Weekend Open Chat

As we prepare some new articles to consume, let’s continue some chats that have been ongoing.  I have a discussion for Charlie that I will bring forward and hope some other subjects will continue as well.  I’m still in travel mode till Sunday.  Sunday is also the “Great American Race”, the Daytona 500.  This is usually the only race I watch, unless I catch one when the weather is bad.   I have not missed on Daytona 500 since they started being shown live on TV.  This year, Danica Patrick has the pole, the first women ever to hold a pole position in the history of NASCAR.  Good luck to Danica.


  1. Let me begin with Charlie, he said “accept the fact that “investors” should NEVER get to reap the lion’s share of profits off the backs of workers ”

    I would like to know how you figure this will work in reality? If I invest in a company, I expect to reap the rewards if it is successful. I, after all, helped build that company and create the opportunity for success. The workers, who are paid wages to perform the duties they have accepted. They, in many cases, receive many other benefits, like a health care package that the company pays a majority of the premium (yes, I know, this is changing), they get vacation time in many cases and many other benefits, depending on the company.

    My question to Charlie is, how would you change this to fit your “fact” and if it happens, just how many “investors” do you think will invest after you get what you think should become a “fact”?

    • Zero … which is why communal workplaces seem to work better. Let’s take Taystee, for example. Had the government taken over the factory(ies) after they went bust and allowed workers to profit share in the rebuilding of its base, “maybe” (just maybe), the place could’ve been saved along with all the jobs. There are several communal operations in existence today (a bread factory shown on 60 minutes a few years back); where everyone shares equally in the running of the company. They all own it. The workers are the investors. The guy running the place doesn’t get a dime more than the guy who sweeps the floors at night; they all have equal votes when issues come to the front (i.e., pay raises, etc.). It is a model, not a panacea … but not to worry, Gman. That will never happen here in the good old US&A on a large scale (not before a massive revolution). The clowns that own this country (1%) have guys like you to joint their armies (even though you hate government(s)) and do their bidding for them (in the name of patriotism–what a joke).

      The factories are already in place for most businesses … all we need to do is rearrange this falling apart economy based on capitalism. It doesn’t work … or haven’t you noticed you’re not really a 1%er yet? 🙂

      • Good Morning Charlie 🙂

        I thought as much. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for companies being worker owned and run. Much like family run businesses that start small and grow, but with employees investing in the company instead of rich investors. I wish we had more companies like that.

        Then, we run into where we would part ways. A hard working employee owner would have to give there share back to government, because no one else earned it (including government). The wife and kids would not benefit a plumb nickel, would they Charlie 😦

        this is why your ideals will never work in a real society, at least not as a whole. One great idea destroyed by one not so great idea. Neither idea will be fruitful.

        No, I’m not the 1%, that’s for sure. I don’t hate them for being successful, like many people do. The economy is dead. The fiat ponzi scheme is almost up. It’s not just a capitalist issue, it’s everywhere.

        Have a great day ! 🙂

  2. http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/02/rapists-for-gun-control/

    This is serious stuff. We all deserve the right to defend ourselves. Why do some people think they have the right to tell anybody what they “need” to do this?

  3. This Sequester stuff is playing out on the emotions of the people big time. The media is so full of crap, as is the whole damn govt. This is a sad time in this country, the lies are so blatant and unbelievable, these people should be arrested for fraud 👿


    I can find a lot more. I hope no one is believing the crap being spewed. 🙄

    • “lost touch with reality” – what an understatement.

      Here’s what I don’t get. Why don’t the R’s go on a PR blitz and spread this message far and wide and often. This president has lost touch with reality, ie, he’s crazy. Over and over and over and over.

      • Because the media is in Obama’s pocket. They are owned by the Democrat political machine.

        • No, you don’t wait for the media to pick up on a story. You create the story. Call a press conference – every single day if need be. Hold them in front of a military base. Hold it in front of a budget countdown calendar.

          And if they can’t figure it out on their own – hire a fricken’ public relations company. Market their position. Now if they are so divided that they don’t even have a position, that is another problem.

    • I do too! This is the free market telling those who want Charlies world to stick it! 🙂

      • And sooner or later charlie’s world will seize those “free market” (your word, G) companies and restick it 🙂

        • I hope you do Charlie, then we can see how fast those ideas fail 😉

          • G, they may well fail … I don’t ever pretend to suggest socialism is a panacea, but neither is the monster so many here have to assume it to be (while you protect the 1%–aware of it or not–and I suspect you can’t see how much you protect the 1%–it’s called blind faith). 🙂

            The point being, why not give something else a try? It has worked elsewhere, my brother … just another inconvenient truth, I guess.

            • If our current Republic did not become infected with corruption and greed for money and power, we would be just fine. I think that any form of govt that we know of today can also or is infected the same way. Socialism is no different. What we should work to do is to reform our Republic with a corrupt proof govt. Now that would be something “different” that we could both live with

            • Charlie, Replacing one failed system with another equally failed system is not a bright move. You seem to want everyone on an equal scale, economically, or at least close. There is a big reason why it isn’t that way, anywhere, even in socialist countries. Why don’t you see that?

              • Your assumption that both are “equally” flawed doesn’t hold … and you forget that this government was set up by the rich for their protection … kid yourself all you want about “all men are created equal” … it didn’t hold then and it doesn’t hold now. We’ve NEVER let the people decide anything in America … it’s always been the 1%’ers in one form or another. You turn a blind eye to other options and fail to see the problem … it’s obvious.

              • Charlie, You have been brainwashed into believing all this communism crap. One of the 45 declared goals of Communism is

                “29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

                30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

                See Charlie, your whole life is just a plan of infiltration of our nations by the Communists written in the 1950’s. You believe bullshit that has been spewed supporting the Communist plan to take over the world and establish a One World Government. It’s all written here, the whole plan:


                Charlie, I have no plans to become a Communist. I’m sure after many people read the link, they will see how far they have come. You have been totally brainwashed and lied too. You, Sir, are what Stalin referred to as a “Useful Idiot” Although I don’t think you are an idiot, history is surely on my side. 😉

  4. http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/02/elections-have-consequences-employees-who-voted-for-obama-should-be-the-first-fired/

    Let me pose a question about this. If the cause of layoffs is directly related to Obama’s policies, is this appropriate? Or, is this discrimination that just hasn’t been outlawed yet?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      We do not want a country where retaliation for being involved in politics is accepted. That is coercion.

      But the owner’s should be free to hire and fire whomever they wish.

      • I see both of your points. We wouldn’t be talking about this if politics wasn’t making such an impact in so many lives. Sadly, that impact seems to be a negative one. If business owners have to lay people off, because of Obamacare, why shouldn’t he target those who voted for him and his policies? Decisions have consequences, all of them.

        • This is just an example of how divided our country has become. I can’t believe this is happening in my lifetime. I would have never thought this growing up, even in Youngstown, Ohio, known as little Chicago back then. 🙄

      • I hear you JAC and ordinarily I would agree. But OCare is so directly damaging in so many ways, that to me it becomes not political involvement, but you voted for the continuation of this law.

    • I posted about this earlier. There are many companies directly affected by O’s adm., especially with OCare. My husband is in the medical equipment business and he has vendors that are laying people off because of the medical device tax in OCare. It was known before the election that if O was re-elected, OCare would stand and this tax would be implemented and it would affect jobs.

      I say, it’s merely giving the people what they voted for.

      I have a good friend in an industry that is also feeling the effects and she has experienced some downsizing of pay, but still holding onto job. When I asked her if she was changing her vote this time in an effort to keep her industry/job afloat, she said it was due to the R’s obstructionism that was causing the problems, not her beloved president. I kindly pointed out to her some of the things that had actually happened that her beloved NPR had never shared. While she admitted surprise and her not knowing the full picture, she still voted for him. I told her in November, I hoped she wouldn’t feel the results of what she was voting for.

      The day after the election her company came out with an email of drastic changes to several things, along with a note of further changes coming. It basically said, “because O was re-elected yesterday”.

      She called when she got her first paycheck of the year and said, “you may have been right”. She called last week to say she was transitioned to less hours. I could only say, “I’m sorry”. She admitted, “you warned me, didn’t you?”

      Sadly, with her, I don’t think it will still do much good. She’s surrounded by union teachers and others whose heads are deep, deep, deep in the sand and reality is just a long way off from where they are at.

      • I do not feel sorry for those who are screwed by their own decisions. At least that is how it appears. I don’t think that any election decided who was president at all. But, for the sake of payback is a bitch, 😆

        • Oh I hear you. I also explained that to her as well – that I didn’t believe Romney was some cure all. I told her I had no idea if he would have the political will to make the tough decisions, however, I believed he at least understood the seriousness of our fiscal situation. Obama showed us throughout his first term that he either didn’t understand or just didn’t care about it.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      DOWNSTREAM from this mess.

      But I don’t swim or fish in the river.

      I have no idea where our water comes from though. Gulp!

    • Seems that there was once this plan to bury all this stuff in Nevada where the geology would provide for a very strong long term safety factor on underground storage. But, if I remember correctly it could not be guaranteed that this would be true eternally. Once this got out, that Harry Reid fellow threw up one obstacle after another, demanding a “permanent” solution. So, the tanks continue to leak in Washington State and elsewhere. the good Democratic, environmentally friendly liberals in the state of Washington should take this up with their good friend and spokesman, the good democratic, environmentally friendly liberal, Sen., Harry Reid. Perhaps he could explain why their children might glow in the dark.

  5. Texas agency giving drone flyby information to ranchers and property owners. Advice from Attorney General……..if you wish to protect your property….you are within your rights to shoot them down if you see them. Be sure to comply with local ordinances on discharging firearms….but if you wish to sue any agency for invasion of privacy without warrant…..call this office.

  6. Union members in Chicago are now intent on carrying guns aboard their buses if members of the civilian public are allowed to do so. And naturally, they want more taxpayer money for their trouble.
    The NRA has insisted on concealed-carry laws that would allow the general public to carry guns on public transit; now Amalgamated Transit Union Division 308 President Robert Kelly says such a policy is “outrageous and cannot be allowed.” Chicago Transit Authority President Forrest Claypool agrees, “It would be disastrous to allow passengers to carry concealed weapons on our trains and buses.”
    But sensing an opportunity to push for higher pay, Kelly added that if civilians were allowed to carry weapons, CTA employees “should get training and have the same right for protection.d police officers. We will also need to be paid accordingly since we will have dual jobs as transit workers and police officers”
    The law in Illinois is slated to change radically come mid-June, unless Illinois comes up with a Constitutional law concerning concealed-carry rights. If not, anyone with the ID to purchase a firearm will be able to carry guns. As Chicago mayor says – and as the unions clearly believe – never let a good opportunity to waste taxpayer cash go to waste.

    So, I’ll ask, why would having citizens carry concealed on public transit be a “disaster”? Answer, it isn’t, but they must play the fear game.

    We will also need to be paid accordingly since we will have dual jobs as transit workers and police officers” These clowns can’t be this stupid, can they?

  7. Written By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

    How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

    What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

    That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

    The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

    Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

    Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

    The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

    The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

    — Michael Connelly, J.D.

    Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation​


    Colonel, Have you heard of anyone down your way getting one of these?

    • No…I have heard no such issue and have not received any such letter or communique and neither has anyone at Fort Hood…….that I am aware of. Will keep you posted.

      The only thing that I am aware of is a push by Pelosi, to see all VA military medical records to release to the public, any and all men/women who have been diagnosed with PTSD, and have them registered like a common sex offender. It did not gain any traction, of course, but seems to be the typical view of most progressives.

      • Good Morning Colonel. Hope today finds you and yours well 🙂

        This should be concerning, as it’s not the first I have heard of it. Considering some of the things coming from the Psychiatric world, all of might be mentally ill before too long 🙄

        I will say that a letter of this nature will not deny my rights. After all, it says I’m too nuts too own a gun, guess I’m equally too nuts to follow the law. Actually, I’m so nuts that I will read that I’m supposed to own a gun and that if I don’t I’m breaking the law. 😆

        Interesting how they say your nuts, but apparently not nuts enough to follow their laws. Hippocritical Leftist thinking, don’t you agree?

  8. Yikes – anyone here from San Diego? I always thought the southern part of the CA was a little more reasonable. Apparently not. How arrogant and offensive is this spokesperson?


  9. This is a list of companies that have taken the step to publicly announce that they will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own them; therefore closing the “police loophole” themselves.


    How to fix bad political decisions 🙂

  10. A Puritan Descendant says:

    It is only a drill….. From the Worcester Telegram.


  11. Why do Democrats hate American manufacturers?
    February 23, 2013 | Modified: February 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    Michelle Malkin
    The Washington Examiner
    Popular in Opinion

    Here’s the latest example of head-splitting cognitive dissonance in Washington: President Obama used his State of the Union address to crusade for a revitalized U.S. manufacturing sector. But while he pays lip service to supporting businesses that build their products on American soil, Obama and his left-wing operatives are hell-bent on driving a key sector of the U.S. manufacturing industry six feet under: the American firearms and ammunition industry.

    The White House is pushing new government spending to “spur economic growth,” protect manufacturing plants and “create good-paying jobs” to help America’s middle class. Yet across the country, with aggressive lobbying by the White House itself, Democrats are working to destroy tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and the firms that created them. Assault rhetoric has lasting real-world consequences.

    In New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo imposed radical, ineffectual gun-grabbing measures that are backfiring in more ways than one. Nearly half a dozen gun companies have now announced that they will no longer sell their products to police in the Empire State. In protest of Cuomo’s gun-control regime banning citizens from owning semi-automatic rifles or shotguns because of cosmetic features deemed “military-style,” Washington-based Olympic Arms “will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York.”

    According to USA Today, other companies including “LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI, as well as sporting-goods retailer Cheaper Than Dirt” have also joined the sales boycott of New York.

    Worse news for New York citizens: At least one local manufacturer, the storied Remington Arms Company founded in Ilion, N.Y., in 1816, is in dire financial danger as a result of Cuomo’s draconian regulations. The company’s innovations in weaponry and ammunition have been used in sporting, self-defense, law enforcement and warfare for two centuries.

    Now, as a result of hysteria-induced government pandering, nearly 40 percent of Remington’s weapons can no longer be sold to citizens legally. Its small-town plant employs more than 1,300 people in a town of 8,000 and generates revenue of an estimated $400 million from sales in the U.S. and 55 other countries. As an Ilion local official noted, “Remington is not only a major employer, but it’s a historic employer. It’s been part of our very fiber for 200 years.”

    And so it is with the rest of the industry. Despite tough economic times, firearms and ammunition companies have created nearly 27,000 well-paying jobs over the past two years alone, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Businesses in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ nearly 100,000 people in the U.S. and generate an additional 110,000-plus jobs in supplier and ancillary industries.

    “These are good jobs, paying an average of $46,858 in wages and benefits,” the NSSF reports. In addition, “the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $31.84 billion in total economic activity in the country … (and) the industry and its employees pay over $2.07 billion in taxes including property, income and sales based levies.”

    In my adopted home state of Colorado, where unemployment hovers near 8 percent, nearly a dozen businesses are being forced to consider leaving their home state because of extremist gun-control proposals. Vice President Joe Biden himself leaned on Democratic lawmakers to support an arbitrary 15-round limit on ammunition magazines. So, what have Sheriff Joe and his gun-grabbing pals wrought? Denver-based ammo magazine manufacturer Magpul served notice that it will take its 400 full-time employees and subcontractors somewhere else. Magpul generates some $85 million in spending in the state.

    As the Denver Post reported, the privately held company makes an array of consumer products in addition to sales to the military, law enforcement and gun owners. And because Magpul has made a conscientious effort to support other Colorado companies, the ripple effect could reach far beyond the gun industry — including several cutting-edge innovators in the plastics-injection-molding business. One of Magpul’s most important contractors, Denver-based Alfred Manufacturing Co., employs 150 residents. It, too, will “relocate part or all of our operations out of state” if Democrat Gov. John Hickenlooper enacts the stringent gun-control regime pushed by Biden and company. The company has already put expansion plans on hold.

    Smart lawmakers from Texas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona and South Carolina are now courting Remington away from New York and Magpul away from Colorado. For now, these states can offer business-friendly, Second Amendment-defending climates that support a demonized industry. But how much longer will it be until Obama and the pro-jobs hypocrites on Capitol Hill find new, more nefarious ways to obstruct this innovation-driving, wealth-producing sector of the American economy? Make no mistake: Gun-control demagoguery is a lethal weapon.


  12. Erasing Death: Could Life Be More Than Material?
    By Wesley J. Smith
    February 21, 2013 5:06 P.M.

    I just listened to a fascinating interview on Fresh Air with Dr. Sam Parnia, author of the forthcoming book, Erasing Death: The Science that is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death. Parnia is the Director of Resuscitation Research at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Here is an excerpt from the Kirkus Reviews review:

    Since it is now possible to resuscitate people who would previously have been pronounced dead, the question then arises: When does death occur? Death is not an event, writes the author, but a process that is sometimes reversible. This idea leads him to question the implications of near-death or after-death experiences. While they do not in themselves substantiate any religious beliefs, there are too many documented cases to be ignored. People from diverse cultures who hold different religious beliefs, including atheism, describe many common features, such as seeing a bright light and a guiding figure, and out-of-body experiences.

    A fascinating discussion that addresses medical, moral and social issues and their implications for understanding consciousness, self-awareness and the soul.

    Parnia is one of the world’s foremost researchers into the phenomenon of death. Among the interesting and sometimes unexpected statements Parnia made to Terri Gross in the interview:

    He isn’t coming from a religious perspective and doesn’t “have a religion.”
    When the heart stops, the brain ceases functioning.
    People sometimes “remember” what happened to them after their hearts stopped and brain ceased functioning, in about 1% of the cases.
    The “memories” dealt with what happened in the hospital room, often recalled with remarkable accuracy, and what could be interpreted as an afterlife.
    People able to communicate right after resuscitation, are better able to communicate their experiences than those whose brains swelled and were unable to communicate for a period of time. People seem to forget them over time and thus more may be having these experiences than are actually reported.
    Those who “died” natural deaths reported remarkably similar experiences of entering a warm light, encountering a loving being, and reviewing their life experiences–particularly of having a totally empathetic reaction about how their own conduct affected others. In other words, if the person hurt another person’s feelings, the “dead” person personally experiences the hurt.
    The after “death” reports were strikingly similar whether the resuscitated person was a child or an adult, religious or atheistic.
    People resuscitated after suicides reported strikingly different experiences, terrorizing and dreadful. He has no idea why that might be.
    Science cannot yet demonstrate that neurons are capable of generating thought.
    The jury is still out whether the mind’s locus is in the brain or indeed, even in the body.
    The mind may be able to function with no brain at all.
    Parnia’s overall goal in writing the book is to improve and standardize care after cardiac arrest.

    It seems to me that the people who “came back” weren’t really dead, but it also seems clear that their experiences cannot be explained as a purely neurological phenomenon if the brain had ceased functioning. I think I’ll give this book a read.


  13. Breaking a Taboo in the Arab World
    By David Pryce-Jones
    February 11, 2013 11:46 A.M.

    Last October, someone by the name of Abdullatif al-Mulhim wrote an article that broke a taboo. He told fellow Arabs something they are never allowed to hear, that their wars against Israel have only harmed themselves. Hostility towards Israel is almost sacrosanct in Arab countries, and learned men on public platforms solemnly assert that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs. It is dangerous to keep people in ignorance like this. The real enemies of the Arabs, Mulhim spells out, are corruption, lack of good education and health care, and so lack of respect for human life. Arab dictators, he goes on, have committed atrocities against their own people far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars. What decided him to write like this was starvation, killing, and destruction in one or another Arab country. The final clincher is that Palestinians in Israel or under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza are happier and in a better situation than their Arab brothers who came to liberate them.

    I know nothing about Mulhim except that he is described as a retired officer of the Saudi navy. And now Amal al-Hazzani publishes two articles with similar observations. She is Assistant Professor of Molecular Genetics at King Saud University in Riyadh with quite a list of contributions to professional journals to her credit. In Israel, she writes, “politicians are distinguished by their sincerity and devotion to the higher interests of the state.” Arabs listen to the cheap words of poets and politicians who heap insults on Israel from their luxurious hotel rooms. They are still unaware where, why, and how their feelings of hate towards Israel come about. While they have sunk into hating, the Israelis have built eight public universities and 200 museums and become a rival to America in the programming and software industry. Israelis have got where they are by intelligence, or as she explains, by learning Arabic and studying the culture of Arabs. Her admiration for these achievements is clear.

    The Middle East is exploding and the explanation for these articles may lie in the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, that is to say Sunni versus Shiite, or Arab versus Persian. The Saudis are frightened of the imminent finalization of an Iranian nuclear bomb and they see President Obama as weak, variable, more likely to surrender rather than use military measures to stop the nuclear threat. Israel would certainly take military measures and so there is a coincidence of interests. The Arab press is controlled, and it may be that the ground is being prepared for welcoming a strike. As far as I know, neither has been pressured by authorities, let alone punished. Both of these writers may also be free spirits with the courage of their opinions. If ever the word gets out to the masses that hatred of Israel is irrational and counterproductive then there will be a repeat of perestroika and the Arab Spring will become a reality.


  14. Your hero ignoring the fact Ford didn’t let people know about the Pinto until cases were brought to court … critical thinking … principal … total bullshit.

    • Hey, Let us all just jump in our time machines and go back and raise hell 🙄

    • Whether the boy had a legitimate point or not-he blew it as far as I’m concerned when he stated-I don’t think all life is sacred, things should be balanced or some such and then went on to complain that someone else agreed with him. Don’t kid yourself abortion is also based on cost.

      • If that is Mike Moore (a skinny version) he was just as confused then as now.

        • I personally agree with him that Ford was wayyyyy wrong-but Friedman was trying to show him the big picture-tried to show him why his question was based on the wrong criteria- Ford wasn’t wrong because it would only cost $13 dollars to fix the problem-if that was the case than if it cost 2 million to fix the problem -he would be miraculously justified in selling cars that would explode whenever they were involved in a collision. This isn’t at least in my opinion a “balanced” analysis.

          Now this is where I disagree with Friedman-this is too big of a problem to leave to buyer beware. Ford should have fixed the problem or not made the car. Some regulations are warranted.

          But bottom line everything is based on some type of cost analysis.

          • The cost just isn’t always based on money!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Well said.

            The only thing I will add is that there WERE regulations in place at the time. Ford was trying to work around them.

            This raises the other key point. Regulation can create false expectations. Thus clouding the buyer beware arrangement. Namely, the buyer is misled and the seller gains some protection they wouldn’t have without such regulation.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      As usual you miss the target. He did not IGNORE anything. He revealed the fallacy of the argument.

      Apparently you don’t realize your own govt uses such cost/benefit to risk analysis in its own regulations and designs.

      They KNOW that a certain number of people will be killed on an interstate with a specific design standard. Yet that is balanced against cost.

      The real issue with Ford was the Cover Up of information required for the consumer to make an informed choice.

      • “As usual you miss the target”

        You’re amazingly consistent, JAC. ALWAYS WRONG but consistent.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I have presented factual information on the issue.

          You have offered nothing but the usual emotional rant.

          Thanks for the compliment, however. That is the goal of reason, to find the core principles that allow you to not only be consistent but that eliminate contradictions.

          • You call that a rant?

            Right, you’re committed to exaggeration. I’ve proved your “rational thought” absurd too many times now to play this game, JAC. it’s what drives liberals from this site … I can’t help dropping a nugget once in a while, just to stir the pot … what can I say, it’s fun watching you guys pat yourselves on the back …:)

            • Now just wait a minute Charlie-look at your post -you were claiming “Your hero ignoring the fact Ford didn’t let people know about the Pinto until cases were brought to court” -but he wasn’t-he said that Ford should have warned his customers of the risk of injury – and then you seemed to ignore everything else the man said. When questions were raised -you just got irritated -and now your coming back and proclaiming not why you think anyone is wrong-but what it is you don’t like about how particular people argue based on their own beliefs. Who died and made you right? I get complaining about name calling, rudeness, and even sometimes sarcasm-basicly being uncivil-but your complaints are crap.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, is this the best you can do? Tell someone they are wrong is OK, proving it, well, where is that? If your gonna promote your Communist ideas here, you’ll have to do better Buddy 😉

          • And here’s G proving my point 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Yes , I’m proving that you have no point. THe liberals are losing because their ideals are not wanted by all of us. Why is that so bad? because total control can’t be achieved? Come on Man, try better, your BS is failing, that’s why the Lefties are leaving, can’t fool everyone here, so you have to go where there are easier targets. Try HuffPO, you can win there, no problem, and feel better.

              Love you Too, Bro 🙂

              • “by all of us.”

                Yeah, all 10 of you … 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Chuckie, I was speaking about most of the population of this country that still have a brain to think with. You can have the sheeple, we don’t need their weak minds anyway. Only the strong need to survive in the near future, the weak minding don’t qualify.

                Freedom will rule once again in America, to bad you probably won’t be apart of it. You hate freedom Charlie, you want control and to be controlled. That is what Communism is. Sorry, to bust your bubble, but it ain’t happening here! 😆

    • I love the research capability of this computer thing:


      Especially interesting are Lee Iacocca’s comments at the end. This is interesting. I remember the controversy at the time. We owned a 1970 Chevy Nova, great car, but it too had a rear filler tube under the license plate. In the 180,000 miles I drove that car, I was rear ended twice, once by a car and once by a semi. Being a former motorcycle driver for many years. I live by the use of the rear view mirror. In both instances, damage was minor. I had my foot off the brake at the time of impact and was basically bumped forward with the energy transfer. In both instances however, the filler tube was driven forward. In the second hit, the truck, The weld was broken and fuel leaked when I had a full tank. I guess in the scheme of things this was pretty much the same as what happened in the Pinto. Would be interesting to see if other rear filling cars had similar problems.

      In the past decade, there have been a number of stories on the Ford Crown Victoria’s fuel tank rupturing in a rear impact collision and at least one huge lawsuit from a State Trooper horribly burned.

      Sounds to me like decisions at Ford were still being made based on Robert S. McNamara’s bean counting methodology. You remember him, he’s the guy that gave you 50,000 plus names on a black granite wall in Washington DC. The “best and brightest” my ass.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie, V.H. and others.


    Or; how Urban Legends replace truth and can be used to control us. Following is from wikipedia. If you don’t like the source then follow the tracks. But I think this shows that the analysis was NOT as portrayed in the video above AND it WAS RELATED to EXISTING Federal regulation in place at the time.

    Fuel tank defect

    Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto’s structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[9] and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[9] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.
    Allegations and lawsuits

    Critics alleged that the vehicle’s lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential[17] — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.

    According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of $11 repairs against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts. The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.[15][18][19] This document was, technically, not a memo regarding the Pinto specifically, but a general memo Ford submitted to the NHTSA in an effort to gain an exemption from safety standards; it was also primarily focused on the cost of reducing deaths from fires resulting from rollovers, rather than the rear-end collision fires that plagued the Pinto. It was nonetheless submitted in court in an effort to show the “callousness” of Ford’s corporate culture.[7]

    An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,[20] in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately directed Ford to recall the Pinto. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. 27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires (the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem) and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no “recallable” problem.[21]

    In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.[9][22]
    Schwartz paper

    In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[7] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[23][24]

    According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto’s production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed “smoking gun” document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford’s callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford’s potential tort liability.

    Schwartz’s study said:

    The Pinto Memo wasn’t used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
    The Pinto’s fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was “commonplace at the time in American cars” (p. 1027).
    The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).

    • I see we both were interested at the same time! Thinking on it, the flaw was industry wide in the placement of the fuel filler tube. Are there any rear mounted ones still out there on newer cars?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Not that I am aware of.

        Funny how the same design standard existed in other cars at the time but it is the PINTO that is used as the poster child. All because the “memo” was deliberately misrepresented to the people. A typical ploy by the lefties even back then.

        Note in the summary that when the Court had to rule on whether to admit the memo as evidence in the penalty trial it decided it was “inadmissible”.

        The same strategy and outrage was used against GM years later over the pickup gas tank exploding if the truck was hit hard enough from the side. When NBC couldn’t’ get it to happen they staged an explosion and reported it as a test result.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is another source on the MEDIA creating the crisis via manipulation. Everyone should note that the young reporters on these shows back then are the old dogs of today. The ones who the other day were whining about the lack of “authoritative figures” in the news anchor chair (Dan Rather).

        This should also act as a Primer for those who think this media sensationalism is something new.


  16. Bottom Line says:

    ” But bottom line everything is based on some type of cost analysis. ”

    ” The cost just isn’t always based on money! ”

    Agreed, V.

    So, keeping that logic in mind, what do you think about the following statement as a guideline for managing global population?


    …because I look at this statement and, right off the bat, have to question it.

    First of all, it implies that someone[s] is in the position to decide all of humanity’s breeding habits, as well as nature itself. Who has that right?

    Secondly, How do you suppose that such a goal is accomplished? The context of the word ‘under’ is very telling as it appears to work against the concept of procreation.

    Thirdly, it is based upon the false premise that balance cannot be sustained with more than 1/2 billion people.

    I look at this and consider that the bottom line is indeed based upon some type of cost benefit analysis, and that the cost is more a question of free will and procreation for the billions vs happiness and prosperity for the few million.

    What say you?

    Anyone else wanna weigh in?

    • I’d say Bottomline that you just did a cost analysis and found the cost too high. And possibly established that the whole concept of trying to forcibly control the population is itself idiot and evil.

      • that should be idiotic.

        • Bottom Line says:

          I thought you might agree.

          But when you really think about it, it still boils down to right/wrong – good/evil, the Golden Rule, and Live and Let Live.

          Trying to mind the breeding habits of others is not letting them live. How would that feel to have someone tell you how many babies not to have?

          I suppose if it was voluntary to not have many babies, it would be alright…but trying to control others?, well that just ain’t right.

          • Bottom Line says:

            That was the first one…So, what about the other ones?

            (These are from the Georgia Guide Stones, by the way.)











  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Hey ya’ll, The USA is going to suffer big time because the Rebublicrats won’t stop the Demopublican idea of sequestor. Imagine that, the sky is falling again (a bi monthly thing lately). Why do people lie so much? If it were up to me, I would eliminate all Federal taxes and funding, fire everyone and start over.


    • Bottom Line says:

      ” I would eliminate all Federal taxes and funding, fire everyone and start over. ”

      I like it. But make it all voluntary. No forced taxation. No theft.

      When people stop chipping in thinking that someone else will, and things stop working, …they’ll get it.

      How many flattened tires from potholes before people start donating or fixing neighborhood potholes? How many hours in traffic before people start funding stop lights?

      Does it have to be forced? Or are people able to do it as a matter of actual consequence vs reward?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good idea. Why should an old lady that never travels on an interstate pay to fix them through a gas tax? It’s a rip off for her. Starting over, let’s begin with two areas, military and interstate highways. That is all that a new Federal govt should manage, and the real management of the highways should be a State issue. Bring our troops home, that expense is in the billions each year, a big savings. I’ve got more, but thats an article, not a comment 😉

        • Bottom Line says:

          “fire everyone and start over” …to me means leaving government out of it altogether. I suppose you could have a centralized highway management operation.

          Decentralize as much as possible though, even military forces. One that isn’t necessarily designed for offense but rather defense.

          Consider this; if you have militias with weapons platforms, radar, communications, etc, that worked much like the National Guard, evenly dispersed across the land, it would serve as a means to surround any one that got out of hand, in case of such a dispute. If an outside invader comes in, it is everyone’s problem, thus they will get slammed by everyone for trying. It might serve well to do regular training with other counties to coordinate unified efforts of defense.

          Your local constables cruise around in a hummer and could have the county f-18E at the local air strip, and your firemen housing an Abrams tank.

          You could work the whole planet like that. Decentralization means no hegemony/superpowers.

          Dismantle the nukes and use them as fuel for something useful like space operations.

          …just a thought…

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    I know some politicians that should be recalled yesterday, don’t you?


    Hey, just blow a whistle! Hey, use a call box! Hey, learn self defense! Yep, good advice there 🙄

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting look at the earliest times of slavery in America. http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/father-of-u-s-slavery-was-a-black-man/

  20. gmanfortruth says:
  21. gmanfortruth says:

    The last words out of Obama’s mouth say’s it all! http://conservativevideos.com/2013/02/sequester-obamas-idea-obamas-mess/

    • Thought I would put up what I see as an argument from the left-so we can discuss the issue based on an argument from the left.

      How Bob Woodward’s Book Debunks His Big Washington Post Op-Ed

      By David Weigel


      Posted Saturday, Feb. 23, 2013, at 5:40 PM
      Share on Facebook


      Bob Woodward’s been banging the tables of various talk shows for weeks, making the same fairly banal point: The White House proposed sequestration as part of a package to raise the debt limit in 2011. Watching Woodward in action has been disconcerting for the many reporters who covered the story in real time. Did the White House float sequestration as a “trigger” to force a better, later deal from Congress? Yes. Would this have ever become an issue if Republicans hadn’t chosen to hogtie the debt limit and hold a sixgun to its head for six months? No. So who cares?

      Banal, like I said, until Woodward’s Friday Washington Post column on the topic. The Post blasted this out to its news alert list with the subject “EXCLUSIVE: Obama Misled; He and Jack Lew Planted Seeds For Disastrous Sequester.” That cranked it up from banal to outright strange. First, Woodward’s been talking about Obama’s slippery denial of ownership of sequestration all year. Second, as Brian Beutler points out, Woodward himself gets the point of sequestration totally wrong. Here’s Woodward.

      Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

      In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

      So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts.

      Again, read Beutler: This is just a highly redacted reintrepretation of the long, long negotiations. And it doesn’t even appear this way in Woodward’s book, The Price of Politics. Early (but shadowy) versions of deals between the White House and Republicans included a mixture of cuts and spending increases. At one point, the negotiators seemed to agree on $800 billion of new revenue from tax increases. Woodward, page 237:

      Though couched in budgetary alchemy, the Republicans offered what amounted to $800 billion in new revenue over the next 10 years, to be achieved through major tax reform.

      This fell apart for two reasons. First, a bipartisan group of senators proposed a flimsy framework for a “grand bargain” that would get up to $2 trillion from fundamental tax reform. That made Democrats back away from the more realistic deal, because why get $800 billion when you can get $2 trillion. Second, House Republicans made it abundantly clear that they’d kill any deal with any revenue from taxes. Woodward, in the book, calls the people who held this position “propellerheads.” He knows that they exist.

      With time running out, negotiators settled on the idea of a debt limit hike with a “trigger” that would force people back to the table. The debt limit would be raised in three tranches, meaning that Washington would have at least 18 months to come up with something better. Democrats believed that the “something better” would include tax increases. To get there, they needed a trigger. The trigger was sequestration. To avoid sequestration, a “supercommittee” would convene and come up with, as the Budget Control Act says, “an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction.” What made the committee “super” was the power granted to that potential plan — it would be guaranteed an up or down vote. That, hopefully, would save it from Democrats who opposed any entitlement cuts and from Republicans who opposed any tax increases.

      The difference between “cuts” and “deficit reduction” is vital and obvious. Most of the supercommittee’s proposed deals included tax revenue as a way to get the reductions. And that was the White House’s goal. Woodward, page 327:

      The idea was to make all the theatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.

      To argue that the White House is “moving the goal posts” when it now asks for revenue in a sequestration replacement, you have to toss out the fact that the White House always wanted revenue in the supercommittee’s sequestration replacement. This isn’t confusing unless reporters make it confusing.


      Okay, this guy is right as far as I see it about the reason for the sequester, and that people knew they would be talking about both tax increases and spending cuts-but he seems to skip the part where the discussion about raising the debt ceiling gave democrats tax increases. He was real truthful that the dems-Obama-blew up the bi-partisan deal at the last minute, which lead to the sequester because they thought they could get more-how has that worked out so far.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    I have several questions about North Korea. What would it look like over there without US presence? Why do they continue to make stupid threats they can’t back up? Should we just leave and let things happen?

  23. Hummm-Personally, I think if the government is going to help other non governmental organizations in a natural disaster-than I see no reason not to help religious organizations. My concern would be the church taking money from the government for any reason because the government would probably use it to claim churches weren’t private institutions anymore.

    U.S. Gov’t Refuses to Help Churches Damaged and Destroyed in Natural Disasters — But Should It?
    Feb. 23, 2013 7:19am Billy Hallowell

    Should Congress Fund Churches Damaged in Natural Disasters | Hurricane Sandy

    Residents pick-up items at a church which has been turned into a relief supply center following Hurricane Sandy in the Rockaways on January 25, 2013 in New York City. Credit: Getty Images

    In addition to wreaking havoc and rendering thousands of Americans homeless, Hurricane Sandy brought with it yet another nation-wide church-state separatism debate. The focus? Whether Congress should be in the business of financially assisting houses of worship.

    While private homes and businesses were dilapidated by the historic storm, Hurricane Sandy also left scores of churches without the funds and support needed to rebuild. The natural question quickly became: Should the Federal Emergency Management Agency help recovery by offering grants to these institutions?

    While many Americans would agree that churches, too, should be eligible for government assistance in the wake of nature’s wrath, current law actually restricts such an intermingling of religion and state. This naturally offers up quite a conundrum to houses of worship that find themselves in desperate need.

    Earlier this month, in an effort to rectify the situation, the House of Representatives voted in support (354 to 72) of the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592). The measure, sponsored by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), was opposed by 66 Democrats and six Republicans.

    The bill, voted upon on Feb. 13, would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act to include churches as non-profit institutions that are entitled to FEMA aid when the president declares a natural disaster. The bill is now moving on to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

    To provide more context regarding what’s being proposed, here’s a summary description of the House measure as it currently stands:

    Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 – Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include community centers, including tax-exempt houses of worship, as “private nonprofit facilities” for purposes of disaster relief and emergency assistance eligibility under such Act.

    Makes a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other house of worship, and a private nonprofit facility operated by a religious organization, eligible for federal contributions for the repair, restoration, and replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster, without regard to the religious character of the facility or the primary religious use of the facility.

    Makes this Act applicable to the provision of assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency declared on or after October 28, 2012.

    Should Congress Fund Churches Damaged in Natural Disasters | Hurricane Sandy

    A rescue center is being organized by volunteers in the gymnasium next to St Gertrude’s Church as New York recovers from Hurricane Sandy on November 4, 2012 in Far Rockaway, New York. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

    While some would call this a common-sense corrective measure that helps to remove discriminatory practices waged against churches, others disagree and have fears about how far this bill might be taken. Critics charge that public funds would potentially end up paying for exclusively-religious content inside of churches and not merely the structural damages that result from natural disasters.

    “Using federal money to build a religious sanctuary of any faith is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent,” writes Alfred P. Doblin, editorial editor of The Record.

    According to Doblin, FEMA isn’t supportive of the measure, expressing fears that the government will end up footing the bill for baptismal fonts, stained-glass windows and other exclusively religious elements. If these items are damaged in storms, the worry is that churches will ask the government to replace them, creating a potentially-troubling entanglement. He went on to call the bill a “slippery slope” that America “should not ski.”

    The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a church-state separatist group, agreed. BJC Staff Counsel Nan Futrell wrote a letter claiming that public funding would endanger the Establishment Clause and create murky scenarios for the separation of church and state.

    “Public funding of houses of worship threatens to undermine religious autonomy and impermissibly involve government in the private affairs of religious bodies,” Futrell wrote in her letter. “It is simply not a good idea — however our heartstrings are tugged — to give churches access to the public till.”

    But others, like Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, said that she supports giving grants to houses of worship. Pledging to support the bill in the Senate, she noted that churches like St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church in Queens, N.Y., among others, have provided much-needed aid to storm victims. Gillibrand believes that churches should have the same protections that zoos, museums, libraries and other community groups are granted.
    Should Congress Fund Churches Damaged in Natural Disasters | Hurricane Sandy

    Donated goods inside St Gertrude’s Church as New York recovers from Hurricane Sandy on November 4, 2012 in Far Rockaway, New York. Veterans of the campaign to bring Wall Street to a standstill are now in an army of volunteers helping the tens of thousands in a crippled district of New York one week after superstorm Sandy struck. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

    And Christine C. Quinn, a Democrat and the speaker of the New York City Council, has joined in Gillibrand’s call for a change to FEMA’s policies. But rather than urging legislative action, she wrote a letter simply asking the agency to consider the massive need churches have in the wake of the storm.

    “Recovery from a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy isn’t a matter of state sponsoring religion,” she wrote. “It’s a matter of helping those in need after one of the worst natural disasters our country has ever seen.”

    FEMA, though, has continued to express concern, noting that lawsuits would likely follow if the bill becomes law. Additionally, there’s disagreement from legal experts over whether it parameters are constitutional. While the American Civil Liberties Union argues that they are not, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty claims the opposite.

    Considering both sides of the argument, what do you think? Should the federal government help churches as it does other non-profit organizations — or is this a violation of the U.S. Constitution? Take the poll, below:


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Just my opinion, the Federal government should only help in the form of safety and security right after the storm. There should be zero tax dollars paying for anything as a result of a natural disaster. That is why people have insurance. This includes churches, who generally have insurance as well.

      • Okay G-that’s fine-but the question is based on what they are doing now-is leaving out religious organization right under the current policy?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, it is right. Separation of Church and State, remember? The Liberals are smiling!

          • Okay, I wonder if Planned parenthood would be helped, wonder if something like Media Matters would be helped. Wonder if the headquarters of the Parties got knocked down would they be helped. I’m guessing yes they would-so just what is it about religious institutions that make them not suitable for what is basicly governmental charity.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The government will give money to those who will keep them in power, regardless of political affiliation. Most of the money will never help anyone, but pad the pockets of politicians and their future political desires. Don’t be fooled by the lies.

              • He He-G you cannot answer every question by insulting the government 🙂 now some of the entities I listed are tax exempt-so what is it about religious organizations that would stop governmental charity in the case of natural disasters. They would in no way be establishing a religion-they would simply be helping whatever organizations that were hurt during a disaster. I for one am tired of the phrase separation of Church and state being used to make Churches of less value than any and all other things.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I do agree with your points about Fed money. It should be equally distributed to all. It won’t, because of political correctness. In other words, the Liberals win again!

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    What the Psychopath control freaks called government is going to do to everybody.

    • Control Freak is right-I wonder how many New Yorkers had any idea our inclusive this was going to be. And I mean seriously, New York needs for things to be more expensive for absolutely no reason beyond this man is nuts.

  25. G, calm your crazy jets … I’m having fun with you (and you make it easy) but tell me (you or JAC), where did your Ayn Rand wannabe in the video answer the question posed to him? It was a simple question. He had to reach on “principal” … create a strawman … it was obvious what Ford did there (never mind the internal email that proved it) … and if “everything” is based on cost effectiveness, why not kill everyone who’s convicted of a crime? Or everyone on welfare? Or anyone who doesn’t agree with the ten of you in here 🙂 (couldn’t resist) … seriously, G, it was simple math. Ford should’ve been sued for every dime they ever made for that internal memo …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree that Ford should have lost their ass in court based on the design flaw that cost lives. I’m OK with that, it’s part of our system, despite it’s flaws. The question is, were they? Did the govt protect them and the unions to keep any lawsuits from happening? What did happen? Can I sue because of the nightmares I still have when my neighbor brought home a brand new lime green pinto one day?

      Next question, what is your point about the Pinto? I can see you have issues with them, did you own a lime green one like my neighbor? That could cause some bad emotional issues. Thankfully, I never sat in one, but if you did your screwed 😆

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Giggling the whole time I typed this too! 😉

      • G: Who owns the government? Think about this for a few minutes. You hate the government, you hate the corruption, yet you support the system that permits it wholesale. It’s confusing, brother …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Geez, you know That I know the government is corrupt to the core. That is easy. You want to blame those who paid for the corruption, I want to blame those who took the money. We are likely both right, just want to fix it in different ways.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      There was NO “Internal Memo”. Didn’t read the stuff I posted did ya!

      And he did address the question directly. Just because you can’t grasp the concept doesn’t mean he did not.

      The lack of critical thinking was evident in the college kids reactions. Like a bunch of trained seals all barking their anger.

      Moore’s question was FALSE. It assumed that it was inappropriate to set a price on the RISK of lost life. Not on ACTUAL lost life by the way. Yet as Friedman points out, we all do that every day. And if we don’t do it based on Risk vs Cost then what is the break point for certainty.

      Your outburst is predicated on the FALSE accusation that this was an internal memo admitting guilt and designed to hide the facts. It has been proven that this was not the case. Again, try reading the stuff I posted.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        JAC, This is Charlie’s reply. He’s having puter problems.

        Charlie Stella

        My man G … suddenly I can’t post at SUFA … so be it … but here’s my rejoinder to JAC’s asserting that there was no internal memo … apparently another lie: http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/ford-memo-the-smoking-gun/

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I told the truth. The conclusion regarding the supposed “memo” was made by a person who studied the case and published it in the lawyers journal.

          I actually read your citation Charlie. Did you read mine? Yours does not refute the conclusion reached in my citation nor does it provide any evidence that is contradictory. The lawyer who wrote the story line simply repeated the claim of Ford suppressing this document. I am sure their lawyers tried to keep it out of court. But the fact remains it was attached to documentation sent to the Govt agency. At least per the guy who did the research.

          By the way, the document is NOT even a MEMO. I know that is a technicality but since your the one accusing me of lying I thought I would bring it to your attention.

          • Keep reaching, JAC … i expect nothing else, but you never did address the issue of Friedman not answering the direct question. He couldn’t … had to delve into “rational thinking” and abscure the very clear issue as regards Ford, its Pinto and the cost analysis they performed to ignore public safety. He had to create a hypothetical to dodge the bullet. So it goes …

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I am not reaching for anything.

              He answered the question Charlie. You simply choose to ignore it because you don’t want to consider it.

              When someone is faced with a question based on a false premise then it should be challenged. That is what Friedman did. He tackled it head on. You just can’t handle the truth.

              They did not create an analysis to “dodge” safety. Apparently you do not understand Value Analysis and Risk Analysis.

              You still have not answered the question about this supposed “internal” memo. If it was what you say it was, and as inferred by Moore, then why did the judge disallow it in the penalty phase?

              Had it been what you claim then it would have been allowed due to its display of callousness and disregard for life.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Cool, a good debate is a brewing. JAC 1 Charlie 0 so far. Come on Charlie, your up to bat 🙂

  26. gmanfortruth says:
  27. Hey, JACster … what’s this, a fugazy?


  28. Conservatives are leading on prison reform
    2:45 PM 02/24/2013

    Many Americans might be forgiven for thinking that, just as liberals often have a program for every problem, conservatives have a prison for every problem. However, conservative criminal justice policy today is charting a new course that is more consistent with the traditional conservative principles of limited government and personal responsibility. In conservative states like Texas, Georgia, and South Dakota, conservative policymakers have spearheaded statutory and budgetary reforms that prioritize prison space for violent and dangerous offenders while strengthening cost-effective alternatives that hold nonviolent offenders accountable.

    Since 2005, when Texas began its reforms that expanded the use of proven alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, the crime rate in Texas has declined by 25 percent, reaching its lowest level since 1968. At the same, the state, once known for its burgeoning prison population, has seen its incarceration rate plummet.

    Fortunately, crime and incarceration rates can be reduced simultaneously. Another example of this is New York, where the prison population has fallen by a quarter since 1999 at the same time crime has fallen to the lowest rate since the 1960s, thanks in part to innovative policing strategies in New York City. Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has already presided over the closure of more than half a dozen correctional facilities, alienated state employee unions earlier this month when he proposed closing a couple more, joining governors like Texas Governor Rick Perry and Florida Governor Rick Scott, who closed prisons in 2011.

    Conservatives like Perry and Scott may be shutting the doors on prisons, but they are not turning their backs on conservative principles. Rather, conservative leaders are applying the same lens of accountability to corrections as to other areas of state budgets. They are recognizing that while prisons are indispensable for keeping violent and dangerous people off the streets, there are ways of punishing and rehabilitating many nonviolent offenders that are not so tough on taxpayers.

    On February 5, conservative South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed legislation that emphasizes alternatives for nonviolent offenders such as drug courts, DUI courts, and the 24-7 sobriety program. He noted that these measures “will make it less likely they’ll re-offend in the future and keep our public more safe.” Similar legislation signed in 2011 by another conservative governor, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, reduced the use of incarceration for low-level drug possession offenses while strengthening the capacity of probation officers to impose swift, sure, and commensurate sanctions as well as effective treatment interventions.

    Research shows that strategies such as drug courts, the Hawaii HOPE Court, mandatory treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, and electronic monitoring can cost effectively put many nonviolent offenders on the path to being productive citizens, rather than a drain on taxpayers.

    We now know that swift, sure, and commensurate sanctions are particularly effective in promoting compliance. This is the hallmark of the Hawaii HOPE Court, where drug offenders are told in advance that if they test positive for drugs or fail to show up for a drug test, they will go to jail the next day or the upcoming weekend. Each participant must call in every morning to see if it is their day to come in for a drug test. In a controlled group study this court, which costs a small fraction of incarceration, has been found to reduce substance abuse and re-offending by two-thirds.

    Undoubtedly, conservatives have taken notice upon seeing folks like Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Grover Norquist, and Bill Bennett sign the Right on Crime Statement of Principles. However, the proof in the pudding has come as conservative policymakers across the nation have transformed theory into reality. While some politicians may have once judged their success in corrections by how many people are in prison, today we are asking different questions. How much crime are we reducing with every dollar spent? How many victims are obtaining restitution? How many nonviolent ex-offenders are now in the workforce? In short, we must move from a system that grows when it fails to one that rewards results, and conservatives are on the front lines of this movement.

    Marc Levin is the policy director for Right on Crime, a national campaign for conservative criminal justice reforms led by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He can be reached at mlevin@texaspolicy.com or http://www.rightoncrime.com.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/24/conservatives-are-leading-on-prison-reform/#ixzz2Lt6SynRj

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    The 100% created crisis known as “Sequestration” is a big story on the Mainstream Media Outlets (not even a subject on the real news). Not much has been said about it here, so I’ll spit this out: Who Cares? 🙄

    Buck, I’m working on an article just for you, but it may take a few more days to complete.

    Charlie, The Ford Pinto issue. Where were the Unions?

    Todd, Would like to hear your views on the many issues.

    Something off the wall. Anyone believe in UFO’s? A little known animal secret: One critter, upon losing their mate, will cry loudly for hours at a time, sounding loudly, I might add, just like a human baby. What critter is this?

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    CHICAGO—The city of Chicago is steadily recovering from an overnight snowstorm that delayed hundreds of murders on Friday morning and will likely continue to push numerous homicides across the city drastically behind schedule, public authorities announced. “As we speak, maintenance crews are working diligently to restore public transportation, de-ice roads, and clear back alleyways so that Chicagoans can quickly resume murdering again,” Department of Streets and Sanitation spokesman Dave Michelson said of the heavy blizzard, which caused numerous homicide cancellations this morning at peak murder times. “Unfortunately, we’re backed up by about 35 deadly shootings at the moment, but we hope to restore regular death tolls as soon as possible. We apologize to anyone forced to postpone shootings or other killings today and assure concerned murderers that they will be able to resume slayings by the early afternoon.” At press time, authorities reported that murders were up and running in many parts of the city, with four teenagers already gunned down on Chicago’s South Side.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Conspiracy theory: Any challenge to conventional wisdom. The elites prefer that their messages, as broadcast by their mainstream media mouthpieces, be blindly accepted without question. Asking questions — even those pointing out the obvious fallacies in the message — is labeled “conspiracy.” In fact, the conspiracy lies in those in the MSM who parrot the message without thought and investigation.

    Legitimate news source: A control phrase used to bolster the concept that the only “real” news comes from the mainstream media, the propaganda mouthpiece of the 1 percent. Six megacorporations now control 90 percent of what we see and hear on a daily basis. The only true and legitimate news sources are now found on the Internet.

    For the children: Used as a substitute for what it really means; bad policy or really bad policy. Tyrants and dictators have long cloaked themselves with the faces of children. Higher-form creatures take every effort to protect their young, and humans are no exception. So any policy, no matter how feckless, is accepted if it can be sold as a protector of the children. “For the children” rivals “to keep us safe” as the most dangerous of phrases that result in loss of freedom.

    Sequestration: President Barack Obama’s plan to avoid responsibility for proposed insignificant cuts to the growth of leviathan government and create another wedge issue in his ongoing class warfare battle. The elected class will do nothing to cut government. Doing so reduces their power and gives them less “playing room” when it comes time to “spread the wealth around” to their cronies and corporate masters. The proposed $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years are not cuts as real people understand them, but a reduction in the baseline increases that occur automatically in government. They are completely insignificant, though the 1 percent will use them to create fear of impending doom and gloom.

    Revenues: A replacement word for taxes that still means confiscation of wealth from producers to the 1 percent for redistribution to the dependent class and corporatist interests.

    Investments: A control word now used in place of “spending.” It is money transferred to favored pass-through industries that get special incentives and funnel the money back to the war chests of politicians.

    Quantitative easing: The world’s greatest check kiting scheme, which dwarfs anything Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff could have imagined. It is simply currency debasement and destruction and an involuntary transfer of wealth from you, the taxpayers, to a narrow financial elite. It is by far the largest looting in the history of the world.

    Stimulus: Abstractions and illusions designed to make people think that wealth can be created by printing money and transferring it to the corrupt banking system and other industries and labor unions favored by the 1 percent. It has resulted in an unsustainable stock market bubble that is giving a false sense of recovery when, in fact, the U.S. economy is in dire shape. Freight shipments are at their lowest levels in two years, gasoline prices have risen every day for more than a month and are up more than 50 cents in two months, retailers are projecting the closure of hundreds of stores this year, Wal-Mart sales for the year are a “total disaster,” gross domestic product contracted at an annual rate of .1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012, the economies of the richest countries contracted in the last quarter and corporate insiders are dumping stocks.

    Extremist: Anyone who advocates for a smaller, less intrusive government, opposes all policies that are unConstitutional and rejects compromise on Constitutional principles.

    Minimum wage: Another wedge issue designed to incite the dependent class against the producers. In his State of the Union address, Obama proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, a 24 percent increase. He did so with the implication that it was not a “living wage” and that there are people trying to raise a family on minimum wage. This is a false notion. Minimum-wage jobs are held by young people (mostly), some seniors (who work to stay busy and/or overcome the effects of inflation and artificially low interest rates on their pensions and savings) and people working a second job. In fact, raising the minimum wage would harm each of those segments, as the businesses would eliminate many of those jobs rather than absorb or pass along the wage increases. Increasing the minimum wage would also lead to higher prices on goods and services, thereby eliminating any benefits that might accrue from the additional wages paid to a smaller number of employees. A higher minimum wage coupled with Obamacare mandates in a sagging economy with no jobs for young workers — who currently have an unemployment rate of 23.4 percent (according to phony government data) — is a job killer that will drive even more people to government dependency.

    Inflation: Inflation is not rising prices. It is an increase in the money supply that devalues the dollars in circulation. As Alan Greenspan said in 1966 (before he sold his soul to the banksters), inflation is a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.” This is something that probably not one in a million people understands, yet it is an issue that is of utmost importance. Henry Hazlitt wrote in What You Should Know About Inflation: “As the money supply is increased, people have more money to offer for goods. But if the supply of goods doesn’t increase — or increases at a slower pace than the money supply — the prices of goods goes up. Each individual dollar becomes less valuable because there are more dollars available. This leads to more of them being offered for a commodity. A ‘price’ is an exchange ratio between a dollar and a unit of goods. When people have more dollars, they value them less. Goods then rise in price, not because there are fewer goods than before, but rather because there are more dollars available.”


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Did you happen to check out the comments?

      Looks like Charlie was posting under another name.

      Had to chuckle as it looked like a miniature debate that has occurred here many times before.

  32. Preparing for the bulb ban

    By Adam Verwymeren

    Published February 20, 2013


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/02/20/preparing-for-bulb-ban/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2Lv2nA39A

    Still want these bulbs? They are cheap and easy to get. I still buy them by the case and they are far cheaper to run than these new spiraled bullshit bulbs that are supposed to last a lifetime and then don’t….and they have mercury in them as well…..that is supposed to be on the epa ban list but isn’t……get them from Mexico. Easy to do.

  33. Texas ‘Cruz Missile’ — Senator standing by his principles, ready to take the heat

    Published February 24, 2013


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/24/texas-appear-pleased-with-hard-charging-cruz-who-says-knock-come-with-turf/#ixzz2Lv4MjHKa

    This is why we elected him…he fights the status quo even in the Repubs party.

    • Even Fox News did not say why he is our Cruz Milssile…….he votes no on all bills that have attachments. He wants each bill to stand on its own with no attachments from EITHER party. We like him. But we are Texas Rebels…..and we like that.

      By the way, Gman and JAC……you will like the fact that Texas now flies our old Texas Revolution flag over the Capitol building under the Texas flag……..the old “Come and Take It” flag…….the drawing of a cannon with the slogan……..cool.

  34. Forbes just published its 20 Most Miserable Cities List for 2013. The magazine left off several obviously more “worthy” contenders, perhaps because its decisions to include and exclude certain criteria were, to say the least, more than a little odd.

    I have listed the magazine’s top twenty following the jump, along with each city’s mayor and that person’s political leanings, showing a commonality the magazine’s Kurt Badenhausen failed to observe:
    Story Continues Below Ad ↓

    20. Youngstown, Ohio — Charles P. Sammarone, Democrat
    19. Gary, Indiana — Karen Freeman-Wilson, Democrat
    18. Poughkeepsie, New York — John C. Tkazyik, Republican
    17. Cleveland, Ohio — Frank Jackson, Democrat
    16. Atlanta, Georgia — Kasim Reed, Democrat
    15. Atlantic City, New Jersey — Lorenzo Langford, Democrat
    14. Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Tom Barrett, Democrat
    13. Camden, New Jersey — Dana Redd, Democrat
    12. St. Louis, Missouri — Francis Slay, Democrat
    11. Toledo, Ohio — Michael Bell, ran as an independent but is a lifelong Democrat
    10. New York, New York — Michael Bloomberg, Nanny State “Independent” since 2007; Democrat before 2001; ran as a Republican in 2001 just to get a spot on the ballot.
    9. Waukegan, Illinois — Robert G. Sabonjian, Democrat (see first paragraph following this list)
    8. Stockton, California — Anthony Silva, a Republican sworn into office by Democrat and former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
    7. Warren, Michigan — James Fouts, Republican
    6. Vallejo, California — Osby Davis, Not determinable
    5. Modesto, California — Garrad Marsh, “non-partisan,” clear Democrat sympathies
    4. Chicago, Illinois — Rahm Emanuel, Democrat
    3. Rockford, Illinois — Larry Morrissey, Independent
    2. Flint, Michigan — Dayne Walling, “nonpartisan,” formerly worked for U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee, a Democrat
    1. Detroit, Michigan — Dave Bing, Democrat

    Those who verify my links will notice that Forbes really listed Lake County, Illinois at Number 9. Sorry guys, a city is a city, and a county isn’t. Waukegan is Lake County’s county seat, and definitely deserves its spot on the list.

    So the lineup (classifying Bloomberg, Toledo’s Bell, Modesto’s Marsh, and Flint’s Walling as Dems, which philosophically is clearly what they are):

    – Democrats — 15
    – Republicans — 3
    – Independent/not determinable — 2

    I would question the inclusion of Poughkeepsie (population 32,790) as a “city,” and the only bad things Forbes had to say in its slide show were that its residents suffer from long commutes and property taxes are high. Those aren’t exactly unique negatives.

    Poughkeepsie’s most obvious candidate for replacement is bankrupt San Bernardino, California, “the largest city ever to choose to file for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code.” The mayor there is Pat Morris, a Democrat. San Bernardino County has seriously considered using the government’s eminent domain powers to seize foreclosed properties from the banks which own them.

    Despite the fierce competition, it’s also hard to imagine how Forbes could have left out the following large cities: Oakland, California (mayor: Jean Quan, Democrat; third-highest violent crime rate in the U.S. in 2011; unforgivably overindulged Occupy movement thugs during 2011 and 2012); Baltimore, Maryland (Mayor: Stephainie Rawlings-Blake, Democrat; recently tagged as “on a path to financial ruin”); New Orleans (mayor: Mitch Landrieu, Democrat; highest murder rate in U.S.); or relatively small Scranton, Pa. (Mayor: Christopher Doherty, Democrat; recently “took the radical step of slashing municipal salaries to minimum wage to meet payroll”).

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/02/23/forbes-lists-americas-20-most-miserable-cities-guess-what-vast-majority-#ixzz2LuztfmuB

    • Chicago hasn’t had a Republican mayor in over 80 years. Democrats have controlled the Illinois governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature for more than a decade, with Democrats ruling the Illinois House for 28 of the last 30 years. No matter, Chicago violence is the fault of Republicans. We learned that this morning on CNN Newsroom when anchor Carol Costello asked her “Talk Back” guests about Retired Lt. General Russel Honore’s suggestion to use National Guard troops to curb murders in Chicago. Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman astutely pinpointed the reason for Chicago’s carnage:

      And let’s be very clear about what’s happening in Washington today and why it’s undermining the city of Chicago, because there’s a mindset now in our government, in Washington, from the Republican members of Congress, that sequestration is an acceptable way of doing business, that we can in fact engage in these massive irresponsible cuts that no one thinks is a logical approach to budgeting.

      And that undermines law enforcement in our cities; it undermines so many education opportunities for our younger people and it does in fact — in fact create an impoverished class of our society that leads to abuse, leads to violence and leads to more Chicagos.

      That’s right. It’s the GOP’s “mindset” that’s to blame. Yet sequestration can’t be responsible for the 506 Chicago murders last year, when condemning Republicans for his own proposal was still a gleam in Barack Obama’s eye.

      Anchor Costello allowed Zimmerman’s absurd charge to go by with nothing but a weak “I don’t think you can leave Democrats out of that one.” How’s that for setting the record straight for those low information voters CNN caters to?

      No Republican need lend a hand in undermining the city of Chicago. Its uninterrupted Democrat control is doing just that.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2013/02/22/cnn-cause-chicago-violence-you-guessed-it-gop#ixzz2Lv8WvKHX

    • Civil Rights and the Collapse of Birmingham, Ala.
      By John Bennett

      Birmingham, Alabama is considered by many to be the birthplace of the civil rights movement. Today, African-Americans in Birmingham benefit from a numerical majority in the population, corresponding majorities in government jobs, and political control of the city. But civil rights won’t address what ails the city now.

      Birmingham is recognized as one of the most violent and poorly-run cities in the nation. The city runs a massive deficit, and is county seat of Jefferson County, which recently cut a deal with a European bank as part of the largest government bankruptcy in U.S. history.

      Underlying this fiasco is a mixture of problems, none of which can be solved by the civil rights agenda, or by liberalism in any form.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/civil_rights_and_the_collapse_of_birmingham_ala.html#ixzz2LvLaBUcB

      (not mentioned is the former mayor is also a Democrat)

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Seems that there is a “common denominator” here. There will be silence from the left 🙂

  35. February 25, 2013
    Cuomo’s Too Eager to Abort
    David Lawrence

    At the State of the State speech, Andrew Cuomo shouted three times, “Because it’s her body, and it’s her choice.” His dramatic presentation was a little frightening. He made
    Obama look tame. I think Democrats are taking courses on oral interpretation from Hitler’s and Mussolini’s speeches.

    By the way, Cuomo’s yelling doesn’t make it so. A woman’s body may be her body, but the child inside her is not her body. It is hiding out there until the beneficent parent either kills it or brings it out into the light of day. It might be her choice to kill it for convenience’s sake. It’s easier. Why not? But to act like abortion is a moral imperative that sanctifies the mother in beneficent murder is a sad joke.

    “Her body” isn’t really relevant. The question is, should we kill the body of the child? Cuomo is now pushing for late-term abortions. I don’t think the death of a child at that stage should be her choice. What’s next? Killing a three-month-old child and bragging that it’s a woman’s right to choose? The chant that “it’s her body and it’s her choice” is the insistent banging of an ideological tom-tom.

    A choice to murder is not an example of a free, loving society; it’s the choice of a killer nation. Cuomo looks like a savage from a grade-B horror film when he rants. Why should he be so indignant about decent folks’ desire to save a life? Why does he get all self-righteous about murder? Does he have any integrity, or is he just minus a sensitive brain?

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against abortion. I’m just against turning killing into a pretend act of kindness. I believe in taking the guilt for your deeds. I believe in the humility of suffering. I believe in saying, “I’m having an abortion because I’m a creep.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/cuomos_too_eager_to_abort.html#ixzz2LvAlB99f
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    Wow, So horrified by Cuomo, so forceful in his condemnation of abortion? Well not exactly, “Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against abortion.” So what the hell is he yelling about!! All he just said was “I’m for murder ” I’m for murder” but I know I have no integrity, I know I’m a creep but hey I’m not self righteous about it. I feel guilt. Isn’t that great, I’m sure the millions of unborn babies-all thank you from the grave.

    • “Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.”

      Makes sense to me…

      • Yes, that’s just what women need people who aren’t doctors performing abortions. And from what reading I’ve done-he plans to make it almost impossible for any health service not to provide abortion. So much freedom of choice going around in New York lately.

        • Many procedures can be performed by ‘licensed practitioners’ and do not necessarily need to be performed by a physician. Why not abortion?

          And where do you stand on the issue of removing abortion from the penal law?

          • Yes, I have no problem with “practitioners” doing some things. But abortion is an evasive procedure which can come with many complications. There is information they need before the procedure, problems that can arise during and after the procedure. Such as an ectopic pregnancy, excessive bleeding, uterus perforation, infections, which can take a doctors expertise. That’s why doctors are called doctors, not practitioners.

            I wonder are “practitioners” allowed to do vasectomies?

            I’m not an attorney and I haven’t looked into the effect such as change will have. I only know that his plan is being reported as making it possible for the State to withhold any funding to any medical institution that does not offer abortion.

            • This isn’t seeking to allow any joe schmoe to perform an abortion — just to expand it to properly licensed and trained health care practitioners. Also, unclear as to whether this expansion would (or should) apply to every abortion or only certain types.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I see serious problems on the horizon regarding “licensed practitioners”. Ambulance chasing lawyers are going to do well.

                I apologize in advance for the not so veiled slight. Feeling a little testy this morning and just couldn’t pass up the chance. 🙂

              • Why do you see serious problems on this? Many procedures are routinely performed by licensed (and trained) practitioners. Why not a standard abortion?

                No apology necessary — I am not an ambulance chaser and can’t stand them.

            • Hey V? I’d become a practitioner just for the fun of performing vasectomies! Buck’s first!

    • To add:

      “would rewrite a law that currently allows abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy only if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk…[to] allow late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health…”

      Again, makes sense to me….

      • I’m sorry-there’s already a law which allows late term abortion for the life of the mother-but he needs to rewrite it to protect the woman’s Health-pray tell- just what are the health issues that require killing a baby in the womb after SIX months of pregnancy? Six Months

        • I don’t know….but I’m not comfortable with any blanket one-sized fits all type rule here.

        • As far as that goes-what health issues require killing the baby in the womb to save the life of the mother. My understanding at this stage of the pregnancy the baby has to be delivered, it’s to late to rip them apart and suck them out.

          • Again, depends on the situation. So long as the fetus is viable, and can be safely delivered without endangering the health of the mother, then I agree there should be no abortion. But where the fetus is not viable for its own health reasons, or where the health of the mother is endangered, that should be the woman’s choice.

            • Without endangering the health of the mother-you better ask for a definition of health, otherwise your thinking a viable fetus should be delivered safely isn’t gonna happen. And if theirs something wrong with the baby-that makes straight out-I can’t claim it isn’t a person anymore murder okay.

              • Endangering the health — should be left to the doctor, not the legislature, to determine.

              • Buck, if one is going to decide that a baby who must be delivered-that means BORN-must allow the doctor to decide that that baby should be burned to death with chemicals or allowed to be delivered all the way to the neck and then murdered-just so that they are absolutely sure the baby dies from the experience is anyone’s idea of a right to choice. I just can’t voice my objections and horror loudly enough.

              • Or has anything to do with the Health of the mother. They are lying.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Ya’ll do see that Coumo is a total hippocrit, don’t you?

              • Yeah, he’s real worried about somebody drinking to much coke. He’s such a crusader for health, while screaming for the right to kill.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Do you remember the Doctor that USW got to visit here on this issue?

            As I recall he stated there are in fact medical situations that would require abortion, or forced labor and delivery, due to the mothers medical conditions. In the latter case the child would probably expire shortly after delivery. I am assuming that any “forced” delivery is not much different than abortion. The goal is to end the pregnancy at the expense of the child.

            Anyway, perhaps it is not the slam dunk you are claiming.

    • Late-term abortionist ‘ignores’ dying patient
      Source describes ‘medical procedure’ gone wrong
      Published: 02/08/2013 at 11:14 AM

      Printer Friendly
      Text smaller
      Text bigger


      Officials for Operation Rescue, one of the cutting edge pro-life organizations in the U.S. ever since it bought an abortion clinic to shut it down and convert the building into its pro-life headquarters in Wichita, are reporting the death of a woman in Maryland after her “medical procedure” went wrong and the abortionist couldn’t be reached.

      The name of the victim, who was 33 weeks pregnant, was as yet unavailable, but Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for OR, said trusted sources had described the death of the 29-year-old woman after Leroy Carhart, who does late-term abortions out of the Germantown Reproductive Health Services, started the procedure and then was unreachable when there were complications.

      The woman ultimately died at a local hospital, Sullenger’s source confirmed.

      The 29-year-old apparently was undergoing a multi-day procedure used by late-term abortionists, Sullenger said.

      “Sidewalk counselors saw her every day from Sunday to Wednesday. She appeared, later in the week, to be pale and weak,” Sullenger told WND today.

      Early Thursday, there were complications, including chest pain and other discomfort, and the woman tried to reach Carhart but he was unavailable, the source reported. The woman then was transported to a local emergency room by her family where emergency workers also tried to reach Carhart, unsuccessfully.

      The complication, apparently bleeding into the abdominal cavity, got worse, and she “coded,” or had her heart stop, six times, Sullenger’s source confirmed.

      Emergency room doctors ultimately were unsuccessful at reviving her.

      The source, who insisted on anonymity, reported an investigation into the death has been launched.

      “We believe this incident supports our belief that this is a dangerous abortion procedure,” Sullenger told WND. She said it involves a shot that kills the unborn baby, and then the abortionist leaves the mothers unmonitored.

      She noted that Carhart was involved in another death, that of patient Kristen Gilbert, in 2005, and at that time the abortionist also was unavailable when there were complications.
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/late-term-abortionist-awol-as-patient-dies/#BzhZQIE1Pk4ldfwO.99

      • WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y. — A coroner has confirmed that a woman who underwent a late-term abortion at a Maryland clinic died of complications from the procedure.

        Jennifer Morbelli, 29, a schoolteacher in White Plains, N.Y., bled to death Feb. 7 after amniotic fluid in her womb spilled into her bloodstream, said Bruce Goldfarb, a spokesman for the Montgomery County (Md.) Medical Examiner’s Office.

        She was “left with the inability to clot blood to stop bleeding,” Goldfarb said.

        Morbelli underwent the procedure because of a fetal abnormality, the spokesman said.

        Goldfarb said the official autopsy would not be completed for several weeks.

        Morbelli was 33 weeks pregnant when the four-day procedure was performed in early February.

        Morbelli, accompanied by her husband and an older woman, arrived at the Germantown Reproductive Health Services clinic Feb. 3 and returned again each of the following three days, a witness told The Journal News.

        Officials at Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group that is looking into Morbelli’s death, said she began experiencing problems at her hotel late Feb. 6, with shortness of breath and chest pains.

        About 5 a.m. Feb. 7, she was taken to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in Maryland, where she died.

        One of the nation’s top anti-abortion groups is weighing a legal challenge against the doctor who performed Morbelli’s procedure. The group claims LeRoy Carhart left town shortly after completing the abortion and was not reachable when Morbelli needed emergency care.

        Carhart, 69, of Nebraska, is one of just four doctors in the United States known to provide late-term abortions and has been a major target of the anti-abortion movement for years. He is a former colleague of Kansas doctor George Tiller, who was shot and killed by an abortion opponent in 2009 while attending church.

  36. The Dept. of Health and Hospitals ordered the staff at the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission to throw 1,600 pounds of donated venison in garbage bins – and then ordered then to douse the meat with Clorox – so other animals would not eat the meat.

    “Deer meat is not permitted to be served in a shelter, restaurant or any other public eating establishment in Louisiana,” said a Health Dept. official in an email to Fox News. “While we applaud the good intentions of the hunters who donated this meat, we must protect the people who eat at the Rescue Mission, and we cannot allow a potentially serious health threat to endanger the public.”

    That statement set off a firestorm among hunters and lawmakers who called it outrageous and insulting.

    “That’s a mild understatement,” said Richard Campbell, one of the founders of Hunters for the Hungry, a group that has been donating wild game to shelters since 1993. “Hunters are going nuts over it. It’s created an outrage across our state and even over into Mississippi.”

    The controversy started when someone being fed at the rescue mission complained about being fed deer meat.

    Let me see if I have this straight…..a hungry person, eating at a rescue mission, complains of venison and now we throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is Louisiana but what a ridiculous. IN Texas, we donate lots of game to the hungry. Venison, pig, dove, duck, quail, rabbits, squirrel….etc. Hunters even donate game to the Boy Scouts fundraiser. Even when people try to help the hungry……geez.

    • Wow, I ate a lot of this type of meat when I was growing up-alive and happy. And it was mostly free. Ungrateful ass’s, the world is full of a lot of self righteous, ungrateful ass’s. I beginning to wonder if the point is to make us more and more dependent. I mean if people can go out in the woods and kill their own food, or grow their own food in their backyards they might actually be able to survive without a government handout, or hell even just try to make a buck sewing or doing anything else that people used to do when they got into a financial bind. The government has pretty much outlawed them all unless you have enough money and fill out bundles of friggin paper before you start-Must have that license.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir. Hope all is well in the Republic.

      1. Re your new flag flying on the Capital… INSPIRATIONAL Sir. What else needs said.

      2. Re: Wild Game. Not that many years ago in Idaho and Montana, even the “road kill” was delivered to the shelters. As long as it was cleaned early enough to prevent spoiling. For a long time citizens could clean and pick up the road kill. Then the State decided that might be hard to separate poachers from do gooders. So then the Coot and Carp or the Highway Dept could pick them up and deliver. So citizens could stop and “clean” the animal and then notify the State officials of their location.

      But alas, I believe the sanctimonious took charge and last I heard the road kill was no longer “suitable”. However, “donations” were still acceptable when I departed the Homeland for my stay in a foreign country.

      Give the Missus a big hug for me.

      • Read the other day that Montana was considering a bill to make harvesting roadkill legal.I had no idea it was illegal to start with. Wonder what the law is here in Tennessee-I know people do it when they accidentally hit a deer-the deers by the way make it real hard not to hit them. Have almost hit several myself-but luckily I have managed to stop. A friend and my husband once hit one, luckily He He, not with our car-they brought it home- we had meat for awhile.

        • Wonder if I just admitted to a crime by way of the internet. 🙂 what am I smiling about-today that could get you put in jail.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          In Pa, whoever hits the animal, has the first rights too it. Now, if the driver doesn’t want it (speaking deer here) the Game Warden may take it for needy families. Pa hunters and farmers donate hundreds of tons of wild game meat each year. We manage to do this on our own without any Democrats trying to force us too! 🙂

      • In Texas…pick it up, clean it, report it….eat it…only if it is a deer, or larger. Pigs, armadillos, and small game…not reportable. The deer population in certain areas is monitored. There is no reliable data base but what was reported last year was over 400 hit on highways…and that is not even 50% of what we feel is actually hit. But, we also have a poacher problem……easy to kill but hard to clean. You do not want to get caught poaching here….they are legal target practice.

        Back at ya sir…give your missus a hug and I am still planning a trip into your area for crab or whatever is in season.

  37. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: Practitioners. I wasn’t referring to abortion alone but the increasing practice.

    I just think we will see more and more “practitioners” because of Doctor shortages. This will lead to a probably increase in malpractice suits.

    Notice the irony here. These same practices HAD to be conducted by a LICENSED PHYSICIAN only a few years ago. Now suddenly a Doctor is NOT REQUIRED???

    It is not that I have anything against the use, just that I see an increased potential for litigation. That is unless the STATE steps in and protects them.

  38. Just A Citizen says:


    My point on the abortion article was that the Doctor appears to be using a “definition” of abortion that EXCLUDED any type of “induced” birth. If that is the definition then the “morning after pill” would NOT be an abortion, nor would any other procedure that simply induced premature birth where the child was knowingly going to die.

    That is why I asked if you agreed with his definition.

    Are you saying that his “perception” of the need “only for the purpose” of saving the mother is the determining factor in the definition?

    • I would say that the qualifier of doing all possible to save the life of both patients make your questions confusing to me. If your saying people could use inducing delivery to preform an abortion-I’d have to say yes-if the purpose isn’t to save the mother’s life-then the point is to solely kill the child. When it came to late term inducement it would clearly be endangering one patient without a justifiable cause.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Are you claiming there is no medical reason for inducing late term birth other than to kill the child?

        Where does this “qualifier” come from. The Doctor in the second citation did not use that qualifier. That is why I asked if you accepted HIS DEFINITION.

        Which by the way seems in opposition to your view.

        • I don’t believe I said there was never a reason to induce labor other than to kill the child. I said there was never a reason to burn the child to death with chemicals or have it born up to the neck and then kill the child. I stated the exact opposite-if the life of the mother is in danger, one can just deliver the baby because come what may the child will have to be delivered so there is no medical necessity to kill the child.

          “I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.”

          Why are you saying the qualifier isn’t there-I see it-it’s right there.

          And why are you JAC suddenly trying to change the meaning of words to fit your argument. Inducement of labor has never been considered a substitute for the word abortion. Inducements are normally used only in cases of need or when the baby is ready to be born but is being stubborn. 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Check Wikipedia for child birth and induced labor.

            Inducing labor is NOT restricted to when the baby is ready but stubborn. It is the process of “causing” the birth process to begin, REGARDLESS of any age.

            • Like I said being nit picky-We can discuss this based on the distinction that we all understand when it comes to the debate on abortion vs. not killing babies just because the mom wants to. Or you can stick to medical definitions that are simply based on the process -I know that inducement starts the birth process-but that doesn’t really mean much when we are talking about when humans have the right to start or stop these processes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My error, it was the FIRST article cited by Anita that I was referring to.

        • GRRRRR 🙂 🙂 will go back and re read it. To see if I missed something.

          • “As an obstetrician, my duty is to do everything in my power to preserve the life of both the mother and the child”

            • gmanfortruth says:

              V.H. Credit where it’s due V, you are very consistant on your position concerning the subject. How do you think the SCOTUS decision can be reversed? That would have to happen if your wishes were to come true.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Your off on a tangent.

              The doctor stated that there is no reason to abort a child to save a mother. BUT then he defined abortion as only the physical removal of the fetus with medical tools.

              He then describes “inducing” birth in several instances that are medical. This results in the fetus being born and then dying. He knows the fetus will die when he performs the procedure.

              But this is NOT abortion according to his argument.

              This appears to be inconsistent with the arguments you have made in the past. Because it allows chemically induced birth prior to the fetus being viable.

              I am not sure how the “reason” fits in your definition. Unless you are telling me that a chemically induced “birth” (aborted pregnancy) is not abortion only because of the “intent” of the doctor.

              And if “intent” becomes the primary criteria then what difference does the method make?

              As for the quote you provided. If the doctor is inducing this premature birth knowing full well the child cannot survive then how is that doing everything in his power to preserve the life of both?

              Seems to me this Doctor is doing an awful lot of rationalizing here, in order to argue that he is not performing abortions.

              • I’m on a tangent and you are on a nit picky justification tangent. You know the difference between intentional killing and someone dying as a consequence of a rightful action. One is murder and the other isn’t.

              • Alright JAC lets look at this doctors examples-I do not claim that I agree with everything she said. But I agree with her basic premise. But lets see-if a woman has cancer and needs to have her uterus removed. I’ m thinking this is a realistic risk to her life. The only example, I took a second look at was the inter-uterine infection. Now from first reading I would think-just treat the infection, if the baby dies as a consequence, it is sad but necessary to save the woman’s life. Now I’m not a doctor so I thought about this awhile and came to the conclusion that if the infection was bad enough that the baby was unable to survive the infection-than it is a probability that the woman can not survive without having the infection treated. Then I looked at the possibility, that my not being a doctor, I have no way of deciding whether the baby dying in the womb when the woman already has an infection wouldn’t cause the infection to be worse. So I didn’t make an issue out of it when I read the article.

              • And I’m thinking we might both be a little testy today. But I am not on a tangent, at least no more than usual 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I am not “justifying” anything. I am asking you to clarify your position, or definition.

                You said this article fit your argument. I am simply pointing out that the Doctor’s logic would allow chemically induced abortion based on method. An argument you have previously rejected.

                This leave “purpose” as the criteria for deciding when an abortion is an abortion vs. something allowable.

                So is that now your position? That an abortion is only WRONG when its “purpose” is solely the elimination of the fetus.

                If so, then does the condition of the fetus have any bearing on your definition? You know, like birth defects detectable in the womb.

                If “condition” has a bearing on what is “acceptable” vs “unacceptable” then what are the limitations on that “condition”?

              • The only way you can come to that conclusion is to ignore -only in cases where the mothers life is threatened. The doctor in no way said that chemically induced abortion by taking abortion pills is okay-because she was basing everything she said on -only when the mother’s life is in danger. This is not different from my position that abortion is allowable when the mother’s life is in danger. But from this conversation I see that my using the term abortion to discuss necessary inducing of labor-is probably the wrong word choice because it does not make the distinction clear.

                And my position is not based on purpose, my position is based on the condition of the mother and if it is a life or death situation for the mother. The purpose or intent is simply a way to distinguish between an abortion or a necessary medical procedure, a procedure which per this doctor should never include slicing and dicing or chemically burning an unborn baby.

                I simply don’t know how to make my position any clearer.

              • Get him V!

                JAC!!!! I agree with V that you’re nit picking. V has proven over the years, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what her position is. Why are you demanding such strict answers? I can follow V’s replies but yours just seem to be intentionally trying to trap her,at least that’s what I think I’m reading, because I don’t even know if I understand your replies.

                Short version…V doesn’t approve of abortion, got it? 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:


              More on the definitions:

              abortion /abor·tion/ (ah-bor´shun)
              1. expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.
              2. premature stoppage of a natural or a pathological process.
              artificial abortion induced a.
              complete abortion one in which all the products of conception are expelled from the uterus and identified.
              habitual abortion spontaneous abortion occurring in three or more successive pregnancies, at about the same level of development.
              incomplete abortion that with retention of parts of the products of conception.
              induced abortion that brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation.
              inevitable abortion a condition in which vaginal bleeding has been profuse and the cervix has become dilated, and abortion will invariably occur.
              infected abortion that associated with infection of the genital tract.
              missed abortion retention in the uterus of an abortus that has been dead for at least eight weeks.
              septic abortion that associated with serious infection of the uterus leading to generalized infection.
              spontaneous abortion that occurring naturally.
              therapeutic abortion that induced for medical considerations.
              threatened abortion a condition in which vaginal bleeding is less than in inevitable abortion and the cervix is not dilated, and abortion may or may not occur.

              Dorland’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

              • Same answer.

              • I’ll just add this one thing-I had a miscarriage-they called it a type of abortion-I don’t believe it qualifies. Probably why the doctor referred to abortion as a direct abortion-to pinpoint the difference. One is intentional the other is not.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    With all the BS brew haha about the sequestration, one must wonder what happens when the dollar is no longer the worlds reserve currency (coming very soon, I might add). Let’s say they can’t borrow 1/2 of what they borrow now? Does anyone think that we can do this forever? At some point, thing end. The Petrodollar is no different. What say you SUFA?

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    This is an interesting idea. Does anyone think Obama will like it 🙂


  41. gmanfortruth says:

    Texas is making some noise, literally 🙂 http://godfatherpolitics.com/9613/criminals-beware-texas-homeowners-shooting-intruders/

    These are just a few examples of the number of times private gun owners protect themselves, their family and their property with their CHOICE of weapon. I like how some of these psychopaths think they know what you and I need and don’t need. That should be my decision. MY BODY…MY CHOICE! Sound familiar?

    We don’t need high capacity magazines? Ever see a flash mob? We don’t need an AR-15? Do they know how large gangs like MS-13 are? Guys like Joe Biden have scrambled eggs for brains and have no business holding public office. Then there’s that idiot in Colorado. Why do we continue to tolerate these idiots?

  42. D13 – here’s a project for you.


  43. gmanfortruth says:

    New practice targets (drone) : Check this little machine out:

    The clip is part of promo material for the Shadowhawk drone, a 50lb mini helicopter that can be fitted with an XREP taser with the ability to fire four barbed electrodes that can be shot to a distance of 100 feet, delivering “neuromuscular incapacitation” to the victim. The drone can travel at a top speed of 70MPH and can operate for 3.5 hours over land and sea. The drone, which is manufactured by Vanguard Defense Industries, can also be armed with 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers.

    The company’s website notes that drones fitted with weapons are currently, “Not available to law enforcement,” although drone industry lobbyists are pushing for that to be changed.

  44. In keeping with my watch on Governor Mussolini in NY, oops, I mean Cuomo, he seems to be positioning himself away from the obvious extremists three years before he has to start running for Prez. Don’t mean nothing of course, just gives him public deniability and avoids the issue that dogged Obama about Rev. Wright..

    Every time Fox news commentators bring up George Soros, it seems to induce comotose behavior in guests. You will find the Soros name mentioned nowhere else though big bad conservative boogy men like the Koch brothers are mentioned all the time. Here, for the first time, in that stalwart bastion of liberalism/radicalism called the NY Daily News is the first published evidence I see of the Coumo-Soros link. Maybe O’Reilly and Hannity are not so nuts after all.


  45. Just A Citizen says:

    A primer on the dilemma faced by the Republican party, and why it appears schizophrenic to so many Dems.


    I may have copied the second page of the article. Make sure to start on page one.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H. and Anita

    You two were the ones who cited the article by the doctor.. NOT ME.

    That article created some question as to what the doctor and thus you guys define as abortion.

    I was simply searching for clarification.

    From your further explanation you do not support abortion except in the case of when needed to protect the mother’s health. Same as before. Now, does the method of these “acceptable abortions” matter or not?

    But then you made statement earlier today that it is NEVER a concern for the mother when it involves late term abortion. Is that really your position?

    If so, then what is the basis for it?

    • In my Hillary voice..What difference does it make? In SUFA court, His Honor Chief Justice Wala will overrule us anyway. I’m just playing. I’m very pro life but there can be extreme exceptions. They better be extreme. One of those articles gave a less than 2% chance of an extreme situation arising. I feel that is 1 1/2% too much.

    • Needed to protect the mother’s life.

      If a medical procedure is needed early in the pregnancy to save the woman’s life I will leave it to the doctor, depending on what the problem is to decide what is the safest method to use.

      The thing about late term abortions is that there is simply no reason once a baby reaches a certain size to intentionally kill the baby-at least none at I am aware of and per the doctor in the mentioned article there are none-but I know for sure that last term partial birth abortions and chemical burns have no purpose other than to kill the baby.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H. and Anita

        So now you have established that there is a time when abortion is acceptable. This is when the life of the mother is threatened.

        This leads to the next question. How do you determine legally when such an abortion is required?

        How do you monitor the Doctors to know their decision is in fact meeting your criteria?

        Keeping in mind those good Docs who wrote all those “sick slips” for the teachers during the Wisconsin demonstrations.

        • The same way we enforce all the other laws we have-the same way they enforce accepted standards of medicine now. I don’t think anyone believes any system will be perfect, but no system could be worse than the one we have now.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I can think of no other laws that do what you are proposing, or what would be needed to assure compliance.

            You are talking about using law to force Doctors to meet a “rule” then monitoring them to make sure they comply.

            Do you want every medical procedure subjected to a review? And by whom?

            To just say, “like every other law” is a bit of a cop out. Because this is not like any other law.

            • Making abortion legal with exceptions is exactly the same kind of law. So at the worse we would have to deal with the same type of problems we have now with abortion being legal with limitations.

        • You can’t legislate everything in life. The fact that I oppose abortion does nothing about the fact that there are still abortions performed. Some things are better left to the person and their maker to sort out. And maybe there are just some things that don’t have an answer.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am very impressed with your answer. I admit I didn’t expect that.

            • Well, I Anita would be shocked, if you hadn’t already said the same thing in the past. I think you are wrong-but I don’t think I can say anything that I haven’t already said -so I’m just gonna stop trying for the day.

              • Well, except for this:

                ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

              • V,

                I know how passionate you are about this subject. Even if we could make it illegal in the States, other countries will still allow it. I believe there is a master plan. For some reason, He allows it to happen. Doesn’t mean we still can’t fight it. But I think that when you get to heaven God will say “It’s ok V, you can relax now, I got this.” Just think..we’ll still have babies to take care of when we get there. For now, you’re on thirty day lockdown on the subject! 😉

              • I make no promises. But I will leave you with one last thought-at least for now. 🙂

                The Hands and Feet of Jesus

                “Christ has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion for the world is to look out; yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good; and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now.” ~Saint Teresa of Avila

  47. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    This sequestration thing is supposed to be a reduction in the amount of scheduled budget spending which will increase in the coming years. therefore if 6% was budgeted, then 5/6ths of that will not be spent. With the administration and Media predicting Armageddon as a result, they are preparing to furlough all federal employees for one day out of every five. That comes out to a 20% reduction of CURRENT expense! No matter where I worked over the past 40 some years, personnel expense was far greater than Other than Personnel expense (stuff).

    So, is the lie really that big and is the media really that far into collusion?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      SK, It’s all a huge lie, as is the Obama legacy. The media is bought and paid for by the Elites who use there power to support Obama and is incredible lies. Try alternative media, they don’t even mention this BS.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      There is a little problem with the argument you are making. It involves ONLY this fiscal year, which started Oct 1st, 2012.

      It is 5 months into the year. Many if not most agencies are running on continuing resolutions, which may or may not have included the base budget 6% growth rate. Take it from me that some DID NOT.

      So what will happen is that the full cut will be made on the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year. This would obviously increase the impact (potentially) because you have less time to make the cuts.

      Now some reports have said this year is pro-rated. Thus 7/12 of the cut will be made from March 1 to Sept 30. But I have only seen two reports that made this claim.

      As for the impacts I can speak with authority on ONE agency. They goofed up and got their letter out to the employees before the Administration got theirs out. It said they could probably get by without furloughs. An hour or two later the Secretary’s letter came out claiming there would be furloughs.

      Whether the furlough days are exaggerated will depend on the number of critical employees and contract obligations of each agency. If these are large then the furloughs will be higher against the LOWER RANKING employees.

      I can tell you from the shut downs I was involved with that Air Traffic Controllers were considered ESSENTIAL. But you see, the Administration gets to make the call on that classification.

      I expect that the Administration will try to place as much of the hurt on the States as possible to drive home the pain. This will be in the form of eliminating Grants and Cost Share projects that have not been “obligated” yet.

      Now keep in mind that at the end of March the “Continuing Resolutions” funding the Govt EXPIRE.

      This could allow Congress a place to quickly target the cuts, override them, adopt them or add more. If you think this is a pissing match, wait until you see what is coming next.

  48. gmanfortruth says:

    The Liar -n-Chief has been caught again!

    Buck, do you support this man?


    How can anyone trust these assholes? All of them for the most part. 👿

  49. gmanfortruth says:
  50. http://www.shadowstats.com/

    This is a good site for believable statistics

  51. Buck….what in the hell are you guys doing up there? Now, you have banned 2 liter cokes on pizza deliveries, childrens parties, bar set ups……..you have banned take out food in styrofoam containers….and now you are about to ban New York street vendors.

  52. Texas legislature has proposed and will get a state tax holiday…….In August, there is a state tax weekend on all school clothes and supplies. Now…….we will have a state tax free weekend on all weapons and ammunition and magazine sales in July. WOO HOO…..

  53. Chuck Todd on OFA Fundraising: ‘This Just Looks Bad’
    OFA donors who give $500,000 get quarterly meetings with Obama

    BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
    February 25, 2013 10:47 am

    MSNBC’s Chuck Todd criticized Monday the new fundraising efforts of President Obama’s dark money group, Organizing for Action, calling a scheme for high donors to meet regularly with Obama “the definition of selling access.”

    Todd was describing the quarterly meetings that will be enjoyed by OFA’s $500,000 donors, the New York Times reported over the weekend:

    But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

    Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

    “This just looks bad–it looks like the White House is selling access,” Todd said Monday. “It’s the definition of selling access. If you believe money has a strangle hold over the entire political system this is ceding the moral high ground.”

    The perk was first reported by the Los Angeles Times earlier in February after a meeting between OFA leadership and top Los Angeles and Bay Area fundraisers for Obama’s reelection campaign.

    OFA is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) and therefore not required to disclose the identities of its donors, nor the amounts they give. In addition to major campaign donors, the organization’s leadership has been courting corporate donors.


    • Couple this with what Bill Plante said today about O circumventing the 1st amendment and you wonder it these old media goons are starting to realize that this emperor is without a wardrobe. Over the next few months, look for them to start finding their 2016 white knight.

      • Yeah, I figure any disagreement with Obama will stop the closer we get to the 2014 elections-it’s pretty safe to criticize him a little bit right now.

  54. I’m curious-is there anyone on this site who believes that abortion should be illegal-defined as destroying the fetus for any reason other than the life of the mother or for life, rape or incest?

%d bloggers like this: