Weekend Opinion/Open Mic

First, I want to have a new article to speed up the process. Sometimes it takes a long time for things to load up when we have lots of posts, so time to speed things up. Feel free to bring forward anything you want to discuss.  Before we move on, there are a few things that are on my mind that I would like to share.  This is mostly in response to all the gun control chatter and proposed laws that are all over the place.  The story and subsequent fear are really unusual, considering how things have been reported and re-reported.  Some of the reports, that have led to much of today’s discussions, have no basis of fact, just reports from the Lame Stream media, who are bought and paid for buy those who want you to believe in this fairytale about “assault weapons”.  Let me explain by asking questions that still need answered about the reporting aspect of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Who is the “anonymous source” that claimed that Adam Lanza’s mother was a “prepper”?  The basis of the “assault weapon” story. The police said that Lanza reloaded 5 to 10 times, so which is it?  Does anyone really think that this kid, about 130lbs soaking wet, is going to carry an AR-15, 2 pistols, and hundreds of rounds (supposedly shot up to 300 and had several hundred left),  10 magazines is 300 rounds, although there is no mention as to the size of the mags.  Did he have a backpack or dufflebag?  No details is bulldookie.  Why didn’t Gene call 911 when he found the 6 kids in his yard?  Why did his story change with each interview?

I have no doubt that these people all died as a result of this horrible event,  but the story is full of holes that you can drive a truck through.  No pictures, no video, no history of the shooter the last 3 years,  anonymous sources that make claims that can’t be proven,  lies, lies and more lies.  All directed for political purposes.  The whole thing was controlled by the Feds.  All the info was prepared for a purpose.  Never let a crisis go to waste!  They USED this tragedy and the victims.  One day, the truth will come out!

My rant is over, and I feel better.  Now, it’s still Open Mic, so chat all you want about whatever you want.  Have a Great Weekend!



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. gmanfortruth says:
  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Out in JAC’s neck of the woods, they have some interesting politicians too!

  4. gmanfortruth says:
  5. gmanfortruth says:

    There are many questions that should be asked here. Should doctors and hospitals be asking for immigration papers? If not, why. If doctors/hospitals are found to be billing for illegal aliens, why can’t the govt get it back? I place the responsibility here on those who bill medicare/medicaid. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/24/report-medicare-paid-out-91-6-million-to-claims-made-by-illegal-immigrants/

  6. You gotta love Texas….. Texas independence arises yet again.

    Guns are going to be allowed in all school districts if it is a local decision. Several school districts are now allowing trained teachers and administrators to carry.

    The new the r”s……reading, writing, revolvers…….huah!

    ” The seven-member board of the Union Grove Independent School District voted unanimously Thursday evening to enact the policy, Superintendent Brian Gray said Friday. Residents asked that faculty and staff be allowed to carry guns after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 dead, including 20 young children.

    “We wanted it, our community supported it, and it’s a local decision,” Gray said.

    THIS IS A LESSON USA……….it was and is a LOCAL decision.

    ” Texas law bans guns in schools unless the school has given written authorization. The state doesn’t track which schools allow them” said Debbie Graves Ratcliffe, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency

    NOTE: It is a school decision…..not a state decision. Texas leaves it up to the local situation. Our state does not even track which districts. Total independence without state jurisdiction. AND the weapons are not limited. If a teacher wants an AR 15……it is ok.

    ” The school board decides which teachers and staff members can carry guns on campus. Those teachers must take additional training on shooting accuracy, hostage situations and how to clear a classroom. ”

    ANOTHER LESSON HERE USA………Local…..get that?….LOCAL jurisdiction. The school board decides. Not law makers. Our law makers leave the decisions to local jurisdiction AS IT SHOULD BE.

    ” “We spent a lot of time problem-solving and looking at some of the various situations that have come up” in school settings, he said. As for the need for incorporating teachers and staff into the security structure of the school, Thweatt said, “it would seem pretty obvious to me.”

    In Texas, the Plano school district has backed a proposal to hire armed security guards to patrol all 71 campuses in suburban Dallas.

    Again, this is a local decision……these are private guards, not off duty policemen….they are mainly retired Veterans.

    So,,,,,USA,,,,,,want to know what liberty and freedom is…….come to Texas, we are discarding the tired method of government knows best…it does not. Individuals know best. Freedom !!!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good for Texas! 🙂 To me, arming teachers and administrators was a no-brainer. It would not add to the budgets of school districts, it would provide better security for kids and teachers alike, and is just a good decision. Here’s a good question. Where was the union’s in all of this? Why weren’t they fighting for safer work conditions? They didn’t even fight for armed security guards. Maybe there is a lesson to all of this.

      • There are no teacher’s unions in Texas. There is an association that acts as a lobbying group but have no relative power. Texas is open shop.

        • This is true, however Texas teachers can join the Texas arm of the NEA or the AFT.

          That way they have the privilege (I need a sarcasm font here) of paying union dues, lining union officials’ pockets, having their dollars support liberal causes and candidates, and getting overpriced legal protection….


          • Do many take advantage of this great opportunity? /sarc

            • Unfortunately, yes. Many just don’t know the difference, and are too busy playing on their iPads and iPhones to research what they are supporting.


          • gmanfortruth says:

            I was speaking in general terms, not one union spoke up about better security for teachers. That’s one of the things Charlie harps on all the time, how they fought for a safe work environment. One would think that, with teachers being shot dead, they would be screaming for their protection, but, not a peep! So much for the unions claims that they fight to protect their members. 😦

    • Michigan Senate and House passed a bill allowing people to carry in schools, churches, etc. All it needed was the governor’s signature. Within a day or two Sandy Hook happened, which spooked the governor, and he refused to sign the bill. Bummer.

      • ??? Shouldn’t Sandy Hook have encouraged the governor to sign it immediately?

        • You would think….The gun control people were especially loud right after Sandy Hook. Snyder caved plain & simple.

    • Some random thoughts (pardon if I am repeating):

      – Assuming this School Board is elected then the “measure” the same effect as law – they are in effect lawmakers;
      – The measure “allows” but does not require;
      – Multi-jurisdictional background check with recurring post-hire checks? Usually see the former not the later;
      – Would be interesting to discuss the Constitutionality of requiring public servants to buy/carry guns;
      – What is the perspective of someone from LE responding to an active shooter event? Concerns about response process where you likely have friendlies that are armed?
      – No mention of active shooter drilling for students? Maybe wrong but I envision some degree of panic of scared shitless students when gunfire erupts. Mix in a newly armed (and hopefully well trained teacher looking to defend students untrained in what they should be doing) teacher and things get interesting?
      – If we consider the infrequency (yet obviously horrific) of the school-based shooter events in terms of overall violent crime as a argument against any gun control, then why the hell does it make sense to arm people in the school? If people shoot people why is the focus not on the people who shoot or may shoot?

      I guess if you don’t like the school allowing teachers to bear arm then don’t live there.

  7. For Buck in particular

    Regardless of whether I agree with NY Gun Laws, this is how it should be handled. Pic’s though seem to show a lot more than 55 guns.

    Now, if one could only get a FEDERAL attorney interested in the handgun part, something might just be accomplished. Also, how about tracing back those handguns and quantity rifle purchases to a dealer and having BATF check his records. Awful lot of straw men seem to be lurking in the bushes out there.

    Take down a few of these guys, throw the book at them let’s say one count per firearm and another per state line crossed and the word just might get out!


  8. gmanfortruth says:

    Buck, Why I asked you that question the other day: And in 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt was set to eliminate all of the 48 states in order to implement nine regional governments that would operate as extensions of the federal government. All local law enforcement would be eliminated. The plan failed, but the fact that it was attempted points to an ever present, insidious stealth plan on the part of some within the federal government to take away the right of the people and the states to elect their own local law enforcement and to vastly strengthen the hand of the numerous federal law enforcement agencies that currently operate throughout America.

  9. Sorry VH – another one.

    Abortion “affirms motherhood”

    “And it doesn’t serve children, and it certainly doesn’t serve women to be forced into parenthood.”

    Sick, sick people.


  10. Has anybody seen Pelosi’s weapon ban list? 153 weapons including shotguns and some deer rifles all the way down to .22 caliber rifles.

    • Feinstein’s. And I read Congress would be exempt? I say bring it to the floor immediately and vote on it. It won’t pass and then we can move on and deal with real issues like budgets and spending cuts.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m not sure what “military thing” makes pistols banned. Not that I care, it will never get passed. For the record, I will not turn in my guns and I will not register any of them. Feinstein can kiss my ass 🙂

  11. Just A Citizen says:


    This was an excellent find and thanks for posting. I brought it forward to make sure everyone got a chance to read it and then THINK about it.

    It’s late and I’m tired-so I’ll have to read this again tomorrow to decide what I think about it-but I thought JAC specifically and maybe others would enjoy reading it. Course it’ll probably make Charlie crazy 🙂

    Whose Morality Is It Anyway?
    Can there be right and wrong without God?


    Walter Hudson

    January 15, 2013 – 7:00 am

    A pastor visiting our church shared a story from when his children were young. The oldest was four years old, and the younger three, when their mother served them grapes on the vine. As they plucked the sweet fruit, the younger child asked of the older, “How does Mommy get the grapes on there?”

    Summoning elder gravitas, the firstborn replied, “Mommy doesn’t put the grapes on there.

    “The store does.”

    Children have a wonderful way of modeling our deficiencies. While it is easy to laugh at the reasoning of a child, we ought to consider how silly our reasoning might prove if the whole truth were known. Indeed, if we cannot point to an idea or two which we have reconsidered in light of new evidence, it cannot be said we have grown.

    One idea which I used to hold, which made perfect sense to me at the time and still makes perfect sense to most of my Christian brethren, is the notion that man cannot rationally demonstrate an absolute morality in a world without God. My reasoning echoed that of Jeff Jacoby in a 2010 piece for Townhall. He wrote:

    For in a world without God, there is no obvious difference between good and evil. There is no way to prove that murder is wrong if there is no Creator who decrees “Thou shalt not murder.’’ It certainly cannot be proved wrong by reason alone. One might reason instead — as Lenin and Stalin and Mao reasoned — that there is nothing wrong with murdering human beings by the millions if doing so advances the Marxist cause. Or one might reason from observing nature that the way of the world is for the strong to devour the weak — or that natural selection favors the survival of the fittest by any means necessary, including the killing of the less fit.

    Reason is not enough. Only if there is a God who forbids murder is murder definitively evil. Otherwise its wrongfulness is a matter of opinion. Mao and Seneca approved of murder; we disapprove. What makes us think we’re right?

    This perspective contrasts with that typically offered by atheists and agnostics, who assert that right and wrong can be discerned without reference to the supernatural. As a Christian, it is tempting to respond to such skeptics as PJ Lifestyle contributor John Hawkins did while affirming Jacoby.

    Writing for his Right Wing News site, Hawkins claims “Without God, All Morality Is Subjective“:

    Put another way, if I steal $20 out of your wallet to spend on concert tickets, I’m a hypocrite. That’s because I know, you know, and Christians almost everywhere are going to agree that stealing that $20 out of your wallet is an immoral act.

    Now, is an atheist/agnostic violating her moral code if she steals $20 out of someone’s wallet? Maybe, maybe not. It’s entirely possible that she could reason that there’s nothing wrong with stealing $20 from someone if she doesn’t get caught. But, what if you’re an atheist/agnostic who disagrees with that reasoning? Well honestly, if there’s no God, humans are just sophisticated animals and it’s ultimately no more right or wrong for you to steal that $20 than it is for a chimp to grab another chimp’s banana while he’s flinging poo.

    As proofs of God’s existence go, this notion that morality could not otherwise exist is incomplete. Like the solution to a math problem given without showing work, it teaches nothing.

    True, morality could not exist without God. Nothing could, which remains the only proof of his existence that anyone needs. However, if a skeptic is not compelled by the necessity for a Cause of Cause, they aren’t likely to be compelled by a derivative of the same argument.

    Of course, the Great Commission of the Christian is not to compel skeptics with crafty arguments. Rather, our mission is to present biblical truth and leave the skeptic’s response to God. Yet, even here we fail if we utilize the commonly offered proof from morality, because it is neither wholly true nor biblical.

    It turns out that morality can be discerned through reason. As much was discovered in the twentieth century by Ayn Rand, whose philosophical system of objectivism claims a morality which is “absolute, objective, and secular.” Entire books have been written explaining her reasoning, and they must be read in order to fully understand it. For the sake of this discussion, here is objective morality in a nutshell.

    It begins by considering the Socratic questions offered by Christian apologist Michael Horner. He asks rhetorically:

    How do you get ethics from only different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy?

    A purely materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. Humans, like everything else in the universe, would be just accidental arrangements of atoms, and therefore, we could not justifiably declare that humans are objectively valuable. And why think the morality of the human species, above all other species, is objectively binding rather than just our opinion?

    Value stands out as the central concept here. Rand asked “of value to whom, and for what.” Her point was to define value as that which living things act to obtain and keep. All manner of values permeate our lives, from the mundane to the profound. Life sits atop a pedestal, valued above all. Only living things, those capable of self-generated self-sustaining action, can pursue value. Furthermore, that particular breed of creature which conceives of and pursues value though a process of thought – human beings – needs a code of behavior to determine which actions are life-affirming (good) and which are destructive (bad).

    Given that life is the basis of value, and action informed by rational thought is the only means for humans to obtain and keep their values, it follows that liberty is the condition in which men must live. Such objective liberty is not licentiousness, but merely the ability to act upon one’s judgment in pursuit of happiness without coercion from others, a condition made possible only by mutual respect of boundaries.

    That is how you get ethics from “only different arrangements of space, time, matter, and energy.” The material universe proves anything but “morally indifferent.” If morality is the code by which we arrive at choices, the material universe harshly rebukes those who choose to act against its nature.

    Heading off charges of heresy from my Christian brethren, let us turn to scripture for some confirmation. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:18:

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

    In the study bible which bears his name, John MacArthur writes of the Greek word translated “is revealed”:

    More accurately, “is constantly revealed.” The word essentially means “to uncover, make visible, or make known.” God reveals his wrath in two ways: 1) indirectly, through the natural consequences of violating his universal moral law, and 2) directly through his personal intervention…

    “Go and try to pour a ton of steel without rigid principles…” – Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

    In other words, even absent supernatural intervention, the created order punishes bad behavior. Rand put it another way:

    You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

    Paul continues in Romans 1:19-20:

    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

    Creation is God’s first testament, sufficient to hold men accountable to the moral law. As an atheist, it was surely not Rand’s intention to echo the apostle Paul. Nevertheless, both speak to the same essential truth, that the nature of reality presents evidence of a moral order. While irreconcilable differences persist between objectivism and the Christian worldview, rational thought should not be sold short by believers. After all, the ability to think is bestowed from on high.

    Acknowledging conversion as the work of God, Christians nonetheless want to avoid placing stumbling blocks in front of skeptical seekers. The commonly offered proof from morality can stumble, because it does not present the whole truth. Acknowledging that absolute standards of right and wrong can be discerned through reason in no way detracts from the glory of God. On the contrary, we should expect creation to testify to the will of its creator.

    Why is murder wrong? It deprives an individual of his right to life. How do we know such a right exists? It is derived from the concept of value, the recognition of life as the ultimate value, and the observation that individuals are an objective moral end onto themselves rather than a means to the ends of others. Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, fleshes out the argument.

    Of course, Biddle and his fellow objectivists would cringe at the intermingling of Rand’s theory of rights with the theistic claims of Christianity. Such objections are a topic for another day. Meanwhile, Christians should have no problem reconciling objective morality with their faith in God. The revelation of scripture builds upon what is objectively true. While objectivists reject revelation as a legitimate source of knowledge, Christians ought not reject or marginalize reason. After all, scripture doesn’t (Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,9; 19:8-9; James 3:17).

    It is through reason that we confirm our Christian faith. The fact that absolute morality has been objectively demonstrated bolsters the believer’s claim. As Isaiah spoke of “the circle of the earth” thousands of years before it was objectively proved to be round, so scripture spoke of absolute morality thousands of years before Ayn Rand objectively discerned it. Such discoveries take nothing away from God. On the contrary, they prove Him true.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      THis is an interesting subject. Long as it is, I wonder how an atheist would answer the question whether or not he/she has morals and if so, where do they come from? Without morals, they would be much the same as a sheep. Or sheeple if you will.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It has been my experience that MOST people, whether religious or not, have not given much thought to Where their morals came from or whether they can defend them.

        They were taught by parents, family, community and sometimes church. They simply accepted most of it as true. Some reject pieces that don’t fit later.

        But it is rare that people take the time to make sure it all FITS TOGETHER without contradiction.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I agree JAC. I’m fully aware that my values are based on Christianity and the Bible. I would believe that other religions provide the same for those followers. Maybe we should ask when we can. That would be interesting to hear the answers.

        • All of us could use a little more praying:

        • Ah, Christopher-throws in the fact that man has a conscience. Making the conversation even more complicated. The Bible points out that God gave every man a conscience:

          “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although, not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14,15).”

          • The Bible seems, at best, a conflicting source from which to derive one’s morals:

            If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. — Deuteronomy 13:6-10


            Thou shall not kill (except when someone tries to entice you to believe in someone other than me)

            • The way I see it Ray-The Law was meant to teach-the lesson being taught the cost of sin is death-So to lead someone away from God is the same as committing murder per God’s Law. But God knowing the weakness of man blessed us with his Grace taking the sins of all men onto his self and paying the price we should pay.

              But I also think following this line will simply stop the actual point of the article-and change it to how can we attack and defend the Bible and Christian beliefs.

              • @V.H. – that one must preface their dialogue regarding the Bible as “the way I see it” may be the only criteria needed to state that since it is something that one must interpret (can therefore and inherently interpret differently from others) undermines to at least some degree that it is an absolute edict with regards to founding our morals. Not a harsh criticism as I understand what you’re saying – but there are too many contradictions in the Bible that it de-legitimizes itself – why rest upon a book that men from a different sat about and decreed what you, many generations later, should derive your morals from?

              • Because I asked Ray-and God answered 🙂 People can ridicule this answer and many do-but I am convinced beyond any doubt.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Ray, How’s that young one coming along? I’m betting your a busy dad who is enjoying life!

              Nice weather lately, don’t ya think 🙄 Freaking cold!

              • Hey G-Man! I believe a witch’s booby did smack in the face the last few days! Ha! The little ones are “pistols”! Ha! Just don’t ban them!

    • I’m still thinking about all this-found some further remarks by Hudson and a reply which I think has merit. What say you JAC and anyone else who wishes to jump in. ? 🙂

      Walter Hudson

      Let me attempt some clarification. There are two things you must understand which will
      change how you think about both Rand and my analysis of her. First, realize that I do not subscribe to objectivism. I am a Christian and adhere to a biblical worldview. So I ultimately concede that Rand is in error. However, her error is one of omission, not distortion. She starts from an epistemology which limits reality to what can be objectively perceived. This is like a blind man insisting there is no such thing as color. That said, what she perceives about objective reality is perceived clearly and cannot be dismissed on account of her views on an issue like abortion.

      Now, I agree with you on abortion and disagree with Rand. My reasons would fill another post, but are moot, because the real issue you’re speaking to is not abortion but value. The reason Rand supported abortion was because she did not recognize the unborn as individuals whose nature was to pursue value in a social context. I disagree with her there. But that disagreement does not mean her conception of objective value is wrong. I hold that it is misapplied in the case of abortion (again, for reasons I won’t get into because we’ll get of into the weeds).

      Life is the standard if value because life is what makes value possible. You can not act to obtain our keep something if you are not alive. It’s easy to confuse particular values with the concept of value, which I believe you’re doing here. It is true that what a person values is commonly subjective. My wife likes olives. I can’t stand them. However, the concept of value is objective. No matter what you like, you act to obtain and keep it, and you do so in furtherance of your life – the ultimate value.
      January 15, 2013 – 11:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply


      Chris Bolts Sr’s point still stands. You merely skirted around it.

      The fact that Rand failed to recognize pre-born humans as valuable proves that value is subjective, unless anchored to a universal law giver who determines value objectively.

      Furthermore; what about humans who are incapable of reason? What about babies, the severely mentally disabled and those in late stages of senility? They’re incapable of assigning value to anything, because they do not have the mental capacity to do so. Do their lives have value? Why?

      • I’m thinking the bottom line question being discussed here-is man really capable of objective reasoning or does all reasoning end up being subjective. And of course does the Bible support Rand’s conclusions or not.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Good lord girl, nothing like biting into the whole enchilada at once.

        Do you happen to have the comment or question that Hudson is replying to?

        This all deserves a well thought out response since you have asked the questions. So it might take me a day or two to cover this.

        But in the meantime let me address a couple things.

        1. Hudson’s statement about Rand here: “However, her error is one of omission, not distortion. She starts from an epistemology which limits reality to what can be objectively perceived. This is like a blind man insisting there is no such thing as color. “; is FALSE.

        Rand’s epistemology, if you remember, is that man’s senses are the source of his information from which he evaluates the world. That it is REASON that allows him to form concepts that go beyond animal instinct.

        She did not limit reality to only that which can be perceived. She said that REALITY is REAL and that man can discover it if he works hard THINKING. That REASON is how he accomplishes this discovery process. In fact she probably would have used the same “blind man” analogy to show how ridiculous it was to claim this was her view.

        2. Rand is largely dismissive of God and Religion due to the FACT that God is not KNOWN by everyone. God is known to us by INTERPRETATION of other men. In my words, “post office effect” comes into play. But her biggest gripe was that religions like Christianity are based on Whim and Magic. Supernatural events mean they are beyond Natural. They defy Natural.

        No such thing has ever been witnessed nor can be proven.

        3. Rand’s position on “personhood” for a fetus is not based on whether the fetus has “value”. It is based on the notion that it cannot be a person until it is actually born and then separated from the mother physically. She described the difference between mother and unborn child as One who MIGHT be vs One who IS. I am pretty sure she would have acknowledged that an unborn child that is wanted by its mother obviously has VALUE to that mother.

        Her arguments about value are not whether others have value to us, but that people have their own values and it is their OWN life which is the highest value of all.

        I would add that because she placed the standard on objective reasoning, it could be argued that an “unborn” child is not a person because they are not capable of experiencing the world around them or of developing their cognitive abilities yet. It has “potential” but it is not actualized until it is “born”. This is MY addition to the discussion. I don’t recall her making this argument.

        Now if you think back to some of the discussion we had with BF on this you will remember the issue of “responsibility” for children. So this is where the challenge lies it seems to me.

        Even the born child cannot function on its own. So why is that different than the unborn? Are we not equally responsible for the unborn as the born, until they can function?

        I am not sure the discussion above is a debate about whether man is capable of objective reasoning. I’ll hold off until you find the original comment. It does appear the antagonist is heading that direction but I just can’t be sure.

        • His reply wasn’t attacked to a particular reply-but it came from the comment section attacked to the article. So you can read the comments to get an idea of who he was responding too. And yes, when I am searching for an answer, I do tend to what to see at least a snap shot of the whole picture and then break it down. Or in other words I jump in with both feet and then sort though the information I collect. 🙂

        • “Rand’s position on “personhood” for a fetus is not based on whether the fetus has “value”. It is based on the notion that it cannot be a person until it is actually born and then separated from the mother physically. She described the difference between mother and unborn child as One who MIGHT be vs One who IS. I am pretty sure she would have acknowledged that an unborn child that is wanted by its mother obviously has VALUE to that mother.”

          Well, I find this explanation is one of the reasons I find her value theory lacking. Value is solely based on an individual giving something value or the individual valuing themselves-I believe and religion teaches that the value is there with or without an individual valuing said person-they have value simply because they are. Which in my mind anyway, leads to evil-people as a group deciding an individual is not of value based on whatever criteria they choose.

          Although I openly admit that my knowledge of her work is limited.

          • Just an FYI, I am going out of town in the morning and won’t be back until sometime Sunday.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The author misrepresents her value theory a little, in my opinion.

            I will try and dig up some of her explanations. But Values come much later in her “system”. They are not the basis for her ethic. But they are part of the ethic itself.

            Our own life is our most VALUED thing if you will.

            This does not lead to evil of killing others. Because it is REASON that tells us for MY LIFE to be of Primary Value and Your life to be YOUR primary value…………we must all recognize that we cannot impose or impair another life, because that would allow them to impair ours.

            But this concept of Value to the individual requires the existence of an individual. Which she is claiming does not exist until you are born.

            We can certainly argue her ethic or belief in this. My point is that it was not her Value Theory that leads to a fetus not being a person. She reaches that conclusion first.

            • I will await your post. But my questions aren’t based solely on the issue of the unborn but also how her positions effect those who are mentally incompetent.

              And just a few things for you to contemplate 🙂 “Our own life is our most VALUED thing if you will.” Pretty sure I don’t agree 100 % with that statement. Would you die for your children?

              Then if one looks at man’s conscience ” Have you ever felt guilty but weren’t quite sure why?

              Have a good weekend!!!! I plan too. 🙂

              • Hmmmm-this is interesting-Now I really have to go to bed. Getting up early.

                Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals

                By David Derbyshire

                UPDATED: 03:25 EST, 10 May 2010

                At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.

                But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

                An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.

                Good rabbit, bad rabbit: Simple experiments involving babies have shown that we have a strong morality instinct from an early age

                Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

                In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones.

                In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.
                Professor Paul Bloom

                Leading research: Professor Paul Bloom, of Yale University, said a series of morality tales featuring puppets were shown to babies of varying ages

                Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.

                ‘With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life.

                ‘Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.’

                For one study, the Yale researchers got babies aged between six months and a year to watch a puppet show in which a simple, colourful wooden shape with eyes tries to climb a hill.

                Sometimes the shape is helped up the hill by a second toy, while other times a third character pushes it down.

                After watching the show several times, the babies were shown the helpful and unhelpful toys. They showed a clear preference for the helpful toys – spending far longer looking at the ‘good’ shapes than the ‘bad’ ones.

                ‘In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual,’ Prof Bloom told the New York Times.

                ‘This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.’

                Two more tests found the same moral sense.


                Premature babies ‘feel more pain in later life’

                In one, the researchers devised a ‘one-act morality play’, in which a toy dog tries to open a box. The dog is joined by a teddy bear who helps him lift the lid, and a teddy who stubbornly sits on the box.

                They also made the babies watch a puppet cat play ball with two toy rabbits. When the cat rolled the ball to one rabbit, it rolled the ball straight back. But when the cat rolled it to the second rabbit, it picked up the ball and ran off.

                ‘In both studies, five-month-old babies preferred the good guy – the one who helped to open the box; the one who rolled the ball back – to the bad guy,’ said Professor Bloom.

                When the same tests were repeated with 21-month-old babies, they were given a chance to dish out treats to the toys – or take treats away.

                Most toddlers punished the ‘naughty rabbit’ by taking away treats. One even gave the miscreant a smack on the head as a punishment.

                Although the studies appear to show that morality is hard-wired into babies brains, some psychologists urged caution.

                Dr Nadja Reissland, of Durham University, said babies started to learn the difference between good and bad from birth.

                ‘Everything hinges on who decides what is normal,’ she said. ‘By saying pushing the ball up the hill is helpful, the researchers are making a moral judgement. The babies might just prefer to see things go up rather than down.

                ‘In the other test, perhaps the bear closes the box to prevent the dog from getting in there because there is something dangerous inside. It is like a mother keeping children out of an area where there is something harmful.’

                Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html#ixzz2J3QfSLnm
                Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

              • VH,
                So maybe were born with morality, something that has “evolved” overtime in the human race…

              • Well Todd, maybe it is there and it is called a soul.

              • Ok, Stephen. But the point is we’re born with it.

  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. gmanfortruth says:
  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Here is an interesting perspective on the “legal” arguments surrounding the Fed authority to “regulate arms”. I had completely forgotten about the rationale used in this case and how it would fit today’s arguments.


  15. gmanfortruth says:

    After Democrats in New York rammed a sweeping assault on the right to keep and bear arms through the legislature that failed to exempt police officers from the draconian restrictions, gun owners and even some lawmakers are planning what has been dubbed potentially the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. According to news reports, gun rights activists are urging everyone to defy far-left Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new registration mandate while daring authorities to “come and take it.”

    Activists involved in the state-wide boycott against the unconstitutional statute who spoke to the Post almost taunted authorities, saying gun owners would essentially dare authorities to “come and take it away.” According to the paper, leaders of some of the state’s hundreds of gun clubs, dealers, and non-profit organizations, citing the New York Constitution’s guarantee that gun rights “cannot be infringed,” are currently involved in organizing the resistance. Among the primary concerns is that, with registration, authorities would know where to go for confiscation, an idea already proposed openly by Governor Cuomo himself.

    “They’re saying, ‘F— the governor! F— Cuomo! We’re not going to register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going to do it. People are going to resist,” explained State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King, who also serves on the National Rifle Association board of directors. “They’re taking one of our guaranteed civil rights, and they’re taking it away.”

    This makes me smile 🙂 Go NYers!

  16. gmanfortruth says:
  17. There seems to be a trend with how the women look in the O administration. Can’t quite put my finger on it; maybe you all can help. Meet the new head of the SEC:


  18. Hi G,

    Not finding any recipe’s-did you get too busy to post any 🙂 ?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes, I did get somewhat busy. I should get it up tonight or tomorrow in the morning. 🙂

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    These people make laws! OH MY! http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/california-councilwoman-you-can-be-shot-by-an-unloaded-gun/

    How can any liberal vote for this person? How can they argue for her position? 😆

    • All us gun people know what she meant to say but someone so dumb as to screw up something so simple should be banned from running for anything (including PTA) for life.

      There was an episode of “Have Gun Will Travel” where Paladin is being pestered by a custom shotgun salesman at his hotel and he loads the gun and states, “now the gun is safe, it’s loaded”. He then empties the gun, hands it to Hey Girl (a character) and says “be careful, the gun is unloaded, now it is dangerous”. I kinda chuckled when he said this because it was very much what my uncle Frank said to me when I was eight and he was teaching me to shoot.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Urgent: Big Ag group trying to ban raw milk sales in South Carolina – your help needed to stop this tyranny

    Ethan A. Huff
    Natural News
    Jan 25, 2013

    It has come to our attention that the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), a national non-governmental organization that claims to represent the interests of American farmers, is right now attempting to covertly eliminate the freedom of South Carolina farmers to sell raw milk at the retail level. One of only a few states that currently recognizes the freedom of individuals to buy and sell raw milk legally, South Carolina is basically being accosted by this Big Ag front group, which will attempt to eliminate raw milk freedom in the Palmetto State at a special meeting to be held on Friday, January 25, 2013, at 12:00 pm.

    According to an insider alert we just received, the South Carolina Dairy Advisory Committee (SCDAC) will consider a proposal made by AFBF, which is strongly and vocally opposed to individuals having the freedom to buy and sell raw milk, to eliminate an existing state statute that recognizes the freedom of South Carolina farmers who are properly permitted to sell raw milk at the retail level. In its place, AFBF wants SCDAC to implement policies that reflect its own biased views towards raw milk, which for all intensive purposes would ban the sale of raw milk for human consumption throughout the state.


    Why can’t people just mind their own business? 🙄

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    An early lesson to the “share the wealth crowd”. You can’t steal money! So what will the Socialist pig frech Pres gonna do when his tax the rich plan fails?

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Finally, they warned the administration and all federal agencies under the Executive Branch:

    “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. Make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs our our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights–in particular Amendment II–has given them.”

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/utah-sheriffs-warn-obama-that-they-will-go-to-war-over-guns/#ixzz2J2Zr6ScI

    This is gonna get interesting, but I think that no new laws will be passed. Feinstein is a fool and should be charged with treason.

    • Just let’s all hope that the Republicans do not get into the “chicken” thing. They are going to be blasted all over the media. I daresay the new mantra will be, “The Republican War on children”. People will stop inviting them to social events they will feel cut off and ostracized. Never forget how Bush # 1 disregarded his sacred pledge on taxes for some false promises which never came to pass. These guys all operate on the mistaken notion that it will be “forgotten” in a few months and where else can “we” go. As the blacks are to the democratic party, gun owners are to republicans. We are people they can safely ignore because they have our votes anyway. .

      • gmanfortruth says:

        SK, There are too many people fighting back already. The Feinstein bill may not even get voted on in the Senate, Reid would lose his ass in the next election and he knows it. The bill itself is a joke and will prevent nothing. The truth will be coming out soon, that is that no “assault weapon” was ever used in the Sandy Hook shootings. That part of the shooting is a hoax. He used pistols, which left bullet holes in a car. They were 40 cal holes or bigger. Somebody will step forward soon. 🙂

        I hope you and yours are doing well and staying warm, PEACE!

  23. G-man,

    Do not discount the power of crazy. In the service I watched this tiny little guy go bonkers when he got the “Dear John” letter. Took six of us to hold him down. Then there was this other 5’5″ fireball from Texas in WW 2 named Audie Murphy. Doubt if he weighed more than 120. Not calling Murphy crazy in any traditional sense but when he got in the do what you have to do mode, half a German battalion could not take him down.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      How am I doing that SK?

      • Your initial comments on Lanza. There is much disinformation out there. You are right about that but that little turd must have planned this thing off and on for years.

        I have been thinking on him for some time now and feel that we could have punished him post-mortem in a way that might just have had a deterrent effect. About two weeks after the shooting there was a a small piece in the paper about his body being released to his father for burial. I thought, why? This clown’s corpse should have been left in the gutter in front of the town hall and people should have been encouraged to come and desecrate it. Spit is the least of the bodily wastes that could have been heaped on it. After the crows and other animals finished with him, the remainder could have been scooped up, mixed with the final byproducts coming out of a sewage treatment plan and placed in a landfill in a public ceremony. Even erect a marker for it. .

        Somewhere out there, this guy is a hero to more than a few nobodies. Sooner or later they will follow his example. If they knew what awaited them, I wonder if they would be so eager. When they finish the twenty or so years of crap that must occur before they off the SOB in Colorado he too should be a candidate and each and every day before his execution he should be told repeatedly, in grisly detail what awaits him..

        I know this would get some folks boiling but I ask if it is not the most “civilized” way to handle the issue.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I understand your anger. He was very sick, not sure he even knew what he was doing. There is much more to his story that we don’t know. Someday maybe we will.

          I do have a question. What mass shooting was committed by a young light skinned black men in his 20’s or early 30’s? I don’t mean the muslim prick at the army base.

          • All I can think of at the moment is the DC sniper which had a very young black male and that creepy “mentor” of his. Never got the follow up press it deserved.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Not them, dang. I saw a music video a few weeks ago, I can’t find it now. It was put up in July, it was some weird heavy metal devil crap with lots of pictures of those who committed mass murder with guns. It had Lanza’s picture and pictures of many others that I recognized, except one! I did a picture search on AOL and found nothing. I think he may be the next one that hits the news!

  24. gmanfortruth says:
    • Nah, only republicans do that kind of thing. Rumors about Menendez go back to his first run for congress. He is supposed to be a real creep when it comes to unwanted touchy feeley stuff.

  25. gmanfortruth says:


    Interesting as it has both sides of the issue. IMHO, the Sheriff is correct, people need to take responsibility for their own protection. Waiting till the layoffs come or a criminal is in your house is too late. Then there are those that would call this “vigilantism”, well, if that’s what it takes, so what? We can all but end crime as a nation if we chose to do so.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    While this goes back to some Conspiracy theories of the past, the fact that it is now true should concern everyone. This should serve as a warning to everyone that it may be possible to “turn on” a killer. The problems they may be having is that when turned on, and suddenly realize what they have done, it may lead to suicide, as is the case of some recent shooters. Lanza comes to mind, considering his Arsbarger’s (sp?) problem. Could he have been an experiment? Is it true that his mother worked for the DHS?


    • No, G-man, he was a nut. There are plenty of nuts out there capable of doing what he did. There always have been. He did it in one place at one time, Ted Bundy probably has the number beat but he did it over time. The Atlanta killer of little boys also did it over time. The Green River killer, whosisface the clown in Chicago? In these cases there was no similar hub-bub because it was a long drawn out process. What we have here is the equivalent of an airliner crash. Perhaps the safest form of travel known to man there are a significant number of folks who will routinely deny this because they “feel” that it is more dangerous since 150 people dying simultaneously is somehow worse than 150 dying in a month on I-95.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        SK, your missing my point. You say he was just a nut, like it’s undisputable fact. Sorry, that exactly what the media does. You know nothing about Lanza, except he is claimed to have murdered 28 people. You, or I, do not know if or what meds he was on, if any. We do know he had a mental disorder, that would not lead him to this type of action.

        The long drawn out killers may have also been on meds that are just not reported. You seem to take the MSM as being truthful. You also seem to take police as being truthful. Based on that there is NO corruption in either entity. I don’t buy that for a second.

        • No, No, I haven’t believed those bastards since Tet. I’m just saying that he was as crazy as the proverbial shithouse rat. You are probably right on the psychotropic drugs and drug interactions and we will never hear that from the MSM because guess what, among other things, they take advertising from those guys. Don’t you love the commercials when they say possible side effects include suicidal thoughts or possible side effects include death. Now that is really great stuff the FDA puts out there. Between the advertising dollars and the billions to be made with the “latest” cure for depression we, the public don’t stand a chance. I always thought a la Robert Heinlein that shrinks should be held liable for their charges the same as parole boards. If you let a looney walk the streets and he rapes, murders or molests, you should do the time along side him. Perhaps then, we would see a bit more responsibility.

          the part I caution you to stay away from is the conspiracy part. Conspiracies are hard to pull off I firmly believe in the adage that once more than two people know a secret, it is not a secret anymore. Think back to the LSD experiments done by the Pentagon and CIA in the ’50’s on unsuspecting employees. It took 30 years but the truth finally came out and that stuff had TOP SECRET, CLASSIFIED stamped all over it.

          Oh, and cops lie too, not all, but some. It is either the blue wall of silence or some local chief up for a new job who wants to make the pols happy.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    I have started the “Recipe Log” on my blog. Feel free to add any recipe at all. I will be updating at least weekly. http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-recipe-log/

  28. http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/kzT6X3_Bg9o&hl=en_US&fs=1&

    Something new to watch. Scary if true.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You do realize that this is all “conspiracy theory” stuff, right? You will be labeled now, like I have, as going against what the “norm” of excepted thinking is. Guess what, welcome to the land of the enlightened! 🙂

      • I can’t quit get the smell of skunk out of the air.

      • Bottom Line says:

        ~ Stock up on topical bug spray or find natural recipes of the same, as mosquitoes are a rather efficient and stealthy delivery system for bio-weapons. Also, eliminate sitting water as much as possible.

        ~ Learn and use herbal cures/remedies as much as possible.


        ~ Grow your own food, preferably non-GMO. Spread seeds everywhere and avoid planting in condensed areas. Avoid beef and aquatic foods.

        ~ Implement basic non-electronic forms of communication such as signal lamps/Morse code, carrier pigeons, messenger systems, signal fires, perhaps even CB and HAM radio, etc..

        ~ Identify vital infrastructure necessary for logistical functionality such as fuel depots, train tracks, freeways, bridges, ammo factories and storage, etc, etc.. Identify weak points and efficient means of destruction. Fire works great. A big enough piece of iron welded onto a train track or a piece cut out will likely go unnoticed, but can effectively derail a supply train.

        ~ Think of as many asymmetrical responsive tactics as possible – silly unexpected shit like spreading bird seed and high flying kites and balloons near air bases. Consider things like a tanks and armored vehicles covered with fuel and set on fire is an easy-bake asshole oven. Mass breeding of dogs and training them to identify uniformed humans as food or enemies. Acrylic plastic makes body heat invisible to infrared cameras. Release skunks and venomous snakes into barracks. Use eggs and urine and fecal matter to grow diseases and spread all over bases and command centers and food storage/kitchen facilities. Whatever works may will not be considered.

        ~ Arrows are easier to produce from nature than bullets.Use arrows for hunting, and ammo for citizen killers. Shotgun shells can be repacked/reused.

        ~ Use/form learning and teaching of guerrilla tactics, sniping methods, preemption, etc

        ~ Learn and use as many old world antique natural means of living as possible.

        ~ Infiltrate with moles and saboteurs into as many areas as possible. Use decoy tactics wherever possible. etc.

        ~ WOMEN MAKE GREAT WEAPONS. I.E. – VD spreaders and bait for ambush for high ranking officers.

        I can sit here all day long and think of things like this. these are just a few. But you get the idea. In short, be resourceful and think outside the box. Everything has a weakness. Identify and exploit them

        If any force intends on fuking with Americans, they have one hell of a fight in store for them and a serious problem on their hands.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, they would have a big fight. I wouldn’t use our women the way you say, but could build a female fighting force to use when they are all OTR at the same time 🙂

          • Bottom Line says:

            Some of those are pretty ridiculous ideas, I know. But the point is to brainstorm in the interest of atypical/asymmetrical attrition…whatever will bog an invading force down.

            I like the acrylic plastic thing though. Simple garbage bags will actually block a heat signature. Who woulda thunk a couple of dollars worth of garbage bags would render a $5000 set of goggles virtually useless. After you kill them, take their goggles. Now you are double equipped. 🙂

            As for the women…there are women that would be fully willing, like as with past wars. What’s the difference between them spreading their disease to invaders before getting cured, and fighting on the front line?

            Did you know, that in WW2, the US government set up brothels for US soldiers? It was better to control it and keep the soldiers healthy than to let them get VD’s from other sources.

            If you care to study past wars and enemy tactics, you will see some pretty inventive and effective ideas. Like with the Vietnam war for example. They would use destroyed vehicle parts for everything from shoes to booby-traps. They would do things like dig large trenches to get tanks stuck, etc… They were some pretty crafty people.

            I once heard a story from a guy that got trapped in a tank hole. Villagers starting swarming the tank with farm tools. The turret gun overheated, so he had to duck inside for cover. They started building a fire. Reinforcements saved them, but that guy was in an otherwise no win situation about to be baked alive or chopped up with farm tools.

            What a nightmare.

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    This is what the Democrats in New York really wanted. Don’t ever think that these politicians, including Obama, will ever tell you the truth, ever! 👿

    The list of proposals that Democrats would rather you didn’t see, can be seen below.

    1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
    2. Confiscation of ten round clips
    3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
    4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be released to the public
    5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
    6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
    7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
    8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
    9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
    10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
    11. State issued pistol permits
    12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
    13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
    14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
    15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I would love to know who would be dumb enough to “confiscate” anything. These cowards talk a big game, let’s see them back it up with actions!

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    Re; your questions about Rand. I thought maybe we should start with Objectivity which is the essence of Objective reasoning. I start here because if you recall, BF and others have argued that it is not possible to identify a concrete morality or ethics via objective thought. But they use a different definition of objective or objectivity. Rand would disagree with this claim. So here we go:


    Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

    The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Now to add a little, lets look at Objective Values. Since values was part of the original post you presented.

      The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the only system based implicitly on an objective theory of values—and the historic tragedy is that this has never been made explicit.

      If one knows that the good is objective—i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind—one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one’s mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man’s life, needs, goals, and knowledge.

      I added this because the adherence to a dictum of moral rules based solely on “God said so” would be viewed as a form of “force”. This will be important later when we evaluate the Bible to see if it does indeed agree with Rand, at the author claims.

    • “Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is”
      “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”

      Maybe it’s just me but it seems to me what Rand is pointing to is the existence of God.
      One can easily replace the word reality with God. Now I’m certainly not saying man doesn’t need freedom from other men-but as she stated they cannot be Free from the consequences of reality or Natures Law. Now is it really true that man can’t be free from the consequences of reality here on earth, it seems to me they can.

      She assumes life is the first value-is it truly the first value. It isn’t my first value. And if my first value isn’t life-how does her theory hold up. How do we determine right and wrong based on this theory of values-if our first values are different?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let’s not assume that we all have the same values. Values of humans are based solely on the upbringing by the parental forces that surround the child. If a child is raised by wolves, he will have the morals of the wolves. If he is raised by strict Catholics, he will likely have those morals.

        The human value is simply replenishing humankind, much like the mighty Oak drops acorns (seeds). Many acorns may sprout, but only the strong will survive. We humans tend to save the weak, because of our inherited morals. By virtue of our learning ability, we act and think at a higher level that the rest of the animal kingdom. Without that, we would be no different than the animals. Philosophy cannot change nature, neither can the human mind. When we as humans become too populated, our race will be culled, and only the strongest will survive. Like the biggest buck in the woods, he only got there because he was stronger and smarter than the other bucks.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        This is where people like the author you cited can add God to the equation if they like.

        Because the debate of God or No God cannot be settled by objective observation.

        Rand is simply stating that the Universe is real. That the Universe includes certain laws that govern its operation, function, etc, etc. Mankind can ignore those rules but in the end the Universe wins. Or we can learn those rules and obey them, and live much better lives as the result.

        So it then becomes possible for those who wish to find God in her philosophy to say that Universe and God are synonymous. Remember my past statements to this affect?

        But that argument negates the supporting cast who claim God. Namely organized religions who claim that God established morality via edict given to a particular person or persons. This is where REASON is replaced with DOGMA.

        The article you cited tried to use Bible verses to show that Rand was correct in saying that moral standards can be objectively identified. He does this by claiming these versus show man’s need to think and understand. That “accepting” Gods law in the Bible means the same thing as discovering Gods law via REASON.

        Perhaps that is a stretch that could be made. But it certainly flies in the face of most religious teaching I have ever seen. Especially those of the Catholic Church.

        Man cannot be free of Natures laws. Man is man. If man tries to act like anything else, or doesn’t follow his true nature, he will not do well. This does not mean he will perish, at least immediately. It could mean he simply leads a miserable existence.

        Rand is NOT making God synonymous with Nature or the Natural Law. She would adamantly disagree with this concept. Because most versions of God include “Super Natural” which means that the Universe can violate its own laws.

        Now remember how I argued some time ago that if we revisited our concept of God, then Rand’s philosophy does not necessarily prevent God. She used the Super Natural model handed down by men. She never considered the chance that men did not get the story straight.

        That God and the Universe are one in the same. Or at least THE FORCE of the Universe. 🙂

        • Not ignoring you JAC-thinking 🙂 But I will explain by basic thought processes-I know people are capable of being moral up to a point without a belief in God-but then I think Christians are guilty of being moral up to a point too. I simply don’t think humans are capable of being truly moral-God knew that-it’s the reason for the Cross. I do believe God gave people the ability to know and discover -right from wrong. Whether they or believers actually follow that knowledge is another thing. I have no problem agreeing that using our ability to reason will lead us to moral truths. But I have a real problem with agreeing that Rands theory of objective reasoning leads to the absolute truth . I think she discovered some, I think she is guilty of omissions and making assumptions. And some of those assumptions lead to the immoral. Which, at least to my way of reasoning, proves she didn’t get it all right.

          Not really sure where that leaves me in this discussion-I even find I question whether or not man is truly capable of objective reasoning and even if they are-very few do.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    The TSA is now training on what to do if a shooting broke out. Real simple, save yourself and don’t attempt to save anyone in the security line. Nice of them, isn’t it. This could also be a hint as to the next mass shooting and where it may occur. The govt needs more ammo for their assault weapons ban and several long lines of people going through an airport security checkpoint would be an inviting target. Of course, right before this happens, another issue will arise at some far away area of the airport that takes all the armed security away from the checkpoint.

    Not a good time to fly folks!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Oh! The shooter will be in his 20s, black with short hair. He will have more than 1 assault weapon and will get off several hundred rounds before he is killed by the police. Deaths will likely be over 50 and injuries over 100. It will be determined that he was taking psychotropic meds for a mental illness, but not till months later. He will have a close family member that works for the govt.

      The assault weapon ban will still not pass, and soon after it will be claimed that a cyber attack has hit JP Morgan and all EBT cards will not work for several months and a replacement will take 3 weeks to a month. You can figure out what will happen next.

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    All of SUFA,

    I am attempting to get an interview with my County Sheriff and ask many questions about his feelings on the 2nd Amendment, Federal abuse of power, ect. If you have any questions that I can ask, please post them. I will write an article based on this interview and share the questions and answers.

    • Want to know what the Sheriff association of Texas has already said?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Absolutely! Any an all information is wanted 🙂

        • They met in Austin last Friday. There will be no enforcement of any gun, ammunition, or magazine ban. It was a unanimous decision and it was also stated that they feel better about interpreting the 2nd Amendment as good as any lawyer. They feel that any such order is not in keeping with the 2nd Amendment nor its intent. They said that they id not enforce the first weapons ban and will not this one either and any Federal Agent coming to Texas is on their with NO cooperation from the Sheriff’s as far as weapons bans, regulations, ammunition, and magazine size is concerned.

          Synopsis…….Butt out.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            That’s wonderful. I have many more questions, such as arresting any Fed agents attempting to arrest a citizen in their jurisdiction for violating any Fed law they will not support.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              They will NOT arrest any federal agent enforcing a federal law. If they try, they will find themselves under federal arrest. That is if the Feds feel like flexing their muscle.

              They can decide to NOT PARTICIPATE or to COOPERATE, however.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                JAC, I don’t think it’s something to worry about. I would think that a sheriff would protect against the Feds violating one’s constitutional rights. But who knows. Let’s hope we never have to find out.

            • Gman….this was also a topic of discussion. If a Federal agent were to arrest someone for a federal charge, there will be no interference in the right of a Fed agent in the proper discourse of his jurisdiction.

              All the Sheriff Convention said, it will not enforce any gun BAN (emphasis on Ban) and it will not enforce magazine sizes or requirements and it will not enforce any requirement on ammunition for said weapons. It did not enforce it in the past and will not now. All this means is that it will not monitor gun shows for weapons.

              However, they are in favor of cooperation among State and Federal government in background checks. They are also in favor of not allowing the sale of weapons to out of state residents. They did say that residents in states that ban weapons, will not be able to come to Texas to buy them. You better be a State resident and prove same and utility bills is not proof. You better have a state driver’s license or a State ID with your picture on it.

              Texas is also going to add to its background check, a military discharge check. Any person that receives less than honorable discharge will be ineligible for a weapons purchase if said discharge was for misdemeanor or criminal charges.

              DUI and DWI is also being added to the list. Convictions of DWI and DUI will forfeit your chance to get a CHL. Any felony DWI conviction will also not allow you to legally purchase a weapon for 10 years and you will never get a CHL.

              They are considering tying a CHL to the blood alcohol testing for dui/dwi and thinking about instituting drug and alcohol testing as a requirement for CHL.

              • Good Mornin Colonel 🙂 Today we are quite icey outside, so it’s indoors till lunchtime and hope it melts off by then. This on top of about 4 inches of snow.

                Re: background checks- Now, you are started to point to why I’m against background checks. Not only are they ripe for being corrupted, but after everybody gets done “adding” this or that, the 2nd Amendment will be so diluted it may as well not be there. Why would someone who has a DUI be stopped from a CHL? First, I think the BAC level is BS, as is the DUI law. Now, if a person is apparently stupid drunk, then he should not be behind the wheel. But, this is another example of how laws do not work.

                Why should a DUI at age 22 keep me from a CHL at age 44? Ya’ll need to do some work on that. Besides, in my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is my CHL, why should I have anyone’s permission?

  33. Announced today……5,557 new regulations from the FDA to go into effect Feb 1, 2013. Impact to producers and grocery store chains estimated at one billion the first year. Expect grocery prices to rise an estimated 20% in 2013.

    Your government at work.

  34. gmanfortruth says:
  35. Hilarious to even try to picture this girlie-man with a gun!


  36. gmanfortruth says:
  37. gmanfortruth says:

    This is a fantastic! CNN, or the Communist Control Network, get totally slammed in this video. This is the best look at how CNN has lied to all of us that I have seen in a while. Don’t let the title distract you, this is all about CNN and slamming them. 😆

    • In a proper dog eat dog corporate world, the other networks should be jumping on these findings to prove their competition is a bunch of fakes. Unless they are all guilty.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Their all guilty as hell. The truth will never exist within the corporate whore media. They do what they are told, all of them.

      • gmanfortruth says:
        • This is all re rehash of contradictory reports that we have seen before. Where is the new information. I know that the police and prosecutors are reluctant to release too much information on a crime to keep from tainting the jury pool. But in this case there will be no trial as the “perp” is dead. So where are the official investigation reports? Where are the coroner reports describing the bullets that killed each of the children? This happened 6 weeks ago. How long does it take to complete the investigation?

          In the past, like SK, I have always been skeptical of conspiracy theories as secrets are hard to maintain when lots of people are involved.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I find conspiracy theories as a form of entertainment for the most part. As too your questions, I agree, where is all the information. Secrets are not hard to keep when you and/or your family are threatened. Let’s face it, we the people have sat by and watched as Obama’s drones have killed 176 innocent children in Pakistan, and basically said nothing. The government has been empowered by our inaction. They hire psychopath’s to do their dirty work and when one pull’s you off to the side and whispers sweet nothings into your ears, it’s easy to keep secrets. Let’s not underestimate their resolve.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              In addition, the only issue is the use of the assault weapon. It would not be hard to propagate that lie. Only a few would have to know the truth. Once the Feds took over, the game was their’s to dictate.

  38. gmanfortruth says:
  39. The meaning of well regulated:


    • Thank you, when we studied the Bill of Rights as seniors in High School in 1964, that is exactly how our teacher put it. The ban the guns hysteria was still years away and it was not a yea or nay issue yet by any means.

      “The right of the PEOPLE” and the use of that word in the preamble, “We the “PEOPLE” also should be considered. Does that mean that the Preamble only refers to the National Guard?

      • I can remember studying the IL constitution in JrHS. It clearly stated that all able bodied men between 16 and 60 were members of the state militia. This is the peoples army. When the constitution was written most, states had similar laws. They also required the residents to provide their own guns, powder and shot. There is no ambiguity in the document as it is written. It means exactly what it says. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

  40. Our Savoir has spoken:

    “The truth is that most of the big issues that are going to make a difference in the life of this country for the next thirty or forty years are complicated and require tough decisions, but are not rocket science. We know that to fix our economy, we’ve got to make sure: that we have the most competitive workforce in the world, that we have a better education system, that we are investing in research and development, that we’ve got world-class infrastructure, that we’re reducing our health care costs, and that we’re expanding our exports. On issues like immigration, we have a pretty good sense of what’s broken in the system and how to fix it. On climate change, it’s a daunting task. But we know what releases carbon into the atmosphere, and we have tools right now that would start scaling that back, although we’d still need some big technological breakthrough. So the question is not, Do we have policies that might work? It is, Can we mobilize the political will to act?”

    “I always read a lot of Lincoln, and I’m reminded of his adage that, with public opinion, there’s nothing you can’t accomplish; without it, you’re not going to get very far. And spending a lot more time in terms of being in a conversation with the American people as opposed to just playing an insider game here in Washington is an example of the kinds of change in orientation that I think we’ve undergone, not just me personally, but the entire White House.”

    “And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Obama is worse than Bush. At least Bush tried to hide his lies and ignorance 😆

    • gmanfortruth says:

      On a better note, as we await an ice storm to hit tonight and in the morning, I’m enjoying a small glass of home made “KIWI” brandy. Outstanding stuff!

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    FrankenFeinstein should be arrested and tried for treason and subversion. I can think of a few people who can join her too! http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/duh-feinstein-says-she-wants-to-go-after-more-than-just-assault-weapons/

    • G man……don’t sweat this stuff that you read. Let them come and get the weapons. We both know it will not happen. They can pass all the laws they want but in the end, we will still have our weapons. SO…..no worries, mate.

      • No worries here Colonel. Just trying to put out all the info available. Don’t want the Buckster to throw the BS flag 🙂

        • Nah…he knows what is going on….it ii just that the coffee he drinks goes to his head at times….but he is ok……..I bet he is really an NRA closet member…………………………

  42. How To Avoid The Obamacare Death Trap

    January 28, 2013 by Bob Livingston
    How To Avoid The Obamacare Death Trap

    We are less than one year out from healthcare tyranny under the oligarchy-endorsed Obamacare.

    It’s very deceptive to call Obamacare socialized medicine. The law has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s just the opposite. It’s sickness care. The Nazis had their gas chambers and America has “medical care,” which is the most sophisticated killing machine that demented minds can create.

    Americans are mentally dependent on the “medical” brainwash. When our dumbed-down people hear the trigger word “medical care,” they go blind and hyperventilate. They do not know a scam from a sham. They will go unanimous for anything with the term “healthcare” in it.

    Obamacare is not healthcare. It has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It’s a great transfer of wealth and population control with a ticket to the death panels when we are no longer considered productive citizens.

  43. Wisconsin sheriff urges residents to arm themselves

    Published January 27, 2013

    Associated Press

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/26/wis-sheriff-urges-residents-to-get-gun-training/#ixzz2JHEesnw4

  44. One thing that I did not know and am going to research it…..I was just watching a program where the person interviewed from the government just said that our entitlement program in total,,,,,costs more money than all the other government combined and that included defense spending.

%d bloggers like this: