.

    An additional irony: Whatever share of the original $249 million stimulus grant that the Treasury borrowed from China will still have to be paid back. The boys in Beijing must be having a happy Monday. Obama gave A123 lots of subsidy money to expand to compete with subsidized Chinese firms and the subsidized Chinese firms win anyway.

    ****Let me see if I understand this correctly. Obama promises jobs… taxpayer money to a battery maker that looks like it is going to sell out to a Chinese firm that is subsidized by the Chinese government and now the American taxpayer to compete against American business.

    ***The growing realization in Washington is that the president means to make the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” not the end of a long-running series, but the pilot for a spinoff in which Republicans are cast as the villains again, but this time on the run.

    A headline in Sunday’s New York Times said it all: “Tax Arithmetic Shows Top Rate Is Just a Starter.” The higher tax rates on top earners the president is looking at would only cover about a quarter of the $1.6 trillion in new taxes the president is seeking over the next decade.

    Starting next year, the top 20 percent of American households will see their federal taxes go up by an estimated average of $6,000 to finance the new health-insurance entitlement created by Obama’s 2010 health law.

    In addition to that and the rate hike Obama is seeking in his negotiations, Obama will need lots and lots more tax revenue to finance his domestic programs, even while continuing to run $1 trillion deficits.

    Investment taxes and inheritance taxes would make up another $526 billion of Obama’s $1.6 trillion quasi-budget proposal, on top of the $442 billion that would come from higher rates. The rest of the money comes from some accounting changes and other gimmicky cuts.

    ***California….you have to love it…….your new taxes at the end of 2014 will be approaching 64% counting all State and Federal Taxes….NOT including sales tax.

    **** Even France is now scratching its head…….a 75% tax rate and a greater exodus of their most productive people than Moses. France is considering a new law to prevent their most influential citizens from moving out. Since the implementation of their new taxes, 35% of their most wealthy have moved themselves and their money from France with an estimated additional 40% expected to move within the next year.

    • Ah Yes, the economic reality that socialist communist progressive idiots can’t comprehend. Redistribution, in any form, will ultimately fail. France is learning this, California is learning this and it will continue to be a hard lesson for moron Democrats in the future. It’s real simple, principled people will not accept being robbed, period. They will leave the State/country, or they will stop being productive. Why don’t these fools in government (and those that support them) understand this basic human action. A 3 year old can figure this out 👿

    • WOW! 64%!!!! That means the Government will be getting more of your money then you will! AND ol’ France at 75%, and gonna pass a law FORBIDDING their citizens from leaving.

      I wonder how long before the U.S. passes the same law.

      • Black Flag® says:


        The US has found it completely unnecessary to make such a law as the US government taxes its citizens based on citizenship and not residency – so if Gates ran off to Cayman with his billions makes no one wit of difference to the US.

        You have to renounce your citizenship, which then the US government assess you a massive tax bill before you “get to escape”.

        • In other words, BF, they are just screwed. I wonder what that other 20% will think, or all the rest will think, when their taxes rise exponetially in 2014. I wonder what folks like Warren Buffet will think when THEIR taxes go up to about 75-80% in just a few years.

          Actually, now that I think about it. ALL out taxes are going up through the roof, before too long now. And the Government won’t stop spending either.

          That Seccession stuff is starting to sound more and more attractive. 😉

          • That Seccession stuff is starting to sound more and more attractive

            Considering how well it worked out for you last time … sure it is.:)

            • Succession won’t be necessary. The idiots in the District of Criminals will destroy themselves. Let’s put the printing presses on overdrive, print trillions of dollars and get on with it. The good part of this Charlie, you’ll lose that weight you been trying to lose for awhile. For you at least, there is good to come from this 🙂

    • Yet, G, you don’t see how brainwashed the few who come here from the right are … brainwashed with blinders …. BwB … 🙂

      • Oh but I do Charlie, and if you actually paid attention you would know that 😉 It matters not what political affilliation, the many are lined up, playing by “thier” rules. You, my Eye-Talian French loving friend, leads the pack 😆

        • LOL, it’s spelled “their”. Todd would blame the keyboard for the misspelling, much like he blames guns for killing people, and forks for people being overweight, and curbs for causing car accidents……….you get the drift 🙂

  13. Obamcare, taking your money to protect insurance companies. What a joke this is 🙄

  14. d13thecolonel says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:18 am • Edit

    Good morning, LOI. So, what is your point? All of this is predictably true.

    I was hoping to get some Obama supporters on record about the Benghazi attack. I don’t see any way it can be disputed that either Obama lied or he had Rice sent out to lie for him. In the end, it’s the same difference.

    I wanted to then look at the “fiscal cliff” as being handled by Obama. We hear a hundred times what Obama’s position is, but rarely from him. Again, it’s his stooges out there speaking for him. Does anyone accept their words as “truthful”? Remember all the build-up for the “Affordable HealthCare Act”? Obama made many broad promises that have turned out to be false. Not sure he’s to blame. Pelosi & Reid were the main authors, Obama acted as the marketing director. For sure, it’s a lie in it’s name! Has anyone’s health care become more affordable?

    Back to the fiscal cliff. Obama’s opening offer was a budget that increases spending more than it increases taxes. Yet he still claims it will reduce the deficit? When called on this, Jay Carey mumbles something that deficit reduction is not really the goal. ( No chit Cherlock)

    Does anybody know what his goal is? You can’t tell it by his words. Anything he says has two meanings. Was Benghazi a mob or terrorists? Running a five trillion deficit is unpatriotic when Bush does it, but a necessary sacrifice now? Judge him by his action, not his words. He is letting the clock run down on the tax hikes. So I say, we go over the cliff with our stooge president.

  15. December 11, 2012
    Fiscal cliff deal ‘not close’
    Rick Moran

    The Republican whip, Kevin McCarthy, indicated that the two sides are “not close” and are just getting started.

    At this rate, a deal will get done just in time for the Labor Day recess next year.


    “There’s nothing agreed to. They are just beginning to talk,” he said of House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama.

    Meanwhile, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said on MSNBC Monday he thought Congress could resolve some of the issues by the December 31 deadline — among them the hikes in tax rates-but might have to leave others for the new Congress that takes office in January.

    The two major elements of the so-called cliff are automatic spending reductions set to occur starting January 1 and tax cuts that expire at the end of the year. Democrats, including Obama, want the reduced taxes extended for all but the highest earners, while Republicans want them continued for all brackets.

    Also in the mix is a payroll tax “holiday” set to expire, which, if not extended, will could quickly reduce the take-home pay of a large segment of the U.S. workforce.

    The holiday, now in its second year, has been providing workers with an average of about $1,000 a year in extra cash. Significant divisions remain on the payroll tax question in part because it funds the Social Security retirement program.

    The payroll tax, dedicated to financing Social Security, is paid by employers and employees at a rate of 6.2 percent of wages up to a maximum of $110,110. The holiday, enacted in 2010, reduced the rate by 2 percentage points on the portion paid by the worker.

    Van Hollen said Republicans were coming around on the tax hikes, and said there was a good chance of resolving that soon.

    Other things might have to wait, he said, mentioning the budget cuts, or “sequestration,” and the payroll tax.

    Glad to see the GOP is “coming around” to caving in. For a minute there, I thought they had grown a pair.

    There is absolutely no way any “meaningful” entitlement reform can come in 3 weeks. What will happen is that Obama and the Democrats will solemnly swear that they will sit down and discuss entitlements sometime next year.

    And I’ve got a bridge over the Chicago River that I can let youi have for a song.

    Read more:

  16. Michigan is voting for freedom today, while the Unions want their theft to continue. GO Michigan!

    • Yep and Kathy shipped every crazy that was in Wisconsin over here. Couple school districts closed so the teachers could go to Lansing. Obama was in town yesterday announcing a $120 million addition to Detroit Diesel that will add….115 jobs! He couldn’t resist taking a shot at our vote today..saying it shoudn’t be able to take your right to collectively bargain for wages. The bill has nothing to do with collective bargaining..but the crowd cheered and cheered.

      • Anita, The protestors are mindless sheeple who are protesting freedom of choice. If the Unions were so good to people, they would not need to force people to be members, let them sell work to potential members. If they are that good, this law will mean nothing. But as you can see, force may be their only option, because they just aren’t that needed anymore. People need jobs, unions are in the way, time for them to become extinct. much like the Dodo birds they emulate 🙂

      • Batshit crazies! That goof that said something about this changing 100 years of labor, blah, blah. Well look around you buddy! Your state is a mess – don’t you think it’s time to make a change? How god awful to allow workers to make a choice!

        Look at this proud teacher:

        • Hey, goophette, all right to work means is slave wages/benefits will be decreased considerably while profits skyrocket … welcome to the real world! 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Since when did we start paying our slaves wages?

            Your rhetoric is simply Marxist garbage Charlie.

            Collective bargaining still exists. If the Union is truly representing the interests of the workers in a fair manner it will be supported.

            What you fear is that Unions cannot survive without the force of Govt.

            You see, it is not Capitalism that requires Govt to allow it to exist. It is the UNION.

          • Hey Crazy Charlie – explain to me why it is wrong to give workers a choice to join or not join the union? Simply that. Why is choice wrong?

            • It isn’t about the choice, Kathy. It’s the FACT that wages and benefits will decline. Remember, before you misquote me about Obama, that I called for all union workers to ignore Obama and their corrupted officials and vote for the Green, socialist or communist party. Obama did SQUAT for unions outside of auto workers. He took the hint you guys swallowed from talk radio … workers hating on other workers because they want some small piece of dignity in wages and benefits, yet you ignore the corruption that goes on in management across the board (union or not). Look at HSBC today … the “justice” department found them guilty of money laundering and holding Iran’s monies … not a SINGLE HSBC manager will be prosecuted (sort of like the great Bailout on wall street) … where’s the wrath? Why aren’t you SUFA-ites complaining about management rewarding themselves for bankrupting companies? And what about the Koch brothers and all the damage they do (talk about corruption)? You’re brainwashed to believe workers are the cause (unions specifically) … that’s a joke, but the joke is on all of you who defend those who do the most damage. You even vote for their proxies year after year … and then want to seced when another of their proxies wins the election (Obama) … good luck with all that.

              • It isn’t about the choice, Kathy. It’s the FACT that wages and benefits will decline.

                As Todd would say, please provide proof! Nothing but a Left Wing scare tactic with no basis of fact at all, as I see it.

                HSBC, Hang them all! Oh, the govt won’t do that cuz their bought and paid for by them.

              • It isn’t about the choice, Kathy. It’s the FACT that wages and benefits will decline.


                But why?

                To understand why, you have to understand what a union -backed by government force- is able to do to a company.

                It allows the union to take hostage a company’s assets.

                A company then has a decision – move and start over, or pay the ransom – the ransom being an artificially higher wage then the value of the labor.

                So stupid nut turning morons end up making $40/hr. And as this is not the true price of the labor but artificially high, ends up costing the company their competitive price edge against others -typically foreign countries- where unions do not have government force behind them.

                Eventually the company kicks out the union – by bankruptcy or reversing the union law.

                Without government force to maintain the hostage taking of assets and hence, the ransom, the labor falls to its natural level – which will ALWAYS be much lower than the ransom.

                Not all bankruptcies are union-caused, but quite a few are.

              • @Charlie

                Unions in the country today are basically a corporate monopoly on a particular segment of the labor force price-fixing in order to make more money selling their product (the labor), while using government force to prevent competition.

                And yet if a corporation were doing the same thing – keeping prices high in order to rake in profits while the government prevents competition – you’d be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops.

                You can’t be against corporations but for the corporatized unions (or vice-versa), it’s a nonsense position, they’re the same thing.

  17. @Black Flag, Good Day Sir 🙂 Best wishes to you and your family!

    I agree with your assessment of “Constitutions” and they never work. They are too long and subject to interpretation and changing meanings (as has been the case with ours). Do you think it is possible to have a Constitution written that will actually work?

    • Never.

      You are asking the government -who makes law and enforces law – to make laws upon itself and enforce those laws on itself.

      You are asking the devil to tie himself with his own rope and you are trusting his own knots he uses will bind him.

      They never do and never will.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman, BF, et al.

      Point of order. OUR Constitution was NOT written BY GOVT.

      Changes since its inception have, however, all come from Govt.

      The only alternative to Constitution is NO Constitution. Which of course means ZERO constraints or restrictions.

      Can a Constitution constrain Govt Power? Absolutely. Our own history shows this possible. Just as it shows that you can not simply expect the Document to constrain that power without constant monitoring, active participation and amendment, from time to time.

      There WILL be Govt. for the foreseeable future. With that given, do you want Govt with or without some type of Document that constrains the power of that Govt.

      • No, sir, that is not true.

        The constitution has no restraints on government – it is useless.
        Worse, it is used to legitimize evil government action.

        No constitution does not create “no restrictions”.

        No government – no government abuse.

        Constitution has no constrained the government at all. What you are measuring is government’s search for legitimacy – as soon as it established legitimacy based on tenure (age) it has no need to pander to the people.

        There is no document possible – when men decide they no longer need evil to solve their problems, then government will evaporate.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Your points are irrational, meaning illogical, except for the last one.

          And that is why we WILL HAVE Govt for the foreseeable future. That being as long as our population is high enough to demand some sort of organized means of expanding our “cities”.

          • It has been no restraint – look at reality.
            It could not be a restraint – there is no reasoning behind a piece of paper ruling guns.
            Legitimacy is what matters – legitimacy is obtained many ways, regardless of paper.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Your claim that it provided NO restraint is simply not supported by the historical record.

              I laid out my argument and described the nature of that restraint and what is required to maintain it, or strengthen it.

              All you do is claim I am wrong. Well………. YOU are wrong.

              Legitimacy is also a consideration but it does not eliminate or remove the intent, or effectiveness, of constraining Govt Power.

              • Lincoln eliminated habeas corpus, imprisoned Supreme Court justices – what part of the Constitution protected the citizens from this?

                Washington sent troops against citizens in peaceful opposition to taxes. What part of the Constitution protected the citizens from this?

                Ask the Japanese Americans about Constitutions protection.

                …what were you saying again? 🙂

              • You’re assuming that there is more restraint with a constitution than without, which isn’t very well supported. I suspect it could actually be less – the consitution provides the illusion of legitimacy which allows the government to get away with ‘things’ that would otherwise cause the people to revolt if it were some ‘unrestrained’ monarch.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              A fallacious argument my friend.

              You provide examples of things that were allowed but still had constraints placed upon them.

              Suspension of Habeas Corpus is allowed by the Constitution, and places constraints on when it can be used.

              Now lets suppose that provision had simply banned the practice. Do you think the outcome would have been the same? If there was no restraint then why did Lincoln have to dance the Kabuki Dance to make sure he had Congress’ support? If there was no restraint he could have simple told Congress to stuff it. But he did not.

              But of course you also pose examples that avoid the very point I made. I suggest you read my original post one more time. Carefully this time, based on my actual words and not your pre-formed opinions about Govt in general.

              • JAC, Suspension of Habeus Corpus is a power specifically given to CONGRESS, not the President. Lincoln was outside of Constitutional authority and the SCOTUS only agreed with him due to the threat of prison. So, no, the Constitution didn’t stop anything.

  18. JAC reminds me of this article:

    The Silliest Political Prediction I have Ever Heard

    The second silliest possible statement regarding American politics is this one: “The next Presidential election will be the last one.”

    The silliest possible statement regarding American politics is this one: “There will not be another Presidential election.”

    I received such an announcement from some well-meaning but utterly out-of-touch conservative yesterday. Here’s what the e-mail said: “There will be no next Presidential Race. The dictator has installed himself and will remain until he dies.” I will not say that this is the silliest e-mail I have ever received, but I think it probably is.

    I replied:


    “That’s a good one.”

    Undeterred, the writer mailed back this: “You may as well laugh heartily now, because you won’t in 4 years.”

    I first heard the prediction in 1964, before the Goldwater election, that there would never be another presidential election after 1964.

    I cannot remember any presidential election since that time in which I have not been told by some conservative that the next election would be the last one.

    However, this is the first time anyone has sent me a warning telling me there will never be another presidential election. This surpasses what I had previously regarded as the silliest political statement. This is the new reigning champion silly statement.

    Think about the absurdity of this statement.

    First, it assumes that the President of the United States has not been carefully screened by the powers behind the throne. It assumes that they do not have plenty of power over him, and if they choose, they can get him impeached as easily as they got Richard Nixon impeached. Any President who crosses them is gone.

    Second, it assumes that the powers behind the throne would let some President hold onto the office after his term runs out.

    That would be a public admission that there is no Constitution, which has been shredded, but is still regarded as still in force. The take-over by a President would call attention to the moribund status of the Constitution.

    Third, it would eliminate the great Punch and Judy show of American life, namely, the Presidential election.

    This is the election by which the powers that be maintain the illusion that they have not screened both candidates, and therefore the public has some meaningful decision to make. To abandon that remarkably useful illusion for no particular reason in 2016 is the height of silliness.

    The poor soul who sent me that letter is so completely out of touch with the basics of American politics that he really does think the Presidency is more important than the nation’s elite. The Presidency is important during wartime, but it is not important under most other conditions, at least not compared with the importance of the elite that controls access to the nomination process.

    The classic sign of a newcomer to American politics is that he thinks the Presidential election is a significant event every four years. It is significant from the point of view of keeping the illusion going. It is significant from the point of view of letting people believe that they are fundamentally shaping the future of the country.

    But, with respect to the substantive issues, the election of a President makes no fundamental difference, assuming the President does not drag the nation into a war that expands into something comparable to the Vietnam War.

    These poor souls are so well-meaning, so concerned, and so out of touch with reality that they think they can persuade somebody who has been watching this charade for 50 years that he has completely misunderstood American politics. They want that person to understand that a stranger, with no political skill, with no background at all, is in a position to tell him that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    These poor souls honestly believe the American public has some fundamental decision to make every four years, and that a President is going to thwart future electorates from participating in the grand illusion.

    They are so earnest.
    They are so fearful.
    They are so naïve.
    They are so out of touch.

    It is always a delight to be reminded that such people are out there, and they vote.

  19. Instability in Egypt, where a newly-elected Islamic government teeters over an angry population, isn’t enough to stop the U.S. from sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets, as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package.

    The first four jets are to be delivered to Egypt beginning Jan. 22, a source at the naval air base in Fort Worth, where the planes have been undergoing testing, told The North African nation already has a fleet of more than 200 of the planes and the latest shipment merely fulfills an order placed two years ago. But given the uncertainty in Cairo, some critics wonder if it is wise to be sending more top gun planes.

    Read more:

  20. Just A Citizen says:


    “JAC, Suspension of Habeus Corpus is a power specifically given to CONGRESS, not the President. Lincoln was outside of Constitutional authority and the SCOTUS only agreed with him due to the threat of prison. So, no, the Constitution didn’t stop anything.”

    First, the issue is not who had the authority but whether the Constitution allowed it. That is the question.

    Second, there was disagreement at the time as to whether this power was solely vested in Congress or the President. Lincoln claimed it was the President. Congress eventually confirmed this by allowing him to continue with some added constraints. But then he worked around these, because of bad wording. They allowed him to continue.

    They could have stopped him dead in his tracks if they had wanted. So in effect, they did grant him the power.

    Third, the Constitution stopped what it said was prohibited. It does not clearly say who had this authority. I think it was Congress but I also think Lincoln was correct to assume he could impose this power until Congress re-convened. Otherwise the emergency powers of the President would be meaningless.

    Now again, the question was whether a Constitution can constrain or restrict Govt. To claim in can not just because it does not completely prevent an action that it specifically allows is not a logical argument.

    As I said to BF. If it had NO restrictive power then why all the gyrations to allow the suspension to continue? Why all the political dancing to “justify” or “rationalize” the decisions?

    Without this clause in the document what would Lincoln have done?

    Now for the very FIRST case that supports my proposition.

    Marbury vs. Madison. The Supreme Court halted an action against the Executive because they were not granted authority over that action. This my dear GMan is a restriction or constraint.

    And, for the record, I have never said, nor did I say above, that a Constitution can ABSOLUTELY CONTROL Govt in the long term without constant due diligence and action by the citizenry to make sure it continues working.

    When the beast breaks a bar loose on the cage, you have to replace the bar or add a stronger one. To argue that the cage is a waste of time because it is not adequately maintained is also illogical in my humble opinion.

    • You posit that the Constitution restrains.

      Yet, every time when such restraint is paramount, the Government overrules the Constitution.

      It is a dead letter.

      It is no argument to say “I am going 25mph when the limit is 30mph, and therefore it is the speed limit that is keeping my speed down” – when, on your whim you go 60mph whenever you want to.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Your claim is simply NOT TRUE.

        Govt does not simply overturn it whenever it suits Govt. Of course you also need to identify WHO is Govt?

        We have three branches at the Fed level.

        I like your use of “paramount” but you failed to define what exactly that means in term of the Constitution.

        Speed limits are a lousy analogy for a Constitution. But, even Montana had to restore a speed limit because they found such a limit actually had a constraining affect on speed and thus the number of people killed. It seems those Anarchists just couldn’t handle the FREEDOM of no limits.

        • Ask the Japanese about that.

          Oh sure, in 1980, FDR’s action was declared unconstitutional – horrah!…. not.

          And you bet the government ignores what ever it wants whenever it wants – its rhetoric does not fool the wise.

          The Supreme Court is the first to admit that the Court cannot effectively defend civil liberties against determined Congressional and Presidential action. “

    • Article 1 Section 9 Limits on Congress “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

      Nowhere else is Habeus Corpus mentioned concerning limits or powers. Cut and dry, unless your a politician or a lawyer.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        YOUR opinion but not one shared by everyone who lived during those times. And Article I, Section 9 does not use the words “Limits on Congress”. Sorry.

        But also irrelevant to the question.

        Congress APPROVED of the suspension and expressed their approval by passing a law acknowledging Lincoln’s authority.

        So its limits were exercised exactly as stated.

        If there were NO restriction Lincoln could have done anything he wanted and would have never had to work with or around Congress. So the claim it did not have a restrictive affect is simply WRONG.

        You are doing the same thing BF often does. You create an absolute answer of your own construction as the criteria for “restrict” or “constrain”. But you are using an example where the restriction was nuanced and not a hard core prohibition.

        If you don’t think a Constitution can constrain Govt then tell me what our Govt would look like without such a document?

        • ‘… what it would like without it…”

          Almost exactly the same.

          The only part of the Constitution which is used by politicians is the managed succession of rulers.
          That’s it.

  21. @ JAC, I’m surely not going to argue history, because we both know that there are many different renditions. However, timing is everything. Congress approved of Lincoln actions “after the fact”. It was challenged by Supreme Court Justices, only to be ignored (the first time). But it’s really a moot point, since Obama can blow US citizens up with missiles without due process, order the military to attck foreign countries without legal authority and demand the US populace go through intrusive patdowns to get on a plane and fly. All despite our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Looks like the document is being ignored to me 🙄

    • G

      Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that Andy Jackson ignored the Supremes first.

      • To the best of my knowledge, only 2 Presidents suspended Habeus Corpus, Lincoln, twice. and Grant for a short period in some NC counties due to KKK. I’ve read nothing of Jackson doing so.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Did I ever say that Govt will not try to ignore it?

      Did I ever say that Govt will not try to break the bonds?

      You and BF are both off base with your arguments.

      You raised the question as to whether a Constitution can constrain Govt. Our Constitution did just that and still does on SOME matters.

      The strength of that constraint is greatest when it is first constructed and it diminishes with time. Thus it requires constant maintenance and repair. Constraints are greater when they are clear and concise and provide NO wiggle room. That is what happened with habeas corpus, there was wiggle room built into the system.

      Same holds true for the killing of Citizens by drones overseas, when those citizens can be considered as members of an enemy army.

      You two are arguing an entirely different issue than the one I presented this morning. In BF’s case he has to make that type of an argument in order to justify his other positions. He simply cannot admit that there is in fact a restrictive, constraining affect a Constitution has on Govt.

      • Off base?
        *scratch head*

        Example after example, and you ignore them, holding that some piece of paper “protects” something.

        It doesn’t.
        The days you think it does is the days government isn’t interested in you.

        But the day it is, you’re done for and no piece of paper will save you.

      • Your precious constitution was obliterated two years it was created!

        The “Whiskey Rebellion”, for gawds sakes!

        Yet you claim it constrained government – nonsense! It was easily shoved aside and away Washington went.

  22. @ Kathy, The physical attack by union assholes is not uncommon. I hope that all of those who punched and/or cut up the tent that was not theirs get what they deserve. THis is but one reason I despise unions, they are run by assholes, they are corrupt and can only exist by threat of violence or government protection. Mr. Cummings needs to be someones bitch in prison for a few weeks, bet he’d think twice before swinging first from then on.

    @Charlie, I don’t partake in the use of illegal drugs. I do partake in maintaining my marksmanship skills. I’m so glad I live in the country. Being far from Liberal assholes in unions is the best thing for me and them 😉

  23. Hey, G, did you get my message? My liquor store won’t take an order over the phone so you’ll have to honor your debt another way … how about the post office … or you can always drive it here personally. we’ll eat and drink like kings!

  24. Mike Adams
    Natural News
    Dec 12, 2012

    It is the ultimate example of how you reap what you sow: Huge numbers of American workers who voted for Obama are now seeing their own jobs slashed below 30 hours a week as employers desperately try to avoid “Obamacare bankruptcy.”

    Obamacare mandates for businesses only apply to those working 30 hours a week or more, and while many businesses do not want to cut workers’ hours, they are being forced to in order to stay afloat. This necessary action is causing businesses to lose money and become less competitive while at the same time destroying American jobs.

    Some businesses are also slashing job positions in an effort to get below the 50-employee threshold above which Obamacare mandates kick in. So across the country, we’re not only seeing workers lose hours thanks to Obamacare; we’re also seeing workers losing their jobs.

    But the Obama administration will announce these results to be a huge “job creation success!” because workers must now find two part-time jobs that usually pay less than the one full-time job they used to have. The raw job numbers, however, will be spun by the White House into a victory pronouncement of “twice as many jobs exist now!”

    Be careful what you vote for

    A note to Obama supporters: When you thought you were voting for “free health care,” you were actually voting to get yourself “downsized.” Your vote was an act of economic suicide. That’s because no government can force a business to pay for something that will put it out of business. When government mandates become too expensive for a business to afford, it will simply stop conducting business and that means cutting jobs or job hours.

    Imagine: If Obama announced a new initiative called “double pay for all workers” and made it a federal law, he would of course win another popular vote. But employers wouldn’t be able to afford the double pay mandate, so they would start slashing jobs or offshoring jobs, and that’s exactly what we see today. Every employer in America is right now asking himself these three questions in order to stay above water and not go bankrupt:

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t
    #1) How can we slash workers to under 30 hours a week?
    #2) How can we offshore jobs to India or other countries?
    #3) How can we cut our total number of employees to under fifty?

    This is the upshot of Obamacare: the destruction of America’s small businesses.

    • Where my son works-they are offering buyouts to all their employees that have worked there for 5 or more years. The reason-so they can lower costs and use more CONTRACT labor. This has been a great company-which gave great benefits -now those great jobs are going away.

      • Michael Snyder
        Economic Collapse
        Dec 12, 2012

        Did you see the huge crowds of protesters that flooded the Michigan Capitol on Tuesday? They were there to protest two bills there were being considered by the state legislature that would limit the power of unions in the state. Michigan lawmakers approved the bills and this absolutely infuriated the protesters. There is a lot of passion on both sides of this debate, but I am afraid that both sides in this debate are missing the bigger picture. If we keep shipping millions of our jobs to China, there isn’t going to be work for anyone no matter how much power unions have or don’t have. During the month of October, the U.S. trade deficit increased to 42.2 billion dollars. Our trade with China accounted for most of that deficit. Our trade deficit with China in October increased to a new all-time one month record of 29.5 billion dollars. Nearly 30 billion dollars that could have gone to U.S. businesses and U.S. workers went to China instead. Since 1975, a total of about 8 trillion dollars that could have gone to U.S. businesses and U.S. workers went to the rest of the world instead. Shiny new factories are going up all over China, and meanwhile our once great manufacturing cities are degenerating into desolate wastelands. So what is going to happen when all of the good paying manufacturing jobs are gone? Are we all going to fight bitterly over whether we should unionize the low paying jobs that remain at places such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds? Such an approach is not going to bring back prosperity to America. We desperately need to start building things and start creating real wealth inside this country once again. We desperately need to stop sending tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of our national wealth out of the country. Unfortunately, I don’t see anyone out there holding protests about our trade deficit. Nobody really seems to care, so our economy will continue to bleed good jobs and the middle class will continue to be destroyed.

        • GMan,

          Another economic illiterate and sheer ignorant article of “poor us, our jobs going to China”.

          The mental blindness necessary to write such a nonsense piece is high.

          What is he suggesting? That by the use of guns, jobs made to “stay here”?

          This idiot thinks China will buy US goods … with what? …. after he prevents China to sell goods to the US! The simple concept of “trade” is lost on him.

          • Funny, I took it as calling the union protestors fools and blaming government for the problem. As I have admitted, I’m not very economically literate, but I’m learning 🙂

            • Let’s take an example of the author’s mind swirl.

              China ships goods to the US.
              Do they do this because they love us?

              No, it is called trade.

              If the US has nothing to trade, why would China trade with the US?


              China trades with the US, so that means US has something China wants, and wants a lot of it.

              But he wants to stop China from sending goods, so that the US can make more of these goods … to trade…with who?

              SKT would say, “with ourselves” – because he believes raising the prices on the goods he trades makes everyone more money … because he forgets to attribute the costs of higher spending … meaning you spent it all anyway. But worse, as the price of these goods go up, it causes a rise in prices of things that were once cheap, now not.

              As these rise in prices, and are necessities – it crowds out the goods that are deemed discretionary – and prosperity falls. But SKT cannot calculate this – or refuses to – and believes he is richer because he has less things….

              Economics is merely walking through the tributaries of cause/effect.

              Pretty simple, but it is because the answers it gives often is unfavorable to the actor, the actors tend to ignore or denigrate economics – they want to do their thing without the consequences of that thing – and when those unavoidable consequences explode – they get angry and declare “economics doesn’t work!”

              • I see, but that’s not going to happen. The country will continue to lose jobs to cheaper labor overseas. So how can this be changed? I guess when Obama is done crushing the economy we can start over.

              • The question, really, is:

                Why are you so eager to keep “low paying jobs” at the cost of losing your high paying jobs?

              • BF’s theory won’t let you start over. Everything has to be done overseas because it’s cheaper. I almost think BF is in Obama’s camp sometimes. He certainly doesn’t want the US to have any jobs. Hi BF 😉

              • “Everything” is not done overseas, that is the lie of the position you offer.

                The US is the largest producer of goods in the world – so your argument is meritless.

                What you want is for the US to produce all the goods and everyone else produce nothing – but such a position is utterly bizarre and anti-intellectual.

                You may come back and say “Well, I never said “all”…” .. fine… so what do you allow the rest of the world to produce? Where is your list? Why that stuff and not other stuff? Why do YOU get to chose and they do not get to chose?

                So your position lacks any competency – either the US produces everything, but you can’t intellectually agree to that, or the world produces goods to trade, but you hate that.

                So what do you want in that brain tornado of yours?

              • I claim no stance on the subject. I would think that if there were more jobs, both high and low paying, the economy might be better.

              • Do not trap yourself into a Keynesian incoherency on jobs.

                Consider: if by command the President created the draft – enlisted all men into the army, some as officers (high pay) and others as enlisted (relative low pay), and 100% employment – your “more jobs” is fulfilled.

                Are you richer?

                Who makes the food for the army to eat? The clothes? etc?


                Jobs are economic goods – and obey economic law.

                Replace your demand with apples.

                ” I would think that if there were more apples, both high and low quality, the economy might be better.”

                Now, do you think that statement is true, false, or economically irrelevant?

              • I don’t ask for much..just 20 million jobs.

              • They are there – but you don’t want them.

    • Well. It’s what they voted for.

      My wife’s company is paring down their staff also. She works for a home healthcare company. They are cutting staff because of the reduced Medicaid and Medicare payments starting next year. And they are also going to do the part-time jig.

      Ain’t it grand?!?!? Well, you fools voted for him and now we ALL get to suffer for it.

  25. How do you get to the point in life where this is just a normal way of doing business? Here you go Crazy Charlie, more of your power to the worker!

  26. JAC…have you seen this guy around town?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I have not, but man is that cool. Will keep my eyes open. But I must admit I avoid “downtown” as much as possible.

  27. December 12, 2012
    How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?
    By Justin Hohn

    To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer one crucial question: how much taxation on the top income-earners would be required to fully fund the present level of government spending?

    To do so, we must first make the unreasonable assumption that the rich will not respond to confiscatory tax rates and hide money from being taxed. This is unreasonable because no scheme of taxation since WW2 has been able to capture more than 21% of GDP. With current spending levels around 23% of GDP, history suggests that no level of taxation we have yet tried would actually fully fund our current level of spending. But if we indulged some “static scoring” and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels?

    For example, what would a 100% income tax on all those who earn over $10 million amount to? I’m not taking about a wimpy marginal rate, where one might tax only those dollars of income over $10 million (leaving the taxpayer $10 million). No, I’m saying you find all those who made more than $10 million and take every last penny — an absolute tax of 100%.

    Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million. The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion.

    Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day. Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending.

    If we drop that “tax” point down to $1 million, the picture changes radically. The IRS says 236,883 Americans filed returns with more than $1 million in income. They reported a total income of $726.91B. While that is a lot of money, it’s less than just Medicare and Medicaid, which cost $1 trillion together.

    Confiscating 100% of all income from those who made over $1M funds the federal government for 72 days.

    Therefore, we have to go farther down the income ladder. Merely taking 100% of what the “millionaires and billionaires” are reporting as income won’t do it — despite the campaign rhetoric from the president.

    Let’s move the bogey down to $200,000 in income. That’s even lower than the $250,000-earners President Obama thinks should pay more. What happens if we confiscate 100% of all the income for people who make more than $200K?

    The IRS received 3,924,490 tax returns showing an income over $200K. These returns represent a total income of $1.964 trillion! That’s a huge amount of money.

    But it’s still not enough. The federal government is spending about double that this year.

    Confiscating 100% of the income from those who made more than $200K funds the federal government for only about six months.

    Even if you think that $200K per year is filthy rich, taking all of the income of such people for an entire year isn’t even close to funding our federal government for a full year — never mind state and local government.

    The next step down in the 2009 IRS data is the $100K income point.

    There are a lot more taxpayers reporting over $100K income then there are over $200K. The IRS says that only 2.8% of returns reported over $200K in income, but 12.4% of returns reported over $100K in income. So even though the cutoff is half as much income, it represents about five times as many taxpayers.

    The data indicate that 17,446,537 tax returns showed an income over $100,000. These returns represented a total income of $3.765 trillion.

    Estimated 2012 spending comes in at $3.796 trillion (refer to page 205 here). This is still $30 billion more than a 100% confiscation of the annual income of all Americans that reported more than $100K of income for 2009.

    The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.

    Read more:

    Maybe the Democrats are right-lets party hardy-we are doomed anyway!

    Except!!! I don’t really believe that or maybe I’m just denying the reality because the truth hurts too much. But I still believe we are a big enough part of the world economy to right this ship-if we would just show the world we are serious about stopping the insanity. That is if the Republicans get serious about making Real Cuts and the Democrats would just get REAL.

  28. @ Black Flag, I see your point. As far as the government and what I’d like them to do (The Feds) is just quit 🙂 Too bad that won’t happen either. I guess I’ll just sit back and wait for the bottom to fall out. Those could be interesting and difficult days.

  29. Forget the fiscal crisis, Obama’s plans threaten our American spirit

    By Jon Kraushar

    Published December 11, 2012

    America faces a philosophical “cliff” even more dangerous than the impending “fiscal cliff.”

    The highest stake in the game of chicken between President Obama and the Republicans isn’t money—it is mindset.

    Throughout its history, America has been richer or poorer in money. But what has made our country so exceptional, from its founding, has been a constant store of philosophical wealth. In America, a person’s wealth (whether material or spiritual) used to be defined by a dedication to the virtue of striving.

    What made every American great was a belief in potential—a belief that there are no limits to what an individual can produce for him (or her) self, instead of relying on a government to give away, take away and redistribute. It was a belief that abundance is virtually limitless in human capability, but it is unvirtuously limited by big government.

    President Obama is trying to transform America from a society of aspiration to a society of envy.

    In Obama’s new abnormal America, the national diet for many citizens is changing from high fiber ambition for upward mobility to high fat consumption of an ever-expanding gravy boat of entitlements, ladled out by ceaseless government spending.

    As The Heritage Foundation points out, “Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions.”

    Federal entitlements consume 62 percent of federal outlays—the highest level in our nation’s history. The Declaration of Independence that created America is being distorted into a Declaration of Dependency encouraged by President Obama. This is not just a crisis of the wallet. It is a crisis of the soul.

    What is happening now—the way in which Mr. Obama really wants to “fundamentally transform America”—is that he wants to use the fiscal cliff to propel us over a far more perilous philosophical cliff, which is bottomless in its destructive depth.

    I can only conclude that the president is trying to transform America from a society of aspiration to a society of envy—and if that happens, America risks falling into a philosophical poverty that could starve our country’s uniqueness to death.

    People who love our country should be advocating that we become an Opportunity Society. Resentment of achievement, resentment of success, resentment that people differ in their capabilities and acquisitions, fosters a Misfortune Society. That is a zero sum society, where anyone’s striving and accomplishment necessarily turns someone else into a victim. And in a Misfortune Society, victims must be made whole with pieces taken from so-called “unfair” victors, to be poured into more government spending and more entitlements to insure that voters keep “investing” in the big government that subsidizes them.

    There is a difference between fair share and sharing fairly. America has a progressive system of the fair share that citizens give up to government, regardless of whether it is in the form of money or government control.

    But President Obama wants to stretch that fair share to an unfair point. Instead of citizens admiring success and thinking that with a combination of hard work and limitless opportunity they, too, could achieve the heights of others, Mr. Obama wants to create a citizenry that’s indignant about the success of others. He wants people to believe that someone else’s wealth or possessions of any kind must be punished by being diminished and redistributed, according to the president’s standards of “fairness.”

    What is lost in this warfare of extraction is that you can confiscate and redistribute money or any other kinds of resources. But you cannot insure that wealth and resources will grow and perpetuate unless people have the philosophy—the mindset and attitude—that they will leverage opportunity to personally produce more and more of what they desire. Just as you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity, you cannot tax and spend away the innate ambition of Americans and expect prosperity to flourish.

    America can survive falling off the fiscal cliff. But America cannot survive as the engine of hope, change, growth and leadership for the world if it falls down the philosophical cliff that President Obama wants to create.

    Read more:

    • I’d say these words :
      “What is lost in this warfare of extraction is that you can confiscate and redistribute money or any other kinds of resources. But you cannot insure that wealth and resources will grow and perpetuate unless people have the philosophy—the mindset and attitude—that they will leverage opportunity to personally produce more and more of
      what they desire. Just as you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity, you cannot tax and spend away the innate ambition of Americans and expect prosperity to flourish. ”

      Have a truth in them that no one should be able to deny.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Put another way:

        You can take all the money away from the Rich and give it to the poor. And ten years from now those same Rich people will have all their money back and then some.

        Yes they do have TRUTH in them. Well done, once again. 🙂

  30. Smugglers are literally shooting drugs out cannons into US
    12:19 PM 12/12/2012

    The Atlantic

    Just when you thought drug running couldn’t get more extreme, U.S. border patrol officers find 33 cans of marijuana in the desert near the border that they believe were fired from a cannon in Mexico. Authorities caught wind of the new technique when they received reports of some strange canisters popping up near the Colorado River in southern Arizona recently. Agents arrived at the scene to find the cans which collectively held 85 pounds of marijuana. That’s worth $42,500 on the street. By the looks of it, the smugglers had loaded the cans into a pneumatic-powered cannon (think: potato gun) and blasted them 500 yards over the border. Bummer none of their buddies came to pick it up before the police.

    Full Story: Smugglers are literally shooting drugs out cannons towards the US

    Read more:

    You’ve gotta give them credit for “ingenuity” 🙂

  31. You Can Give a Boy a Doll, but You Can’t Make Him Play With It
    By Christina Hoff Sommers

    Dec 6 2012, 11:29 AM ET 269

    The logistical and ethical problems with trying to make toys gender-neutral

    Is it discriminatory and degrading for toy catalogs to show girls playing with tea sets and boys with Nerf guns? A Swedish regulatory group says yes. The Reklamombudsmannen (RO) has reprimanded Top-Toy, a licensee of Toys”R”Us and one of the largest toy companies in Northern Europe, for its “outdated” advertisements and has pressured it to mend its “narrow-minded” ways. After receiving “training and guidance” from RO equity experts, Top-Toy introduced gender neutrality in its 2012 Christmas catalogue. The catalog shows little boys playing with a Barbie Dream House and girls with guns and gory action figures. As its marketing director explains, “For several years, we have found that the gender debate has grown so strong in the Swedish market that we have had to adjust.”

    Swedes can be remarkably thorough in their pursuit of gender parity. A few years ago, a feminist political party proposed a law requiring men to sit while urinating—less messy and more equal. In 2004, the leader of the Sweden’s Left Party Feminist Council, Gudrun Schyman,proposed a “man tax”—a special tariff to be levied on men to pay for all the violence and mayhem wrought by their sex. In April 2012, following the celebration of International Women’s Day, the Swedes formally introduced the genderless pronoun “hen” to be used in place of he and she (han and hon).

    Egalia, a new state-sponsored pre-school in Stockholm, is dedicated to the total obliteration of the male and female distinction. There are no boys and girls at Egalia—just “friends” and “buddies.” Classic fairy tales like Cinderella and Snow White have been replaced by tales of two male giraffes who parent abandoned crocodile eggs. The Swedish Green Party would like Egalia to be the norm: It has suggested placing gender watchdogs in all of the nation’s preschools. “Egalia gives [children] a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be,” says one excited teacher. (It is probably necessary to add that this is not an Orwellian satire or a right-wing fantasy: This school actually exists.)

    The problem with Egalia and gender-neutral toy catalogs is that boys and girls, on average, do not have identical interests, propensities, or needs. Twenty years ago, Hasbro, a major American toy manufacturing company, tested a playhouse it hoped to market to both boys and girls. It soon emerged that girls and boys did not interact with the structure in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, kissed them, and played house. The boys catapulted the toy baby carriage from the roof. A Hasbro manager came up with a novel explanation: “Boys and girls are different.”

    They are different, and nothing short of radical and sustained behavior modification could significantly change their elemental play preferences. Children, with few exceptions, are powerfully drawn to sex-stereotyped play. David Geary, a developmental psychologist at the University of Missouri, told me in an email this week, “One of the largest and most persistent differences between the sexes are children’s play preferences.” The female preference for nurturing play and the male propensity for rough-and-tumble hold cross-culturally and even cross-species (with a few exceptions—female spotted hyenas seem to be at least as aggressive as males). Among our close relatives such as vervet and rhesus monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by stereotypes in a Top-Toy catalog. Something else is going on.

    Biology appears to play a role. Several animal studies have shown that hormonal manipulation can reverse sex-typed behavior. When researchers exposed female rhesus monkeys to male hormones prenatally, these females later displayed male-like levels of rough-and-tumble play. Similar results are found in human beings. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a genetic condition that results when the female fetus is subjected to unusually large quantities of male hormones—adrenal androgens. Girls with CAH tend to prefer trucks, cars, and construction sets over dolls and play tea sets. As psychologist Doreen Kimura reported in Scientific American, “These findings suggest that these preferences were actually altered in some way by the early hormonal environment.” They also cast doubt on the view that gender-specific play is primarily shaped by socialization.

    Professor Geary does not have much hope for the new gender-blind toy catalogue: “The catalog will almost certainly disappear in a few years, once parents who buy from it realize their kids don’t want these toys.” Most little girls don’t want to play with dump trucks, as almost any parent can attest. Including me: When my granddaughter Eliza was given a toy train, she placed it in a baby carriage and covered it with a blanket so it could get some sleep.

    Androgyny advocates like our Swedish friends have heard such stories many times, and they have an answer. They acknowledge that sex differences have at least some foundation in biology, but they insist that culture can intensify or diminish their power and effect. Even if Eliza is prompted by nature to interact with a train in a stereotypical female way, that is no reason for her parents not to energetically correct her. Hunter College psychologist Virginia Valian, a strong proponent of Swedish-style re-genderization, wrote in the book Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, “We do not accept biology as destiny … We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate… I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences.”

    Valian is absolutely right that we do not have to accept biology as destiny. But the analogy is ludicrous: We vaccinate, inoculate, and medicate children against disease. Is being a gender-typical little boy or girl a pathology in need of a cure? Failure to protect children from small pox, diphtheria, or measles places them in harm’s way. I don’t believe there is any such harm in allowing male/female differences to flourish in early childhood. As one Swedish mother, Tanja Bergkvist, told the Associated Press, “Different gender roles aren’t problematic as long as they are equally valued.” Gender neutrality is not a necessary condition for equality. Men and women can be different—but equal. And for most human beings, the differences are a vital source for meaning and happiness. Since when is uniformity a democratic ideal?

    Few would deny that parents and teachers should expose children to a wide range of toys and play activities. But what the Swedes are now doing in some of their classrooms goes far beyond encouraging children to experiment with different toys and play styles—they are requiring it. And toy companies who resist the gender neutrality mandate face official censure. Is this kind of social engineering worth it? Is it even ethical?

    To succeed, the Swedish parents, teachers and authorities are going to have to police—incessantly—boys’ powerful attraction to large-group rough-and-tumble play and girls’ affinity for intimate theatrical play. As Geary says, “You can change some of these behaviors with reinforcement and monitoring, but they bounce back once this stops.” But this constant monitoring can also undermine children’s healthy development.

    Anthony Pellegrini, a professor of early childhood education at the University of Minnesota, defines the kind of rough-and-tumble play that boys favor as a behavior that includes “laughing, running, smiling, jumping, open-hand beating, wrestling, play fighting, chasing and fleeing.” This kind of play is often mistakenly regarded as aggression, but according to Pellegrini, it is the very opposite. In cases of schoolyard aggression, the participants are unhappy, they part as enemies, and there are often tears and injuries. Rough-and-tumble play brings boys together, makes them happy, and is a critical party of their social development.

    Researchers Mary Ellin Logue (University of Maine) and Hattie Harvey (University of Denver ) agree, and they have documented the benefits of boys’ “bad guy” superhero action narratives. Teachers tend not to like such play, say Logue and Harvey, but it improves boys’ conversation, creative writing skills, and moral imagination. Swedish boys, like American boys, are languishing far behind girls in school. In a 2009 study Logue and Harvey ask an important question the Swedes should consider: “If boys, due to their choices of dramatic play themes, are discouraged from dramatic play, how will this affect their early language and literacy development and their engagement in school?”

    What about the girls? Nearly 30 years ago, Vivian Gussin Paley, a beloved kindergarten teacher at the Chicago Laboratory Schools and winner of a MacArthur “genius” award, published a classic book on children’s play entitled Boys & Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner. Paley wondered if girls are missing out by not partaking in boys’ superhero play, but her observations of the “doll corner” allayed her doubts. Girls, she learned, are interested in their own kind of domination. Boys’ imaginative play involves a lot of conflict and imaginary violence; girls’ play, on the other hand, seems to be much gentler and more peaceful. But as Paley looked more carefully, she noticed that the girls’ fantasies were just as exciting and intense as the boys—though different. There were full of conflict, pesky characters and imaginary power struggles. “Mothers and princesses are as powerful as any superheroes the boys can devise.” Paley appreciated the benefits of gendered play for both sexes, and she had no illusions about the prospects for its elimination: “Kindergarten is a triumph of sexual self-stereotyping. No amount of adult subterfuge or propaganda deflects the five-year-old’s passion for segregation by sex.”

    But subterfuge and propaganda appear to be the order of the day in Sweden. In their efforts to free children from the constraints of gender, the Swedish reformers are imposing their own set of inviolate rules, standards, and taboos. Here is how Slate author Nathalie Rothchild describes a gender-neutral classroom:

    One Swedish school got rid of its toy cars because boys “gender-coded” them and ascribed the cars higher status than other toys. Another preschool removed “free playtime” from its schedule because, as a pedagogue at the school put it, when children play freely ‘stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying.’ And so every detail of children’s interactions gets micromanaged by concerned adults, who end up problematizing minute aspects of children’s lives, from how they form friendships to what games they play and what songs they sing.

    The Swedes are treating gender-conforming children the way we once treated gender-variant children. Formerly called “tomboy girls” and “sissy boys” in the medical literature, these kids are persistently attracted to the toys of the opposite sex. They will often remain fixated on the “wrong” toys despite relentless, often cruel pressure from parents, doctors, and peers. Their total immersion in sex-stereotyped culture—a non-stop Toys”R”Us indoctrination—seems to have little effect on their passion for the toys of the opposite sex. There was a time when a boy who displayed a persistent aversion to trucks and rough play and a fixation on frilly dolls or princess paraphernalia would have been considered a candidate for behavior modification therapy. Today, most experts encourage tolerance, understanding, and acceptance: just leave him alone and let him play as he wants. The Swedes should extend the same tolerant understanding to the gender identity and preferences of the vast majority of children.

  32. December 12, 2012 4:00 A.M.
    ‘Benevolent Sexism’
    Beware! It’s far more insidious than old-fashioned misogyny.

    By Katherine Connell

    Taylor Swift and Katy Perry — not feminists

    Katy Perry recently joined Taylor Swift, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, and French former first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy in the ranks of prominent women who declined to identify themselves as feminists when prompted by reporters. Internet responses to this trend ranged from outrage over their false consciousness to snarky derision of their stupidity to concerned introspection about the failures of feminist branding.

    Another possibility that should be considered is that feminism seems largely irrelevant to an increasing number of Western women because it often appears to be at odds with their experience of reality and their desires. Bruni-Sarkozy explained, “I’m not at all an active feminist. On the contrary, I’m a bourgeoise. I love family life, I love doing the same thing every day.” Her remark is an indication of the gap that often exists between the concerns of feminism and the concerns of women, as was Mayer’s insistence in an interview that she remained unaware throughout high school that girls were supposed to be bad at math and science.

    This gap shouldn’t be that surprising, since feminists aren’t particularly interested in empiricism. This is revealed every time the media write up academic research with findings that feminists deem objectionable. CNN a couple of months ago reported on a study in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science about the effects of ovulation on women’s voting preferences. This study was denounced as patently offensive — more offensive than, say, the Obama campaign’s telling women they should “vote like your lady parts depend on it.” In response to the backlash, CNN yanked the piece from its website, explaining that “some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.”

    Meanwhile, last week on Slate, Amanda Marcotte began a piece decrying a study whose results she didn’t like by noting that at least it was unlike other studies whose results she didn’t like in that it avoided “theorizing that women are hard-wired to like shiny things in velvet boxes because something something caveman days.” In the study, researchers surveyed 277 students at UC Santa Cruz and found that two-thirds of them “definitely” thought that men should propose marriage to women. Only 2.8 percent of the women felt that they would “kind of” want to propose to their boyfriends, and zero men felt that they would like to receive such a proposal. Marcotte worried that “this benevolent sexism . . . leeches women of much of their autonomy” and predicted that this pernicious state of affairs will persist until we “dramatically restructure our cultural understanding of gender and romance.”

    If you’re wondering what “benevolent sexism” is and why it’s a problem, don’t worry — there are reams of social-science literature dedicated to addressing those questions. Here’s a definition from an article by Juliet Wakefield et al. in the November issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly entitled, “Thanks, but No Thanks: Women’s Avoidance of Help-Seeking in the Context of a Dependency-Related Stereotype”: “Whereas some forms of sexism are explicitly misogynistic, others are less so, and it is common to distinguish between hostile (old-fashioned) sexism and benevolent (modern) sexism.”

    Rachael Robnett, the graduate student who surveyed the students at UC Santa Cruz, is also on the case. She explained to Live Science that people who hold traditional notions about romance and marriage tend also to believe that women should be cherished and protected, which sounds nice but actually is not: It’s benevolent sexism. “The flip side, which is more insidious, is that it is robbing women of some agency,” she said.

    Charles Murray recently highlighted another Psychology of Women Quarterly study on benevolent sexism in a blog post he titled, “The Bad News Is That Gentlemanly Behavior Makes People Happy.” Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker found that the phenomenon was “associated with life satisfaction for both women and men” and concluded: “The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.” Murray wondered, “When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy? Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?” That, however, would require them to accept the idea that there is such a thing as human nature, and that it is fixed.

    Because benevolent sexism is so much more insidious than old-fashioned “hostile sexism,” social scientists are forced to be creative in their attempts to measure it and analyze the negative effects they know it has on women. Consider the scenario constructed by Juliet Wakefield and her colleagues in their study of how women avoid seeking help in the context of “a dependency-related stereotype.” The university women selected for the experiment are individually allowed to “overhear” a fake phone call the female researcher supposedly receives from Joe the plumber, who is working in her apartment and has moved some of her furniture around without asking. After she hangs up, she says to some of the participants in the study, “Sorry about that — my plumber is such a typical man — he thinks that women are incapable of doing anything on their own!” To the others she says, “Sorry about that, my plumber is the most impatient person in the world.” It turns out that the young women exposed to the former statement — which sounds as if it is describing something a bit more hostile than benevolent — were subsequently less likely to ask for help with solving some anagrams, and they felt bad about themselves when they did ask for help. Conclusion: “All in all, our findings underline the point that the benevolent sexism in everyday banal interactions can be consequential for women’s emotions and behavior, and is, therefore, anything but banal.”

    I tried to reflect a little on whether my banal interactions with benevolently sexist men have been undermining my emotional health and affecting my behavior without my realizing it. The other day, I asked a male co-worker for assistance with a technical issue. It’s hard to know if he was subtly robbing me of my agency, because he didn’t reply, “Oh, the network server, that’s so difficult and frustrating for a woman to grapple with. Let me do it for you,” as did the man in a script presented to students in the 2011 study “Damned if She Does, Damned if She Doesn’t: Consequences of Accepting versus Confronting Patronizing Help for the Female Target and Male Actor.” Instead, he just sent me the relevant link and went back to work.

    I don’t think most women actually want to live in a world where men don’t offer to help them lug heavy suitcases up staircases or hold doors for them or propose marriage — never mind going down with the Titanic. If feminists find these things deplorable and in need of eradication, they can hardly be surprised when women fail to identify with their cause.

    Surprise, Surprise-Woman and Men are different-to bad being Either is now considered a bad thing.

  33. Obama’s America Will Become Detroit
    By Terence P. Jeffrey
    December 12, 2012
    Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey’s posts

    President Barack Obama travelled to Michigan this week and made his case for class war
    in defense of the welfare state.

    We need to take more money from the rich, he said, or schools will not be able to afford books, students will not be able to afford college, and disabled children will not get health care.

    “Our economic success has never come from the top down,” said Obama. “It comes from the middle out. It comes from the bottom up.”

    Obama spoke these words a few miles from Detroit — the reductio ad absurdum of his argument.

    If America continues down the road to Obama’s America — a road that began when President Franklin Roosevelt started building a welfare state here — our entire nation will become Detroit.

    Obama’s economic and moral vision has played out in that city. What he seeks has been achieved there.

    Last week, as reported by the Detroit Free Press, Michigan’s state treasurer told Detroit’s mayor and city council that the state may soon appoint an emergency financial manager for the city. Under Michigan law, the paper said, only such a manager can initiate the steps leading to a bankruptcy filing for the city.

    By current calculations, Detroit faces obligations over the next six months that exceed its revenues by $47 million. The city, the Free Press reported, now pays $1.08 in benefits to municipal workers and retirees for every $1.00 it pays in salary.

    What happened to Detroit? It is achieving socialism in one city.

    Traditional two-parent families and the productive taxpaying citizens they produce have fled. In 1950, according the U.S. Census Bureau, Detroit had 1,849,568 people and was the fifth-largest city in the nation. By 2000, its population had dropped to 951,270; by 2010, to 713,777; and by 2011, to 706,585.

    What has happened to the people who remain? The Census Bureau estimates there are 563,055 people age 16 or older in the city who could potentially work and be part of the labor force. But only 54.3 percent of these — or 305,479 individuals — actually do participate in the labor force, meaning they either have a job or are looking for one.
    Another 257,576 of Detroit residents age 16 or older — 45.7 percent of that demographic — do not participate in the labor force. They do not have a job, and they are not looking for one.

    In fact, these 257,576 people in Detroit who do not have a job and are not looking for one outnumber the 224,846 residents who do have jobs. But of the 224,846 residents who do have jobs, 34,500 — or 15.3 percent — have jobs with the government. Thus, this city that boasted 1,849,568 residents in 1950 has only 190,346 private-sector workers today.

    There are 264,209 households in Detroit, and 91,204 of them — or 34.5 percent — get food stamps.

    Very few of the people who are staying out of the labor force in Detroit are staying out because they are stay-at-home moms with working husbands. Of the 264,209 households in Detroit, only 24,275 — or 9.2 percent — are married couple families with children under 18. Another 78,438 households — or 29.7 percent of the total — are “families” headed by women with no husband present. Of these, 43,742 have children under 18.

    There were 12,103 babies born in Detroit in the 12 months prior to the Census Bureau survey, and 9,124 of them — or 75.4 percent — were born to unmarried women.

    Of the 363,281 housing units in Detroit, 99,072 are vacant. Indeed, vacant houses have become a powerful visual symbol of what advancing socialism has done to the city. Traditional family life is nearing extinction in this once vibrant corner of America.

    Obama said in Michigan that if the federal government does not take more money away from people who have earned it, the public schools may not be able to buy school books. But the Department of Education says that in the Detroit public schools — which have books — only 7 percent of the eight graders are grade-level proficient in reading and only 4 percent are grade-level proficient in math.

    School books are not lacking here. Self-reliance, the spirit of individualism, and the Judeo-Christian values that support marriage and family are. They have been driven out by a government that wants the people to depend on it rather than on themselves, their families and their faith.

    And they’re worried about being a “right to work” State. Seems to me they have much bigger things to worry about -than weather or not the Unions get to become millionaires on their dime.

  34. I am majorly confused-on what grounds would the government ever pay the salaries of Union employees? I don’t get it-The Union, its self is not a government employee-right?

    • Sorry-this might help with the above questions. 🙂

      Report: Taxpayers Pay $4.8M for Union Bosses’ Salaries in Single Dept.

      by Matthew Boyle 12 Dec 2012, 10:58 AM PDT 6 post a comment

      A newly-released report from the conservative Americans for Limited Government (ALG), obtained by Breitbart News, found that taxpayers are footing a $4.8 million bill for the salaries of 35 union officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

      The ALG report used documents the group obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that taxpayers are actually paying these 35 union officials’ salaries. Only three of them make less than $100,000 per year, and the average taxpayer-funded union boss salary is $138,175 per year.

      Eight of the union bosses on the taxpayer payroll at the Department of Transportation make more than $170,000, too.

      The union officials taxpayers are paying for come from various labor unions, too. They include the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and the AFL-CIO affiliated Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS).

      ALG president Bill Wilson said in a release announcing the report that it’s “obscene that in one Department alone, taxpayers are being stuck with almost $5 million in public employee union salary costs, these unions collect member dues and should pay for their own employees.”

      “Big Labor has been a primary financier for the far left advocates of expanded government, it is time for elected officials to cut off the gravy train of having the taxpayers pay for union salaries,” Wilson said. “It is simply wrong for American workers who have a median household income of just more than $50,000, to pay the freight for non-productive government workers who make more than two and a half times that amount.”

      ALG notes that labor unions have in recent years become “increasingly dependent” on public sector unionization because private sector unions’ membership levels have plummeted. To stay relevant and remain a political force with an adequate cash flow, unions have targeted virtually helpless government workers to try to fill the void.

      A spokesperson for the Department of Transportation didn’t immediately respond to Breitbart News’ request for comment.

      • In NYC, union officers and reps remain on the city payroll while they perform union duties. For some bigger unions like Police, Fire, Sanitation, the union officers spend full time on union business. Smaller unions and lower level officials get time off (paid) for union work.

        The logic, as near as I could figure it out when I worked there was that the Reps need to stay on payroll to theoretically someday return to their jobs and to amass pension credit.

  35. Oh well, I guess no one wants to talk today-you would pick a day I am bored, bored , bored. Guess I’ll go find something else to do. 🙂

  36. I just took a look-see … wondering: What are these lunatics arguing over now … and what do I see, a bored V.H. … with 4,000 posts … come on, folks, pick up a book every now and again … treat those souls of yours to a little light … the election is over … it doesn’t make a difference who’s in office or what either party says or does … look at HSBC the other day … guilty of money laundering to drug cartels and our illustrious justice department isn’t going to prosecute … kind of reminds me of the “bailout” …

    Like I said, read a book … any book … or listen to music … any music … do something with your lives besides live it in here …:) It’s way too short to waste …

    • You do realize Charlie that you just lectured people on not spending their life on SUFA-on a day, when almost nobody, except me, was on here. Or were you just talking to me. 🙂

      And I think 4000 posts was a slight exaggeration. 🙂 And what are you complaining about anyway-I was reading. He he he

      • I only saw your posts … oy vey …:)

        Hey, watch the movie below. If you haven’t seen it, you’ll love it. If you already saw it, see it again. If you see it and don’t love it, check your heart …:)

  37. For the soul, amici … for the soul:

  38. This is interesting and may have far reaching issues that all of us may have to deal with, or, are dealing with. Since I am considered Batshit Crazy by some 🙂 I found it interesting anyway.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      They forgot Dogs!

      I know of one lady shrink, who hired another shrink, for her dogs emotional problems. Now this first lady shrink claims to be able to have deep conversations with her dog about the dogs feelings.

      How many saw this before LOL!!!

      In all fairness I must say. I have a dog that would wander off and I would worry. When she came back I would scold her. This went on and on. Finally one day she was gone waayy to long. When she finally came back I gave her the biggest longest hug ever. She has not left since! Hugs can work! (Try not to laugh to much!)


    Look, Mini Trayvon’s in action. I don’t need a reason to carry, but this is a good example of why everyone should. Deterence can work.

  40. From my FB post today …
    HSBC gets “fined” for money laundering for drug cartels … sure, that’s what would happen if we did the same thing. Thanks a lot, Mr. President. Your Justice Department is proving as empty as your promises to unions. Let’s just call this another bailout … nobody goes to jail (unless it’s one of us suckers).

    • …assuming that “money laundering” is a real crime… which it isn’t….

      • Keith Jackson says:

        That doesn’t negate the original point, though. That being that friends of the government get a slap on the wrist for ‘things’ for which a regular person would go to jail for years, whether for a legitimate crime or not.

        • Booya, BF! Mark this down for the good guys! 🙂

          • Booya?
            The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570) is a United States Act of Congress that made money laundering a Federal crime. It was passed in 1986.

            • Not arguing that, Mr Stella. I just like that Kieth kept BF on task 🙂

            • Just because the government doesn’t like what some does does not make that act wrong.

              What government declares “illegal” is merit-less – government justifies killing kids just as easily.

              This is where you apply principles, Charlie – you know, that thing you don’t have – to figure out right and wrong.

              You merely rely on your “betters” to tell you right or wrong because you can’t figure it out for yourself.

        • Hi Keith,

          I say that the original point – that someone escapes being attacked by government for doing what really is not crime – is not truly an example of two-faced justice.

          Charlie presented this as a demand for the punishment – he wants them jailed – not that there are those that escape punishment vs those that do not.

          Instead, we should cheer the escape instead of demand that these men should be pulled in and punished for doing nothing wrong.

          • Flagster, The anti-laundering law isfor tax collection, a crime in itself (of course you know this). Using the same excuse the Left uses about the Constitution, why should we obey something written by a bunch of dead white men. Drugs should be legal and taxes shouldn’t. Then again, what would one expect when you get a large group of stupid people together and give them power (Congress).

          • Keith Jackson says:

            Fascinating, reply-by-email uses my full name. Will reply in detail when I get home. (this is DKII, btw)

            • “Whoa, Nellie!”

              Look who we have in the SUFA Big House!

              , “Fum-BLE!”

              • Haha. Haven’t heard that one a million times. 😛

                It’s probably actually easier to search and find posts under my pseudonym than my real name, anyway. There’s hundreds of us on Facebook. 🙂

        • Further, Keith, it does show that this criminalization of a non-crime really is not a crime. When Government is whimsical in its application of enforcement is typically the biggest alert that it is a “government-made” crime and not really a crime against free men.

          • And further, Keith, the fact that if you or I do it (money laundering) in the REAL WORLD where you and I live, we’ll go to jail. That’s the point the moron pseudo name above will never address … why? Because he’s an asshole.

            • Nonsense, Charlie.

              That’s not what you said.
              You do know we can read your old posts, right?

              Quote: “….nobody goes to jail ….”

              You said that instead of:
              “No one should go to jail over money-laundering; its a stupid law – and its used to track us peons financial transactions by the government and nothing else.”

              • Asshole Alert! Asshole Alert!

              • Typical Charlie,

                Caught lying again – starts throwing dirt in the air.

              • BF

                How do you define-money laundering-I have always believed it was knowingly covering up the making of money in an illegal manner. Why shouldn’t doing so -be illegal?

              • 1) Who is it harming? (No one)
                2) What are they doing? (Trading money for money)
                3) Do you trade money for money? Ever got change for a $100 into smaller bills? Guess what – that’s money laundering!

                You ask “ an illegal manner…” but what manner of voluntary trade between two people makes the trade illegal? What can you think of?

              • You lost me-I am saying that the making of the original money was illegal? The trading of money for money is only illegal if you are intentionally trying to hide the fact the original money was stolen. Such as someone makes money selling children into prostitution and then another person takes that money and launders it for that someone to hide the crime.

              • V.H.

                You lost me-I am saying that the making of the original money was illegal?

                An artificial law which then creates another artificial law does not make the first artificial law a “Real” law.

                The trading of money for money is only illegal if you are intentionally trying to hide the fact the original money was stolen.

                This is equal to saying that using a telephone to hire a taxi so to escape from a crime makes the use of the phone and taxi illegal.

              • “An artificial law which then creates another artificial law does not make the first artificial law a “Real” law.”

                Maybe I’m reading this wrong but-Are you saying , in your opinion, there isn’t an illegal way to make money in the first place so another artificial law on top of an already artificial law is redundant?

              • Maybe I’m reading this wrong but-Are you saying , in your opinion, there isn’t an illegal way to make money in the first place so another artificial law on top of an already artificial law is redundant?

                First question you need to ask yourself and answer to me:
                “What principle are you invoking to determine “good” law vs “bad” law? or, as I put it, “real” law vs “artificial” law?)

                You keep using “illegal” – which merely means the government has decided it doesn’t like a certain behavior – but illegal has no merit in determining “right or wrong or moral or immoral”.

                Government can make skipping rope illegal – would you then pontificate about the “evil” of rope skipping??

                Next, you say “MAKING money” – specifically, there is no bad why to MAKE money. Making money means trading and earning. Unless you are stealing, like the government does, by threats and coercion, there is NO way making money is ‘wrong’.

                The addition of more artificial law seems necessary for government to enforce its firs set of artificial laws. Making drugs illegal did not stop drugs – so they tried making money off of selling illegal drugs illegal.

                The consequence: you and everyone on SUFA probably engages in some sort of money laundering – an illegal act – by simply the way you manage your money. You are resting on the government not choosing to act against you – but if it wants, it could and you’d be in a lot of trouble.

                Indeed, money laundering laws turned upside down your required though processing.

                Before, you had to contemplate hard on how to hide your money from prying eyes. Your default operation of cash mechanics -requiring no real thinking- was never an issue.

                Now, you HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE HARD on how to avoid not money laundering. Your default operation of cash mechanics may get into serious legal trouble.

            • Let’s finish that sentence 🙂 The money was stolen or made doing something illegal.

          • I’m not so sure about that. You could replace ‘money laundering’ with ‘killed someone while drunk driving’ and the point would be pretty much the same, if not to the same extent.


            • Well, that clear it up …

              Oy vey …

            • Yeah, but that’s not the case.

              Very few avoid the law when they kill someone – such cases ‘big-money’ are merely more well known because they are ‘big-money’; but in a more reasoned review, they are dealt as severe consequences as you would be.

              That’s the point. “government-law” is enforced on the whim of government. “Real-law” is enforced by government by the demand of the people.

              When government fails to enforce “real-law”, real people tend to riot and revolt.

              No one is going to revolt over some Joe not getting a jail term for trading money.

  41. I don’t know why they keep doing polls for what the voters think. The voters voted for Obama, so now they get what they voted FOR. What they think now is irrelevant. Obama will do what HE wants. What YOU want means NOTHING now.



    The government is selling lots for $200, and including a $200 gift card to anyone who lives next door to a government-owned lot – so to end the blight and deter dumping.


    The government just admitted that PRIVATE PROPERTY owners care better for property then government *public* ownership.

  43. @Charlie, Try to curb your dislike, your becoming the only asshole!

  44. Bottom Line says:
  45. HSBC, money laundering and Gustavo Dudamel (trying to get SUFA whackos to stop and smell the roses, hear the music, etc. …
    A Stark House Christmas … One More Bailout (HSBC) … Two Foreign Flicks …

  46. Just some thoughts this morning.

    @Charlie, You Sir, are displaying the signs of early Alzheimers. It begins with reverting back to your 12 year old schoolboy mentallity. Go see a doctor 🙂 Also, after one of your thief freinds tried unsuccessfully to take what was mine (money) and failed, causing delays in all my financial matters, I will get your booze today (I’m wondering if your mature enough for me to legally send it 😆 )

    This article As well as the recent comments by Harry Belefonte make me wonder. If rational people treat others based on their charactor and NOT the color of their skin, why do these two examples of poor wording make it hard to accept them as less than high charactor people? Or are they part of the reason that there is still alot of racial tension in the US?

  47. The great government lie!

    This is pure theater and obedience training. What a joke this agency truly is.

  48. I’m not gonna pretend that I understand anything I just read-But are these people serious?

    Whoa: Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation
    By Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News | The Sideshow – 18 hrs ago

    Could this be a computer simulation? ( you take the red pill or the blue pill?

    Some physicists and university researchers say it’s possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film “The Matrix.”

    In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, “The Simulation Argument,” which argued that, “we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.” Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we’re all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization’s computer game.

    Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.

    So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.

    “This is the first testable signature of such an idea,” Savage said. “If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge.”

    The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: “Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences.”

    To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there’s a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.

    Interestingly, one of Savage’s students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?

    University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should “simply” attempt to communicate with those. “The question is, ‘Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'” she asked.

    • Don’t worry about not understanding.
      It is bluntly stupid.

      They are logical idiots.

      If the universe is works like a set of rules in a computer game (called “natural laws”) it must be a computer game!

      If hair grows on the head of a man, anyone who has hair on their head must be a man!

      You can ignore nonsense like this, V.H.

  49. Monday, 10 December 2012 12:45
    U.S. Troops Are Reported Back in Iraq Over Syrian Crisis
    Written by Jack Kenny

    U.S. Troops Are Reported Back in Iraq Over Syrian Crisis

    More than 3,000 U.S. military personnel have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait and 17,000 more are on their way in response to the civil war in Syria that has spilled over into northern Iraq, according to a report published Monday by Iran’s Press TV.

    The news follows by four days a report from the Russian news service RT that the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower has joined the USS Iwo Jima off the coast of Syria. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week issued stern warnings to Syria about unspecified but serious “consequences” that would follow if government forces in Syria were to use chemical weapons against insurgents fighting to overthrow the government led by President Bashar al-Assad. The warnings came after reports that intelligence sources have reported signs of activity where the Assad regime is believed to have chemical weapons stored. At the same time, U.S. officials have expressed concern over the possibility that Jihadist elements among the rebel forces might capture those same weapons. Israel is worried — along with Western nations — that the militant Islamic group Hezbollah, an ally of Iran and enemy of Israel, might be among the rebels likely to get hold of and use chemical weapons.

    The United States and other nations wanting to help the Syrian rebels in their efforts to topple the Assad regime are also concerned about Nusra Front, the one Syrian rebel group with the explicit “stamp of approval from al Qaeda,” according to a New York Times report that identified the group as “a direct offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq.” A veteran of the al-Qaeda force in Iraq, who said he has led the Nusra Front’s efforts in Syria, is quoted in the Times as saying: “This is just a simple way of returning the favor to our Syrian brothers that fought with us on the lands of Iraq.”

    Faisal al-Maqdad, Syria’s deputy foreign minister, denied last week that his government has chemical weapons and called the warnings a “pretext for invasion” of Syria by Western nations. “Syria stresses again, for the tenth, the hundredth time, that if we had such weapons, they would not be used against its people. We would not commit suicide,” Maqdad, said in apparent recognition of the retaliation by outside forces that the use of such weapons would bring.

    Without citing specific numbers of troops on the U.S. ships off the Syrian coast, RT reported that the Eisenhower is equipped to carry eight fighter-bombers and 8,000 men, while the Iwo Jima is designed to carry 2,500 U.S. Marines. RT last week also quoted an Australian news report of U.S. covert forces either in or very near Syria, ready to strike. “We have (US) special operations forces at the right posture, they don’t have to be sent,” an unnamed U.S. official told The Australian.

    Germany’s cabinet, meanwhile, has approved stationing Patriot anti-missile batteries on Turkey’s border with Syria, a step requiring deployment of NATO troops and arousing fears by the Assad regime that the move is a prelude to an imposition of a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the rebels from aerial bombardment by government forces.

    There has been no United Nations resolution authorizing the establishment of either a no-fly zone or of U.S. ground forces. More importantly for the United States, there has been no authorization from Congress, as the Constitution requires, for the Obama administration to intervene militarily in the Syrian conflict. There is, however, a long line of precedents of presidents waging war without congressional approval, including the aerial campaign ordered by President Obama in 2011 in a “humanitarian intervention” to save the rebel forces that toppled the Moammar Gadhafi regime in Libya. Anti-Western, militant Islamic groups involved in the fighting against Gadhafi’s forces later participated in the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

  50. December 14, 2012
    How Socialism Has Doomed France
    By William Sullivan

    The French government is wringing its hands in frustration about how to deal with wealthy French nationals who are expatriating to avoid France’s crushing new tax hikes.

    World-renowned actor Gérard Depardieu, for example, has recently decided to take up
    residence just across the Belgian border to avoid the tax penalty he would incur by remaining in France. This is merely an allegation at this point, of course, but it seems a safe guess that Depardieu has noticed French politicians’ distaste for the wealthy — which is not a feat of consciousness, considering that the new socialist president François Hollande has famously quipped, “I don’t like the rich” while campaigning on promises to “tax annual income of more than one million euros per year at 75 percent.”

    It’s just the latest of many black eyes for France’s new administration. France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, has applied for Belgian citizenship, and according to The Telegraph, “among Mr. Depardieu’s new neighbors in the village of Nechin will be members of the Mulliez family, who own the Auchan supermarket chain.” And for months now, wealthy French families have been buying real estate in England, thanks in part to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s shrewd marketing. Seeking to poach tax revenue from France, he has promised successful French families and businesses that the U.K. will “roll out the red carpet” in welcoming them. Understandably, they find that message a tad more attractive than Hollande’s.

    This presents problems for French socialists beyond the immediate loss of revenue which would finance their proposed top-down redistribution. There is also the issue of image. After all, convincing the world that France’s socialist government is successful is a pretty tough sell when the successful want absolutely nothing to do with it.

    It is no coincidence that those who would be required to finance a Utopian redistribution of wealth are rarely supporters of implementing such a model. John Locke observed that natural laws exist, independent of any system of government, and among these are not only the individual’s fundamental right to life and liberty, but also a right to “property,” which can be described as the product of a person’s labor and enterprise.

    Most Westerners would say that they accept this assumption in theory, but due to a curious caveat in human nature, many only limitedly accept it in practice. An individual will typically be far more concerned with the preservation of this natural right to “property” when it is his own “property” that is targeted for seizure. The Occupier of Zuccotti Park, for example, may find it a travesty that a homeless man steals his wallet to subsidize a livelihood, but when a homeless man has his livelihood subsidized by someone else’s wallet in a transaction brokered by the government, the incident somehow becomes noble and necessary.

    It is the tragic flaw by which the grand ambition of socialism has always failed, and will always fail. Human nature resists any attempt to seize one’s property beyond what he would willingly give. This is the very basis of the social contract between a free man and a just government. A man chooses to take part. If that social contract is amended to be uniquely biased against his right to property, absent his consent, he may rightfully exercise his right to liberty and seek avenues to establish a new contract with a government, either by revolution or, more commonly today, expatriation.

    France lacked the foresight to anticipate this natural outcome, which poses a massive problem for the country’s future. In a sense, the fate of the nation is tied to the outcome of its redistributive endeavors. And so, France finds itself it the distinctive, though not unique, situation where left-wing socialism and far-right nationalism have become symbiotic bedfellows.

    Therefore, these wealthy individuals, who have the audacity to abscond with their own property that the government has decided belongs to the collective, are being vilified from all angles. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stirs the anger of the socialism-loving French people by reminding them that “[w]e cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity.” Consumption minister Benoit Hamon called the move by Depardieu, in particular, “anti-patriotic.” Ever the tolerant ideologues, voices of the French left have kindly commented on Depardieu’s personal choice by labeling him a “drunken, obese petit-bourgeois reactionary.” And right-wing nationalists aren’t letting the leftists poke all the fun, as National Front leader Marine Le Pen said that wealthy exiles like Depardieu just want to “have their cake and eat it,” a phrase which arouses a particularly clever subtext in terms of the history of French nationalism.

    Thankfully, Mr. Depardieu doesn’t have a guillotine in his future. The ol’ blade of French social justice is a bit grotesque for modern sensibilities, having recently been retired and all. (However, I absolutely anticipate French bloggers and upcoming political cartoons to make use of its symbolic value in calling for these greedy villains’ heads.) But punishments for expatriation are being offered, including the threat to strip these rich defectors of their French citizenship if they refuse to pay the required tribute to their motherland. I expect that these punishments will only become more creative and painful as expatriation creates an increasingly large shortfall in the redistributive pot.

    France is now presented with a choice, and frankly, it is not so dissimilar to our own, considering that Barack Obama’s vision for America mirrors (though currently to a lesser extent) that of Hollande. France can continue on its projected path to discriminately seize substantially more property from the wealthy, and watch as its most successful producers leave the country with their ample resources, leaving an impossible burden upon the middle class to finance the collective welfare. Or it can continue on that same projected path, but choose to do what socialist governments have historically done when confronted with selfish well-to-dos who refuse to finance a collectivist paradise for the ne’er-do-wells. They can institute rigid policy to punish the wealthy brigands for their insolence and confiscate the demanded tribute by any means necessary — and it will be presented as necessary, as the survival of France will depend on it.

    At any rate, either path leads to failure in terms of freedom and prosperity. This is a fate that France now seems doomed to suffer.

    France could, of course, take the third way, and abandon the foolish endeavor to redistribute its way to Utopia. But I harbor little hope for that, at least with the current administration — on that side of the pond or this one.

    Read more:

  51. Oh, Lord help us-Not again!

    CBS News: 27 Dead, Including 14 Children, In Elementary School Shooting
    December 14, 2012 12:49 PM

    NEWTOWN, Conn. (CBS Connecticut/AP) — CBS News is reporting that 27 people are dead, including 14 students, after a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The gunman is among the dead.

    CBS News’ John Miller reports there is preliminary information that the gunman was the father of one of the students. Miller additionally reports the gunman is 20 years old and is from New Jersey.

    The shooter was killed and apparently had two guns, a person with knowledge of the shooting said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way. It is not known whether the shooter took his own life or was killed.

    Two students and a teacher were also injured in the shooting and they were taken to Dansbury Hospital, spokeswoman Diane Burke told CBS News York.

    Teachers and police escorted students out of the building following the shooting.

    “It was a very orderly evacuation given the circumstances,” Connecticut Post reporter Brian Koonz told CBS New York.

    One mother tells CBS 2 reporter Lou Young that it’s like a “war zone” in Newtown. Her child told Young he had bullets “whizzing by” him in the hallway and that a teacher pulled him into a classroom.

    Connecticut State Police tell CBS Connecticut that it is “still an active situation.”

    Police responded to the school shooting at 9:41 a.m. WFSB-TV reporter Len Besthoff calls it a “chaotic scene.”

    Stephen Delgiadice said his 8-year-old daughter heard two big bangs and teachers told her to get in a corner. His daughter was fine.

    “It’s alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America,” he said.

    The school superintendent’s office says the district has locked down schools as a preventive measure to ensure the safety of students and staff. Schools in neighboring towns also were locked down as a precaution.

    State police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance says they have a number of personnel on the scene to assist.

    The White House said President Barack Obama was notified of the shooting.

    This shooting rivals the massacres at Virginia Tech in 2007 where 32 people were killed and at Columbine High School in 1999 where 13 were gunned down.

    • Government cannot protect you – but certainly can cluster people together to make easier targets.

      One word:


      • BF, that is the most absurd argument for homeschooling I have ever heard…

        • It’s a solid argument, Buck.

          Keeping kids in the hands of government who disarms you, yet cannot protect you , is, bluntly, ignorant.

          And worse, in the demands to protect these kids, even worse police state jackboot thugs are going to turn schools into “voluntary” prisons with bars, chains, gates….

          Keep your kids close.

          • No, its a silly argument. And what makes matters worse is you know it to be a silly argument and would rake anyone else who made such a silly argument over the coals for it.

            There are valid arguments for homeschooling out there. This is just not one of them. I expect better from you.

            • Is schooling not REQUIRED for children by government?
              You have some choices on where/how to school, but public (gov. controlled) is easiest. Rarely is there a charter or private school that is as easy or cheap to attend. Homeschooling is obstructed by most schools, again, not as easy.
              After the Columbine shooting, the gov. required armed police officers to insure the schools safety. For the majority of students, they are forced to attend public schools, assured of their safety, and when it fails, gun laws are blamed.

            • Why bother, Buck. He’s just give you a headache. 🙂

            • Nonsense, Buck.

              For sure, and you know this, every parent who did not have a kid in that school is very thankful.

              And, for sure, that includes 100% of homeschooling parents.

              And, for sure, 100% of the parents now suffering wish they had.

              • Absolute BS.

                Of course every single parent of a child at that school is worried about their child today. But to say they all wish they had homeschooled their child instead of sent them to such a ‘dangerous’ place!? By your logic every single parent in the country would currently be considering homeschooling to ‘save’ their child. That’s a leap even for you.

                Not to mention how rare school shootings actually are…

              • Buck,

                By your logic every single parent in the country would currently be considering homeschooling to ‘save’ their child. That’s a leap even for you.

                No, Buck – that is YOUR bizarre logic, not mine.

                I merely stated that those that ARE homeschooled are thankful and have no regrets today.

              • Not to mention how rare school shootings actually are…

                Well, actually, you are wrong – depending on your calculation of “rare”

                Here’s a list

                November 2, 1853: Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed Schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the Schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted.[20]

                An April 30, 1866 editorial in the New York Times argued against students carrying pistols, citing “…pistols being dropped on the floor at balls or being exploded in very inconvenient ways. A boy of 12 has his pantaloons made with a pistol pocket; and this at a boarding-school filled with boys, who, we suppose, do or wish to do the same thing. We would advise parents to look into it, and learn whether shooting is to be a part of the scholastic course which may be practiced on their boys; or else we advise them to see that their own boys are properly armed with the most approved and deadly-pistol, and that there may be an equal chance at least of their shooting as of being shot.”[21]

                June 8, 1867: New York City At Public School No. 18, a 13 year old lad brought a pistol loaded and capped, without the knowledge of his parents or school-teachers, and shot and injured a classmate.[22]

                December 22, 1868: Chattanooga, Tennessee A boy who refused to be whipped and left school, returned with his brother and a friend, the next day to seek revenge on his teacher. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle rang out, leaving three dead. Only the brother survived.[23]

                March 9, 1873: Salisbury, Maryland After school as Miss Shockley was walking with four small children, she was approached by a Mr. Hall and shot. The Schoolmaster ran out, but she was dead instantly. Hall threw himself under a train that night.[24]

                May 24, 1879: Lancaster, New York As the carriage loaded with female students was pulling out of the school’s stables, Frank Shugart, a telegraph operator, shot and severely injured Mr. Carr, Superintendent of the stables.[25]

                March 6, 1884: Boston, Massachusetts As news of Jesse James reached the east coast, young kids started to act in the same manner. An article from the New York Times reads, Another “Jesse James” Gang – Word was brought to the Fifth Police Station to-night that a number of boys were using the Concord-street School-house for some unknown purpose, and a posse of officers was sent to investigate. The gang scattered at the approach of the police, and in their flight one drew a revolver and fired at Officer Rowan, without effect, however. William Nangle, age 14, and Sidney Duncan, age 12, were captured, but the other five or six escaped, among them the one who did the shooting. The boys refused to disclose the object of their meeting, but it is thought that another “Jesse James” organization has been broken up.[26]

                March 15, 1884: Gainsville, Georgia In the middle of the day, a group of very drunk Jackson County farmers left the Jug Tavern drinking and shooting their revolvers as they headed down the street driving people into their homes. As they approached the female academy, the girls fled the schoolyard into the school where the gang followed swearing and shooting, firing several rounds into the front door. No one was hurt.[27]

                July 4, 1886: Charleston, South Carolina During Sunday school, Emma Connelly shot and killed John Steedley for “circulating slanderous reports” about her, even though her brother publicly whipped him a few days earlier.[28]

                June 12, 1887: Cleveland, Tennessee Will Guess went to the school and fatally shot Miss Irene Fann, his little sister’s teacher, for whipping her the day before.[29]

                June 13, 1889: New Brunswick, New Jersey Charles Crawford upset over an argument with a school Trustee, went up to the window and fired a pistol into a crowded school room. The bullet lodged in the wall just above the teacher’s[vague] head.[30]

                The first known mass shooting in the U.S. where students were shot, was on April 9, 1891, when 70 year old, James Foster fired a shotgun at a group of students in the playground of St. Mary’s Parochial School, Newburgh, New York, causing minor injuries to several of the students.[31] The majority of attacks during this time period by students on other students or teacher, usually involved stabbing with knives, or hitting with stones.


                There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.

                February 26, 1902: Camargo, Illinois teacher Fletcher R. Barnett shot and killed another teacher, Eva C. Wiseman, in front of her class at a school near Camargo, Illinois. After shooting at a pupil who came to help Miss Wiseman and wounding himself in a failed suicide attempt he waited in the classroom until a group of farmers came to lynch him. He then ran out of the school building, grabbed a shotgun from one of the farmers and shot himself, before running away and leaping into a well where he finally drowned. The incident was likely sparked by Wiseman’s refusal to marry Barnett.
                February 24, 1903: Inman, South Carolina Edward Foster, a 17-year-old student at Inman High school, was shot and fatally wounded by his teacher Reuben Pitts after he had jerked a rod from Pitts’ hands to resist punishment. According to the teacher, Foster struck the pistol Pitts had drawn to defend himself, thus causing its discharge. Pitts was later acquitted of murder.
                October 10, 1906: Cleveland, Ohio Harry Smith shot and killed 22-year-old teacher Mary Shepard at South Euclid School after she had rejected him. Smith escaped and committed suicide in a barn near his home two hours later.
                March 23, 1907: Carmi, Illinois George Nicholson shot and killed John Kurd at a schoolhouse outside of Carmi, Illinois during a school rehearsal. The motive for the shooting was Kurd making a disparaging remark about Nicholson’s daughter during her recital.
                March 11, 1908: Boston, Massachusetts Elizabeth Bailey Hardee was shot to death by Sarah Chamberlain Weed at the Laurens School, a finishing school in Boston. Weed then turned the gun on herself and committed suicide.
                April 15, 1908: Asheville, North Carolina Dr. C. O. Swinney shot and fatally wounded his 16-year-old daughter Nellie in a reception room at Normal and Collegiate Institute. He then committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.
                February 12, 1909: San Francisco, California 10-year-old Dorothy Malakanoff was shot and killed by 49-year-old Demetri Tereaschinko as she arrived at her school in San Francisco. Tereaschinko then shot himself in a failed suicide attempt. Tereaschinko was reportedly upset that Malakanoff refused to elope with him.
                January 10, 1912: Warrenville, Illinois Sylvester E. Adams shot and killed teacher Edith Smith after she rejected his advances. Adams then shot and killed himself. The incident took place in a schoolhouse about a mile outside of Warrenville after the students had been dismissed for the day.
                March 27, 1919: Lodi Township, Michigan 19-year-old teacher Irma Casler was shot and killed in her classroom at Rentschler school in Lodi Township, Michigan by Robert Warner, apparently because she had rejected his advances.
                April 2, 1921: Syracuse, New York Professor Holmes Beckwith shot and killed dean J. Herman Wharton in his office at Syracuse University before committing suicide.
                February 15, 1927: Hempstead, New York James O’Donnell, 18-year-old senior at Hempstead High School, shot himself to death on the stage in the school’s auditorium. A suicide note stated that O’Donnell killed himself to lessen the financial burden on his family.
                May 18, 1927: Bath, Michigan School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his Ford car, then set off a truck bomb, killing himself and four others. Only one shot was fired in order to detonate dynamite in the car. This was deadliest act of mass murder at a school in the United States.
                May 22, 1930: Ringe, Minnesota Margaret Wegman, 20-year-old teacher at the local rural school, was shot and killed in the school by 24-year-old Douglas Petersen.
                May 28, 1931: Duluth, Minnesota Katherine McMillen, 24-year-old teacher at the Howard Gensen rural school near Duluth, was accidentally shot and killed by a revolver brought to school by a pupil.
                February 15, 1933: Downey, California Dr. Vernon Blythe shot and killed his wife Eleanor, as well as his 8-year old son Robert at Gallatin grammar school and committed suicide after firing three more shots at his other son Vernon. His wife, who had been a teacher at the school, had filed for divorce the week before.
                September 14, 1934: Gill, Massachusetts. Headmaster Elliott Speer was murdered by a shotgun blast through the window of his study at Northfield Mount Hermon School. The crime was never solved.
                March 27, 1935: Medora, North Dakota Emily Hartl, 24-year-old teacher at the Manlon school northwest of Medora, was shot and killed at the school by 28-year-old Harry McGill, a former suitor.
                December 12, 1935: New York City, New York, Victor Koussow, a Russian laboratory worker at the School of Dental and Oral Surgery, shot Prof. Arthur Taylor Rowe, Prof. Paul B. Wiberg, and wounded Dr. William H. Crawford at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, before committing suicide.
                April 27, 1936: Lincoln, Nebraska, Prof. John Weller shot and wounded Prof. Harry Kurz in a corridor of the University of Nebraska, apparently because of his impending dismissal at the end of the semester. After shooting Kurz Weller tried to escape, but was surrounded by police on the campus, whereupon he killed himself with a shot in the chest.
                June 4, 1936: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Wesley Crow shot and killed his Lehigh University English instructor, C. Wesley Phy. Crow went to Phy’s office and demanded that Mr. Phy change his grade to a passing mark. Crow committed suicide after shooting Phy.
                September 24, 1937: Toledo, Ohio 12-year-old Robert Snyder shot and wounded his principal, June Mapes, in her office at Arlington public school when she declined his request to call a classmate. He then fled the school grounds and shot and wounded himself.

                May 6, 1940: South Pasadena, California. After being removed as principal of South Pasadena Junior High School, Verlin Spencer shot six school officials, killing five, before attempting to commit suicide by shooting himself in the stomach.
                May 23, 1940: New York City, New York Infuriated by a grievance, Matthew Gillespie, 62-year-old janitor at the junior school of the Dwight School for Girls, shot and critically wounded Mrs. Marshall Coxe, secretary of the junior school.
                July 4, 1940: Valhalla, New York Angered by the refusal of his daughter, Melba, 15 years old, to leave a boarding school and return to his home, Joseph Moshell, 47, visited the school and shot and killed the girl.
                September 12, 1940: Uniontown, Pennsylvania, 29-year-old teacher Carolyn Dellamea is shot to death inside her third grade classroom by 35-year-old William Kuhns. Kuhns then shot himself in the chest in a failed suicide attempt. Kuhns had reportedly been courting Dellamea for over a year but the relationship was ended when Dellamea discovered that Kuhns was already married.
                October 2, 1942: New York City, New York “Erwin Goodman, 36-year-old mathematics teacher at William J. Gaynor Junior High School, was shot and killed in the school corridor by a youth.
                February 23, 1943: Port Chester, NY Harry Wyman, 13-year-old, shot himself dead at the Harvey School, a boys’ preparatory school.
                February 5, 1947: Madill, Oklahoma 1st grade teacher Jessie Laird, 40-years-old, was shot to death in her classroom, during recess, by her estranged husband, Ellis Laird, 62-years-old. Laird then fatally shot himself.
                June 26, 1946: Brooklyn, New York A 15-year-old schoolboy who balked at turning over his pocket money to a gang of seven youths was shot in the chest at 11:30 A.M. in the basement of the Public School 147 annex of the Brooklyn High School for Automotive Trades.
                November 24, 1946: New York City A 13-year-old student at St. Benedict’s Parochial School, shot and fatally wounded himself while sitting in an audience watching a school play.
                December 24, 1948: New York City A 14-year-old boy was wounded fatally by an accidental shot from the .22-caliber rifle of a fellow-student … the youth was shot in the head when he chanced into range where Robert Ross, 17, of Brooklyn, was shooting at a target near a lake on the school property.
                March 11, 1949: New York City A 16-year-old student at Stuyvesant High School was accidentally shot in the arm by a fellow student who was ‘showing off’ with a pistol in a classroom.
                November 13, 1949: Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University freshman James Heer grabbed a .45 caliber handgun from the room of a Delta Tau Delta fraternity brother and shot and killed his fraternity brother Jack McKeown, 21, an Ohio State senior.


                April 25, 1950: Peru, Nebraska Dr. William Nicholas, 48, president of Peru State College and Dr. Paul Maxwell, 56, education department head, were shot to death at their desks by Dr. Barney Baker, 54-year-old psychology professor. Baker was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot at his home on campus.
                July 22, 1950: New York City, New York A 16-year-old boy was shot in the wrist and abdomen at the Public School 141 dance… during an argument with a former classmate.
                March 12, 1951: Union Mills, North Carolina Professor W. E. Sweatt, superintendent and teacher at the Alexander school, was shot to death by students Billy Ray Powell, 16, and Hugh Justice, 19. The assailants had been reprimanded by Sweatt, and they waited for the him as he locked his office door.
                June 4, 1951: New York City, New York Carl Arch, a 50-year-old intruder to a girl’s gym class, was shot and killed by a police officer, at Manhattan’s Central Commercial High School.
                November 27, 1951: New York City, New York David Brooks, a 15-year-old student, was fatally shot as fellow-pupils looked on in a grade school.
                April 9, 1952: New York City, New York A 15-year-old boarding-school student shot a dean rather than relinquish pin-up pictures of girls in bathing suits.
                July 14, 1952: New York City, New York Bayard Peakes walked in to the offices of the American Physical Society at Columbia University and shot and killed secretary Eileen Fahey with a .22 caliber pistol. Peakes was reportedly upset that the APS had rejected a pamphlet he had written.
                September 3, 1952: in Lawrenceville, Illinois After 25-year-old Georgine Lyon ended her engagement with Charles Petrach, Petrach shot and killed Lyon in a classroom at Lawrenceville High School where she worked as a librarian.
                November 20, 1952: New York City, New York “Rear Admiral E. E. Herrmann, 56 years old, superintendent of the Naval Postgraduate School, was found dead in his office with a bullet in his head. A service revolver was found by his side.
                October 2, 1953: Chicago, Illinois 14-year-old Patrick Colletta was shot to death by 14-year-old Bernice Turner in a classroom of Kelly High School in Chicago. It was reported that after Turner refused to date Colletta he handed her the gun and dared her to pull the trigger, telling her that the gun was “only a toy.” A coroner’s jury later ruled that the shooting was an accident.
                October 8, 1953: New York City, New York Larry Licitra, 17-year-old student at the Machine and Metal Trades High School, was shot and slightly wounded in the right shoulder in the lobby of the school while inspecting a handmade pistol owned by one of several students.
                May 15, 1954: Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Putnam Davis Jr. was shot and killed during a fraternity house carnival at the Phi Delta Theta house at the University of North Carolina. William Joyner and Allen Long were shot and wounded during the exchange of gunfire in their fraternity bedroom. The incident took place after an all-night beer party. Mr. Long reported to the police that, while the three were drinking beer at 7 a.m., Davis pulled out a gun and started shooting with a gun he had obtained from the car of a former roommate.
                January 11, 1955: Swarthmore, Pennsylvania After some of his dorm mates urinated on his mattress Bob Bechtel, a 20-year-old student at Swarthmore College, returned to his dorm with a shotgun and used it to shoot and kill fellow student Holmes Strozier.
                May 4, 1956: in Prince George’s County, Maryland, 15-year-old student Billy Prevatte fatally shot one teacher and injured two others at Maryland Park Junior High School in Prince George’s County after he had been reprimanded from the school.
                October 20, 1956: New York City, New York A junior high school student was wounded in the forearm yesterday by another student armed with a home-made weapon at Booker T. Washington Junior High School.
                October 2, 1957: New York City, New York “A 16-year old student was shot in the leg yesterday by a 15-year old classmate at a city high school.”
                March 4, 1958: New York City, New York “A 17-year-old student shot a boy in the Manual Training High School.”
                May 1, 1958: Massapequa, New York A 15-year-old high school freshman was shot and killed by a classmate in a washroom of the Massapequa High School.
                September 24, 1959: New York City, New York Twenty-seven men and boys and an arsenal were seized in the Bronx as the police headed off a gang war resulting from the fatal shooting of a teenager Monday at Morris High School.


                February 2, 1960: Hartford City, Indiana Principal Leonard Redden shot and killed two teachers with a shotgun at William Reed Elementary School in Hartford City, Indiana, before fleeing into a remote forest, where he committed suicide.
                March 30, 1960 Alice, Texas Donna Dvorak, 14, brought a .22 target pistol to Dubose Junior High School, and fatally shot Bobby Whitford, 15, in their 9th grade science class. Dvorak believed Whitford posed a threat to one of her girlfriends.
                June 7, 1960: Blaine, Minnesota Lester Betts, a 40-year-old mail-carrier, walked into the office of 33-year-old principal Carson Hammond and shot him to death with a 12-gauge shotgun.
                January 4, 1961: Delmont, South Dakota Donald Kurtz, 17-year-old senior at Delmont High School, was fatally wounded by a .22 caliber bullet from a rifle. The shot, intended as a sound effect for a school play, hit him in the chest during a rehearsal just minutes before the play was to take place.
                October 17, 1961: Denver, Colorado Tennyson Beard, 14, got into an argument with William Hachmeister, 15, at Morey Junior High School. During the argument Beard pulled out a .38 caliber revolver and shot at Hachmeister, wounding him. A stray bullet also struck Deborah Faith Humphrey, 14, who died from her gunshot wound.
                August 1, 1966: University of Texas Massacre Charles Whitman climbs atop the observation deck at the University of Texas-Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31 during a 96-minute shooting rampage.
                November 12, 1966: Mesa, Arizona Bob Smith, 18, took seven people hostage at Rose-Mar College of Beauty, a school for training beauticians. Smith ordered the hostages to lie down on the floor in a circle. He then proceeded to shoot them in the head with a 22-caliber pistol. Four women and a three-year-old girl died, one woman and a baby were injured but survived. Police arrested Smith after the massacre. Smith had reportedly admired Richard Speck and Charles Whitman.
                January 30, 1968: Miami, Florida 16-year-old Blanche Ward shot and killed fellow student Linda Lipscomb, 16, with a .22-caliber pistol at Miami Jackson High School. According to Ward, she was threatened with a razor by Lipscomb during an argument over a fountain pen, and in the ensuing struggle the gun went off.
                February 8, 1968: Orangeburg, South Carolina In the days leading up to February 8, 1968, about 200 mostly student protesters gathered on the campus of South Carolina State University, located in the city of Orangeburg, to protest the segregation of the All Star Bowling Lane. The bowling alley was owned by the late Harry K. Floyd. That night, students started a bonfire. As police attempted to put out the fire, an officer was injured by a thrown piece of banister. The police said they believed they were under attack by small weapons fire. The officers fired into the crowd, killing three young men: Samuel Hammond, Delano Middleton, and Henry Smith, and wounding twenty-seven others.
                May 22, 1968: Miami, Florida Ernest Lee Grissom, a 15-year-old student at Drew Junior High School, shot and seriously wounded a teacher and a 13-year-old student after he had been reprimanded for causing a disturbance.
                January 17, 1969: Los Angeles, California Two student members of the Black Panther Party, Alprentice Carter and John Huggins, were fatally shot during a student meeting inside Campbell Hall at the University of California, Los Angeles. The motive of the shooting regarded who would own the school’s African American Studies Center. The shooter, Claude Hubert, was never to be found but three other men were arrested in connection with the shooting.
                November 19, 1969: Tomah, Wisconsin Principal Martin Mogensen is shot to death in his office by a 14-year-old boy armed with a 20 gauge shotgun.


                The two most notable U.S. school shootings in the early 1970s were the Jackson State killings in May 1970, where police opened fire on the campus of Jackson State University and the Kent State shootings also in May 1970 where the National Guard opened fire on the campus of Kent State University.

                The mid to late 1970s is considered the second most violent period in U.S. school history with a series of school shootings, most notably were;

                December 30, 1974: Olean, New York, Anthony Barbaro, a 17-year-old Regents scholar armed with a rifle and shotgun, kills three adults and wounds 11 others at his high school, which was closed for the Christmas holiday. Barbaro was reportedly a loner who kept a diary describing several “battle plans” for his attack on the school.[32]

                Thursday February 12, 1976: At Detroit, Michigan’s Murray-Wright High School, about six intruders, who according to police looked like junior high students or younger, entered Murray Wright. According to the police they were searching for a student who had “stolen one of their girlfriends.”[33] Two teachers discovered the intruders and asked them to leave. A security guard escorted the intruders down a hallway as about six Murray-Wright students followed the intruders as they were leaving. Outside of the door to the school, two of the intruders brandished guns and fired into the group., shooting and injuring five students. One of the injured was treated and released and the others were treated at Henry Ford Hospital.[33]

                June 12, 1976: California State University, Fullerton massacre, where the school’s custodian opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle in the library on the California State University, Fullerton campus killing 7, and wounding 2.

                February 22, 1978: Lansing, Michigan After being taunted for his beliefs, a 15-year-old self-proclaimed Nazi, kills one student and wounds a second with a Luger pistol.[32]

                January 29, 1979: Grover Cleveland Elementary School Shootings, California, where 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer opened fire with a rifle, a gift from her father, killing 2 and wounding 9.


                The early 1980s saw many single shootings, similar to the 1970s:

                April 7, 1982: Littleton, Colorado, Deer Creek Jr. High School The gunman, 14-year-old Jason Rocha, was a student at Deer Creek. Rocha shot and killed 13 year-old Scott Darwin Michael.[34]

                The early 1980s saw only a few multi-victim school shootings, including:

                January 20, 1983: St. Louis County, Missouri Parkway South Middle School The eighth grade shooter brought a blue duffel bag containing two pistols and a murder/suicide note that outlined his intention to kill the next person heard speaking ill of his older brother, Ken, to school. He entered a study hall classroom and opened fire, hitting two fellow students. The first victim was fatally shot in the stomach, and the second victim received a non-fatal gunshot wound to the abdomen. He said, “no one will ever call my brother a pussy again,” then committed suicide.

                According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in the United States, from September 1986 to September 1990:[35]

                At least 71 people (65 students and 6 school employees) had been killed with guns at school.
                201 were severely wounded by gun fire.
                242 individuals were held hostage at gunpoint.

                According to a 1987 survey conducted by the American School Health Association,[36] ” 3% of the boys reported having carried a handgun to school at least once during the school year; 1% reported carrying a handgun on a daily basis.”

                The late 1980s began to see a major increase in school shootings, including:

                May 17, 1984: Des Moines, Iowa While students in a French class at Southeast Polk High School were taking a test in the hallway, a 17 year old boy shot and killed a 16 year old female student before firing a single shot into his own head, killing himself.[37][38]

                September 4, 1985: Richmond, Virginia At the end of the second day of school at East End Middle School, a 12 year old boy shot a girl with his mother’s gun.[39][40]

                October 18, 1985: Detroit, Michigan During halftime of the homecoming football game between Northwestern High School and Murray-Wright High School, a boy who was in a fight earlier that day pulled out a shotgun and opened fire, injuring six students.[41][42]

                November 26, 1985: Spanaway, Washington A 14 year old girl shot two boys fatally, then killed herself with a .22-caliber rifle at Spanaway Junior High School.[43][44][45]

                December 9, 1985: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania At Archbishop Ryan High School for Boys, a 22 year old Mental health patient took 6 students hostage with what ended up being a starter pistol. No one was hurt in the ordeal.

                December 10, 1985: Portland, Connecticut At Portland Junior High School, the Principal was having a heated discussion with a 13 year old male eighth grader when he locked the boy inside an office. The student then pulled out a 9mm firearm and opened fire. The bullet shattered the glass door and struck the left forearm of the secretary, and the glass injured the Principal. The boy fled for the 2nd floor, where he shot a janitor in the head. The boy then took a seventh grader hostage. The boy’s father and another family member came to the school and talked to him over the intercom system. After 45 minutes, he tossed the gun out a school window and was taken into custody.[46]

                May 16, 1986: The Cokeville Elementary School hostage crisis In a ransom scheme, David and Doris Young, both in their forties, took 150 students and teachers hostage. Their demand for $300 million dollars came to an abrupt end when Doris accidentally set off a bomb, killing herself and injuring 78 students and teachers. David wounded John Miller, a teacher who was trying to flee, then killed himself.

                March 2, 1987: Missouri Honours student Nathan Ferris, 12, killed a classmate and then himself.[47]

                April 16, 1987:[48] a student at Detroit, Michigan’s Murray-Wright High School entered the school parking lot and shot 17-year old Chester Jackson, a junior running back, in the head, killing him. He attacker went into the gymnasium and shot 18-year old Damon Matthews, a basketball player, in the face. Tomeka Turner, an 18-year old, was wounded. Risen said that Turner’s injuries occurred “apparently in the school’s corridors as the attacker fled the building.”[49]

                December 16, 1987: Mayde Creek High School near Katy, Texas A 15-year-old boy, Ramesh D. Tumalad, apparently despondent over love, shot himself to death in his Algebra class as his classmates looked on. The girl with whom he was having romantic problems was among those in the class. The shooting occurred about 10 a.m.; the teacher was standing near the door taking attendance when Ramesh, seated in the rear of room, shot himself. There were about 25 pupils in the class. [50]

                May 20, 1988: Winnetka, Illinois 30 year old Laurie Dann shot and killed one elementary school student and wounded five others, then took a family hostage and shot a man before killing herself.

                September 26, 1988: Greenwood, South Carolina In the cafeteria of the Oakland Elementary School 19 year-old James William Wilson Jr., shot and killed Shequilla Bradley, 8 and wounded eight other children with a 9-round .22 caliber pistol. He went into the girls restroom to reload where he was attacked by Kat Finkbeiner, a Physical Education teacher. James shot her in the hand and mouth. He then entered 3rd grade classroom and wounded six more students.

                December 16, 1988: Virginia Beach, Virginia Nicholas Elliott, 15, opened fire with a SWD Cobray M-11 semiautomatic pistol on his teachers at the Atlantic Shores Christian School. His first shots struck teacher Karen Farley in the arm; when she went down he killed her at point blank range. Nicholas then injured Sam Marino. He turned the Cobray toward his classmates, but the gun jammed and he was quickly subdued by M. Hutchinson Matteson, a teacher, before he could fire another round.

                January 17, 1989: Cleveland School massacre of Stockton, California where 5 school children were killed and 30 wounded by a single gunman firing over 100 rounds into a schoolyard from an AK-47, in which the perpetrator later took his life.[51]


                From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the United States saw a sharp increase in guns and gun violence in the schools. According to a survey conducted by The Harvard School of Public Health,[52] “15% [of students surveyed] said that they had carried a handgun on their person in the past 30 days, and 4% said that they had taken a handgun to school in the past year,” a sharp increase from just five years earlier. By 1993, the United States saw one of the most violent periods in school shooting incidences.

                May 1, 1992: Olivehurst, California Eric Houston, 20, killed four people and wounded 10 in an armed siege at his former high school. Prosecutors said the attack was in retribution for a failing grade.

                According to the National School Safety Center, since the 1992-1993 U.S. school year there has been a significant decline in school-associated violent deaths (deaths on private or public school property for kindergarten through grade 12 and resulting from schools functions or activities):[53]

                1992–1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1993–1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1994–1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1995–1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1996–1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1997–1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1998–1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
                1999–2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

                According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the 1998-1999 School Year, 3,523 Students (57% High School, 33% Junior High, 10% Elementary) were expelled for bringing a firearm to school.[54]

                The late 1990s started to see a major reduction in gun related school violence, but was still plagued with multiple victim shootings including;

                January 12, 1995: Seattle Washington A student left school during the day and returned with his grandfather’s 9mm. He wounded two students. The incident is portrayed in the documentary Cease Fire.[citation needed]

                October 12, 1995: Blackville, South Carolina A suspended student shot two math teachers with a .32 caliber revolver.[citation needed]

                November 15, 1995: Lynnville, Tennessee A 17-year-old boy shot and killed a student and teacher with a .22 rifle.[citation needed]

                February 2, 1996: Moses Lake, Washington Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.[55]

                February 19, 1997: Bethel, Alaska Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.[55]

                October 1, 1997: Pearl, Mississippi Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.[55]

                November 27, 1997: West Palm Beach, Florida Conniston Middle School 14-year-old John Kamel was fatally shot in the chest at 8:40 a.m. outside school on a sidewalk by 14-year-old Tronneal Mangum after an argument over an Adidas watch that Mangum had taken from Kamel.[citation needed]

                December 1, 1997: West Paducah, Kentucky Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.[55]

                December 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot[55]

                March 24, 1998: Jonesboro, Arkansas Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods[55]

                April 24, 1998: Edinboro, Pennsylvania One teacher, John Gillette, was killed and two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.[55]

                May 21, 1998: Springfield, Oregon Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home, shot to death by their son[55]

                June 15, 1998: Richmond, Virginia One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway[55]

                April 20, 1999: Littleton, Colorado 14 students (including shooters) and one teacher killed, 27 others wounded at Columbine High School. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.[55]

                May 20, 1999: Conyers, Georgia Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend[55]


                February 29, 2000: Unidentified 6-year-old offender in Michigan school shooting. 1 student fatality.[56]
                May 26, 2000: Lake Worth, Florida Lake Worth Middle School Florida teacher Barry Grunow was fatally shot by his student, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill, who had returned to school after being sent home at 1 p.m. by the assistant principal for throwing water balloons. Brazill returned to school on his bike with a 5 inch Raven and four bullets stolen from his grandfather the week before. Brazill was an honor student. Grunow was a popular teacher and Brazill’s favorite.[56]
                August 4, 2000: Unnamed with no confirmed at in Brazil school shooting. 1 student fatality.[56]
                September 26, 2000: Darrel Johnson, 13, offender in Louisiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.[56]
                March 5, 2001: Charles Andrew William, age 15, offender in California school shooting with 2 student fatalities.[56]
                March 30, 2001: Donald R. Burt Jr., age 18, offender in Indiana school shooting with 1 student fatality.[56]

                September 24, 2003: John Jason McLaughlin, age 15, offender in Minnesota school shooting with 2 student fatalities.[56]

                February 2, 2004: Unidentified offender in Washington, DC school shooting with 1 student fatality.[56]
                May 7, 2004: Unidentified 17 year old offender in Maryland school shooting with 1 student fatality.[56]

                March 21, 2005: Jeff Weise, 16 year old offender in Minnesota school shooting. Fatalities include 1 teacher, 5 students, 1 security guard, 2 relatives.[56]

                November 8, 2005: Kenny Bartley, age 15, offender in Tennessee school shooting with 1 principal fatality.[56]
                2000–2001 (19 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2001–2002 (4 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2002–2003 (14 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2003–2004 (29 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2004–2005 (20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2005–2006 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2006–2007 (38 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2007–2008 (3 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]
                2008–2009 (10 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)[citation needed]


                February 27, 2012: Chardon, Ohio T.J. Lane, 17, took a .22-caliber pistol and a knife to Chardon High School and fired 10 shots at a group of students sitting at a cafeteria table, killing 3 and wounding 2.[57]

                August 27, 2012: Baltimore, Maryland Robert Gladden, 15, allegedly took a double barrel shotgun to Perry Hall High School and shot a 17 year old senior with Down syndrome in the lower back.[58][59]

                September 26, 2012: Stillwater, Oklahoma Cade Poulos, 13, shot himself in the head right before classes started at Stillwater Junior High School.[60]

                November 30, 2012: Christopher Krumm, age 25, offender in Wyoming school shooting with bow and arrow, 1 teacher, 1 relative and self.[61]

                December 14, 2012: Newtown, Connecticut school shooting shooter Ryan Lanza, 24, killed 27 including 18 children, then committed suicide in the school.

                Interestingly, 10+ people (or kids) have never been slaughtered in a homeschooled household, not once in recorded history.

                The only case a simple google search brought up was a boy who killed his own family. No other parent’s or kids were killed.

              • Buck, BF has NO LOGIC … it’s all make believe. It always has been. He’s regarded here (by some) as some sort of intelligent being. He’s a moron of the first ilk. Look at the assumptions he makes over and over … he’s right/the rest of the world is wrong.

                He’s an asshole, pure and simple.

                “100% of the parents now suffering wish they had” … what a dick.

              • Charlie,

                You have, many times, shown you can’t handle blunt truths.

              • No BF, you said, and I quote:

                And, for sure, 100% of the parents now suffering wish they had.

              • Charlie,

                That’s correct, that is what I said, and you can’t handle the blunt truth of the matter.

              • “The only case a simple google search brought up was a boy who killed his own family. No other parent’s or kids were killed.”

                And based on your anecdotal evidence (and your logic), you are putting yourself in danger every single time you sit your child down to homeschool.

                I never said it doesn’t happen, just that it is very rare. Your list does nothing to prove otherwise — try looking at the percentage of schools that have had a shooting (or, even better, the percentage of students killed in such shootings)

              • Ah, Buck, it is NOT anecdotal evidence. This is not personal examples.

                I googled “school shootings” and got a list going back to the 1800’s
                I googled “homeschool shootings” and got 1.

                Your logic and reasoning is seriously out of whack. Do not try to use it until you can fix it.

                The FACT is, there are many magnitude times more kids shot in school than in homeschool = which was the point, and your concept of “rare” has no meaning as you have no context to match it.

              • Black Flag,
                Your list of school gun violence makes the case that gun control is needed…

              • Ah, No.

                It makes the case of getting rid of government schools. They are run by incompetents.

                How many people will blame the lack of proper security? A few, but not many. They all blame the shooter (correctly) but also forget the government set this all up to happen.

                Drug up the kid, pack defenseless targets together, … and gasoline plus a spark.

                Saying Guns commit crimes is like saying pencils make spelling errors.

              • Black Flag,

                And, for sure, that includes 100% of homeschooling parents.

                I curious how you arrived at this 100%?

                Do you think the fact that the shooter was homeschooled might change this assumption?

              • First, he was 20 – I’d think he’s no long “in school”.

                And actually he was PUBLIC schooled – but removed from public school due to some significant issues with the school

                She said Lanza’s mother “battled” with the school board and ended up having her son home-schooled.

                “She had issues with school,” said the aunt, who lives in Crystal Lake, Illinois. “I’m not 100% certain if it was behavior or learning disabilities, but he was a very, very bright boy. He was smart.”

                “Adam Lanza belonged to a technology club at Newtown High School that held “LAN parties” ”

                “Adam Lanza attended Newtown High School, and several local news clippings from recent years mention his name among the school’s honor roll students.”

        • Actually it’s the first thing I thought of when I heard this news report. Not so absurd at all, Buck.

          • Nope, sorry, pretty absurd.

            • I’d take your opinions seriously if I knew what principles you were using to justify them.

              But as you have no such things – (shrug) to your opinion.

          • Personally, I think as long as home schooling and private schools aren’t outlawed by the government-this argument is absurd. People congregant in lots of places-the place being governmental doesn’t matter IMO -unless people have no other option but public schools.

            • Yes, people gather in a lot of places.

              But school is a very well known such gathering.

              Further, I can tell you for sure, every parent who did NOT have a kid in that school is thankful, and have no regrets today.

              • By your ‘logic’ you should never ever ever step foot in a mall or grocery store. All shopping must only be done online from the comfort and safety of one’s own home.

                Same is true of public transportation. Only travel by car!

              • Nonsense.

                I do not hand over the security of my child when I go to a grocer – it still rests with me.

                A school -however- is given the security of those children. The parents are not there.

              • Ever drop your child off at the mall? If so, shame on you sir, shame on you.

              • Sure have, and made sure the person I trusted her safety with was competent.
                Further, as she is a teenager, she has been trained by me personally on how to protect herself against threats, including such cases of random shooting in public places.

                And, no, I did not drop my 5 year old alone in a mall.
                I’d suggest you shouldn’t either, when yours is that age.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            My first thought too.

            • ::::facepalm::::

              • Buckster, What do you expect? When the law says that schools are a gun free zone, it would be nieve to think that whacko’s would not target them. Much like the faux terrorists, they are cowards and attack the most vulnerable. Only a large group of stupid people (government) would advertise such a thing. Let’s just paint bullseys on all the places deemed “gun free zones”.

              • No, what’s stupid is to make the leap that this tragedy is somehow an argument for homeschooling. What’s foolish is to make the ‘argument’ that all parents are now wishing they had opted to homeschool.

                As I’ve said, there are many valid argument for homeschooling (even though I am not in favor of such in the least, personally, for my own child). This just ain’t one.

              • Of course its not stupid!

                Only stupid people think like you, Buck.

                OBVIOUSLY homeschool is safer against wacko killers!

                Because the blunt truth undermines your bizarre Statist outlook in life, too damn bad!
                Grow up and smell the coffee, Buck!
                Time to put the brain twisting rose glasses away!

              • I think that safety is a part of the homeschooling crowd. There are many others as well, like limiting kids access to drugs and alcohol. But the #1 reason is education. I wish I could have homeschooled my kids, but it was impossible. Many parents face the same reality. Education, safety and a solid moral base are all good reasons for homeschooling. I can’t think of one reason why a parent would want to allow a stranger to teach their child, except out of necessity. I wish I could go back and change how my kids were educated, but I can’t. Bummer!

              • And yet you don’t advocate doing all shopping online because it is safer than stepping in to a mall where a whacko may have a gun…bizarre.

              • I may recommend such things but we aren’t talking about malls – we are talking about public schools, remember?

              • I would think the same logic would apply.

              • Possibly….
                I hate crowds, and do not like malls.
                I like online shopping.

                Makes sense to me!

    • Updates:

      SCHOOL SLAUGHTER: 27 killed, including 18 children…
      REPORT: Shooter Son Of Teacher…

      REPORT: Parents found dead…
      Gunman dead…
      Gunman 20 years old, from New Jersey…
      UPDATE: Body Found In Gunman’s Home…
      Second man taken into custody…
      UPDATE: Gunman’s Younger Brother Detained…
      District Had Just Installed New ‘Safety’ Protocols…
      Scene ‘atrocious’…
      Newtown, CT Described as ‘Adorable Little Town’…
      Speaker Boehner Orders Flags Lowered at the U.S. Capitol…

      Details on Drudge

      • People are losing it ! As our economy continues to get worse, I expect these events to be more numerous. I would suggest that everyone think about where they are going and protect themselves accordingly. Be vigilant and know where your nearest exit is at all times. I choose to carry a concealed handgun, with my license to do so. Not everyone can or will carry, so being aware is all you got. Be safe!

        • No G. What people will do is start clamoring for more gun CONTROL. So that we law abiding citizens won’t have a gun when the next looney tune comes walking in somewhere and start shooting. 👿

          • They will lose on gun control. The left will not whine to much, I have already heard that some just think of this as “after term abortion”. There won’t be much babble as long as it’s white folks who get killed in nice neighborhoods. Let this happen in an inner city school full of minorities and all hell would break loose. Very sad times in our nation now. 🙄

            • They are ALREADY screaming for Gun Control and this is the same day. Obama has said that, while this is NOT the day for talking about it, he also promises that the day IS coming. Also, unfortunately, these wackos keep coming out of the woodwork.

              Somebody needs to stop the wackos from getting guns and or going to a school with them.

              • How would you propose ‘stopping the wackos from getting guns’ then?

              • Buck,

                Well, until you tell us all how YOU will stop wacko’s from getting knifes, cars, planes, baseball bats, screw drivers, rope, axes …. (a very long list of wacko weapons), we’ll then tell you about the guns.

                That’s the point you dumb Lefties can’t figure out.

                You can’t figure wacko’s. IF they want to kill, they will. Your petty “gun laws” doesn’t stop them at all.

              • Well Buck, in some of these cases, including this one, it has been said that they are “mentally ill”. How do mentally ill people get guns? You will fing no bigger gun supporter than me. But I sure don’t think anybody who is mentally unstable should be able to get one.

                And maybe they should focus on getting the illegal guns out. Maybe they should enforce what gun control laws they already have, and stop trying to make more. Doesn’t matter how many laws you make if you don’t enforce them.

                And why a ban on Assault weapons? You die just as fast whether it’s an assault weapon or a bird shotgun.

              • Just some thoughts. They can outlaw guns all together, but who is going to be stupid enough to go get them? You can’t stop whacko’s from anything, they are whacko! Deterence is still the best answer, despite what the gun control blowhards think. If the teachers are legally armed, there will be no more school shootings. Arm up those who work in retail and watch the mall shootings go away. Let the good people carry everywhere and the cowards will just off themselves. Why do the sick cowards attack schools? It’s a no gun zone. Why the theater in Colorado? It’s a no gun zone. Cowards are cowards, take away their advantage and they will go away.

              • We actually have a Police officer in every school in Polk County. But he is UNARMED! What would he do, talk them out of it?

              • Black Flag,
                I’ve seen this nonsense argument so often, it’s really quite comical. Just because we can’t stop all violence, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop some of it (that whole “black/white” vs “grey” thingy). The difference is the items on your “long list” are not designed solely for killing, and they are not nearly as effective at killing as guns.

                This is what happens when a knife is used instead of a gun – 23 WOUNDED, 0 KILLED:


                That’s the point you dumb Righties can’t figure out.

              • Todd –

                Except the only way to actually keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies is to either live on a small island like Britain where you can reasonable limit imports or have a crazy overbearing totalitarian government like China. The former won’t work here (unless you think banning drugs kept them out of the country, too) and the latter comes with its own set of problems, to say the least.

      • They believe the shooter was angry at his mother and it seems everyone else. So he went to her kindergarten classroom and started killing.

  52. @Buck … you mean to tell me LOI & G are welchers? Oh, no … what’s the world coming to when I a site dedicated to personal responsibility doesn’t take responsibility? Oy vey …:)

  53. @ Charlie, You will be happy to know that you have a bottle of Chivas Regal on it’s way, that an adult must sign for (it’s insured). Despite your pathetic remarks and your childish attitude towards others, I kept my end of the bet. I hope you enjoy it, I don’t drink hard liquor anymore. Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

  54. Here you go. I’m sure some actually support this fool’s statements.

    Listen up Harry, the same right that gives you permission to state your stupidity, gives we who don’t support Obama permission to voice OUR opinion. Maybe that hasn’t crossed through your empty head. I know it’s hard for any coherent thought to stick when there’s nothing there for it to stick TO!

    One of the most moronic statements I have heard in a long time.

  55. Buck says:
    December 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm • Edit

    Very true….very true….

    LOI — where’s my booze!? (Sorry, decided to try Charlie’s lack of tact) 🙂

    Unable to complete contract due to fraud on the part of the recipient. Emailing to address listed on this page is rejected as undeliverable. Email sent two days ago has not been responded to & therefore thought to be a bogus address. Will fulfill my obligation as soon as you allow. You could contact me by:

    Matt, Judy, Kathy & others are facebook friends.
    Update your email and give truthful info.
    Contact USW who will pass it on.
    Supply Ph # or email of your local liquor store that will allow me to pay by credit card as long as an adult picks up the booze.
    Or, do a Charlie. You could bitch and moan about this for years. I think he would savor that more than the finest wine……

    • Sigh. Email sent to USW with instructions to forward on to you. My sincerest apologies for the confusion. No fraud was committed as there was no intent. And frankly I am offended by the insinuation.

      • The Wine Library accepts orders by phone (I believe this applies to liquor as well as wine) — (973) 376-9005. If they do not let me know and I will find another place for you.

        What do you typically drink? As I mentioned, if I’m drinking on your dime, I’ll drink whatever (caveat: whatever within reason) you enjoy.

        • I think this is our best option. How about you order under Buck the Walla & explain the bet. I will call them Monday afternoon and make payment. Don’t let my taste guide you, I am a beer snob. Have Crown & some other hard liquor that just gathers dust. Have learned a little about wine because an uncle has a passion, so I try to provide & surprise him when he visits. If you can’t decide, I will surprise you! You don’t want to be surprised by an uncouth redneck, do ya? heh, heh, heh

          • I will take the surprise! Always willing to try something different. (don’t make me sorry!)

            So I will ask you to make the call and place the order. Have USW send you my other email and I’ll provide the full name which I’m sure they would need.

      • Buck,

        I don’t believe you were/are offended by my fraud accusation. You jerked my chain, I gave a creative tug back on yours. If you truly were offended, I would suggest we settle on a nice “Stagg’s Leap” offering. If you’re gonna be all whiny, might as well drink to match the mood…..

    • Charlie would savor the bottle of chivas he won, but somebody hasn’t delivered yet (one month post the winning of said bet). Come on, wingies, show some responsbility! 🙂

  56. Really???? Is this a joke? How can the Leftist Liberal boneheads call us Conservatives racist and then make comments like THIS???

    • I’m wondering, just wondering UR, if the flag has something to do with it 🙂

      • Oh really? My flag has something to do with an ESPN Commentator making Racist comments about RGIII?

        Or is it that my Little Flag makes folks think I’m racist? Well if my flag offends you Charlie don’t look at it. I am less of a racist than even YOU Charlie. I take people as they are and it pisses me off to hear some idiot keep up the conversation about race because it will NEVER stop being an issue if you idiots keep harping on it about every little thing.

        And by the way numbskull, slavery died in the U.S. in 1865. Give it a rest. Most folks in the South are not the Racists. You stupid Yankees are.

  57. AWE! The Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever it’s called by the kooks has once again been crushed as a fraud. Poor Todd, made a full of by believing that crap.

    • AWE! The Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever it’s called by the kooks has once again been crushed as a fraud. Poor Todd, made a full of by believing that crap.

      Sorry Gman, dinner made me full, not your link.

      But anyone who believes that article is a FOOL!

  58. Updates: I posted the latest-there are earlier ones at the link.

    LIVE UPDATES: Newtown, Conn., School Shooting
    Email 0 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

    WATCH LIVE press conference with Conn. State Police

    4:52 p.m: Ryan Lanza, 24, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, 20, tells authorities that his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” Neighbors described the younger man to ABC as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

    4:41 p.m.: Federal law enforcement sources now say Connecticut school shooting gunman was Adam Lanza, 20, and not his brother Ryan Lanza, 24, as earlier reported. Adam was found dead in the school along with his mother, a kindergarten teacher there.

  59. Jordan’s King Abdullah Threatens to Shut Down Egypt’s Economy
    December 13th, 2012 – 9:16 am
    by David P. Goldman

    Speaking at a private meeting this week, Jordan’s King Abdullah warned that he had “bargaining chips” to use against the Muslim Brotherhood, which he denounced as a “new extremist alliance” in the Arab world. The news site AI-Monitor today translates a report from al-Hayat, citing sources from the meeting. “Rhe Jordanian monarch was full of reproach for Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood,” al-Hayat wrote. “The king added that the Egyptian leadership had ‘marginalized the Jordanian role during the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to stop the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip.’”

    The Muslim Brotherhood has targeted Jordan’s monarchy as the next domino to fall after Egypt. At the Dec. 10 meeting, King Abdullah accused Egypt of economic sabotage.

    The king said that “Jordan was severely damaged as a result of frequent interruptions of Egyptian natural gas, which cost the state treasury about 5 billion Jordanian dinars [$7.04 billion],” stressing that the interruption of gas ”is the real reason behind the economic crisis plaguing the country.”

    Under previous agreements with the Egyptian authorities, Jordan used to import 80% of its gas needs for the production of electricity, which equates to a daily amount of about 6.8 million cubic meters of imported gas. However, the pipeline which supplies gas to Jordan and Israel was subsequently the target of frequent bombings.

    The Jordanian monarch warned that his country would retaliate:

    King Abdullah II said that “Amman has bargaining chips through which it can send messages to Cairo, including the fact that 500,000 Egyptians are working in Jordan. Moreover, the kingdom is the only passageway for Egyptian vegetables being exported to Iraq, and tens of thousands of Egyptians working in the Gulf states are using the Nuweiba-Aqaba waterway in their travels.”

    …Other official sources talked about the arrest of thousands of Egyptian workers who have breached the conditions of their residency in the past two weeks, as well as the deportation of about 1,900 of them to Egypt, according to Jordanian Minister of Labor Nidal Qatamin. He said his country is not targeting Egyptian laborers, saying that the deportation decisions resulted from “violations of the usual procedures and applicable laws.” Remarkably, according to official sources, of the 500,000 Egyptians working in Jordan, approximately 320,000 have violated the conditions of their residency.

    It is unlikely that Jordan would take on Egypt without strong backing from Saudi Arabia. A further 1.7 million Egyptians work in Saudi Arabia and an additional 500,000 in Kuwait. The Egyptian diaspora is the last thing holding up Egypt’s economy. Workers’ remittances stood at $18 billion in 2010, according to the World Bank, or about half of Egypt’s present $36 billion trade deficit. The expulsion of Egyptian workers from the Arab monarchies would have catastrophic impact on the disintegrating Egyptian economy. Two million Egyptians worked in Libya before the civil war, but many fled the country earlier this year.

    As it is, President Morsi was forced to postpone negotiations on a proposed $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, after scrapping a proposed tax increase that the IMF considered a condition for the package. With a government budget deficit at 11% of GDP and a trade deficit at 16% of GDP, Egypt must cut expenditures to survive financially. No Egyptian government, though, appears capable of persuading a population half of which lives on less than $2 a day to accept austerity.

  60. As should be expected from me, I was watching todays events with an open eye towards the media coverage. What I saw. The media continued to show the ATF and FBI in all theie miltary gear and guns. Looking at where this occured and the timing of events, all the scenes of the ATF and FBI were : long after the scene was secured, or, placed in position to be there, knowing what was happening. I will say it was all theater with help from the govt paid for media.

    Sorry to hurt those that think the media and or govt isn’t being factual, but crimes like this are short lived and very often overblown to look like a war zone when it’s totally not needed. It’s all done to convince the sheeple that they can protect you, which is already proven wrong, or, set up to make the sheeple accept more police sate bullshit.. Watch without sound, and you will see it as well. The govt is setting the sheeple up to close the gate. Sadly, they sacrificed children to do it.

    • Yeah, that’s comedic isn’t it.

      After the slaughter, the cops show up with machine guns and bullet proof vests so to battle …. who? The wacko is dead!

      They could show up in T-shirts and the risk to them won’t change.

      But you’re right – it is a show of force to portray overwhelming violence SUPERIOR to the wacko – the government can’t have people believe the wacko had them outgunned. He merely had them out-timed.

    • Going a little overboard GMan? A call goes out to the cops of a shooter with multiple dead children. Who do you want to show up? Andy Griffith and Barney Fife? It was chaos in that small town. If you were an LEO you would grab every available body to help out too. You can lay the drama at the feet of the media if you want but to blame the cops for an overwhelming force is not really giving credit where it’s due. I bet an awful lot of parents and children felt comfort with all the cops around.

      • A little!!!!! I’d say a lot!

      • Anita, I just made an observation based on my knowledge of time of incident, estimated time the Federal Militarized Agents could have arrived based on logical staging location (a bigger city). With the sound of the TV off, it was easy to deduct that the Federal Militarized Agents were long after the building had been searched and secured by the local LE. It was my observation that the Feds were there putting on a show for the cameras, as they had no real LE duties to perform that required all their miltary gear and high powered rifles.

        This doesn’t surprise me at all, it is common for the Feds to play theatrics to brainwash the sheeple into thinking they are protected and they need the Feds. The Feds protect nobody, it is not their job (except for a foriegn invasion). Protection is a personnal responsibility. The problem with schools is they advertise a “NO GUN ZONE”. Nothing like inviting a coward with a gun to come murder those that cannot defend themselves. Think about it for a minute, schools, some malls, some theaters, other public places all advertise if they are a “no Gun Zone”. Even a sick murderer would choose to attack a place like this versus a building where several armed people may be. But don’t tell the Liberal gun haters this, they would call you a racist and tell you that you are crazy and that “no gun zones” are safer because “they” don’t allow guns. Then, when some nut comes around and kills alot of innocent (and unarmed people, they ask why and cry for more gun control laws. The laws we have aren’t working it seems, maybe we need to put “more” guns in the control of law abiding citizens. The deterent would work wonders! 🙂

        Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

        • Bottom Line says:

          Very astute observation G,

          What if when the gunman started his rampage, there were at least three armed persons within a 60 ft radius? What would be the difference in casualties?

          • Possibly more, possibly less.

          • There would likely be only one casualty, the shooter. If the teachers were trained and armed, this tragedy would not have happened, IMHO.

            • And it’s also entirely conceivable that more children would have been killed. No one can know for certain and its foolish to posit otherwise.

              Ok, I’m out – enjoy the weekend!

              • Nonsense.

                It is absolutely reasoned to posit otherwise. It is idiotic to assume that “more” would be killed – it is intellectual stupidity.

                1 vs 100 unarmed
                1 vs 3 armed 100 unarmed..

                means to you the latter will have more innocents dead.

                I am constantly in awe at the brain melt leftists need to undergo to for them to hold to their errant ideologies.

            • Bottom Line says:

              Exactly, G.

              Whatever the number, we can safely deduce it would likely be less. He may get a few shots off, but would be stopped before killing in any large number.

              What are the alternatives?…a late and coming police force? …police posted at schools harassing students with the law(I hear stories)…full body searches and/or metal detectors before entering the school?

              I go with the free option of an armed citizenry who understands the usefulness of guns rather than irrational fear of them.

              Guns are a killing tool. They can be used to murder or defend and deter. If they are not used to defend and deter, someone will use them to murder.

              Whacko gunmen know cops show up late and people are unarmed easy prey.

          • Depends on if they were easily identifiable as armed (marked guards). Shooter would go after those first to eliminate the only threat.

            • He can’t hit them all.

            • ..and the good guys don’t necessarily stand out in a crowd.
              You never know who may have what arms on them … whatayagoindo? Shoot everyone? Oh…that was the plan away.

              So, a better armed citizenry works best against wackos

              • Sure, but in an elementary school the only adult in the classroom who’s going to be armed is the teacher. Take that out first before they can react and you still have just a room full of victims. Now, it’s no worse than the situation otherwise, and other teachers in other classrooms will be ready and able to organize and such.

                The risk would be that someone could attack the teacher and take the weapon, but gun access (legal or not) doesn’t appear to be a problem for someone determined to do this anyway.

              • …usually more then one teacher in a school…

  61. @BF Only stupid people think like you, Buck.

    almost all your arguments are as absurd as your inability to deal with reality or admit when you’re wrong.

    Only ___________ think they’re always right …:)

    :)LOI edit
    Try arrogant for a term Charlie. I would agree Flag is arrogant. He also has this history of being right about a lot of things. So back to your word choice, USW has asked for civil exchanges and no personal attacks. Are you a man of honor? Did you not agree to these terms? Can you at least make any such remarks tasteful or humorous?

  62. @ Black Flag, I shop alot online as well, mainly due to the long distances to major stores. I have my own web portal that pays me cashback from thousands of stores. I recieved a pair of binoculars for Pop’s Christmas gift via Fed Ex this morning. I ordered it Wednesday Through my web Portal from WalMart. Shipping was 97 cents, insured and I get 2% cash back. When all my cashback adds up, I can request a check or use it for a purchase. I have also found that prices are cheaper for many things online, with deals you can’t get at the store! If you want an invite (or anyone for that matter) just say the word, all I need is your email address. It’s totally FREE! 🙂

    • All good reasons to shop online:

      a) Convenience
      b) Cheaper

      Silly reason — I may get shot at the mall, so I better stay indoors….

      • Buckster, I don’t really think about it much, we all conceal carry in these parts. I do think these incidents are going to increase, so be careful when your at the mall or in a restaurant. the nuts seem to like shooting in these places.

        Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

        • And Happy Hannukah to you and yours! 🙂

          There are a lot of whackos out there, I’ll give you that. But I stand by my statement that it is a silly argument to use in favor of homeschooling, online shopping, etc.

          • Thank You for your show of kindness (we could all use more of that).

            I would say that for a person who has been traumatized by such an event, it’s not a silly argument at all. While those of who have never experienced something like that may think it’s not a “reason”, to those who have it’s likely a very big reason. I can respect that. I wonder how many survivors of Columbine will homeschool their own kids because of their experience? Or how many people who have been in a mall when the bullets started flying who will never step foot in a mall again. Silly, is in the mind of the beholder Good Sir 🙂

            • There is a difference between saying someone who has actually experienced such a traumatic event being too afraid to step foot in a mall or school again, versus this being a serious reason for all people to consider homeschooling.

              It would be interesting to see how many survivors of such a tragedy wind up homeschooling (or seriously considering homeschooling) their kids as a result. I would imagine the answer would be — not many.

              • I would guess that the biggest reason for homeschooling is education. But I won’t discount child safety as a reason either. As I said, the reasons are up to the individual. While you and I may see it as education, other parents may see it for the safety of their children (school violence, bullies, shootings ect). We don’t here about all school shootings, especially those in the inner cities. I tend to be open minded when it comes to personnal decisions, as everyone is different with different experiences.

              • Here’s A Lesson The Corporate Media Won’t Teach
                Posted by Becky Akers on December 15, 2012 06:46 AM

                Predictably, the corporate media is exploiting the murders in Connecticut to propagandize. Among the lessons it crams down our throats is, of course, our “need” to more thoroughly control people who own guns. A second is that the slime in the White House may be human after all because he cried (geez). But how fascinating that another isn’t, “Momma, don’t let your babies grow up to be students in the government’s lethal public schools, or worse yet, teachers.”

                Those indoctrination centers are lethal on many levels, too, not just the physical one. If you’re a parent, you owe your child an education in your home. Schooling him is a sacred, God-given duty, nor one you should surrender to the State, which then uses that as an excuse to rob taxpayers

                Yet Another ‘Gun-Free Zone’ Massacre
                Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on December 14, 2012 02:52 PM

                What a travesty that there was not a single armed adult in that school in Newtown, Connecticut who could have stopped that murderous devil who killed more than two dozen people today. Get ready for another round of insanity pleas by the mainstream media circus arguing that it is possible to have a law that would disarm criminals once and for all.

                So go ahead, parents, keep sending your children to these government lockdown facilities/statist indoctrination camps that boast to the treetops to every murderous lunatic out there that they are not only drug-free (ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha) but also gun-free zones.


                Only idiotic leftists can’t see reason through their red glasses.

                You are horribly confused between a mall and a school.

                A mall, there is no pretense of safety.

                Schools are sold to gullible parents on a pretense of safety.

                A mall, a kid “bullied” calls security and the bully is thrown out or held for the cops.

                A school, a bully is coddled and protected while the victim has little recourse.

                We could go on for awhile, but to YOU a mall and a school are the same thing *geez*

          • The factor of school shootings is a risk factor in the homeschool vs public school decision that, for most people, simply gets overlooked/outweighed by other concerns (time and money being chief among them). Nothing like a ‘free’ daytime babysitting service. ;>

            Personally I’d be more concerned about my children’s safety with respect to teacher abuse and bullying, that’s far more likely than a school shooting.

            I am surprised that schools haven’t started having ‘shooting drills’ the way they used to do nuclear attack drills, or still do earthquake/fire drills.

            • They actually do “lockdowns” and practice for an intruder. problem is of course is that once the bad guy is in the building, you can’t evacuate fast enough. Or how about just waiting to 3PM to begin the rampage? Then again you could put a cop or a retired cop behind a desk in the lobby and he will be the first to be shot.

              Several years ago, a rampage was stopped by an AP with a gun. If this lunacy continues and we keep the certifiable loons on the street or if we give them meds which either they don’t take or meds which make them more nuts (possible side effects include suicidal thoughts) then I fear we do need armed teachers in the schools.

              Heinlein was probably right in “Beyond this Horizon”. Allow a full carry and have that person identified by a brassard as being armed. Mess with him/her at your own risk. More organ donors are needed anyway.

  63. People wonder why many of us are against gun control. Here are some good reasons

    • What old “Bucko” can’t get his head around is that this guy, like the “Dark Knight” shooter, had been on anti-pyscho meds, which have shown to have a history of causing exactly the opposite of what they are meant to prevent.

      Yet, ol’ Bucko won’t raise that issue – he’ll go after the guns.

      • Meds and vaccinations are a whole debate in itself. What a mess that is. But that is all conspiracy theory to the blind sheeple. 🙄

      • Bottom Line says:

        Take note that he was obsessed with mind control and hypnotism.

        When/if you start to deviate from your programming, when you do things out of order or in noncompliance, there is a strange kind of turbulence.You can feel your subconscious in a hyperactive state as it tries to execute redirective commands, …while your conscious is in a entranced low activity state. When your conscious tries to overpower your subconscious, you have to sleep as you’re mentally worn out from the struggle.

        Hypnotism isn’t a definitive means of control. There is a margin of error in it’s effectiveness. He saw signs ahead of time.

        He knew he was programmed.

        • Who was obsessed with mind control?

          • Bottom Line says:

            The shooter.

            As I understand, he had spent a great deal of time researching the subject. I also believe he was seeing a hypnotherapist as there were reports of a legal/trial issue with respect to retrieving his doctor’s notes.

            When you start to realize you may have been programmed, a typical reaction is to try to understand it in hopes of finding a solution. I believe this is what he was trying to do.

            • I hadn’t heard that he was seeing a hypnotherapist. But what one might look at and question, was he really programmed or did his belief that he was, if that was his belief, lead to him killing 28 people.

              If he truly thought he was programmed by some entity perhaps he should have seeked some type of professional help to talk about and help him solve these problems. Instead of going to a hypnotist or trying to fix the problem on his own.

              Obviously, whatever this man’s problems were, whatever was causing them-he needed real help to overcome them -because what he was doing didn’t work. I suspect, even though he did get some professional help, it was not really voluntary and he was not completely truthful about what was bothering him. And if one isn’t completely honest, when asking for help, it is very hard for one to receive any.

              • Bottom Line says:

                It stands to reason, V, that if he was programmed, a hypnotherapist would be the professional to seek.

                I know of others’ similar experiences. I know of my own similar experiences, and I am confident he was somehow programmed. I have very little doubt.

                (I think there is something spiritual going on in addition to)

                Several years ago, I started to do as I described above where there is an internal conflict via deviating from the program/script. As he did, I started researching.

                On last year’s winter solstice, I started popping all kinds of triggers, and have since discovered via cryptic means, some pretty damn interesting things about the world and humanity.

                I know there are others like me. Perhaps the joker shooter is one of them which has been programmed. He couldn’t handle it, went nuts and shot people.

                There is unapparent truth in a lot of these types of things that often goes unnoticed by the masses as it is something distasteful to think about. But further examination can yield answers. You only have to be open minded, curious, and logical enough to see.

                Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

              • I haven’t said, I don’t believe it-and I have no intention of doing so-what I believe is irrelevant. What you believe is-so lets take your one statement. “He couldn’t handle it, went nuts and shot people.” Now, are you sure you can handle it-Alone? Do you want to take that chance? Do you have the right to take that chance?

              • Bottom Line says:


                My purpose is not violence. Mine is to discover things. Some new age weirdo has been in my head and left a lot of info, locked, timed and with instructions. My ‘awakening’ hasn’t exactly been fun. But I see things.

                I would love some help with it though. Not necessarily a hypnotist, but a genealogical expert and theologians and historians would be helpful. Maybe some physics people too.

                Among other things, I found an encrypted message that is best seen from the air/space that fits specific information to me as an individual and suggests I have bloodlines from Versailles, Athens, Sumeria, England, NYC, lost tribes, Basque region, etc…

                I think the owl horns are a Merovingian genetic marker.

                How many times have I posted a mantra about Youth is King – Learning is Fun – Teaching is a Reward – Knowledge is Power? It starts there – literally.

                Wanna see the book of life?

                Perhaps I can decode some crop circles and follow with questioning the relationship between torsion fields, DNA, astrology, the pyramids and ancient monuments, ancient religion/prophecy/verses, astro-projection, etc…

                I basically have this big puzzle I am figuring out. I dunno what it all means yet, but perhaps I will see.

              • You’re talking over my head there BL. But I assume you’re talking about the dynasty and not the Matrix 🙂

                I’m not concerned about your intentions and I’m not one to discourage learning but I strongly suggest you talk to someone you respect about your discoveries and feelings. I really didn’t like that comment you made about “just dying” or your comment linking your self to the anti-christ. Your stress level seems high.

                Hang in there my friend and God Bless!!

              • Bottom Line says:

                Thank you for the good will,V.

                I am okay. I just have to figure some things out.

                The whole antichrist thing is not to be taken too seriously as it is more figurative than anything. Indeed there is something significant going on. It’s just not what many think.

                When I figure it out, I’ll perhaps let you and everyone else know. Just try to keep an open mind.

  64. Bottom Line says:

    This guy didn’t need a gun. He had balls.

  65. I’ve been following along and trying to figure out my feelings about all the points made. I find I have more questions than answers. But I have one Truth that no one will ever talk me out of-No one has the right to leave an individual or groups of individuals defenseless.

    So what are we talking here-every adult, non-student be allowed to carry a gun at school. Having armed security guards at strategic locations in the school? What is needed to make our children as secure as we can make them? Complete protection is impossible.

    I read BF’s post about school shootings and most of them were carried out by people who where a part of the school, as either a teacher or a student, or a person connected to a teacher or a student. It didn’t seem to include people who just picked the school randomly but had a grudge of some type against a person at the school.

    So whats the answer-in many of BF’s examples it was teachers that did the shooting but most were done by students.

    • Serious answer here: This is no answer, certainly nothing as absolute as some claim. People as disturbed as the killers in the vast majority of these types of slaughters probably cannot be stopped. Once they turn the corner and decide to kill, they are as determined as BF is to prove himself right (no matter how wrong he may be). It’s an unfortunate situation I’m afraid none of us will ever solve. I am for gun control in certain circumstances/situation, but I never would have been pro gun control in a community like Newton, CT. Like most people the day after, “Who ever would have thought …”

    • Bottom Line says:

      Volunteer community armed security force.

      Andy and Barney only look harmless because they are nice guys.

      Piss them off by attacking children and see what happens.

      • 🙂

        • V.H. Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

          I’m not sure there is any correct answer to how to stop it, due to the division we have in our country. The Lefties like Micheal “the whale” Moore want hardcore gun control, which will not effect the murderers, just the law abiding folks who will be the victims. The Left’s idea of no guns at all will never work, but you can’t tell them that. As I’ve said, deterence is the least violent way, but that only works with a legitimate threat. Train and arm the teachers who agree to it. Then put up a sign that advertises the fact that attemps to harm the children will be met with deadly force. Most nuts are also cowards. They will target the easiest and most vulnerable group of people. Eliminate the vulnerable groups, the cowards will likely not act against those who can fight back.

      • Piss them off by attacking children and see what happens

        They way you pose it, they sound a bit anxious to show their stuff. All they need is to watch a Straithern movie the night before, mistake some parent slapping his kid in the schoolyard for “attacking a child” and you have one dead parent.

        No thanks … simple solutions usually lead to disasters … (i.e., pretty much whatever BF suggests) …

        • Why is having armed security too simple a solution? And whats a Straithern, I am thinking you just miss typed Southern-if so-what’s with the attack on the south. And it is highly unlikely a southerner would mistake a slap as an attack that warrants shooting someone.

          Seriously Charlie, I don’t think anyone else would have interpreted that comment as anything more than “even good, nice, easy going people will kick ass if you hurt a child.”

          • Straighthern (or however he spells it) is some actor (former kickboxer, I think). He does action movies, though … so the fear of adrenalin and over anxiousness was the point.

            Not attacking the south (this time) … some of my best friends …

            Seriously, my point was genuine, and I would HOPE TO HELL, someone else saw my point … (maybe not here, but that’s more than understandable from the wingies :)) … when people are all fired up (mob mentality), they “might” mistake something much less flagrant than child abuse for attacking a child and let loose the hounds of war, so to speak. I’m not totally against what Crazy Gman suggested below (or above) about maybe having teachers volunteer to carry concealed weapons (those who want to), although I’m not sure that would make a difference (a shooter might be on the 1st floor and the gun toting teacher on the 3rd floor, etc.) … but if you can’t see where armed “security” might get carried away, think back to Zimmerman/Martin … even if you insist on defending the assinine “stand your ground” laws, Zimmerman felt compelled to follow the kid (let’s leave it there for the sake of argument for now) … in other instances, gun toting civilians went a bit further (already proved in courts) … again, people can get a bit carried away at times … why shoot some father or mother or cousin or older brother, if all they were attempting to do was discipline a kid (whether you agree with corporal punishment or not). Shit happens … and when people are carrying guns, sometimes it’s bad shit.

            • Charlie, Must you continue to babble senselessly? 😉

            • I don’t think anyone is unaware that all possibilities come with drawbacks and risks. But to me -it really does boil down to one truth-no one has the right to leave people with no way to defend themselves-and that Principle should be the beginning point of any discussion about gun regulations.

              • Well, then here’s an idea (should solve unemployment, too) … hire everyone who is unemployed to be trained with handguns in crisis situations, assign them each one student (no more than two and they must be same gender so they can be escorted to bathrooms) … that’s an 8 hour day while kids are in school. Anyone shows up looking to “attack” children, blow them away … blow them to smithereens … unemployment, solved. Mad dog killers attacking kids, solved … of course your taxes might have to go up, but I doubt you’d have a problem with that … with all that kid safety concern … orrrrrr, home school every kid in the country, no more colleges, no more teachers … just have numbskulls (like “some” of yous in here) home teach their kids to grow up just like “some” of you … think of how wonderful that would be! A world of little BF’s … GMen … no more taxes, no more government … utopia, at last!

                I don’t think you people have a clue as to how funny some of you read sometimes … 🙂

              • Charlie,

                As usual, you post ridiculousness and pretend everyone should give it credibility.

                hire everyone who is unemployed

                Whose going to pay for it?

                Right out of the gate, you can throw this out with the garbage – an economic illiterate guy using economics to solve a political problem – guaranteed wrong every time.

              • And I don’t think you have any idea how you sound either. Are you capable of having a reasonable conversation for more than two minutes? But please ignore my craziness in the future. I intend to ignore yours!!!!!!

        • Bottom Line says:

          ” They way you pose it, they sound a bit anxious to show their stuff. ”

          And what exactly is it that leads you to conclude this?

          I will clarify for you….

          Andy and Barney represent your average do-good-er male community member…like the Israeli school teacher in BF’s example, we all have it in us to want to protect the young and vulnerable.

          It is simply a direct and practical solution as opposed to using an expensive, obviously inadequate and overbearing state system.

          How many Americans know how to use a gun? How many have had military or police training? How many can teach others?

          How many whackos are gonna still try it when they know little Sally’s uncle Bob the Gulf War veteran and his friends are guarding them?

  66. Go Michigan!

    First Right to Work and now….

    Michigan Legislature OKs bill to let residents to carry guns in schools

    Digital First Media
    The tragic shooting at a Connecticut elementary school on Friday occurred just a few hours after the Michigan Legislature granted final approval to a controversial bill that would allow state residents to carry guns in schools.

    Some school and government officials expressed dismay that the Republican-backed bill awaiting Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature into law allows people who undergo extra training and additional time at a gun range to carry concealed weapons in places such as schools, churches, day-care centers, sports arenas and stadiums, hospitals, bars and taverns, and college campuses.

    These are the “gun-free zones” under the state’s current law for those carrying a concealed weapon. Gun rights advocates sought to loosen the CCW law by arguing that a trained gun owner could disrupt a mass shooting in crowded places.

    Under the bill granted final approval by the state House on Friday, schools and private facilities could opt out and keep their existing gun ban.

    (there were a few more lines in the article but it didn’t look like it was going to copy right…)

  67. Test

    • Hmmmm..You may very well see a triple post . The Michigan legislature just passed a bill allowing residents to carry guns in schools..too bad I can’t prove it 🙂

  68. @ DKII, Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

    One mistake that is easy to make is to change the scenario and have armed people in the last incident and assume what would happen. While this is common, one thing that most nuts have in common is they don’t attack where there is resistance, in most cases. If teachers were armed, and this was advertised, most nuts would avoid schools as a target. They would likely hit the most vulnerable, least armed facility. Places like hospitals will soon be on the list, as most are no gun zones. If not for Liberal stupidity, most of these attacks could have been avoided and/or stopped before mass killings occurred.

    • That might be true in general. In this particular case though the guy specifically targeted the school because his mother was a teacher there. I’m not sure deterrence would’ve made much of a difference in this case. I don’t see it really hurting, just not sure it’s a complete solution.

      • DKII, You may be correct, deterrence may not have had an impact. Giving the adults in the school a fighting chance certainly would have.

        • Well, now wait a minute here, G. If we go way back to what our “founding fathers” dealt with, weren’t children at a very young age trained in shooting (for hunting bambi, etc.)? Why not arm the kids, too! Seriously, some kids might be great shots … and if they play enough video games, they won’t mind the blind. This could be the answer we’ve been waiting for. Show us libtards how to get it done. Arm the children! Arm the Children! Let little Judy in the second row, take out her Sig Sauer and blow the killer away soon as he walks into the room.

          This too has to be good for the economy, no? All those gun sales … all the innovation that will go into making the lightest guns possible … with triggers with little resistance for their little fingers … innovation and armed children could save the day.

          Now, before you go hunting today, G … head over to the liquor store and purchase that bottle of Chivas, thank you very much.


          • Charlie, Your comlete lack of maturity has now surpassed that of Todd 😉 I’m not going to make you look like a moron again by reposting what I already have above, like I did the last time. So, with that said, pull the pacifier out of your mouth and proceed to read the posts above. You might actually become enlightened if you read enough 🙂

            • Why lack of maturity? Why not arm the kids, G? If not kindergartners, 1st, 2nd or 3rd graders. Imagine the surprise on the killer’s face when 15 8 year olds are pointing handguns at his/her head?

              Todd and I aren’t immature, G … we just find VERY LITTLE thought behind some of your insane posts … you and BF … school killings are a reason for home schooling? Really?

              And talk about not reading, putz … I actually said “perhaps” … “maybe” teachers who volunteer to be trained in firearms, etc., “maybe” could be armed (those who volunteer to do so), but I’m not so sure that would be an answer because suppose the armed teacher is at one end of the building and the shooter is at the opposite end … and kills him/herself after killing a group of kids/teachers? Never mind some kid getting hold of the teacher’s firearm, etc. There’s a lot more thought that needs to go into how to handle problems like the one in CT (mostly because I don’t believe there is an absolute answer to such craziness) but to suggest arm everyone is just another simpleton resolution from, quite frankly, the simpletons of the world … if the shoe fits … well, cook it.

              And if you’re so convinced people should be allowed to defend themselves, why not arm the kids as well? What, they don’t get to have the same liberty as you?

  69. Teachers sacrificed themselves to save their pupils
    Four teachers murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School all died heroes as they attempted to save their young pupils from a gunman they recognised as the son of one of the school’s kindergarten teachers.
    Teachers sacrificed themselves to save their pupils
    Image 1 of 4
    Lauren Rousseau had just landed a full-time teaching job at the school

    Sean Rayment

    By Sean Rayment

    6:35PM GMT 15 Dec 2012

    Authorities have identified principal Dawn Hochsprung, 47, school psychologist Mary Sherlach, 56, and 27-year-old Victoria Soto, a young first grade teacher, as three of the eight adults found dead at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday.

    A fourth teacher, Lauren Rousseau, 30, a substitute teacher who had been working at the school since October, was also reported to have been killed.

    Twenty eight people died in the shooting spree, including 20 young children between the ages of five and ten. Six adults also died in the attack on the school.

    It has been reported that Miss Soto sacrificed herself to save her students – throwing her body in front of the young children.

    Some of the teachers took cover beneath tables when the murderer, Adam Lanza, opened fire inside the school in suburban Newtown, Connecticut – but the Mrs Hochsprung and Mrs Sherlach didn’t hesitate, according to reports.

    They ran into the hallway to confront the danger – and were murdered “execution-style” as a result.

    It is understood that Lanza forced his way into the school past the newly-installed security system.

    It was initially reported that Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza had been a kindergarten teacher at the school, but staff later said they were not aware she worked there.

    By that stage he had already killed his mother at the home they shared nearby with one of her guns and used her car to drive to the school.

    Diane Day, a school therapist, told the Wall Street Journal that she and several other teachers were in a meeting with Mrs Hochsprung and Mrs Sherlach when the shooting began.

    “We were there for about five minutes chatting and we heard, ‘pop pop pop’,” she said. “I went under the table.”

    But the principal and the school psychologist ran toward the sound of the gunfire with complete disregard for their own safety.

    “They didn’t think twice about confronting or seeing what was going on,” Ms Day said.

    Rabbi Shaul Praver, who visited the scene, said that Mrs Hochsprung and Mrs Sherlach were killed in an “execution-style” shooting.

    Miss Soto, who had taught at the school for five years was described by one of her deeply distraught 10-year-old pupils as ‘really nice and funny’, was trying to shield her students and usher them into a closet when she came face-to-face with the gunman.

    Miss Soto’s cousin, Jim Wiltsie, said: “She put herself between the gunman and the children and that’s when she was tragically shot and killed.

    “I’m just proud that Vicki had the instincts to protect her kids from harm. It brings peace to know that Vicki was doing what she loved, protecting the children and in our eyes she’s a hero,” he added.

    Jacob Riley added that Miss Soto liked to chew gum in class – something not usually allowed for teachers. He said he often teased her about her habit – and she playfully teased him back.

    Former school superintendent John Reed told the Connecticut Post that Mrs Sherlach was warm and cared deeply for her students.

    “If there ever was a person, by qualifications and personality, to work with children, to be a school psychologist, it was Mary,” he said.

    She was married, had daughters in their 20s, and enjoyed gardening, reading and the theatre, according to her school biography.

    Mrs Hochsprung, who was happily married to her second husband after her first marriage ended in divorce, tweeted dozens of pictures of her school since the start of term earlier this year.

    Friends and neighbours said it was immediately clear to everyone she knew that she loved her students and her school.

    “I don’t think you could find a more positive place to bring students to every day,” she told a local newspaper recently.

    Lauren Rousseau, who grew up in the neighbouring town of Danbury, CT, had been due to go see The Hobbit movie on Friday night with her boyfriend Tony Lusardi III before going to a party. She had even made cupcakes with pictures of the actors in the movie attached to the top.

    But she never returned from school – it is thought she was one of the teachers looking after the kindergarten classes targetted by Adam Lanza.

    Miss Rousseau’s mother Teresa, a copy editor at The News-Times newspaper. “It was the best year of her life,” said Mrs Rousseau, describing her daughters happiness at getting a permanent position at the school this year.

    “She had so many interests – music, dance, theatre.”

    “She was like a kid in many ways,” added her father, Gilles Rousseau. “That’s why she liked working with kids so much. She died with her little kids.”

    Another tale of heroism came from an eight-year-old student who said a teacher pulled him from the hallway as bullets rang out.

    “I saw some of the bullets going down the hall that I was right next to and then a teacher pulled me into her classroom. It sounded like someone was kicking a door,’ he said.

    Abbey Clements, also a teacher at the school, recalled how she thought the loud banging noises were caused by folding chairs falling over but she quickly realized that the sounds being transmitted over the school’s PA system were in fact gunshots.

    There were two students loitering in the hallway and Miss Clements and other teachers ushered them into her classroom for safety.

    “My heart breaks for my little students who had to listen to those gunshots, they are going to have to work out their own trauma,” she said, adding, “I couldn’t stop those sounds from coming through the classroom.”

    The teacher only opened the door to her classroom once police officers had arrived at the school. The police escorted the children, some who were quiet and some crying, out of the school.

    Fortunately, all of her students escaped unharmed and none had to pass by any causalities.

    Kaitlin Roig, another teacher who survived the attack, explained how she kept her class safe by ushering them into a bathroom when she heard shots being fired.

    “I said to them, I need you to know that I love you all very much and that it’s going to be OK, because I thought that was the last thing they were ever going to hear,” she added.

    Mary Ann Jacobs, who worked as a clerk in the school library added: “The intercom went off and we could hear a kind of skuffle going in the office. I thought it had been set off by mistake so I called the office and the school secretary answered and said it was a shooting. As far as I am concerned she is a hero as she was right where it was happening.

    “I yelled lock down in our room and ran across the hall to tell them to lock down too. We locked all the doors and covered the windows and got all the kids somewhere they cannot be seen. We told them to sit down and be quiet.

    “We took them into a storage room at the back of the library where the servers are. We tore up bits of paper and handed out crayons to give the kids something to do.

    “We were there for around an hour before people starting banging on the door saying they were the police. We didn’t open the door for a while until they put a badge under the door.”

    I do not have the answers but I know a few things-It is almost impossible to stop truly deranged people from killing if they want to kill- but it is possible to limit how many they can kill-And these Brave Teachers should have had something besides their courage to fight with.

    • Your right V.H. 🙂 People like Charlie will tell you that when people carry guns, bad things happen. However, it should be, when bad people carry guns bad things happen. But when good people carry guns, the FACTS are very clear that crime goes down. The people who died may still be alive if not for stupid Liberal thinking. liberalism gets people killed, and this is solid proof.

      I posted earliier about Liberal idiots who wanted to kill NRA members, when in fact it’s their idiotic liberal laws that denied these people the natural right to defend themselves. Liberalism kills, enough said 🙄

    • Teachers sacrificed themselves to save their pupils
      Four teachers murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School all died heroes as they attempted to save their young pupils from a gunman they recognised as the son of one of the school’s kindergarten teachers.

      Try and remember the above the next time you want to strip them of their collective bargaining rights …

      • But no one stripped them of their right to bargain, Charlie!

        Where did you dream up this insane ditty??

        • Try and remember the above the next time you want to strip them of their collective bargaining rights …

          Hey, genius, reread the quote … where does it say they were stripped of their collective bargaining rights?

          ONce again, you put your kingsized foot in your ginormous mouth … now, do you feel a little bit more like the asshole you are or should we wait for another of your rationally constructed statements?

          • Charlie is your canoli spiked already? BF followed your lead. You may not have said the rights were stripped but that’s what you were getting at. You’re getting petty just to upstage BF. Keep it real now, we’re not KOS kids.

            • I’m getting petty? Come on, my love … now that is funny.

              BF followed my lead … about friggin’ time …. but that’s not what he did (and you know it). BF can’t help himself … ever … and that’s what makes picking at his scabs so much fun …:)

              • Charlie I must be reading it differently than you.

                Charlie: Try and remember the above the next time you want to strip them of their collective bargaining rights …

                BF: But no one stripped them of their right to bargain, Charlie!

                Charlie:Hey, genius, reread the quote … where does it say they were stripped of their collective bargaining rights?

                BF responded to what you said..what am I missing?

  70. I want all the lefties who support gun control to read this list of victims. This is what gun bans will get us, dead kids and dead adults denied the right to defend themselves as they so choose.

    • This is what gun bans will get us, dead kids and dead adults denied the right to defend themselves as they so choose

      There it is, oh, great, mature, rational thought master! G supports the kids having guns too!


    • And, hey, isn’t showing a list like that playing to “emotions?” You’re now in violation of USW Law # 101 … no emotional arguments allowed. Reason and logic only.

      If you want people to have the right to defend themselves, arm the kids too. Why? Because kids are people too! 🙂

  71. @LOI …I have access to edit

    Censorship and fraud from the liberty lovers … what’s next?

    • It ain’t your blog.
      It ain’t your post.

      Freedom works that way, Charlie

      – you do the same thing on your blog – you just prevent everyone from commenting, right?
      Why? Because that’s your right….

      • You know what I’d love, BF … I’d love for you to feel so free, you didn’t hide behind a fugazy name and crawled out from whatever rock you hide under … obviously, that kind of freedom is too much to handle … so you hide, like most cowards … and that’s your right too 🙂

    • Agreed upon terms of use. I’m not a lawyer but bet Buck will back me up here. If I’m wrong, show me some proof. Look up some legal terms or hire a lawyer. Freedom of speech here does not include wasting everyone else’s time with petty insults. You two should get a room, you sound like an old married couple….(see, that was a funny insult)

  72. A Puritan Descendant says:
  73. Wow-these result sound like Prohibition.

    Those cigarette taxes are sure working out, eh?
    posted at 2:31 pm on December 15, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

    Taking a break from the firestorm of sad news this weekend, let’s circle back and see how things are going in the states which have chosen to sin tax their way back to prosperity. First, my own home stomping grounds of New York, which has been seeking a way to stave off total fiscal collapse by jacking up one of the highest tobacco tax rates in the nation. How’s that working out for ya?

    ALBANY – Chronic cigarette-tax evasion continues to cost New York State at least $1.7 billion a year in tax revenue and 6,700 jobs, according to a new report from the New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS).

    Commissioned by NYACS, the economic study by John Dunham & Associates determined that in 2011, one of every two packs of cigarettes consumed in New York State escapes collection of New York State taxes. “This is further proof that New York, which has the highest cigarette excise tax in the nation, continues to suffer the corrosive economic and fiscal effects of the worst cigarette tax evasion in the nation,” said NYACS President James Calvin in a press release.

    Their study finds that nearly half of the packs of smokes purchased in New York were “from other states, Indian reservations, duty-free shops, and military bases.” And that doesn’t take into account the number of smokers who are choosing to do their shopping with black market bootleggers who are increasingly prevalent in sections of the state which are further from the border. This has led to the “unexpected” result of more police resources being diverted to enforcement efforts, more people winding up in jail and more small businesses being swept up in the wreckage and disarray. In short, rather than soaking up more cash with this tax, New York is actually losing money on the deal. Who could possibly have predicted that?

    But that’s just New York. We’re kind of weird out here anyway, right? So maybe this case is just an outlier. I’m sure things are working out much better in Chicago, where Illinois is quickly moving to catch New York in the smoke tax category. The money surely must be rolling in by now.

    CHICAGO (CBS) – Cook County investigators have been raiding stores across the county that have been breaking the law, and ripping off taxpayers of millions of dollars, by selling cigarettes without proper taxes…

    About 800 raids take place each month.

    “Roughly a quarter of them result in confiscations,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said.

    “In the last fiscal year, it was a loss of $6 million,” she added. “$6 million would make a great deal of difference to our healthcare system, or to our criminal justice system.”

    Chicago has at least found a way to make up some of the loss, giving credit where credit is due. To date they have managed to issue more than $1.3M in fines, largely against small retail outlets who sell cigarettes. So they’ve got that going for them I guess. And hey… they’re creating jobs, too.

    The Cook County Department of Revenue has planned to hire even more investigators in 2013. The goal is to carry out even more raids, at night.

    This is what we’re devoting our law enforcement resources to in the midst of all the other problems facing these states. Meanwhile, revenue is driven out of the state, businesses are beaten down and an entire new industry has cropped up for criminal networks in two places already famous for organized crime activity. Way to go, guys. Another fine product brought to you by your tax dollars at work.

  74. If Hillary is really sick-I hope she has a quick recovery-but this has my BS radar going off.

    Hillary Clinton Concussed, Not Expected to Testify at Benghazi Hearings

    by Tony Lee 15 Dec 2012, 11:15 AM PDT 190 post a comment
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fainted due to a stomach virus that left her dehydrated and suffered a concussion in the fall last week, the State Department revealed on Saturday.

    As a result, Clinton is not expected to testify next Thursday at the congressional hearings on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

    State Department spokesperson Phillipe Reines said Clinton “became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion” while suffering from a stomach virus that caused her to also miss a scheduled trip to Mexico last week.

    “She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors,” Reines said.

    Reines added that at the recommendation of Clinton’s doctors, “she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials.” He claimed she “is looking forward to being back in the office soon.”

    Congress will hold hearings on Benghazi next week, and Clinton had been scheduled to testify. She took “responsibility” for many of the security failures leading up to the attack.

    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, after withdrawing her name for consideration to be the next Secretary of State on Thursday, said that Clinton had initially been asked to go on the Sunday shows immediately after the attacks. Rice claimed she took Hillary’s place because Clinton was too worn down from her travels to do the interviews.

    • Pretty convenient. We’ve waited this long, what’s the problem with waiting an extra week for her to testify? A concussion? Riiiiiight. Then the answer can be that her concussion caused her to answer incorrectly. BS flag.

  75. How about a little break from all the sad and horrible news!

  76. @ Todd, Exactly how is gun control going to stop any violence? Have you been to Chicago, where the gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country? WE don’t need gun control. YOU and your ilk need gun control. You lefties will beat drums to give women the right to kill an unborn child, because she should have a choice, but you’ll turn around and tell that same woman she can’t choose how to defend herself (against a rapist).

    Todd, if guns are outlawed, are you going to lead the way to come get them? Thought not 🙄

    • You lefties will beat drums to give women the right to kill an unborn child

      Violation, violation! Unborn child … how do you wrap your mind around that?

      I have to say, before going to visit Momma Stella Sunday morning, it’s always fun to poke my big fat middle aged, can’t get off the couch head in here and have a laugh.



    I like this picture.

    Only the political moron is smiling.

  78. @BF … thanks for saving my silly life, my brother! I was worried there for a moment … thank the good lord (whoever it may be) cowards never come out from their cover …:)

    Charlie,(and Flagster)LOI editing again

    I have trashed several of your posts for what I deem to be a violation of agreed upon terms of use.
    Point one, Charlie, you are calling every poster here who does not use their public name a coward. I have what I think are valid reasons to keep my name off an open site. I have shared my personal information with several people here on PRIVATE websites. I do not see that happening with you & I because I do not trust you or your ethics. I can disagree with Matt & Buck all day but still “trust” them. If I am a coward & unworthy, why do you read my articles & post here?
    Point two, you continue to bait Flag into low exchanges (yes, he is also guilty, including being the instigator at times) such as responding to VH and using it to take a shot at Flag. Frankly, this is just childish and beneath you both and a turn-off for the rest of us. If you are going to insult each other, at least make it funny or interesting. Asshole? That’s all a published, professional writer can manage? We can hear that in the lowest dives in any city.
    Point three, this is me talking. I have had no input from our host so do not know what he thinks or feels. I suspect this is part of why he’s had less to do with SUFA. He wanted to create a site where issues were discussed without petty, personal attacks. I differ somewhat that I like to throw in some humor that may sometimes cross the line.

    Speaking for myself, I am getting tired of reading some of the childish taunts, insults and bickering. Not sure about you, but MY TIME is more valuable than that.

  79. @BF … the government set this all up to happen.

    I’m sure it’s what the founding fathers were thinking when they met at constitution hall … (please, wingies, this is not me defending your dopey constitution … just making fodder of another of BF’s “reasoned” theories …

    Drug up the kid, pack defenseless targets together, … and gasoline plus a spark.

    Again, what society had first and foremost in mind when they developed a public education system. Kill the kids …

    And you clowns say my arguments have no merit … you can’t take me seriously … seriously, many of you are nuts.

    Saying Guns commit crimes is like saying pencils make spelling errors.

    I’ll speak up for USW here (because I know he’s just dying to jump in) … factually true, yet absurd … 🙂 … but no less absurd than your assertion that mass school shooting is a valid reason for home schooling … that’s about as dumb as a bag of rocks … sort of like you.

    • I’m sure it’s what the founding fathers were thinking when they met at constitution hall … (please, wingies, this is not me defending your dopey constitution … just making fodder of another of BF’s “reasoned” theories …

      Well, of course not, Charlie.

      They are like you.

      They believe ‘this action of force’ will solve some particular problem. They are truly want to solve that problem.

      But they, like you, are completely ignorant in calculating consequences or, more like you, ignore it.

      But the Universe don’t care. It deals the consequences whether you saw it coming or ignored it.

      That part is where you get all mad – you hold the mess that you heartily refused to accept

  80. @Anita my love … the key here, Anita … you want to strip. Note it doesn’t say “You stripped them” … it says you “want” to strip them …

    • Alrighty then Charlie. I just assumed we could bypass word plays, but….whatever. 😉

      • Remember that (bypassing word plays) the next time BF does it in spades, please.

        Although it does remind me how USW (and other wingies in here) feel compelled to request I stop calling names while ignoring how often BF does it … almost ALWAYS starting it …

        I better stop pointing at him, though … he might just come out from under his couch some day ….

  81. Charlie says “If you want people to have the right to defend themselves, arm the kids too. Why? Because kids are people too!

    Slick, That is the dunmbest thing you have ever said (maybe). But to be fair to the 5 and 6 year olds, they will show more maturity than you. Your arguments are nothing more than the thoughts of a man with the intelligence of a bag of hammers. Can’t you do better than that?

    • Come on, G! It’s a perfectly reasonable argument (even if I was being sarcastic and you’re too dumb to realize it) … I’m sure … actually positive that there are kids as young as 5-8 who can fire a gun with enough accuracy to defend themselves (and I’m no gun nut) … how did our early settlers handle hunting, etc.? And if the 5-8 are too young, what about the 9 and 10 year olds?

      Me thinks my hammers are more intelligent than yours, G …:)

  82. @Charlie, This is a political discussion blog. Maybe you should take your bullshit over to HuffPo and join the other immature Liberals, you’d fit right in 🙂

    • G!!!! so glad you’re back, brother! I missed you! This is a wingnut discussion blog and if you don’t have libtards to make fools of you, all you get to do is pat yourselves on the back! Now, if you can’t take getting your political butski kicked, maybe you shouldn’t blog?

      The booze is on the way?

      • Dude, the only thing you have been able to do as of late is make a fool of yourself. Your not debating anything, your are playing a little boy with a mental problem. Pick a subject of recent discussion and lets debate. I won’t call you any names, I will just stick to the subject. Do you think you can handle a mature discussion? I hope so, cuz lately you have been walking around with a big “L” tatooed on your forehead 😆

        • Dude, reread from the start … see where BF calls Buck “stupid” … after making the dumbest remark/comment I’ve ever heard. School killings are a valid reason for home schooling? That’s how it all started … so “L” this, my friend. And then look at your own posts … always calling names. Buck has more class than me … he chooses not to engage the name calling. I don’t let you and BF get away with it. I don’t have these problems with the Colonel, if you haven’t noticed. He’s always respectful and so he gets respect back. That’s how it works in the real world, buddy boy. You get sarcastic, I get sarcastic. You play nice, I’ll play nice. Works for me … doesn’t seem to work for you. I’d say that’s your problem, G. But debate away, my friend. Just remember your proposal to not call names. I’m fine with that.

          • I’m curious-just what did I say to warrant IYO-the sarcastic, condescending answers I received? If I said something to warrant this treatment-I don’t know what it was.

            • Actually, it wasn’t aimed at you, but if you took it that way, I do apologize, V.H. I might’ve looped it into a response to something you posted. If that was the case, my bad. You’re feisty, but you generally don’t call people names unless provoked. I admire that.

              • I don’t normally stay angry very long Charlie-so you are forgiven. But your tendency to not limit your attacks to those who attacked you-is the main reason people have a tendency to think You are more in the wrong than others who also name call on a regular basis.

          • I berate Buck because he is a smart guy who, for the sake of a failed dogma, blinds himself to its serious and deadly failures.

            Further, like you, he has serious issues in contradicting his principles; I glean this, because like you, he cannot articulate them.

            I have found 100% of the time a person who cannot articulate his principles is really in a self defense mechanism because he is perverting those principles regularly – and his mind cannot allow such a root contradiction. Thus, your mind blocks the ability to reach them and articulate them – and when you try you bet a flat line response — nothing.

        • G: Your first name calling:

          Ah Yes, the economic reality that socialist communist progressive idiots can’t comprehend.

          #2 Making fun of a fat man. Is that nice?

          The good part of this Charlie, you’ll lose that weight you been trying to lose for awhile. For you at least, there is good to come from this

          I can go on, but I think you get my drift … At least I hope you do … but if you don’t, it’s always fun making fools of yous too …:)

          • Ah Yes, the economic reality that socialist communist progressive idiots can’t comprehend.

            Charlie, I was stating a fact, I did not direct it at an individual, but a large group of people. Socialist Communist Progressive idiots is being nice, as well as true, when it comes to economics.

            Making fun of a fat man? If I wanted to do so, I would be much more direct, like calling you a fatass or some sort of thing like that. I won’t do that, I feel bad for people who struggle with weight and try hard to resolve it. You do try hard, as you have posted so. Being overweight is a non-issue in my mind, it’s a tough problem and people need support to overcome it.

            By the way, why is BF’s and Buck’s discussion any business of yours? It’s not. Why do you inject yourself in that discussion? Can’t seem to mind your own business maybe, like most Liberals 🙂

            By the way, they don’t make a magnifying glass strong enough for me to find anything to “blow” on you, and I’m not gay to boot.

            I doubt you could kick Flag’s ass, or anyone’s ass for that matter. You, and I, and probably most people who post here are , or should be (hint, hint) more mature than to revert back to our youthful school days. Don’t you think it’s time to lose your old Dago mafia mentality?

            Now, if you want to debate the gun control issue, I’m ready. I don’t need to call you names to prove you wrong. You may have to do that because you can’t win, but maybe we shall see if you can manage to engage in a mature debate 😉

  83. @VH. But your tendency to not limit your attacks to those who attacked you-is the main reason people have a tendency to think You are more in the wrong than others who also name call on a regular basis.

    I’m not so sure about that, VH … I think there’s a bit more to why they feel I’m “more wrong” … but it really isn’t important. Now I have to watch my beloved New York State Buffalo Bills give up home field advantage (morons–I’m allowed to call them names) and get routed by the Sea Pigeons in a Canadian gymnasium … the horror … the horror …

  84. @ BF’s response to Todd It makes the case of getting rid of government schools. They are run by incompetents.

    Okay, so here we are in a reasonable discussion and you make this incredible generalization. Government schools are run by incompetents. You don’t say some, you imply all. Do you have a clue as to how wrong a statement that is? Can you prove that every government school (never mind any government school) is run by incompetents?

    Or is it just your opinion, articulated in the WORST possibly way, with the broadest GENERALIZATION possible?

    If that is your idea of articulation, BF … it is FLAWED, my pirate friend.

    • Fair enough.

      Insert “..are GENERALLY run…” as if that makes a difference to the statement….

      • BF, good boy! I believe we’re making progress. Of course it makes a difference, because the generalization is now much less broad in scope. You still need to provide proof, but even I can agree there are incompetents running “some” schools … what I wouldn’t agree to is the idea they are generally run by incompetents. First, you’d have to define incompetents (i.e., incompetent professionals), then you’d have to prove it. Much to great a task for a blog, no? You often do this, by the way … make broad assumptions and generalization, then accuse others of not being articulate or being confused, etc. I don’t assume I have the answers. I doubt Todd or Buck do the same … we’re not as cock sure as you usually imply you are. There’s a lesson to be learned in that humility, amigo. Nobody has all the answers … and when it comes to mass shootings, I doubt anyone has the answers.

        • I’m pretty sure every public school in Detroit is run by incompetents. 😉

          • My love … at least you’re saying you’re “pretty sure” and not stating a generalization is a fact. I’m sure there are a few … possibly many … but that means there are probably also a few, possibly many, that are run by competent professionals … the education system is flawed … so are we all.

        • Charlie,

          It changes nothing. The scope was not the issue, so extending it or shrinking it really makes no matter.

          It just shows you latch on to irrelevant things so to avoid the real meat of the argument.

          Proof? The falling academic performance, while funding continually increases.
          Spending more and getting less is a sign of incompetence.

          But what is this thing you ask, proof? Good boy! You’re trying to reason, son! Keep it at!

          Humility has its place.

          But not around evil.

          • You keep be nice too BEE EFF! 😉

            And you too GMAN!

            • I was being nice.

              Nary a mean word..!

              • It just shows you latch on to irrelevant things so to avoid the real meat of the argument.

                If it was so irrelevant, my pirate friend … then why oh why did you mention it as “making the case” vs. Todd’s argument?

                Me thinks you revert to irrelevance whenever you’re caught with your tongue tied … now, I’m having fun watching the Cheatriots get chopped to pieces but I don’t trust Brady not to make a comeback so I’m turnning my limited attention to the tv … where I can eat and eat and eat and get dizzy when I stand up. Have a good evening, all a yous …:)

              • You’ll have to point to the quote.

            • Anita, I’m always nice 🙂 But, if one need proof that our education system is run by incompetants, that’s rather easy to prove, based on how Charlie and Todd view government. If you go back in time, just to G.H.W. Bush, and every President since then, they will tell you, in their State of the Union Speeches, that the education system is broken and the Govt needs to “invest” more money to fix it.

              So, every President since what, 1988 (that’s as far back as I went) says that the education system is , effectively, run by incompetants. I’m sure there are some good school systems in this country, but how can Charlie argue with his Messiah’s? 😆

  85. Just A Citizen says:


    Seahawks consume large quantity of Buffalo Janes

  86. Black Flag,

    It makes the case of getting rid of government schools. They are run by incompetents.

    So you think the administrators and teachers at Sandy Hook are/were incompetents? Not surprising coming from you.

    How many people will blame the lack of proper security? A few, but not many.

    I’ve seen many question the security at schools.

    but also forget the government set this all up to happen.

    Except the lack of security would be a government issue.

    Saying Guns commit crimes is like saying pencils make spelling errors.

    This is another one of your stupid comparisons. Completely irrelevant to reality.

    • Todd,

      27 dead – so, yeah, they were incompetent.

      As the fact that public schools are part of government, the lack of security is a school/government issue – neither of which are that good at it.

      If you want a lot of dead people, call government.

      You are intent to blame a tool for its misuse. That is stupid, Todd.

      • BF..I think you’re being a little harsh on that particular school. The doors were locked..the kid shot his way into that school. Could have happened anywhere.

        • Harsh, maybe. We have had school massacres before, yet, because of bad government laws and Liberal idiology, we still can’t stop them. After Columbine, the Liberals wentt coo-coo and now we have “no gun zones” which includes schools and surrounding property. This is proof that laws to “control guns” simply do not work. The only people that followed the law were law abiding citizens, whilst criminals and nuts really don’t care about the law or Liberal ideology. Noone can convince Liberals that putting guns IN the possession of law abiding citizens has proven to lower crimes rates everywhere that conceal carry was enacted.

          The same can be said about “stand your ground” laws and “castle doctrine” laws. Both reduce crime because it puts the power back in the hands of the good people, while taking away the advantage that the criminals once had. Having a big case like the Trayvon/Zimmerman case is good for this law to actually work as a deterent. Once Zimmerman is aquitted of the wrongful charges he has been charged with, it will show the criminal/violent element that it may be wise to keep your hands to yourself, or get shot. I personnally think that if a person is willing to violently attack another, he/she derserves to get shot. To bad that sissy Union guy in Michigan didn’t get popped, he would have deserved it.

          Merry Christmas to you and your family 🙂

          • You’re right..we can’t stop them.

  ’re going to give Todd a stroke bringing up Martin/Zimmerman again.

            …..and Merry Christmas to you and Pops too G 😉

            • Thanks 🙂 I’m a Zimmerman supporter! I’m glad he sued NBC and I hope he ends up owning that Liberal rag. Zimmerman should be tauted as a hero 😉 What he did was show the inner city punk hoodlums that their violent mentallity might get them killed. Now, if we can get some teachers to whack the next nutcase who wants to shoot up a school, Peace shall take over the land and everyone will suddenly be polite 😆 🙂

        • Harsh?!?!?!?!

          This isn’t a kid who -unattended- fell off a swing.

          This is 27 dead.

          Damn right, harsh!

          • grrr,,you haven’t even been to bed yet..and you’re crabby now. GO TO BED! 🙂 (mom voice off)

  87. Black Flag,

    First, he was 20 – I’d think he’s no long “in school”. And actually he was PUBLIC schooled – but removed from public school due to some significant issues with the school

    But the fact is he was homeschooled, and killed his mom/teacher and 26 other people. It dismisses your entire homeschool meme.

    Interestingly, 10+ people (or kids) have never been slaughtered in a homeschooled household, not once in recorded history.
    The only case a simple google search brought up was a boy who killed his own family. No other parent’s or kids were killed.

    No kidding, because there is seldom a homeschooled household with 10+ people. But there is plenty of domestic violence out there. Homeschooling would be very dangerous for many kids, a fact that you conveniently ignore.

    • Todd.. BFs thoughts on homeschooling & safety are not as far ‘out there’ as you try to portray. So far on this page I’ve seen Kathy, Puritan and GMan all agree that school safety is an important factor to them..add me to the list. I’d be willing to put the words in Jon Smith’s mouth too. I put my son back in public school this year and I worry about him daily as there have been issues involving kids and guns at that school in the past, Last year was the most recent, but even as long as 10 years ago when my daughter was enrolled, there were issues with guns. My city is not known to be violent but it’s a real concern as it can happen anywhere. As far as homeschooling and groups of’re off on that too IMO..Ever hear of homeschool co ops? It’s where individual homeschool families gang up together and hold class, usually once weekly. The adults take turns teaching what they are most familiar with..that way if you, as the parent, aren’t comfortable teaching science, another homeschool parent can handle that class for you. It’s also a means of socializing with other homeschoolers and also a good tool for coordinating field trips. Many homeschoolers belong to these co opts so it’s entirely possible for groups of 10 or more to be together. Look to Kansas and Missouri homeschool co ops as examples. I’ve heard SC is big on the co ops too. Your last sentence about homeschooling being dangerous for many is just your cannot prove it to be true.

      • Good Morning Anita 🙂

        I think homeschooling is great when it’s feasable. Each family has their own set of circumstances that determine it’s direction. In my opinion, I think that the kids get a better education at home than in public schools. If I had to put in order, reasons to homeschool, I would say education first, safety second. Allthough many parents do homeschool because schools are not safe in many cases. Then again, there are many homes that are unsafe for kids as well, so each family should decide whats best for them.

        @Todd, Man made Global Warmer is a fraud! You can give up and accept the fact that you have been made a fool of by Al Gore 😆

        • Yeah, you are right, Gman!

          Anthropogenic …Climate (whatever adverb of the day) is a fraud.

          The latest assessment (which yours truly had a small part in) has gone as far as the politics can to say so.

          They have now inserted that “cosmic rays play a part!” and that the sun “influences” climate.

          Considering from the beginning the latter was discounted and the former was ignored, this is a milestone.

          This fraud is coming to an end …. painfully slow, but eventual.

    • 10+ homeschool

      It is OBVIOUS you do not homeschool and know dick-all about it.

      The fact….

      The fact: He spent 11 1/2 years in public school, and perhaps 1/2 homeschooled. To you this means homeschooling was the cause… *rolleyes*

      The fact: He was on some sort of pysch medicine – which have a history of turning kids into robots and killers.

      Danger is relative, not absolute. You can die falling out of bed.

      It is far more dangerous to be in school then be homeschooled – that’s a fact.

  88. new post up, happy monday all!

%d bloggers like this: