Weekender

New thread for speed. Crazy week is finally behind us, let’s hope there are no more explosions or manhunts. Happy Saturday 🙂 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. One more once … Beware the uptick in nationalism and/or Stand Your Ground … In Giovanni’s Room … is this man a jinx or what? …
    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2013/04/beware-uptick-in-nationalism-andor.html

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    It is a wonderful day when the Lefties of the country all cry and whine like little girls at the same time. This puts it all together, enjoy their pain, it is well deserved. http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/left-goes-ballistic-after-gun-defeat/

  3. gmanfortruth says:
  4. I was going to pick a quote to highlight what this article is about but I couldn’t pick just one 🙂 So just read it-it is interesting and about more than just Gosnell.

    Leon Kass: The Meaning of the Gosnell Trial
    Eminent bioethicist Leon Kass on the dangers of a world increasingly indifferent to matters of human dignity.

    By SOHRAB AHMARI

    Washington

    The trial of Kermit Gosnell—a Philadelphia doctor charged in January 2011 with, among other things, murdering seven infants who survived abortions he performed—has been under way for a month. But it was only last week that the case was thrust into the national spotlight. Thanks to intense pressure from conservative critics of the media’s apparent lack of interest in the case, the rest of the country has now glimpsed some of what went on for years in Gosnell’s benignly named Women’s Medical Society.

    Investigators who raided the clinic in 2010 saw “blood on the floor” and smelled “urine in the air,” according to the grand jury that indicted Gosnell. They also found “fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic—in bags, milk jugs, orange-juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers.” Members of Gosnell’s staff testified that the abortionist would deliver babies who had been gestating for as long as 30 weeks, far longer than the 24-week limit imposed by Pennsylvania law. Gosnell or staff members would gouge the infant’s neck with scissors to sever the spinal cord, according to the grand jury report. Gosnell referred to the method as “snipping.”
    Related Video

    Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Photo: Getty Images

    These and other appalling details of the Gosnell trial elicit reactions that might be called revulsion or disgust or horror. The word that eminent bioethicist and physician Leon Kass prefers is “repugnance.” This intense human reaction reflects a sort of deep moral intuition, he says, and it is one that deserves much more serious consideration than our too-sophisticated culture allows.

    “As pain is to the body so repugnance is to the soul,” Dr. Kass says as we sit down for an interview in his book-lined office at the American Enterprise Institute, where he is the Madden-Jewett Scholar. “So too with anger and compassion. Repugnance is some kind of wake-up call that there is something untoward going on and attention must be paid. These passions are not simply irrational. They contain within them the germ of insight. You cannot give proper verbal account of the horror of evil, yet a culture that couldn’t be absolutely horrified by such things is dead.”

    The observation may not sound controversial, yet Dr. Kass, who was the chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2005, has often found himself in a minority among bioethicists when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research, cloning and other right-to-life questions. Dr. Kass’s emphasis on what he calls “the wisdom of repugnance,” for example, has been assailed by liberal thinkers. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum, for instance, said in a 2004 critique of Dr. Kass’s work that repugnance has been used in the past “as a powerful weapon in social efforts to exclude certain groups and persons.”

    Dr. Kass says his critics misunderstand the role of repugnance in his thinking. “It’s not that repugnance is always right,” he says. “There was once repugnance at interracial marriage, and there have been other repugnancies that turned out to be mere prejudice. But you wouldn’t want to live in a society where people feel no guilt or shame just because guilt and shame are sometimes disruptive—or in a society that doesn’t feel righteous indignation at the sight of injustice.”

    Degradation and its opposite, human dignity, are central elements of Dr. Kass’s philosophy, and he fears that American society risks becoming disrespectful of dignity and indifferent to degradation.

    Consider abortion. After years of calling for abortions that are “safe, legal and rare,” the Democratic Party in its 2012 platform dropped such language altogether in an attempt to appeal to its feminist base. But viewing childbearing solely as a matter of personal reproductive choice, Dr. Kass says, “means we no longer see a child as a gift but as a product of our will to be had by choice only. That makes human choice the basis of all value”—at the price of the child, for “he or she comes from the hands of nature.”

    “Nascent life prior to birth,” Dr. Kass says, “does not yet display any of the grand and glorious things for which we applaud humanity in its flowering. And yet it is the dignity of human possibility to be found in nascent life that should lead us treat it not less well than it deserves.” He admits to being “agnostic” on the question of whether the embryo “is a human being equal to your grandchildren.” Even so, Dr. Kass says, “in the face of our ignorance about its status, the embryo does have a certain claim on us. It is the bearer of human possibility, and we owe it not to mistreat it.”

    Despite his deep respect for the antiabortion movement—”the people who respect the dignity of nascent life have going for them not just ‘Thou shalt not kill’ but also a certain regard for the continuity of the generations and the renewal of human possibility”—Dr. Kass sometimes finds himself at odds with its advocates. The movement’s narrow focus on nascent life, he worries, blinds it to the fact that “abortion is connected to lots of other things that are threats to human dignity in its fullness.”

    “Pursuing perfect babies, ageless bodies and happy souls with the aid of cloning, genetic engineering and psychopharmacology,” he thinks, are among the most significant of those threats.

    “Killing the creature made in God’s image is an old story,” he says. “I deplore it. But the new threat is the ability to transform that creature into images of our own choosing, without regard to whether the new creature is going to be an improvement, or whether these so-called improvements are going to sap all of the energies of the soul that make for human aspirations, art, science and care for the less fortunate. All of these things have wellsprings in the human soul, and they are at risk in efforts to redesign us and move us to the posthuman future.”

    Leon Kass was born in Chicago in 1939 to a family of Jewish immigrants. His childhood home was “Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious, lower middle class.” At age 15, he was admitted to the University of Chicago where, he recalls, “I did very well on my science placement tests so my adviser made me a science major.”

    He entered University of Chicago’s School of Medicine upon graduation, but not before “acquiring a prejudice in favor of reading old books slowly, a certain taste for philosophical questions, and a keen interest in liberal education.”

    While he was a medical student, he met and married his wife of nearly 52 years, the classics scholar Amy Kass. The couple went on to Boston, where he completed an internal-medicine internship and earned a biochemistry Ph.D. at Harvard.

    “A funny thing happened to me in graduate school,” he recalls. “My wife and I spent part of the summer of 1965 in Mississippi doing civil-rights work.” The couple lived with a black farmer in Mount Olive, Miss., in a home that had no toilet or indoor plumbing. “I came back from this place with this conundrum: Why was there more honor, goodness and decency in these unschooled black farmers than I found in my fellow graduate students at Harvard, whose enlightened and liberal opinions I shared?”

    The answer, he eventually concluded, was that his black hosts displayed “the dignity of honest work and religion”—things he didn’t often find among his highly educated peers, most of whom “were only looking out for Number One.” Around the same time, Dr. Kass’s reading of Rousseau, C.S. Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man” (1943) and Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel “Brave New World” (1931)—the latter remains a constant reference in his writings—led him to see that as science advances, morals don’t necessarily improve; that the opposite might well be the case.

    “And then it dawned on me that you didn’t have to go Mississippi to find moral questions,” he says. “There were big moral questions right at my feet in the biomedical profession.”

    After a number of teaching and research stints, in 1976 he returned to the University of Chicago as a professor in the college, later teaching in the graduate program called the Committee on Social Thought. (Dr. Kass retired from teaching in 2010, and he and his wife have in recent years worked together to create “What So Proudly We Hail,” an anthology and e-learning project that promotes civic literacy and patriotic attachment through speeches, stories and songs.)

    “Unlike questions of segregation and, before it, slavery, where evil was clear and the only question was how to deal with it,” Dr. Kass says, “the evils that I saw close to my own area of work were ones that were embedded in very high-minded pursuits: better health, peace of mind and the conquest of nature. Yet they contained within them the seeds of our own degradation.”

    The trouble wasn’t so much with science itself, he thought, as with “scientism,” by which he means “a quasi-religious faith that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge worthy of the name; that scientific knowledge gives you an exhaustive account of the way things are; and that science will transcend all the limitations of our human condition, all of our miseries.” Scientism’s primary goal, Dr. Kass says, “is to put the final nail in the rule of revealed religion.” But scientism “also hits traditional, humanistic understandings of the special place of the human being, of the importance of soul, of inwardness and purposiveness.”

    The idea that materialism “can cure men of the fear of God and the fear of death,” as Dr. Kass puts it, is at least as old as ancient Greece. But today it has become especially potent thanks to “the new genetics, which bore more deeply than ever before into the molecular basis of living processes.” Then there is the rise of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, which purport to explain “absolutely everything about human life” in materialistic terms.

    Take the concept of human dignity. In a 2008 essay highly critical of Dr. Kass’s work on the Bush bioethics council, the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker questioned the value of dignity as a moral guide. “Dignity is a phenomenon of human perception,” Mr. Pinker wrote. “Certain signals in the world trigger an attribution in the perceiver.” The perception of human dignity, Mr. Pinker went on, is no different from how “converging lines in a drawing are a cue for the perception of depth.”

    That such an outlook is both blinkered and dangerous, Dr. Kass thinks, should be obvious to anyone who has ever been in love or felt other great emotions. “There’s no doubt that the human experience of love,” he says, is mirrored by “events that are measurable in the brain. But anybody who has ever fallen in love knows that love is not just an elevated level of some peptide in the hypothalamus.”

    Nor are degradation and dignity. The Gosnell trial and the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon have degradation written all over them. As for dignity, Dr. Kass says, “You see it in the way nurses treat people who come in for chemotherapy. You see it in the way a great hostess treats a handicapped guest, helping him without causing him embarrassment. You see it in the way people come close to where there is human suffering and are not put off by the horror but do what is humanly necessary.”

    His voice lowered almost to a whisper, he adds: “You saw it in Boston. Some people fled to safety—others rushed to the danger.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578428843742209304.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

  5. Scientists Want to Scavenge Aborted Fetal Eggs
    By Wesley J. Smith
    April 2, 2013 10:42 AM
    Comments
    18

    Scientists are keeping aborted fetal ovaries alive in order to scavenge their eggs. From the Daily Mail story:

    Scientists are ready to plunder the ovaries of aborted babies for eggs to use in IVF
    treatment. Experiments have taken the process almost to completion, it emerged yesterday. They raise the nightmare prospect of a child whose biological mother has never been born. The news, from a scientific conference in Madrid, was greeted with widespread revulsion at how far science is testing ethical frontiers. Experts warned of appalling emotional and biological problems.

    But fertility doctors say the development could ease a worldwide shortage of donated eggs for women who cannot produce their own…Scientists have known for some time that female foetuses develop ovaries after as little as 16 weeks in the womb. Now researchers from Israel and the Netherlands have kept ovarian tissue from aborted foetuses alive in the laboratory for several weeks. They stopped the experiment at the point where they believed eggs were about to be produced. Chief researcher Dr Tal Biron-Shental said it was ‘theoretically possible’ that with extra hormone treatment they could have produced mature eggs suitable for IVF use.

    This isn’t new. I reported on these efforts a few years ago. Some have even called for paying women who want to abort to carry their babies longer so that the cadaver will provide more useful parts.

    By the way, it isn’t IVF for which the eggs will be required, but human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning requires a human egg for each try and eggs are in short supply. Indeed, I have frequently noted that the technology has been held back by what I call the “egg dearth.”

    But if they can get unlimited eggs from dead fetuses and women, cloning will not only be successfully performed (which, I predicted, will happen this year) but eventually perfected and put to concerted use. Then, it is on to all the Brave New World technologies–such as genetic engineering–that require cloning to develop.

    Killing the fetuses and keeping their ovaries alive. That makes the scientists complicit in the abortions. Think about what we are becoming.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/344470/scientists-want-scavenge-aborted-fetal-eggs

  6. IVF Needs to be Regulated
    By Wesley J. Smith
    April 15, 2013 11:08 AM
    Comments
    17

    There is a paranoid article in the Topeka Capital Journal asserting that “haters” of IVF may have the practice “in the crosshairs,” not because any legislative proposals have actually been filed or proposed, but because of the new Kansas law that symbolically states that human life begins at fertilization. (Isn’t it funny how the “pro science” side bridles so often at accurate biological science?)

    In any event, I hope it is. No, I don’t want it “banned,” which the article implies is in the wind, but regulated properly. Beyond statistical issues, IVF is almost wholly unregulated in this country. That needs to change, considering the many important ethical issues at stake, including:

    Informed consent requirements for egg donors, a process that can be dangerous to health and life.
    The practice of buying eggs from women, which ounce-for-ounce, may be the most valuable commodity in the world. If human cloning is ever achieved, tens of thousands of eggs will be needed to perfect the technology, only making matters worse.
    Paid surrogacy, which can exploit poor women;
    The dehumanization of surrogates into “gestational carriers,” and the emotional impact of surrogacy on the women who give birth.
    Biological colonialism, using destitute women in the developing world for procreative purposes.
    Eugenic embryo selection, including for sex selection or to be disabled;
    The potential to make “three parent” babies;
    The potential for genetic engineering of embryos;
    The creation of hundreds of thousands of “extra” embryos that are either frozen, destroyed, or used as a natural resource in research;
    Embryo selling;
    Embryo adoption;
    Whether IVF should be paid by health insurance or government benefits for the infertile;
    Whether gay and lesbian couples should have paid access to IVF even if fecund;
    Using IVF to make “anchor babies” who are U.S. citizens.

    Despite these (and other) issues, any attempt to regulate the field are throttled a’borning by the rich industry that uses its big financial war chest and the intense emotionalism around childbearing to remain powers onto themselves.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/345597/ivf-needs-be-regulated

    • gmanfortruth says:

      VH Why don’t you write an article and send it to me? You are very knowledgeable when it comes to abortion, the current court case and other related issues. You could present your case and evidence to support it at the same time, even if it means more than one part.

      • Sorry G, I know my limits-I am not a writer-it would make me insane trying to cover everything I wanted to cover- it would never be good enough to satisfy me, so it would never in my eyes be finished. 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I can help, if you change your mind. The offer will stand open if you change your mind 🙂

          • I appreciate the offer-I figure the subject matter is being put out there the way I’m dong it now-if people are interested in discussing the subject they will whether I write an article or not-and if they don’t want to talk about it-at least they are reading about it. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Your right! Opinions matter, even if some folks disagree and/or ridicule. I can totally understand when some disagree, but those who like to ricule are just small minded people trying to make up for their own failures in life. They know who they are 🙂 I stick to my opinion until I get some facts that change it. You have done the same on abortion, BRAVO !

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    I know some don’t agree with me on what occurred yesterday. That’s OK. The MSM seems to think it was great. The govrnment thinks it’s great and the residents of Watertown seem to think the same. As for the first two, if they like it, it’s probably based on lies. That’s what they do. Even Chuckle’s can agree with all the lies that have led to the Iraq and Afgan invasions.

    The evnt itself last Monday was terrible, as I have stated. Why anyone would want to harm innocent people is totally beyond me. But, as is the case with many of these events, there is always more to the big picture than is being told. I won’t go to deep into it, you can do your own research, which most of you won’t anyway, so I won’t bore you with facts that you can’t handle 🙂 This article is not badly written and asks some good questions http://www.infowars.com/security-theater-moves-to-act-two-following-arrest-of-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect/

  8. “Later, she also testified to having an abortion herself, but at another clinic — which displeased Gosnell, but apparently not as much as Cross’ next pregnancy, which she decided to keep. Gosnell repeatedly pressured her to abort the child, offering her a discount to do so and asking her how she could work in the clinic and stay pregnant.”

    So she worked there but was too good to have an abortion there!!!!

    ” Steinberg said that when Gosnell was in practice, women would sometimes come to Planned Parenthood for services after first visiting Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, and would complain to staff about the conditions there.

    “We would always encourage them to report it to the Department of Health,” Steinberg said as she sat with Steinem before Tuesday’s events.

    So PPP knew about the conditions at Gosnell’s clinic — and didn’t say anything to the Department of Health themselves? They may not have been required to do so, but clearly they knew that Gosnell’s clinic represented a danger to the health of women in the community, which they claim to cherish. Why did PPP keep silent?”

    So they knew about the place but remained quiet-wonder if they ever sent woman there when they were afraid to perform the abortions themselves-like so many other “so-called” good abortion clinics did?

    Here’s the rest of the article:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/20/gosnell-worker-testifies-to-seeing-baby-make-swimming-motion-in-toilet/

    • Kind of reminds one of the Penn State case. There there was only one or two witnesses to questionable events, some silent victims, nebulous knowledge of what the facts were, but according to the press all were guilty of a coverup. Here there are actual witness, victims, murder, multiple reports of the situation to “responsible” people but no responsible parties to blame.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama and the Republicrats have finally found a way to get some companies to hire new people. You can’t make this stuff up! 🙄 http://godfatherpolitics.com/10476/obamacare-to-encourage-employers-to-hire-immigrants-over-citizens/

  10. gmanfortruth says:

    This, I do not understand because I cannot find any evidence to back it up. Maybe ya’ll can help find some 🙂

    Even with blame being placed elsewhere, liberals can’t help themselves from taking shots at conservatives by describing them as “right wing extremists.” Consider this example from Senior Research Fellow Philip Mudd of the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative:

    “[T]the timing of the attack on ‘Patriot’s Day,’ which coincides with the April 15 deadline for filing federal taxes, suggests a possible link with right-wing, antigovernment extremist groups. . . . If the Boston attack turns out to be the work of right-wing extremists it really shouldn’t surprise us, because these groups are not a new threat, and they have been growing in numbers and power in recent years.What would be notable is that they are once again turning to terrorism as a tactic, which is increasingly common around the world.”

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10464/media-outrage-bombers-not-extreme-right-wing/#ixzz2R37HRQOb

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    While I do agree that some people should not have access to guns, I do want to say that this article, from HuffPo, no less, proves what many pro-gun folks say about registration. I am personnally against any form of registration, as I have stated before. Here’s the article.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html

    • Great video with black religious leaders thanking the NRA and speaking about it’s origin.

    • “California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm.

      Over the past five years, agents conducting twice-weekly sweeps have confiscated more than 10,000 guns.”
      (from G’s link)
      NY has also started consfiscating. I don’t know if they have warrents or as we have seen, will threaten, lie and attempt to bully citizens into compliance. Note that above it’s after co-operating that you can be arrested. I am fearful of this ending in another Ruby Ridge. Police are enforcing laws that are un-constitutional. They will be challenged and found so (unless Obama can stack SCOTUS). But that won’t help those thousands now. Are the police recording their seizures to show no laws were broken, no false statements/demands made to the homeowner? And what happens when one homeowner resists armed force with force of arms?

      It seems to me the liberal are pushing this even hoping such an incident occurs so they can use the deaths of LEO’s as “proof” they were right and demand more forceful action against all gun owners. And as always, bloodshed for the media means higher ratings & money.

      • Bottom Line says:

        California and NY are more or less gone.

        The only thing that’s gonna save them are the people that live there who actually understand the concept of property rights, and who are willing to fight for it by means other than strawman arguments made with paper and ink.

        Who has the right to tell you what you can own?

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    For those discussing economics, this might serve to understand where our banking industry stands. It’s not very promising. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-19/fed-governor-stein-warns-when-tbtf-bank-fails-depositors-will-be-cyprused

  13. Colonel,
    How can Perry over-rule Cruz?

    • He has already done it. Cruz can ask for anything he wants. He can even get a bill passed if he wants. Money can be appropriated and stockpiled. They can even bring it in a suitcase to Austin and hand it to the governor, if they want. But a United States Senator cannot over ride a governor. It is still the governor’s call as to whether to accept it or not. He has chosen not to accept it so far. We have plenty of money. We have even asked for no more donors of supplies, food, and water. We have so much, there is no place to store it. This has been reported on many news outlets. What we are doing now is purchasing cash cards. That is what is needed more. This is no different than losing a town to tornados down here which often happens (rural towns). In our budget, we have a rainy day fund ( billions ) that cannot be raided…it is for emergencies such as this.

      But, to answer your question……a United States Senator cannot override a governor in the administration of State.

      • Colonel,

        But, to answer your question……a United States Senator cannot override a governor in the administration of State.

        How do you guys CONSTANTLY misrepresent so much?

        I didn’t say or imply that “a United States Senator CAN override a governor in the administration of State.” I asked about you comment that Cruz and Flores’ requests have already been over ruled by the governor?

        Cruz and Flores are requesting the aid. Nothing has been approved or allocated, so there’s nothing for Perry to “over-ride” yet.

        Despite all your tough talk, after all this dies down, I’ll bet some Federal Aid will be approved and accepted…

        • It is a matter of interpretation, Todd. You asked how can he override…he overrides by simply saying no thank you. I know nothing has been done yet…I did not imply that. I simply have said that Perry has indicated he will say no. He confirmed that again this morning in a news conference. That is an override. He has also said that the EPA will be in the way should they come here too quickly.

          Now, if he changes his mind later…..which I doubt…..then Most in this state will be pissed. He has done it once before and the voters made him backtrack.

          There is one caveat that just came to mind…….if there are Federal dollars w/o condition, then there might be acquiescence……I don’t agree with it but there might be…it would be a stretch. One other thing, we elected Cruz down here because we thought him different…..I sure hope he hasn’t already caught Potomac Fever. There is no Federal dollar that is without condition. That is why we did not take health money and we did not take extended unemployment money…..conditions.

          Anyway, it will remain to be seen. I hope we take no Federal dollars on anything. We shall see….and, yes, we talk tough…..but we walk the walk….at least we are beginning to once again….finally. Had to get rid of the cowards and PC ers first.

          • Once again, fewer assumptions and “interpretations” would help. I try to be pretty clear in my posts and answer most questions when asked…

  14. Colonel,
    I obviously can’t comment on your experience, but there’s a lot of accounts of experiences different from yours:

    In 2009, there were lots of reports/interviews with CIA and FBI agents about how torture hardens the prisoner because it confirms what they were told about Americans, and the prisoner being tortured tells the interrogator whatever he wants to hear to stop the torture. This leads to many false leads that waste time. The war in Iraq was based on false information, some of it obtained thru torture:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html

    Interrogations without torture build trust and refute what the prisoner has been told about America, and then they can be “turned” into good sources.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/my-written-testimony-to-t_b_203269.html

    It’s simple psychology.

    • You are quite correct in a couple of things…….many times a prisoner will tell you anything to stop pain….we learned this a loooooong time ago and I agree. However, a prisoner will tell you false information to also secure better food, water, Internet, etc…..we know this also. A prisoner will knowingly supply you with false on formation if there is no penalty for such.

      Pain and pain threshold is not a reliable source. We know this as well…..prisoners will tell you anything to stop pain and eventually pain kills. Drilling into one’s knee cap, pulling fingernails, drilling into nerves on teeth, dislocating joints, beatings…….simply do not work.

      What we have found that works quite well, with no pain nor pain tolerance is as follows:

      1) Strip the prisoner naked, male or female. Keep them that way in temperatures that are uncomfortable. Strip them off all identity. No dog tags, no books, no identifiers with anything they are familiar with and no comfort items, such as bibles, Koreans, prayer rugs, crosses….anything that gives strength. This works quite well in tearing down any vestige of moral strength. It does not cause physical pain.

      2) Total isolation. Do not let them converse, shower, eat, or visit with anyone at all. No physical pain involved at all.

      3) Keep lights and loud music on at all times and do not let them sleep…..not one wink. Hose them down with cold water to wake them up if they get exhausted and fall asleep. No physical pain involved at all.

      4) If you get bad information, double the efforts….turn up the music….keep the lights on. Then water board, three times a day for fifteen minutes each time.

      5) feed them and water them three times a day with good food and water. No linens on beds.

      In five days, you will have reams of credible and reliable information. The strongest pain tolerant prisoner succumbs after five to seven days. They can tolerate pain but cannot handle the emotional strain as well as being naked and exposed 24/7.

      It works perfectly. No one is maimed, scarred, or killed. No one has missing limbs, is beheaded, or otherwise harmed. Nudity and lack of sleep works wonders.

  15. Colonel,
    Not read Miranda Rights: I heard this, but he’s in serious condition and can’t communicate yet, so it hasn’t happened YET. We’ll see.

    But I don’t understand the big deal about this (I’ve never been arrested, so maybe I don’t understand)…

    Are Miranda Rights really that big of a deal anymore? Does anyone not know about this? I remember when I first heard this – on “Dragnet”. I can still hear Joe Friday saying “You have the right to remain silent…” As an 8-10 year old, I thought this meant “You have to be silent!” I read my sister “her rights” many times – but she never SHUT-UP! 🙂

    Enemy combatant? Not that I’ve seen yet…

    Treating these guys as “TERRORISTS” gives them the status they wanted. They’re criminals. Try him in court and then lock him up! (oops, I mean “if he’s found guilty”… 🙂 )

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Todd, Dragnet was forever ago 🙂 But it was a good show in it’s day.

      I agree he is a criminal. A citizen as well and deserves his 5th Amendment rights. What I will be watching for is how will the NDAA come into play. How long before a trial would take place, if at all, will be interesting.

      Do you think he can get a fair trial after all the theatrics in getting him caught?

      • Gman,

        Do you think he can get a fair trial after all the theatrics in getting him caught?

        I think the brothers’ “theatrics” will make a fair trail difficult…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I did say “all” to be fair.

          • Gman,
            Time for a little CYA?

            You said “all” in reference to the actions of the authorities “in getting him caught”

            How are you trying to be fair?

            Your comments have been much harder on the “authorities” than the “terrorists”.

            Why?

            • Whoa! I agree with Todd for once. He has a point G. You can put out all the conspiracy theories you want but in the end the brothers did the deed. Time to lay some blame at the feet of those who did it.

              (oops, I agree with Todd about my ‘hiding in the boat’ post too!)

              • Knock it off – you’re making me N-E-R-V-O-U-S!! 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Like I asked Tood, could they get a fair trial ? I doubt it, you already have them convicted. It’s likely that they are guilty, but we have a 5th Amendment for a reason, although in this case it will be ignored. I have to go back and check, but did the carjacking victim, who was unharmed, mention anything about the bombs that they later threw out at the cops?

              • Gman,

                I doubt it, you already have them convicted.

                This is a blog. We all give our opinions. Do we need to say “alleged suspect” every time to satisfy your “political correctness”?

                You seem to flip back and forth from declaring them guilty and then accusing others of doing the same?

                but we have a 5th Amendment for a reason, although in this case it will be ignored.

                Yes, and he can still invoke that.

                did the carjacking victim, who was unharmed, mention anything about the bombs that they later threw out at the cops?

                I’m not sure what your point is here?

                I did not see anything that the carjacking victim mentioned the bombs, but the carjacking victim said they did confess to the bombings to him.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Your right Todd, I have been harder on the authorities than on the “suspected” terrorists. I have posted some reasons for my thinking, but over the course of the last few months, I have heard politicians tell people what they need and don’t need, who should cary guns and who shouldn’t, etc. They have proven, beyond any doubt, that they cannot protect the citizens from evil people.

              I found the events of Friday laughable. I recall you said that the citizens did so voluntarily. I throw the BS flag, because if people failed to “OBEY” at the right places, they would have been nailed with obstruction charges.

              I hope that justice gets served, believe me, but I don’t trust our govt any further than I can throw an eight pound elephant. It’s just my opinion, nothing else. Disagree all you want, I’m cool with that. We are all entitled to our individual opinions.

              Hope today finds you and yours healthy and happy 🙂

              • Gman,

                I throw the BS flag, because if people failed to “OBEY” at the right places, they would have been nailed with obstruction charges.

                I heard several reports about people being out with no clue that the area was “closed.” They were asked to turn around, not enter a certain area, etc.

                No one was arrested or charged with anything.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yep, that’s what I said. The “at the right places” part. 🙂 On another note, the people did listen well overall. In the main area in Watertown, that had to help the cops quite a lot, as far as getting around and not having to check the wrong people out. That’s not saying I think it was right (I would have evacuated the main area).

              • Gman,

                The “at the right places” part

                Yes, if someone had walked up and tried to climb into the boat with the guy, they probably would have been detained.

                But that would apply to any crime scene on any day anywhere in the US…

                I would have evacuated the main area.

                So asking people to stay in their houses is TYRANNY, but ordering them to leave is ok?

                Now many resources would this pull away from the man-hunt?

                The search area was pretty large, and pretty fluid, until they zeroed in on the boat. Exactly what is the “main area” you would have evacuated, and when?

                Do you think the confusion caused by thousands of people evacuating might have given the suspect an opportunity to escape?

    • You are quite right about Miranda, but Eric Holder has already come out against it under National Security guidelines. The lad supposedly has been shot in the throat and cannot talk.

      No one has convinced me yet that Islamic Jihad is a criminal act….it is a war….guerrilla warfare…..but a war so far and it is a declared war against us. It does not take a State to be war………however, I can be persuaded with good argument. Any group supported by State…..is not criminal.

      You do have a point about whether Miranda is effective. I do not think that it is. But, it was more the hypocrisy of reading Miranda on a battlefield….but not off the battlefield on home ground…….

      • And there’s no evidence this was an Islamic Jihad – or Jihad of any type…

        • You might be the only one to see it that way….even your beloved government admits to “radicalized Islamic”……. A very well financed one…..but, is there a radicalized Islamic that is not a Jihadist? I am under the impression that goes hand in hand.

          • Colonel,
            Here’s my thought:

            2 years ago the older one was investigated for Russia by the FBI.

            1 year ago his request for citizenship was denied/delayed because of that investigation.

            He was pissed, things boiled up, he talked his brother into helping, and this is the result…common criminals. Don’t give them more credit than they deserve…

            The bombs were simple – you said that yourself.
            They picked an “easy” target in that the marathon is held thru out the city – a security nightmare.
            They got “lucky” that no one noticed when dropping off the backpacks. But it’s an athletic event – everyone has one…

            If they had been recruited, organized and “very well financed”, they would have been out of Boston Monday night (there were 25,000 people trying to leave the city) and on their way “home” before anyone knew what was going on…where they would be “celebrated” as attacking the BEAST…

            Nope. Common criminals…

  16. Colonel,
    I don’t understand your question?

    What “Must really be hard for me to swallow”?

    Todd……I will make an assumption here………. Professional games being interrupted, parades in Boston, cheers all over the U S…….chants of USA…….with the announcement of this kid,s capture…….no Miranda…….. Must really be hard for you to swallow and I am really not trying to be facetious here…..was wondering.

    • Remember that this an assumption, but several leftist pundits were upset at the cheering and high fives and the reaction at public sports events, such as ball games, over the capture of this kid. They likened it to the cheering in Muslim countries every time something happens to the US. I have made an assumption that you would fall in this category. If I am wrong, then please accept my apology for having made such assumption.

      • You are wrong.

        You have a habit of assuming everyone who disagrees with you supports everything from the far-left. You should ask before you make assumptions.

  17. Puritan,

    But it should not be consumers versus producers.

    This is not about anyone vs anyone. It’s about how wealth flows.

    Everyone should be a producer first, so they can consume by trading something of real value.

    I agree. But what about inheritance? 😉

    Giving “Consumers” other peoples money to spend, or printing money for consumers to spend is just a sugar high which always needs a bigger fix of more of the same.

    This isn’t about “welfare” vs “earned income”. It’s about economic flows.

    Everyone needs to find a way to produce.

    Yes.

    See more in my response to FLPatriot.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Ok Todd, I may have missed exactly where you were coming from.
      You know where I stand on inheritance 😉
      Time to go fishing! 🙂

      • Puritan.

        You know where I stand on inheritance

        Doesn’t inheritance remove the need to “be a producer first”?

        PS – Just got back from xc-skiing. We still have a foot of snow on the ground! You’d have to go ice fishing here!! 🙂

  18. FLPatriot,

    Common sense.

    No. At best it’s an assumption on your part.

    At “worst” (I can think of worse, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) it’s that you disagree with Obama and you want to believe this, so you do.

    These families lobbied the Connecticut legislature. They also want to lobby the US Congress. Why is that so hard to believe? Why do you have a problem with that?

    Is there something clouding you “judgment” and “common sense”?

    • What they were “lobbying” for has nothing to do with the terrible events they have lived through. The “gun control” legislation that the democrats are pushing for would do nothing to prevent a repeat of the New Town school shooting.

      I understand that you are not against using emotions to cover up bad legislation, but I personally find it distasteful to use the death of children for political gain.

      Again I will say it, if the legislation had anything to do with the events they were involved in then it would make sense to have them present. In the present situation they are being treated like political props for a call to emotions only.

      • What they were “lobbying” for has nothing to do with the terrible events they have lived through…

        This statement (and really your entire post) is nothing more than your OPINION.

        The families from Connecticut have a different OPINION.

        Why do you have a problem with that?

        • What in the current legislation that failed in the senate would make a difference in stopping a future school shooting?

          • You don’t get it.

            It doesn’t matter what I think.

            It doesn’t matter what you think.

            It matters what they thought. And they wanted to be there.

            It really bums me out, cause I wanted the title soooo bad, but I guess you really are the ARROGANT “unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall!!”

            I even threw in an “extra” for you…enjoy.

            • “And they wanted to be there.” And you can read their minds?

              Maybe they where lied to by a politcian in order to get them to the event. I don’t blame the parents for being present, I blame the politcian for using the parents as political props.

              Just because you are ok with parents of murdured children being used for politcial gain does not mean the rest of us have to follow your lead blindly. Some of us have morals and will take a stand for decency, sorry if you misunderstand decency for arrogance.

              • “And they wanted to be there.” And you can read their minds?

                I didn’t have to read their minds. They said they wanted to be there to pass the legislation. I’m sure you never saw that because it would go against you narrow-minded ideology, so you ignore it.

                Maybe…

                Once again, the only way you can support your conclusion is by making assumptions.

                Maybe you’ve been lied to you entire life…and it’s nothing more than a shame…

                When you start your argument with Maybe, you can justify anything you want. It’s not a logical argument – it’s a crutch to support a weak mind.

                You’re not using MORALS to take a stand for DECENCY when you base it on an ASSUMPTION.

                You’re using your BIASED, PREJUDICED, JAUNDICED, CONCEITED, HAUGHTY, ARROGANT IDEOLOGY to vilify someone you don’t like (yeah, I got that new thesaurus just in time!).

                We might have to add to your TITLE.

                And that pisses me off the most (I might just have to FREAK on Anita!), because after 4 years I still don’t have a TITLE, but you get a really cool, long one after just a month…

              • Oy vey-they may have wanted to be there-doesn’t change our Abortion President constantly using people to make all those emotional pleas you’ve been complaining about all day.

              • Hey Todd, you mad bro?

  19. FLPatriot,
    I think it’s pretty obvious we’re not going to agree on the Bible, so I’ll drop that conversation…

    • Bottom Line says:

      Talking to most unwitting neo-Pagans, ..err…um…Christians about religion is like talking to a brick wall.

      Amen[hotep Ra]

      Praise Iesu, Iesius, Iasius, Iasion, Iasus, Iesus, and Iason – sUn of Zeus !

      • I agree. Talking to FLPatriot certainly is like talking to a brick wall.

      • Funny-I have the same reaction when talking to most anarchists.

        • Bottom Line says:

          Do you think Iesus condones the use of coercion and violence for sake of an edict, …or rather to love and respect your fellow humans?

          • As a supposed neo-pagan-why are you asking me?

            • Bottom Line says:

              Law is predicated upon coercion and violence for sake of an edict.

              Anarchism and Libertarianism is predicated upon respect for natural inalienable rights.

              As I understand the popular interpretation of Christianity, it is more consistent with the concept of respect for natural rights, thus I am curious as to why you would compare anarchists, like myself, with a brick wall ‘when talking to’ us.

              This is confusing, as we are seemingly on the same page with respect to those core values, therefore I question your angle.

              Or is your response simply a proud reaction from a Christian perspective out of aggravation from the suggestion that many Christians are unwitting neo-Pagans?

              Granted, I am probably not nearly as well versed as you, so perhaps you can explain why/how there are so many references and concepts in the bible that are consistent with more ancient religions of sun worship.

              • Your point was that Christians are stubborn or like talking to a brick wall-I think the point works just as well for Anarchists. People who believe in something strongly are likely to be stubborn in their convictions. As to calling Christians neo-pagans-this is not a discussion I intend to have-it will lead to nothing but anger, offense and misunderstanding.

              • Bottom Line says:

                V,

                I see your point. And I don’t mean to come off as combative. I apologize if I have offended you. I am genuinely curious as much as I am frustrated with Christians though, …generally speaking of course.

                In recent years, I’ve found a certain fascination with regard to religion and philosophy. I seek a greater and deeper understanding of theology, especially with the bible, as it is one of the most influential books ever written.

                I’ve done quite a bit of research in hopes of quenching my thirst for truth and knowledge. Aside from more questions, what I’ve discovered are a lot of correlations between that which is in the bible and other beliefs stemming all throughout time back to the most ancient of cultures.

                I am an intelligent, reasonable man. When I see a correlation or contradiction, or something that makes absolutely no sense, I question it. I ask ‘what’s the truth in this?’ Truth – that’s what my whole view of theology centers around.

                Since I am not exactly a theologian, and since I know there are a lot of people who have studied this stuff to a much greater extent than myself, I like to ask them in hopes that I might be directed to some sort of answer.

                I ask questions of different belief systems. Some are rather helpful, others are at least tolerant. Most are arrogant as if their belief is somehow superior.

                Christians, however…from my experience, are by far, the most arrogant, self righteous, intolerant, ignorant, rude, hypocritical, illogical and unreasonable group of all. In spite of my usual polite, inquisitive, and reasonable approach, I am often ridiculed, criticized, insulted, rejected, called blasphemous, etc…

                More times than not, there is absolutely no interest in teaching or spreading the word, but rather rejection of anything that does not coincide with their monopoly of ‘truth’.

                I am a smart man, thus I ask tough questions that often are met with a similar perplexity. They can’t answer, see it as a threat to their belief, and shut me out or criticize me in some way.

                It is as I stated above…like talking to a brick wall.

              • Bottom Line says:

                V,

                Just to share, I will give you an example of what I am speaking of.

                A couple of weeks ago, I was in a Christian chat room quietly listening to a preacher talking about apparent contradictions in the bible. He began to ask the people in the room to think of examples to discuss. No one would respond in spite of his repeated requests to motivate.

                So, after a few minutes, I spoke up and asked about a couple of my favorite verses; Genesis 6:6-7

                I asked ” If the bible is the true word of God, and God is infallible, then what is the deal with Gen 6:6 and 7? It appears as if God is admitting to a mistake in making man and threatening to correct himself by destroying us. ”

                His response was that the bible is not always the true word of God, and that I was being blasphemous by suggesting that God made a mistake.

                I responded by first stating that I was just doing as he(preacher) asked, and that if it isn’t the true word of God, then who’s is it?

                …And that if it isn’t the true word of God, then how was I being blasphemous?

                …And if it isn’t the true word of God, then what does that say about the premise of the bible as a whole?

                …And if it IS the true word of God, then isn’t suggesting that it isn’t the true word of God equally as blasphemous as suggesting God made a mistake?

                …I then started to reaffirm the context of the verses to demonstrate that God was indeed speaking of correcting his mistake.

                He got pretty pissed off, gave me a thorough tongue lashing and banned me from the room.

                I don’t think he had any real interest in discussing/discerning truth. He just wanted to give rationalized BS answers and to be the almighty of his ‘chat flock’. When I came along with a legitimate challenge(as requested), he turned into a ‘brick wall’.

              • Bottomline,

                I am sorry that your search for answers has caused you to feel so negatively against Christians. But you need to think about the fact that you are using the internet-you know as well as I do that although the internet is great in a lot of ways-it is also a very handy place for the extreme to hang out. If you want to learn about Christianity-read the Bible-ask God to help you see his meaning. Use a Bible study guide if you want to get the opinion of theologian scholars. After doing these things -find yourself a Church and talk to another human being face to face. If you believe the Church isn’t following the true word-dust off your feet and go to another Church. But remember it is almost impossible to find a perfect anything. So try to be righteous not self-righteous-you will find both in almost all walks of life and you’ll find that even you and I and John down the street sometimes are self-righteous, judgmental, and just wrong-so give people the benefit of the doubt when you can. Now I feel like I’m starting to preach -so moving on. 🙂

                And understand that people have a tendency to insult each other-most of the time without even realizing that we are being insulting. Understand that being stubborn isn’t always just being stubborn-it is sometimes refusing to let go of the truth-even if one isn’t always able to articulate an answer.

              • Here’s one resource -I’ve found useful-if you look to the right-there is a resource button-it will give you commentary about whatever passage you enter. There are more of these on the internet-Biblegate is just one of them.

                http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis6:6&version=ASV

            • I like this!! 🙂

              (Oh Great – now I’m agreeing with YOU! 🙂 Will the INSANITY never end!!)

              But I hope you apply it to all sides. We all need to show MORE TOLERANCE and LESS “KILLING” EACH OTHER

      • WTF is going on here?? Is this BIZARRO SUFA or WHAT?

        I’m confused as hell – which I blame on Anita for agreeing with me – TWICE. I mean, how am I supposed to deal with THAT!! 🙂

        I agree. Talking to FLPatriot certainly is like talking to a brick wall.

        I was joking when I posted this – I thought I was the “unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall!!”. And I’m kinda disappointed I’m not… 🙂

        Like I said, I’m just CONFUSED!

        If anyone else agrees with me today, I’m gonna FREAK OUT in a MAJOR way!! 🙂

        • Bottom Line says:

          ROFLMAO!

          Maybe we’re actually starting to learn something from each other after a few years worth of debating.

          Or is it just a trend in ‘group think’?

          Hmmmmm… Maybe we’re starting to rub off on you, Todd.

        • I agree with you Todd.

          Now show us how you do the freak.

          • Seriously?? You want to see it? I think you’ve seen it a few times already!! 😉

            But, I’m sure it will happen again sometime this week. Just remember, it’s YOUR fault – so no LECTURES!

        • I have also agreed with you on a couple of items…….heh heh!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd, BL confused me the first time he posted this as well, LOL 🙂

          • I’m still bummed I’m not the “unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall!!”. I was going to use that as my title!

            But I bet I’ll get a title of my own…very soon… 😉

      • Bottom Line,

        Praise Iesu, Iesius, Iasius, Iasion, Iasus, Iesus, and Iason – sUn of Zeus !

        When you post this – who/what are you referring too?

        • Bottom Line says:

          Todd,

          I am essentially saying “Praise Jesus”, although in a bit of a thought provocative manner.

          Jesus with a “J” is the modern translation, as there was no “J” in the time of Jesus. Thus the translation is Iesu, Iesius, Iasius, Iasion, Iasus, Iesus, or Iason.

          It was apparently something that originates from Constantine and means “Savior/Healer” and/or “Hail Zeus/Son of Zeus”

          Zeus was “god of sky and thunder, and of men” in Greek MYTHology.

          • Bottom Line,
            Thanks – I thought you had expressed your Christian beliefs here before.

            Does anarchy really fit with Christianity (or any religion)? Christianity has some pretty strict laws and rules, and the edict to spread the “Word” to non-believers.

            Black Flag was pretty adamant that religion flies in the face of anarchy – or maybe the other way around. I tended to skim those lectures…

            A couple other questions:

            As I understand the popular interpretation of Christianity, it is more consistent with the concept of respect for natural rights, thus I am curious as to why you would compare anarchists, like myself, with a brick wall ‘when talking to’ us.

            Is there a NOT missing from this statement?

            If not, then if “the popular interpretation of Christianity, it is more consistent with the concept of respect for natural rights”, what’s your problem with it?

            Christians, however…from my experience, are by far, the most…

            This statement seems to contradict the previous one?

            I ask tough questions that often are met with a similar perplexity. They can’t answer, see it as a threat to their belief, and shut me out or criticize me in some way.

            Your “tough” questions can seem like direct criticism sometimes. A more friendly, open ended question might elicit a better response…

            • Bottom Line says:

              Todd – “Thanks – I thought you had expressed your Christian beliefs here before.”

              BL – For the record, I am nondenominational. I am more concerned with discerning universal truth that I believe is found within almost all belief systems. I look at religion and see a common thread and wonder, ‘what is it that ties it all together?’.

              Todd – ” Does anarchy really fit with Christianity (or any religion)? Christianity has some pretty strict laws and rules, and the edict to spread the “Word” to non-believers. Black Flag was pretty adamant that religion flies in the face of anarchy – or maybe the other way around. I tended to skim those lectures…”

              BL – Not necessarily. I look at Christianity and see a lot of valuable lessons having to do with how to get along peacefully by respecting your fellow man…for example – Judge not lest ye be judged – Thou shalt not murder – Thou shalt not bear false witness – Thou shall not steal, Thou shalt no covet thy neighbor’s wife, etc..

              Libertarianism requires that we get along without being forced to do so, that we respect the rights of others. This is the common ground that I was speaking of. I think Flag was more speaking about theocratic influence in government, which is indeed counter intuitive to libertarianism as it uses government force to impose a practice/belief.

              Todd – ” A couple other questions:

              As I understand the popular interpretation of Christianity, it is more consistent with the concept of respect for natural rights, thus I am curious as to why you would compare anarchists, like myself, with a brick wall ‘when talking to’ us.

              Is there a NOT missing from this statement? ”

              BL – I think I just answered that.

              Todd – ” If not, then if “the popular interpretation of Christianity, it is more consistent with the concept of respect for natural rights”, what’s your problem with it?

              BL – I don’t really have a problem with the message of Christianity. In fact, I very much agree with a lot of it. It is the attitude from a lot of Christians when trying to discuss religion that I find annoying.

              Todd – ” ‘Christians, however…from my experience, are by far, the most…’

              This statement seems to contradict the previous one?”

              BL – Again, it is the attitude that I get from a lot of Christians that I find annoying.

              Allow me to explain…

              I will talk to Christians, Jews, Pagans, Catholics, Muslims, Satanists, New Agers, Wiccans, etc. I will at some point bring up an area of confusion or apparent correlation or contradiction, or whatever. While there is a universal arrogance among most beliefs, I find that most will generally be pretty respectful, reasonable, tolerant, and helpful…especially Jews and New Agers.

              When I say “what’s the deal with this?” they will respond with something along the lines of “lemme break this down for you. This is that and here’s how it all fits, etc”

              Christians will usually start out that way, but when the conversation gets too tough for them, they turn to …” I don’t have to be tolerant and reasonable, I’m right because I want to be, so fuk off you inferior blasphemous non-Christian ”

              Todd – ” ‘I ask tough questions that often are met with a similar perplexity. They can’t answer, see it as a threat to their belief, and shut me out or criticize me in some way.’

              Your “tough” questions can seem like direct criticism sometimes. A more friendly, open ended question might elicit a better response…”

              BL – I like to take the approach of sharing and learning. I don’t always just come right out and call Christians unwitting Pagans. Most times, I am very polite and tolerant. It is kind of a game with me to see how nice and non-confrontational I can be to them before they get pissed off anyway and start copping an attitude. I am curious and genuinely interested to get their take on things, and know that they are at some point going to get frustrated and reject me regardless. I just try to see how far I can get with it, to see what I can learn before that happens.

              My comments here at SUFA started in response to being annoyed with FLP’s typical arrogance when suggesting that if you aren’t Christian you don’t understand theology.

              It is why I subtly responded with examples of usually unnoticed apparent Christian sun worship…as if to say “here, chew on this Mr. Know-it-all”

              • Point of order!

                I will talk to Christians, Jews, Pagans, Catholics, Muslims, Satanists, New Agers, Wiccans, etc.

                This is de ja vu all over again. I have been in many discussions with a couple friends over just this subject in the last couple months. What’s up?

                Why are you separating Catholics from Christians?

              • Bottom Line,
                Thanks. I get it.

                One thing about some of your “probing” questions or comments – they can be hard to understand, and many times I think that’s intentional.

                That doesn’t foster open communication (I’m still bummed I’m not the “unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall!!”), it causes confusion and can make people defensive.

                There are “some people” who are just looking for the opportunity to be “offended,” so don’t give them that opening…

              • Anita,

                Why are you separating Catholics from Christians?

                Cause they’re different??? Ducking under my desk…

              • I see the whites of your eyes under there. Prepare for a dart from my new blowgun……..

              • Ok Ok – I surrender! Non-practicing Catholics are Christians… 😉

  20. And How Many Bullets Do You Need?
    Jim Yardley

    Last night, I watched the amateur home video of the shootout between Boston and Watertown police and the person referred to as “Suspect #1.”

    I learned that there were something on the order of 200 shots fired during that firefight.

    Think about that for just a moment. It took a dozen or more cops, who are trained professionals, who practice on at least a weekly basis with their firearms, to fire 200 rounds before he finally died.

    Yet our politicians (at least here in New York, and some in Washington — as well as other places, I’m sure) are saying that the most anyone needs to have to protect himself from armed intruders is seven rounds in the magazine.

    Only seven?!

    Of course, it took trained police, who were not dealing with an unexpected attack, who were not roused from a peaceful slumber, who were not worried about their wives and kids, some 200 rounds to kill one dangerous man.

    Makes you wonder if those politicians have even the slightest, tiniest hint of anything connected with the real world, doesn’t it?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/and_how_many_bullets_do_you_need.html#ixzz2R6RMx2qB

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The criminals in DC don’t have much of a clue about the real world. When it comes to guns, the Democrats like FrankenFeinstein should just shut up and sit down instead of talking and showing their incredible ignorance. The video’s of these events of ignorance could fill up a full days news programming, that’s how ignorant they are. 🙄

      • I was amazed at the shoot-out video yesterday morning. Not much known so little reporting, but they described it as simply a shoot-out. The video showed six or so LEO’s blazing away seemingly at full auto. No tears for the scumbag, just observing this was a take no prisoners battle. Glad they didn’t bring in a .50 cal or mortars. Wonder if we will see pictures of the boat and any reports of damage caused by stray rounds…..

        • At your service 😉

          http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1241&bih=584&q=bullet+holes+in+boston+boat&oq=bullet+holes+in+boston+boat&gs_l=img.3…2363.10846.0.11155.27.13.0.14.14.0.55.636.13.13.0…0.0…1ac.1.9.img.oy7vhn0J_qw#imgrc=6oYONSmpAQjNEM%3A%3BMmd7lKVDNVHY4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%252Fhphotos-ash4%252Fp480x480%252F427854_10151470110618122_1349352567_n.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.facebook.com%252Ffox25news%3B640%3B360

          • Not sure who sabotaged me but the pic is there!

          • Oh yeah – that’s the one I saw! Cut-n-paste all the text into your browser – the pic is there.

            PS – do not consider this AGREEMENT in any way Anita!! 🙂

        • LOI,
          If someone was shooting at you, wouldn’t you shoot back?

          I thought I saw a picture of the boat after the shoot out somewhere, but now I can’t find it. It wasn’t a very good picture, but I thought I could see some damage…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Todd, you bet I’d shoot back. One of the things about gun fights is how much ammo is wasted (and hitting innocents in some cases). When we trained people in the USAF, we trained to wait till an accurate shot was available, if possible. Each scenario is different, and people react differently also. Most cops are not trained the “art” of gun fighting.

            Ask any big game hunter how important the first shot is? It applies to bad guys with guns too. What occurred was an example of a lack of training. These events can end quickly with a correctly trained person. The key (which is not easy) is to not be nervous. This requires training in controlling your emotions. It’s not easy!

            • Yeah, but sometimes it’s “suppressing fire”. AKA – “sink-the-boat”… 😉

      • Fox’s Chris Wallace Asks: Perhaps Boston Residents Would Have Liked Firearms During Tsarnaev Manhunt?

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/04/19/foxs-chris-wallace-connects-search-boston-bombing-suspect-gun-debate#ixzz2R6cetgFr

      • Bottom Line says:

        No they aren’t. They know exactly what they are doing.

        The ignorant are the ones that choose ignorance, the people that continue their state of denial in order to rationalize the situation as something more palatable.

        Someone[s] is attempting incremental baby-step disarmament. Seven round mags are to inhibit the people from fighting back as efficiently. Make a list of people pushing, funding and otherwise supporting such bullshit…there’s your true enemy.

        Who has the right to tell you what you can own?

    • gmanfortruth says:
  21. Register Guns, not Immigrants
    By Michael Bargo Jr.

    The recent bombings at the Boston marathon finishing line once again reminded Americans of their vulnerability to terrorist acts. Fresh in the collective public awareness is also the issue of gun violence.

    Congress is at the same time wrestling with immigration reform. It is very interesting to note that while background checks are considered the major method to control gun violence, with regard to immigration Democrats have very aggressively fought the existing Federal background checks required for persons entering the U.S. How they handle immigrants on the one hand, and gun owners on the other, reveals some interesting contrasts in their approaches.

    As I have noted here before, Democrats are the major sponsors of illegal immigration. Those who wish to downplay the fact that illegal immigration is a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act prefer to call the immigrants “undocumented.” Democrats in states such as California, Illinois, and New York have gone a further step and worked very hard to establish themselves as sanctuaries for the undocumented. Then, once these immigrants are in the U.S., they remedy the “undocumented” status of these immigrants by providing them with the “matricula consular” card.

    For example, the Cook County, Illinois, board of commissioners passed a law making the matricula consular card, which does not have background checks, a valid form of I.D. The Chairman of that Committee is John Daley, the brother of Bill Daley who served as Obama’s Chief of Staff. The president knows of these I.D. issues and has the authority to stop them.

    At the same time Democrats have made the matricula consular card available to immigrants, they have aggressively fought any moves to “document” these persons through official channels. For example, they fight Voter I.D. laws, national I.Ds., and efforts to restrict the decennial Census count to citizens. All of these actions have one goal in common: they are efforts crafted to ensure that Democrats stay in control of their “documentation.” The topic of how government documents are used as a tool of political control of social groups deserves further attention.

    But when it comes to background checks for legal gun purchases Democrats give as the major reason the idea that we need to stop gun violence. However, a close look at gun violence and crime reveals that illegal immigrants, whom Democrats insist do not need background checks, are committing violent crimes in great numbers.

    In 2011 the General Accountability Office (GAO) published a report called “Criminal Alien Statistics.” This report listed the types of crimes for which illegal aliens were actually convicted from 2001 to 2009. Those who wish to prevent bombings such as occurred at the Boston marathon should note that from 2001 to 2009 the DOJ convicted 68 illegal aliens of terrorism related acts. These included actions related to the bombing of public places. (P. 25) In this time period the DOJ convicted an additional 9 illegal aliens who had links to international terrorism. (P.26). Illegal aliens were 17% of the total inmate population convicted as a result of terrorism-related investigations. These terrorists were able to enter the country unhindered due to the lack of background checks performed upon illegal immigrants.

    Seventy-three percent of all criminal aliens incarcerated came from Mexico and four other Central American countries. Persons born in these countries are the ones most likely to illegally enter the U.S. through the southern border.

    And with regard to murder, the crime Democrats use as the rationale for passing strict background checks, the report found that in 2008 in the five states of New York, Texas, Arizona, Florida and California there were 6,300 illegal alien inmates convicted of homicide. An additional 1,550 were convicted of weapons violations. The homicide rate for illegal aliens was particularly high in New York State were 27% of all person convicted for homicide were illegal aliens. This suggests that if the background checks required by the normal process of legal immigration were conducted, the great majority of these 6,300 homicides would have been prevented. These background checks are already mandated by Federal law yet Democrats are primarily responsible for ignoring them.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/register_guns_not_immigrants.html#ixzz2R6SNotEO
    (more at the link)

  22. Antia,
    The “Hiding in the boat” message…I love it! 🙂

    My first thought – great hiding spot…for hide-n-go-seek…

    My second thought – now what? Wait a few days and then…walk away…or bleed to death?

    Obviously, we’re not dealing with “Einstein” here!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      500+ cops couldn’t find a 19 year old, who was bleeding and hiding in a covered boat, for well over 12 hours. Do they need, better blood tracking skills?, better tracking dogs? Could they not have used infrared during the day on places like this?

      It seems the kid was a hide-n-seek champ 🙂

      • Only if you consider someone who ends up in the hospital and will probably spend the rest of his life in jail a “CHAMP”

        • You are right Todd, the correct word is “Martyr”, as in “martyr for the cause”. In my former neighborhood which was mostly Irish, the IRA hunger strikers in British jails were routinely referred to as martyrs after their deaths. These boyos will be the same.

          • Stephen,

            “Martyr”…These boyos will be the same.

            First, I doubt it.

            But if so, so what. There’s always a small group that do that. If we call them “enemy combatants” it will increase that, and give them more notoriety.

            They’re common, lousy, criminals. No more.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I was talking about hide-n-seek in jest. If he is guilty, which looks likely, he will pay the price. I will just call him a murderer. I will never apply the term Martyr to anybody that kills innocent people. Those who do that are sick, mentally ill people who should be removed from society.

          • Unfortunately, one man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist. At least that is the mantra of the moral equivalency crew. I actually think it is pretty easy to spot the difference but that is based on having a sense of morality which we acknowledge is in shorter and shorter supply these days.

            The old man used to make me argue the other side on everything in an attempt to make me think. He never told me what to think he let me work that out for myself. Thanks to his training and the old Davy Crockett adage, “Be sure you’re right then go ahead.” I am always pretty sure that I am on the morally correct side of an issue. If I am unsure, I say so, if I am wrong, I say so, If both sides have equally valid points then I say that too. Generally speaking you reach a point in an argument with yourself where the issue is no longer 50-50 but becomes 70-30.

            I like to think that the big difference between a real committed conservative and a liberal is that the liberal sees the world the way he wants it to be, rose colored glasses if you will and then makes excuses. The conservative is the opposite, he sees it the way it is, warts and all and tries to change it.

            • I like to think that the big difference between a real committed conservative…

              It seems to me that all conservative are “committed,” about to be “committed,” or just out on a day pass…

  23. FLPatriot,
    It seems I misinterpreted your comments. So I’ll start over here…

    We need to be a nation of producers again and stop being China’s consumer base.

    Well, sort of.

    First, the US GPD equals the total of the next two/three countries combined (China, japan, Germany). So we already produce a lot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

    Second, do we really want to produce more tangible goods? Manual labor wages are dropping, automation is taking over, etc. Manual labor to produce tangible goods is not where the money is. The money is in designing these produces, designing the automation to create the products, designing and creating networks and the applications to run and protest those networks, research to create new/better/faster/simpler ways of doing things, etc. The money is in “knowledge”, not “manual labor”.

    Think of it this way – you can be the best plumber, welder, electrician in the world, but you can only do so much of these things per hour – no matter how good you are. Your productivity still has a limit – your time.

    But if you design a new/better/faster/simpler way of doing these things, you can sells these methods, or the tools to do them, or you can teach/manage others that are actually doing the work. There is no limit to your “productivity” because your productivity grows every time someone else adopts your new process.

    Now we are nothing more than consumers and that is why our wealth if leaving for other countries.

    Yes, and buying less CRAP from China wouldn’t hurt, but we can change this flow of wealth by designing the CRAP China makes. Think Apple…

    The reason I said the left does not understand this is because every action taken by the progressive left in Washington is to prop up consumers and does nothing to help producers.

    Some of it – yes. But the push for better/higher education is our future. Many on the Right question higher education, are cutting funding. That is destroying our future.

    If the left really agreed with Mises…

    They’d wouldn’t be the Left then, would they? They’d be the Right… 😉

    Can you give me ONE example of a country that follows Mises?

    PS – this is the third time I tried to post this – SUFA doesn’t seem to like it…

    • “First, the US GPD equals the total of the next two/three countries combined (China, japan, Germany). So we already produce a lot.”

      Assuming you meant GDP, lets look at how that is not a good measurment of the economic health of a country. From http://www.mindtools.net/GlobCourse/formula.shtml:

      The basic formula for calculating the GDP is: Y = C + I + E + G
      where:
      Y = GDP
      C = Consumer Spending
      I = Investment made by industry
      E = Excess of Exports over Imports
      G = Government Spending

      How can GDP be a good tool to measure economic health of a country when it calculates in consumer and government spending?

      “Can you give me ONE example of a country that follows Mises?” I honestly do not know of one, but this does not surprise me with the state of the world economy as it is. If more countries would listen to the wisdom of Mises maybe we would see another economic boom instead of this MESS (Mutual Economic Slow Suicide) we have today.

      • How can GDP be a good tool to measure economic health of a country when it calculates in consumer and government spending?

        Gee, I don’t know…because it’s been the standard measure of economic health…FOREVER…?

        But, if you disagree with that, given the width and breathe of the economic knowledge you’ve displayed here, why don’t you raise this point at the 2013 World Economic Forum in Davos to get the definition corrected.

        Until then, why don’t you continue the discussion, instead of trying to deflect it by challenging a definition you obviously know nothing about?

        “Can you give me ONE example of a country that follows Mises?” I honestly do not know of one, but this does not surprise me with the state of the world economy as it is. If more countries would listen to the wisdom of Mises maybe we would see another economic boom instead of this MESS (Mutual Economic Slow Suicide) we have today.

        So, you have no evidence that ”If more countries would listen to the wisdom of Mises maybe we would see another economic boom instead of this MESS”?

        This is just your OPINION based on the width and breathe of your economic knowledge?

        And the word “maybe” is a nice qualifier…maybe not…

        Oh, and I love the If more part! I think you need to have ONE before you can have MORE!!

        Let me know when you’re done arguing about well-established definitions and ready to discuss the issues…

        • “Gee, I don’t know…because it’s been the standard measure of economic health…FOREVER…?” So you think that just because it is the way others have always done it that it shouldn’t be questioned?

          “This is just your OPINION based on the width and breathe of your economic knowledge?” not at all, this is my opinion based on the width and breathe of the economic knowledge of several economists that I have been reading, including some with noble prizes in economics. What is your opinion based on? Oh ya, you base your on “because thats the way it is”.

          “Oh, and I love the If more part! I think you need to have ONE before you can have MORE!!”, So you don’t think that you can start with zero and if you add 1 or 2 that that is not more? And you think I am the one that can’t do math?

          “Let me know when you’re done arguing about well-established definitions and ready to discuss the issues” I know that thining outside the box is scary to you on the left, but that is how progress is made.

  24. I’ve tried to post something 3 times – starting this morning. But it’s not showing up. Can some check if its in moderation – or somewhere else??

    If you find it – only release one.

    Thanks!

    • USWeapon says:

      Sorry Todd…. It appears it was in moderation. I cleared one of them and got rid of the other two. Not sure why it ended up there.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I am sorry as well. I went outside to go work on my treehouse (which I will do an article on when finished on my blog). I got carried away and didn’t get in the house till 8:30 pm. Did see 13 turkey’s and 4 deer while working, they never saw me, LOL 🙂

      • Thanks guys. No big deal – I knew it would show up sometime.

  25. I had posted this a few days ago, but I have a question about the last part.

    America is “a battlefield because the terrorists think it is,” Graham told The Washington Post. “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there.”

    Weren’t Republicans all up-in-arms about drones in the US just a few weeks ago? The Rand Paul filibuster?

    Ok – you can ignore that – I just had to say it! Or feel free to jump on me for that – it will feel like SUFA is back to normal!! 🙂

    The real question – what about using drones in this man-hunt?

    My opinion:

    For surveillance – maybe. But they had helicopters with infrared sensors that eventually detected him, but I think that was after the guy reported him in the boat. Could drones have scanned a wider area and found him in the boat sooner? Or would drones find SO MUCH STUFF it would be hard to sift thru it all? Every cop and every person looking out a window would be detected and have to be “cleared”…

    Or would there be too much interference for the drones to be able to see between houses, into backyards, etc? I think this boat was out in the open enough for a drone to spot it, but if it had been right next to the house or garage, it might have been obscured – depending on where the drone was and the angle of the sensors?

    A weaponized drone – no way. We can’t start firing missiles to take out a guy hiding in a boat.

    • Uh oh….we are in agreement again……drones would have been totally useless in an urban environment. They did I it right with the chopper……but there is so much infrared in an urban environment means more time to check things out……they did it right….zone in on a specific spot and verify off a lead. ( experience talking here…..remember we used them quite a bit on the border….great for non urban )

      Todd is gonna blow any minute. It might cause him to have a sleepless night to be in agreement with a Colonel…….a conservative Colonel…….a conservative Texan Colonel…..a conservative, gun totin’ Texan Colonel…..I could go on.

      • I could go on.

        and on and on and on…and on and on and on…and on and on and on…

        Yeah, I know. I’ve read some of those! 😉

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Todd, I agree that NO DRONES should ever be used, especially armed ones, over US soil. Choppers are an effective tool, as that has been shown recently 🙂

  26. gmanfortruth says:
  27. gmanfortruth says:

    I hope this is a sick joke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMZ8YeoOrfg

  28. Happy Earth Day everyone!!

    Be sure to treat her nice – at least for one day of the year…

  29. Study finds belief in free market economics predicts rejection of science

    A strong belief in a hands off approach to economics is tightly linked to the rejection of scientific facts such as climate change, according to research published in Psychological Science in late March.

    “The conspiracist ideation that all of the world’s scientific academies have conspired together to create a hoax known as global warming has found traction in American mainstream politics,” Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia and his colleagues wrote in their study.

    In particular, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has alleged that thousands of scientists working independently over decades are actually part of “the greatest hoax” to increase regulation on businesses and individuals.

    The study of 1,377 people who visited climate change denial blogs found endorsement of laissez-faire free markets predicted the rejection of climate science and other established scientific facts, such as that HIV causes AIDS or that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer.

    “The pivotal role of personal ideology in the rejection of climate science has been repeatedly demonstrated,” Lewandowsky and his colleagues explained. “We highlighted the magnitude of this effect among climate-science blog denizens, who have a strong interest in the issue, and we additionally showed that endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of two other well-established scientific facts.”

    Those who rejected climate change appeared to be more accepting of conspiracy theories in general. Belief that the moon landing was actually staged on Earth, that the government allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks occur so they could invade the Middle East, and other conspiracy theories predicted rejection of climate change.

    “This finding suggests that a general propensity to endorse any of a number of conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject entirely unrelated scientific facts,” Lewandowsky and his colleagues said.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/21/study-finds-belief-in-free-market-economics-predicts-rejection-of-science/

    • Really-and did they also find that being a leftist made people more likely to buy into climate “change”. Seems to me all these guys found out was that being on one political side or the other can be the deciding factor about a lot of issues for a lot of people, surprise, surprise.

      • No, it’s not about one political side or the other. It’s about one belief driving another.

        If you believe in “laissez-faire free markets,” you will deny anything that might contradict or try to regulate that…

  30. Original study. Unfortunately you have to pay to read it – otherwise I’m sure you’d all want to read it…

    NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax
    An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

    Abstract:

    Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Global warming ‘scientific consensus’ debunked
      Thomas Lifson

      A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that “only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,” according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming. Yet President Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday cited the now-discredited notion of such a consensus as the foundation of his green agenda.

      It is bunk.

      … merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

      The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

      This is important evidence. The results cannot be ascribed to conservative skeptics (no doubt paid off by men in top hats with bundles of cash) ginning up a biased survey. Not only was it peer reviewed and published in an established journal, Organization Studies, Taylor notes:

      One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

      Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists.

      Not only is global warming a fallacy and fraud, it is being sold by President Obama on the basis of a fallacy and fraud.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/global_warming_scientific_consensus_debunked.html#ixzz2RCsWsOUc
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      • gmanfortruth says:
      • “only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,”

        Geoscientists? Ok.

        Engineers? That’s as pretty broad category to poll for climate change.

        What about climate scientists?

        Seems like someone is “cherry picking” their respondents.

        And the 36% ” believers” is the highest percentage of any of the responses.

        The results cannot be ascribed to conservative skeptics (no doubt paid off by men in top hats with bundles of cash) ginning up a biased survey.

        Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

        I just love it when a writer points out the “things I cannot use to refute him.” Usually means the writer has something to hide.

        Like – “cherry picking” what occupations are included in the study, how they present the results, and how some other blog summaries the data even more to fit their agenda…

        Not only was it peer reviewed and published in an established journal, Organization Studies

        Organization Studies?

        So a bunch of Interior Designers don’t believe in Climate Change?

        • Earth Day Lesson: Environment is not Climate
          By Thomas P. Sheahen

          Earth Day is here again, but few people seem interested any more in global warming. It’s plausible to inquire whether people realize we’ve got a duty to protect the environment. Actually, “protecting the environment” is not necessarily the same topic as “global warming.” Confusion about the two needs to be cleared up.

          The earliest written indication that mankind is responsible for taking care of the earth is probably in the Bible, in Genesis 1 (v. 26-28) where God gives mankind dominion over everything else. Thus began the notion of stewardship, that we are responsible for properly using all things on earth.

          For thousands of years the prevailing attitude was that the earth was huge and unlimited, so if you messed things up in one place you’d just move on. Certainly the settlement of the American west displayed that mentality. But later in the 19th century people saw the damage and became conscious of the need to preserve some of nature’s beauty, and National Parks became established.

          By the mid-20th century incidents of major pollution were becoming too frequent, and some tragedies occurred (example: in London England in 1952, thousands died from air fouled by burning soft, high-sulfur coal). A new word, smog, entered the vocabulary as polluted air in cities like Los Angeles burned the eyes. Within 25 miles of a paper mill, it really stunk. Still, “The Environment” didn’t mean enough to motivate changing. “The price of progress” was the standard excuse.

          Then in 1968 came the flight around the moon by Apollo 8, which returned the photo of the earth hanging like a bright blue marble against the backdrop of the vast emptiness of space.

          That one photo instantly told everyone that this is the only place we’ve got. The Biblical concept of stewardship suddenly became real once again.

          With overwhelming national agreement, Congress quickly passed laws to clean up air and water. The Environmental Protection Agency was chartered, and issued standards for industrial facilities and automobiles. Before long every state had its own environmental department. Things got better as factories were retro-fitted and old cars disappeared from the roads. Today you can eat the fish from some rivers that were sterile a half century ago.

          Non-senior citizens either never knew or have forgotten what it used to be like, but examples of the cleaner environment abound when you stop to think about them. For example, a modern sewage-treatment plant is so good that it goes totally unnoticed in a community.

          People realize the need for vigilance, to preserve the environment from future threats of pollution. Today there are many precautionary measures, notably government regulations requiring that before any new technology can be introduced, an evaluation of the environmental impact must be done. (Actually, the locomotive, the automobile and the airplane would never make it through environmental permitting today, even though they polluted less than what they replaced.)

          Sadly, not all countries have learned from America’s experience. In China the demand for electricity is so great that coal is burned very inefficiently, without any controls, and the air makes Los Angeles of the 1950s look good. Of the ten most air-polluted cities in the world, eight are in China. India likewise needs to clean up. It’s easy for Americans to criticize, but they’re sacrificing air quality to get faster economic growth. The sooner they retrace the half-century path of America, the better off the entire world will be.

          The concern about global warming grew out of the environmental movement. The Earth has been warming very slowly since the “Little Ice Age” ended almost two centuries ago. In recent decades, fear was expressed that it may be warming too fast, due to the influence of mankind. Specifically, carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil and natural gas was blamed for the warming. Large computer models were run to predict decades into the future. A lot of people concluded “we’ve got to do something to prevent further temperature rises.”

          Then reality set in. The models, for all their mathematical complexity, could not even “predict” the past reliably. The global temperature stopped rising, even though the CO2 kept right on rising. The worrisome phrase “global warming” got replaced by “climate change.”

          Moreover, studies of the long-term behavior of Earth’s climate showed that warm and cold periods come and go over time frames of several centuries. There are wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and the sun erupts with activity occasionally (evidenced by sunspots). Natural variations in climate, as compared to humanity’s contribution, are gradually being recognized as an important factor.

          It is impossible to prevent natural climate change, and therefore efforts toward mitigation are fruitless. Adaptation is the way to respond to the ever-changing climate. That’s what plants and animals have always done — migrating, growing fur, increasing the density of stomata in leaves, and so forth. Recent analysis indicates that the computer-predicted rise in temperature was too high by a factor of two, which provides a much larger cushion of time for a response.

          For mankind to be effective stewards of the planet, to protect the environment, we must use our intelligence. That begins with learning the basic chemistry and biology that underlie the intricate complexities of environmental science. We can’t “fix” a problem we don’t understand. Too many political leaders and environmental activists have lost sight of that prerequisite. Even the best of intentions cannot compensate for a deficiency in scientific understanding.

          The issue isn’t closed, and scientific agreement is lacking. That’s quite a change from the popular “consensus” of a decade ago. This year’s Earth Day might be a good time to focus on asking the right basic questions, so that we can work with nature to improve the planet.

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/earth_day_lesson_environment_is_not_climate.html#ixzz2RDsejVzr

        • Todd, I am a scientist. In fact I am a specialist in infrared spectroscopy and mathematical modeling like that used for the climate modeling. I have dealt with noisy data for 40 years. I have merged data with a 1000 fold differences in uncertainties. I have combined spectral data sets based upon the standards of both time and length, from microwave, laser, grating, and Fourier Transform spectroscopy. I have fit these data using least squares methods to provide the most accurate molecular constants with associated uncertainties and correlation coefficients available at the time of publishing. Despite the accuracy of the data, one could observe systematic errors between the various data sets. So while I was confident that I had extracted as much information from the data as possible and that the results accurately represented the data set, I never lost sight of the fact that there may be and likely were systematic errors that I was not aware of.

          I have also used principal component analysis and partial least squares analysis to predict properties of motor fuel from spectroscopic data. These are the same tools the climate specialists are using. Our models are used to predict properties of motor fuel and to ensure they meet EPA requirements. All models that we create are validated. That means that they have been tested against a set of samples that were not in the model data set and accurately predicted these samples to within the ASTM requirements for the measurement. No model is implemented without validation. Continuous validation after implementation is also a requirement. Like the above examples, this system is far less complex that climatology.

          The climate data has a very high variance (degree of variation) since it includes daily, seasonal, annual, decadal, and longer variations in climate/weather. This would be difficult enough for a single location on earth, but the data must also reflect global spatial variation. On top of that the mechanisms for thermal change are many, a large number of which are unknown or known only over a few centuries. Now add in the many different sources of the data, ice cores, tree rings, satellite (but only over 40 years) physical temperature measurements (but only over the last few centuries with uncertain and changing temperature standards), etc. There are also site location changes. An example would be comparing measurements made in farm land on the north end of Manhattan Island in 1750 to Harlem today.

          From all this uncertainty in the data, you expect me to believe that one can compute a meaningful average global temperature to a fraction of a °C! Not only that but you want me to believe in a model that did not predict the last decade! Then you want me to bet my fortune on schemes that may or may not reduce global “warming” over the next century! This is FOLLY.

          While I applaud the climatologists for tackling this very difficult problem, there are just too many unknowns and too much variation in the data to bet our economy on the results. It is also not certain that the increased temperatures will be harmful, or if they do occur, cannot be adapted to if we retain our wealth and apply it to adaptation rather than mitigation.

          • T-Ray,
            So you would agree the peer-reviewed survey Gman posted, that we’re discussing, is invalid? 😉

            Let’s review:

            * You do complicated research that I don’t understand. Does that make it invalid?

            * Climate research is complicated and you don’t understand it. Does that make it invalid?

            * You don’t want to “bet our economy” on trying to fix the problem.

            * You’d rather “bet our existence” (not earth or humans in general, but our advanced society) that MAYBE the increased temperatures will not be harmful, or MAYBE we can adapt by fixing the problem later rather than sooner?

            What about the island nations that are already being swamped and can’t adapt? How high will we have to build levies, and at what expense, to protect the coastal areas of the US?

            Doesn’t seem very “scientific” to me.

            It’s always easier/cheaper to fix a problem sooner than later (Do you change the oil in your car regularly? Or wait for the engine to seize up and then replace the engine?)

            Why are you so certain about your models, but feel the models on climate change can’t be unreliable? One important difference is your models are focusing on very narrow results (EPA requirements), while climate models are designed to estimate trends rather than events. We don’t need to know what the exact temperature will be at the north end of Manhattan Island on April 22, 2050. We need to know how temperatures are trending.

            Maybe this link will help. See #6 about the models.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            • Todd,
              1) I did not comment on Gman’s post. My comments are my own observations based upon 40 years of scientific work.

              2) I have no idea what you understand and don’t understand. The point was that even in much simpler systems under laboratory control, systematic measurement errors occur. Look up the history of the measurement of the speed of light. Uncertainty intervals rarely overlapped as accuracy improved.

              3) The point on Manhattan is not to predict temperatures on Manhattan but to point out that localized data can significantly change over decades and centuries. Just more fudge factors that have to be used to perturb the data to fit the model.

              I looked at your item 6 and also read the comments section. So models “validate” (track) in hindsight. Big deal. Build the model on data to 1900 and predict the 20th century. It is not valid to predict results that are used to build the model.

              The science is not settled.

            • Todd, add some skepticism to what you see and read. 30 years ago, I sat in the cafeteria of a major petroleum research center and listened to a a fellow scientist explain how solar electricity was the wave of the future. It was going to be cheap. Today that scientist is a professor at a major west coast university. He is still collecting grants to research solar cells. Had I invested in 1980 in solar electricity I would have lost it all. Had I invested in Solyndra 5 years ago, I would have lost it all. Hell come to think of it, I did invest via government. Thirty years of research and we still can not make solar cells cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

              I just heard today that Fisker was selling their electric cars for $100K+ but their real cost (investment) was 6x that per car. And still the batteries burned. Some of that was our money.

              So if you are so positive about global warming, short crop land in Kansas and Texas and buy long in Alberta and Manitoba. But use your money not mine.

              Come back to me when the Cubs win the World Series on a 40°C October day in Wrigley Field.

              • T-Ray,

                Todd, add some skepticism to what you see and read. 30 years ago, I sat in the cafeteria of a major petroleum research center and listened to a a fellow scientist explain how solar electricity was the wave of the future.

                Do you remember 40 years ago when the Federal Government started the research on Fracking?

                Had I invested in 1980 in solar electricity I would have lost it all.

                Right. That’s why government investment is needed. The time-scales are too long and the risks to great for private investment. But when break-thru’s occur, they are huge.

                But you ignore that part…

                Come back to me when the Cubs win the World Series on a 40°C October day in Wrigley Field.

                Yeah – come back to me when you’re thru with your little diversions, and want to have a serious discussion (and don’t confuse FLPatrtiot by using “C”).

  31. Homeland Security Prosecutes German Homeschool Family
    Howard Richman

    In November 2008, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike sold their grand piano (Uwe is a piano teacher) and fled to the United States with their five children. In Germany they were paying fines and being threatened with having their children taken away from them. The facts of the case are not in dispute:

    [Uwe and Hannalore] began homeschooling their children in September 2006 primarily for religious reasons. Their decision was in knowing violation of the compulsory school attendance law [of Germany]. Several times in the following months, the applicants were warned verbally and in writing that they were in violation of the compulsory school attendance law. They were fined. Police forcibly escorted the children to school one day. The adult applicants were warned that they could lose custody of their children in they continued to refuse to send their children to school. Legal proceedings resulted in the adult applicants being found guilty of violating the compulsory school attendance law. By the time the applicants left Germany, their fines had risen to approximately 7,000 Euros.

    After fleeing to the United States, they requested asylum, which was granted to them by an immigration judge on January 24, 2010. According to The Christian Post:

    In his ruling, Judge Lawrence O. Burman acknowledged that not every country can be expected to follow the United States’ Constitution. But in the case of the Romeikes, formerly of Bissingen, Germany, Burman said the rights that were being violated were “basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”

    “Homeschoolers are a particular social group that the German government is trying to suppress,” the judge stated in his decision, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which represented the family in their case.

    Though Germany is a democratic country and a U.S. ally, Burman noted Tuesday that its policy against homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans.”

    The Department of Homeland Security appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration, and on May 4, 2012, the Board or Immigration accepted their argument that since German law prevented everyone from homeschooling, the Romeike family did not have a legitimate case that they were being persecuted. Specifically, the Board of Immigration held:

    The German government has the authority to require school attendance and enforce that requirement with reasonable penalties… The compulsory school attendance law at issue in this case is a law of general application. As such, its enforcement and any prosecution under it are not persecution unless the law is selectively enforced or one is punished more severely on account of a protected ground…

    The family continues to be defended by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) which has appealed the Board of Immigration’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The first hearing of that appeal will be held on Tuesday (April 23).

    To track the case, you can go to its page on the HSLDA’s website. There you will find a link to a White House petition that you can sign. Glenn Beck interviewed the family on TheBlaze TV. Watch Part 2, if you want to meet them.

    The Department of Homeland Security’s priorities are definitely askew. When it comes to Muslim terrorists, it can’t seem to find the resources needed to track their activities. Despite a tip from Russian intelligence and an FBI interview just 2 years ago, it apparently lost track of the Boston marathon bombers. However, when it comes to peaceful Christian homeschoolers from Germany, it is able to find the resources needed to prosecute them in order to deport them from the United States.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/homeland_security_prosecutes_german_homeschool_family.html#ixzz2RCmLAQcd

  32. Test post. I seem to be blocked.

    • Is LOI still blocked?

      • I tried twice to post a article on Homeland Security deporting German, homeschool Christians at American thinker. May be in moderation. May be Obama or G has it in for homeschoolers, Christians or Germans…I’d blame Todd, but he was having the same problem so is presumed innocent at this time…

  33. The Conservative Paranoid Mind

    There’s a common thread linking conservatives’ positions on gun control, immigration, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: the constant need to stoke fear.

    Lots of good stuff – but one important point:

    Funny thing, this urge to prevent. It’s awfully selective, have you noticed? Tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of minors—many of them Muslim—have immigrated legally to the United States since 1986, the last time immigration law was substantially changed. Some of them are no doubt reprobates or drunks or criminals, but surely some are cardiologists, inventors, successful capitalists, and innovative artists. But suddenly, these two guys and these two guys alone offer some kind of proof of the need to crack down, to prevent this from happening again. Meanwhile, we have a pile of dead bodies higher than the Himalayas, the vast majority of them slain by native-born Americans who can go online or to a gun show and acquire all the weaponry and ammo they please, but we can’t ever try to do anything to prevent that. The Second Amendment is inviolate. Can’t be touched or impinged upon in any way. To do that is fascism.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/22/the-conservative-paranoid-mind.html

    Call it a hunch, but I’m thinking not as many people will be agreeing with me today… 😉

    • Hard to agree with this since it makes a false statement when lumping guns and ammo together.

      “go online or to a gun show and acquire all the weaponry and ammo they please”

      Any gun purchased online has to go to a FFL gun dealer to preform the mandated background check. No check is required for ammo purchases just as no check is required in most stores that sell ammo. As for the gun show, most dealers at gunshows also are required to preform background checks, same as if they were selling in their stores. I will agree there is a “loophole” that collectors and individuals are not required to preform such a background check. Funny thing though, the NRA has asked BTF to set up an instant background check station at all gunshows to address this issue and they have declined.

      This also ignores the Boston bombers were not legally allowed to own firearms and looks like did not obtain them legally. So none of the proposed new gun laws would have had any effect. Likewise, most of the gun deaths in America are committed by criminals who get their guns illegally. More laws have no effect on a criminal who is already breaking the law.

      • LOI,
        One line is not factually correct, so you dismiss the whole idea being presented?

        And since there are criminals breaking EVERY law, we should just get rid of all laws?

        More laws have no effect on a criminal who is already breaking the law.

        What evidence do you have to back this up?

        None. Because there isn’t any:

        For years the NRA has blocked the truth and actively fought against and prevented research on the causes and costs of gun violence because they don’t want Americans to know the truth about guns, how to prevent gun violence, and how to make themselves and their children safer. Why else would they have Congress pull gun injury prevention research funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health? Why have we put up so long with efforts to block all research on a huge public health threat that injures and kills tens of thousands of Americans every year?

        As Drs. Arthur Kellermann and Frederick Rivara write in the February 2013 Journal of the American Medical Association article “Silencing the Science on Gun Research”:

        What can be done to reduce the number of U.S. residents who die each year from firearms, currently more than 31,000 annually? … The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997.

        Instead, they note, beginning in 1996 pro-gun members of Congress began mounting an all-out effort to eliminate any funding for research connected to gun injury prevention. And as Drs. Kellermann and Rivara explain, this continued refusal to fund any research isn’t just an academic matter:

        Injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects. Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31 percent. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions. Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence? It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research.

        Why is the NRA afraid of seeking the truth and having citizens make informed decisions about how best to ensure their and their children’s safety? Their concerted campaign to hide the truth and block research is finally facing new scrutiny and opposition. President Obama’s proposed gun safety package would end the freeze on gun injury prevention research although the amounts requested are inadequate. Ignorance is not bliss or sensible or sound policy, and in the case of our national gun violence epidemic ignorance is actually fatal. We need to make decisions based on the truth and counter the NRA misinformation that has been infecting our nation.

        No single law is going to fix the problem, but we have to start somewhere. Having valid data would be a good place to start…

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Todd, Honest questions. If crimes were to stop being committed by criminals with guns, would the Left still want “common sense” gun laws? Do you really think any new laws will work?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          There is NOTHING in the laws that can prevent you and all your friends from conducting research on gun injuries.

          • Yes JAC,
            Except government institutions and grants are the major source of funding for this type if research.

            PS – I’m pretty sure you’re just waiting for this answer so you can POUNCE on the gobernt part. Have FUN!!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              Actually it is more a condemnation on the state of RESEARCH in this country today.

              There was a time when people could do this sort of thing on their OWN.

              Now they think they need to grow a snout and learn to grunt first.

        • Interesting but somewhere around here I have New York Times clipping from few years back showing that “accident'” firearms have decreased each year over the past 25 years. That is not a percentage but real numbers. So, eduction and the NRA were the answer in that case.

          When I read the NRA critique of the research you cite there were two things that they brought out. First that it included suicides and second that it included so called “gangbangers”. Furthermore, these gangbangers are also reported in “youth deaths”. There is quite a difference between a child killed by a playmate and a Shark being wasted by a Jet. I am not 100 percent sure but I also believe the 31,000 figure includes police shootings.

          The “freeze” on gun injury research was done because the “research” became advocacy.

    • “Funny thing, this urge to prevent. It’s awfully selective, have you noticed? Tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of minors—many of them Muslim—have immigrated legally to the United States since 1986, the last time immigration law was substantially changed. Some of them are no doubt reprobates or drunks or criminals, but surely some are cardiologists, inventors, successful capitalists, and innovative artists. But suddenly, these two guys and these two guys alone offer some kind of proof of the need to crack down, to prevent this from happening again.”

      HBO host Bill Maher debates guest Brian Levy, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, about the Boston Marathon Bombers’ Muslim faith playing a role in their terrorism

      “It’s not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it,” Levy claimed. “We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they’re out for God and end up doing not so nice things.”

      Maher, true to form, called his guest out and said his premise was “liberal bullshit.”

      BILL MAHER, HOST: So you’re obviously the perfect person to have here today. You study this all the time, the mind of crazy people who do horrible things. I’m always interested to know how people like the people we caught today up in Boston can have two minds going at the same time.

      I mean, if you read what the older brother wrote on his –on the internet, he said his world view [is] Islam; personal priorities: career and money. And we see this a lot. I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.

      BRIAN LEVIN: But could I just interject? Look, it’s not like people who are Muslim who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian who say they’re out for God and end up doing not so nice things.

      MAHER: You know what? Yeah, yeah. You know what? That’s liberal bullshit right there. I mean, yes, all faiths —

      LEVIN: Are there no Christian hypocrites?

      MAHER: No, there are. They’re just —

      LEVIN: You make a career on that.

      MAHER: They’re not as dangerous. I mean, there’s only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So, you know, I’m just saying, let’s keep it real. (Real Time, April 19, 2013)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      So says the LEFTY trying to make people afraid of Conservatives.

      ROTFLMAO………………..

      • Geez JAC,
        Can you read?? 😉

        I’m not “trying to make people afraid of Conservatives,” and the issue is not “trying to make people afraid of Conservatives” (although they are plenty scary – do read the stuff posted here??).

        It’s conservative members of congress, conservative pundits, and conservatives in general (see Gman’s many posts) that are making sure that other conservatives are afraid of just about everything.

        As usual, conservatives are rushing to judgment, shredding the Constitution, using the bombing as an pretext for derailing immigration reform, and generally seeking any excuse to reimpose their paranoid and authoritarian worldview, which needs fear like a vampire needs blood, on the rest of us.

        Get it?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Everybody is scary, when it comes to politics. That’s what is dividing this nation. A lot of my posts are about govt corruption. That is something that can be fixed, because politics will always be divisive and scary 🙂

          Get it? 😉

          • That is something that can be fixed

            I know. That’s what us PROGRESSIVES are doing. But you CONSERVATIVES keep getting in the way…

            PS – Did you really mean this? Or is it missing a “not”?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Yes, I get it. This guy, like all the others who play this game say “I am not trying to scare you” then they spend pages trying to scare you.

          If you want to believe this crap you are free to do so.

          As for me I will call it what it is when ever I see it.

          Want to review the list of DNC talking points surrounding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, Welfare Reform, Tax Reform, Right Wing Extremists, TBaggers, Militia, etc, etc, etc/????

          • “I am not trying to scare you” then they spend pages trying to scare you.

            I know – pretty scary, hey? BOO! 🙂

            I can’t quite put my finger on it, but where else have I seen this tactic used…still thinking…

            If you want to believe this crap you are free to do so.

            You don’t have any concerns about some Conservative comments in the past week?

            Want to review the list of DNC talking points surrounding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, Welfare Reform, Tax Reform, Right Wing Extremists, TBaggers, Militia, etc, etc, etc/????

            I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic? But if you want too, OK.

            But you don’t need to do it for me – I passed my WALNUT test last week, so I have all these memorized – plus the 4 you missed! 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Todd

              To be PERFECTLY CLEAR.

              ALL political operatives use emotion to sway public opinion. ALL OF THEM.

              The most powerful emotions for “selling” something are FEAR and SEX. SEX doesn’t sell politics very well. So fear and loathing and jealousy and coveting etc, etc, become the preferred tools. The point of my post was to remind you that they ALL do this. It is NOT a conservative trademark alone.

              So YES, I have problems with much of what is said by many people in the political debates. At least that part that is nothing more than appeal to emotion. And that applies to EVERYONE.

              Not all such efforts are limited to emotion, however. There is good reason to fear the power of our current Govt. That does not mean ALL Govt action is wrong, devious, evil, etc. It does not mean that Govt Tyranny is not real nor that it is not a threat either.

              The increasing trend of the Fed Govt to simply walk on the people is REAL. Its growing disdain for the people is REAL. The growing tyranny against Liberty is REAL.

              That is not fear mongering, it is recognition of TRUTH. Nor does it require me or anyone to live in fear. It simply requires sound thinking and RESOLVE to ACT to stop the erosion of Liberty.

              Either you don’t see this erosion or deliberately choose to ignore it. Perhaps rationalize it with your Social Democracy theory, not recognizing how quickly that model can explode in your face.

              Now here is another truth Todd, and you will probably reject it. It is the LEFT that for the past 100 years or so has used this method to demonize and scare the public into adopting its agenda. That agenda is a mix of socialism, fascism, etc, but all include more STATE CONTROL of our lives. The LEFT is not limited to Dems either. The PROGRESSIVES were Dem and Republicans from the beginning and remain so today. The terms “liberal” and “conservative” have become virtually worthless in describing the modern political values in America.

              The pattern has been repeated thousands of times. Those wanting change try to scare people into believing change is needed. Those who don’t then argue that the change will be harmful in some way. Those wanting the change then condemn those who don’t as “ignorant” and “fear mongering”. The greater the opposition to change the greater the effort to demonize those who oppose that change.

  34. Liberals: ‘We Do Want to Change Marriage’

    By Kristine Marsh | April 22, 2013 | 15:21
    11 11 Reddit0 3
    A A

    Last week, gay marriage advocates on the left began to show their true colors. It started with Slate’s Jillian Keenan advocating for polygamy and The Huffington Post’s Abby Huntsman admitting that “gay marriage opens the door to legalizing polygamy and other things.” MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry went a step further, writing in The Nation on April 15,
    that the gay marriage debate helps us to realize marriage shouldn’t really matter at all.

    “As we race to a victorious finish, it is time to begin forcefully articulating that, in fact, maybe we do want to change marriage – because while marriage should be a choice, it should not be an imperative… I hope we will be like the child who asks what difference it really makes. Because I suspect the goal of achieving this right is less about the ceremonies, the flowers, the love or even the economic benefits. I suspect the real goal is to achieve a more inclusive recognition of the authentic and enduring ways that we connect ourselves to one another, without needing the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife’ or even ‘spouse.’ The difference we want this movement to make is bigger than that.”

    While gay marriage advocates have been adamant that gay marriage won’t change anything, Harris-Perry admitted something conservatives have been saying all along: That redefining marriage does alter it; in fact, it makes it meaningless. Of course, the fact that Harris-Perry thinks marriage shouldn’t matter isn’t surprising coming from someone who believes that parents don’t matter either. The MSNBC host and Tulane professor infamously said last week, “kids belong to their communities” and not to their parents or families. Not to mention her disregard for unborn children, or as she calls them, “things” that “turn into humans.”

    The cavalier comments coming from liberals lately about marriage, family and children reveal the extreme nature of the gay marriage “movement” (as she calls it). Harris-Perry doesn’t just want “marriage equality.” She wants to disregard marriage altogether. This comes at the expense of parents, children and society. Let’s hope her opinions are only popular on the unwatched MSNBC.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2013/04/22/liberals-we-do-want-change-marriage#ixzz2RE9rM43x

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      ” without needing the words ‘husband,’ ‘wife’ or even ‘spouse.’ ”

      The unsaid part of this is that to them the words “husband”, “wife” and “spouse” have a DEROGATORY meaning.

      Where as us old fashioned stick in the mud types think these words have SPECIAL and IMPORTANT and POSITIVE meaning.

  35. Bottom Line says:

    @ V

    ” I am sorry that your search for answers has caused you to feel so negatively against Christians. ”

    Don’t get me wrong, V. It’s not like I hate Christians or anything. I have a lot of Christian family and friends. It’s just that I get enormously frustrated with the arrogance and stubbornness, that’s all.

    And for whatever it’s worth…You’re a Christian, and I think yer totally awesome cool.

    ” But you need to think about the fact that you are using the internet-you know as well as I do that although the internet is great in a lot of ways-it is also a very handy place for the extreme to hang out. ”

    Indeed. You make a very good point here.

    ” If you want to learn about Christianity-read the Bible-ask God to help you see his meaning. Use a Bible study guide if you want to get the opinion of theologian scholars. After doing these things -find yourself a Church and talk to another human being face to face. If you believe the Church isn’t following the true word-dust off your feet and go to another Church. But remember it is almost impossible to find a perfect anything. So try to be righteous not self-righteous-you will find both in almost all walks of life and you’ll find that even you and I and John down the street sometimes are self-righteous, judgmental, and just wrong-so give people the benefit of the doubt when you can. Now I feel like I’m starting to preach -so moving on. 🙂

    And understand that people have a tendency to insult each other-most of the time without even realizing that we are being insulting. Understand that being stubborn isn’t always just being stubborn-it is sometimes refusing to let go of the truth-even if one isn’t always able to articulate an answer. ”

    I really appreciate your advice, though I am not sure how helpful it is.

    There is an underlying reason for my curiosity of religion. And no church is gonna help…not with what I am dealing with. I wish I could share, but it’s a bit complicated. I should probably just shut up.

    BTW, I’ve used that site/link you provided COUNTLESS times. Indeed it is a good site. I even have a copy of the bible on my hard drive.

    🙂

  36. Bottom Line says:

    @ Anita

    ” Point of order!

    This is de ja vu all over again. I have been in many discussions with a couple friends over just this subject in the last couple months. What’s up? ”

    Evolution. …among other things. I’ll let you know when I figure it out.

    ” Why are you separating Catholics from Christians? ”

    Well, I see that a lot of people make the distinction. I am not exactly sure what it is, I just thought I would go with the flow.

    • It’s just weird. I had never heard anyone make that distinction before it came up with my friends. I have been a non practicing Catholic in my adult years, but I did 12 yrs (hard time) in Catholic school. I can assure you Catholics are Christians. My one friend,especially is convinced that Catholics, specifically the Vatican, will be the cause of mankind’s demise, which he says is imminent. It’s a long story and there’s no way I can shorten it up but I’m sure it will be part of our conversations forever. Just remember me when it comes up in your life next time. Tell them Anita said Catholics are Christian. 🙂

      • Bottom Line says:

        ” It’s just weird. I had never heard anyone make that distinction before it came up with my friends.”

        I never did either until recently. I suppose I’ll put it on my list of questions. I’m not sure why there are even different denominations of Christianity. It’s all about interpretation I suppose.

        ” I have been a non practicing Catholic in my adult years, but I did 12 yrs (hard time) in Catholic school. I can assure you Catholics are Christians.”

        My grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, cousins …were raised Christian/Catholic and went to Catholic schools. There are a few of us that went to public school. My family are mostly Christians. My uncle is a preacher.

        I am kind of a ‘black sheep’ so to speak. I remember at a very early age sitting in church getting bored with Latin ‘blabbering’. I started causing a disruption, so my mom grabbed me and left. The next time, I had already figured out that all I had to do to get outta there was to refuse to behave. It worked. My mom was pretty fed up with the church anyway. I don’t remember going to church after that.

        “My one friend,especially is convinced that Catholics, specifically the Vatican, will be the cause of mankind’s demise, which he says is imminent.”

        Perhaps it isn’t “will be”, but rather “already has”, it just hasn’t yet taken effect. I don’t think we’re all gonna die though, …maybe a bunch of people, and only because people are stupid and/or evil.

        As I understand, the Catholic church was instrumental in the early development of Christianity as a state sanctioned religion. Note the big SUN DIAL in the courtyard. And how come Christmas is so close to the winter solstice? Hmmmmm…

        BTW, have you ever been there? St. Peter is a beautiful church. I’d just love to destroy it. I call it ‘pedo-headquarters’.

        ” It’s a long story and there’s no way I can shorten it up but I’m sure it will be part of our conversations forever.”

        Indeed. This stuff can get pretty complex and long winded when you start delving into it.

        ” Just remember me when it comes up in your life next time. Tell them Anita said Catholics are Christian. ”

        Right on – will do.

  37. Bottom Line says:

    @ Todd

    ” Thanks. I get it.

    One thing about some of your “probing” questions or comments – they can be hard to understand, and many times I think that’s intentional.

    That doesn’t foster open communication (I’m still bummed I’m not the “unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall!!”), it causes confusion and can make people defensive.

    There are “some people” who are just looking for the opportunity to be “offended,” so don’t give them that opening…”

    Point taken.

    Yeah, I know…the nature of my game can be confusing sometimes. I can sometimes demonstrate guile. I’ve been that way since I was very young.

    I suppose when I do things like that it is to spark curiosity in hopes that someone will think ‘WTF?” and go look it up. It’s also why I like to state things in question form. It’s to provoke thought and/or wonderment.

    And if it makes you feel better, I can make it a point to call you a unwitting neo-Pagan-Christian-brick wall on occasion. 🙂

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    I was wondering why they needed that new spy center in Utah. The most dangerous 19 year old ever is talking. They got their info from the internet and no one helped them. The govt has been wanting to spy on everything internet, that will be allowed soon (they do it anyway). Could this mean censorship? Maybe they will find a way to ban major parts of the internet, like conservative blogs 🙄 Feinstein can claims there are just to many keys on the keyboard and they need to be reduced. Anybody want to do a pool on which Dem Governor is the first to sign some kneejerk law?

  39. I sure don’t know why everybody is in such turmoil?

    1) the guns will stay.
    2) there is no credible evidence for or against global warming/cooling
    3) there is no credible evidence denying or proving the existence of any god in any religion
    4) the sun will continue to rise in the East and it will continue to set in the West
    5) There will be no immigration reform….just amnesty and no border security
    6) this administration will just say that “self radicalization” is the new extremist right and the Progressives will believe it.
    7) there will be no tax code reform, just more taking.
    8) there will be no “entitlement” reform, just greater taxes.
    9) there will be no World Series, Super Bowl, or little league ball because to win and be the best will be considered politically incorrect
    10) pressure cookers will become registered
    11) cars and alcohol will continue to be around even though they kill thousands more than guns
    12) dogs and cats living together
    13) women are from earth…men are from earth…live with it.

    And all of you are worried.

    • Oh…good morning all.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Good morning back at ya Sir!

        One disagreement. There are definitely ALIENS on earth masquerading as human women. Their numbers are hard to know but they are powerful and evident if one only looks. For example, check out the NOW leadership.

        Best to you and yours this fine day.

      • ‘Morning Colonel & you were right.

        I checked and my small town has two fertilizer plants, one just outside city limits and one in old downtown. I have started talking to some people about erecting a berm as a safety measure. I’m thinking twelve ft high but have no ideal if or how much it would protect surrounding people and dwellings. Any thoughts or do you know an explosives expert?
        Would six, eight, ten or twenty ft ht make any difference? (the higher you make it, the more it will cost and space it will require)

    • Immigration reform welcomes drunks & gangbangers, as long as they pinky swear they quit.

      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54653

  40. I’m starting to think that charlie and Todd are the same person. When charlie posts alot Todd does not and vise versa. It looks like the charlie persona is used when Todd wants to insult people and the Todd mask is worn when they want to be condescending.

    Has anyone seen charlie and Todd in the same room together?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      FLP

      Yes.

    • FLPatriot,
      Taking little cheap-shots again? Do you want my “definition” of when the FLPatriot “mask” is used??

      You seem to have a hard time participating in one conversation without resorting to deflections.

      Try participating in 8-10 at the same time…

      PS – don’t believe JAC – he’s kinda SHIFTY! 😉 (I had to be REALLY careful while I typed that – didn’t want any “Freudian Slips”!)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Funnnnnnnnnnnnny! 🙂

        I see your in for some more good SNOW. At this rate you’ll be skiing into JUNE.

      • “Do you want my “definition” of when the FLPatriot “mask” is used??” If you want to, it’s still a free country for now.

    • PPS – maybe Todd-Charlie will just let you guys play by yourselves for a while…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        That would be a shame.

        • JAC,
          Not really leaving, but I have been spending too much time here recently. Got other stuff to do.

          And it’s not because of FLPatriot – that was just a funny coincidence.

          The snow just missed us – went west and north. We got an inch – freshened things up a bit. I skied tonight – it was a little soft but still good. Should freeze tonight and tomorrow should be great! Might be able to ski Friday, but after that it’s probably done. That’s ok – even I’m ready for Spring!

      • Please don’t deny us our “devil’s advocate”, it really is a good adition to SUFA.

        I’ll give you credit Todd, most leftist avoid debates and I appreciate that you take the time to contribute here.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Why are Conservatives happier than Liberals/Progressives?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html?_r=0

    We Radical Right Wing Liberals may be the happiest of them all.

  42. On Friday, Matt Sheffield and Bob Owens and other conservative bloggers spread the news that Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sent pro-Obama tweets out on Election Night, retweeting one that said “Barack you my dawg” and hailing how “america is impervious to the f–kery #justforthisoneday.”

    Speaking of impervious, Politico reporter Josh Gerstein reported on Monday that “The Boston Marathon bombing suspects’ geopolitical leanings are still largely a mystery, and so is their American political outlook, after a review of records in this city where they lived for the last several years.”

    Gerstein ignored the Twitter scoop, and focused only on voting records: “Though there have been reports that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were registered to vote and there are entries in commercial databases indicating they were, they were not according to the documents available at the Cambridge Elections Commission.” The headline was “Boston bombing suspects not registered to vote.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/04/23/politico-ignores-dzhokhars-pro-obama-tweets-reports-no-obvious-political#ixzz2RIllK4iu

  43. The more we learn, the worse it gets. Isn’t O on a fund raising trip today for this organization?

    http://www.therightscoop.com/cbn-news-former-planned-parenthood-clinic-manager-speaks-out-about-webcam-abortions/

    • Funny-seems all those other, oh so important functions Planned Parenthood performs aren’t important at all if their abortion mill part of the business is endangered. Guess all those woman they care so much about and all the other functions that the government must give them money to cover don’t matter at all in the long run except of course as away to get all that money. Oh and those transvaginal ultrasounds that are so invasive and dangerous-anyone can preform those-hey why waste the money.

  44. Some good info on the “must do this right now” immigration bill.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/23/dissecting-the-gang-of-8s-enforcement-sham/

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Todd

    Re: the issue of GDP and its weakness.

    Above you used the “use” of GDP by national Govt’s and financial institutions as the argument supporting its utility. This carries obvious flaws in argument and thus fails to deal with the weakness of the criteria directly. The following is taken from Wiki, and the first warning is from the guy who developed the concept of GDP. Which if you notice was not used until the late 1930’s.

    Simon Kuznets, the economist who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of national income, stated in his first report to the US Congress in 1934, in a section titled “Uses and Abuses of National Income Measurements”:[4]

    The valuable capacity of the human mind to simplify a complex situation in a compact characterization becomes dangerous when not controlled in terms of definitely stated criteria. With quantitative measurements especially, the definiteness of the result suggests, often misleadingly, a precision and simplicity in the outlines of the object measured. Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification. […]

    All these qualifications upon estimates of national income as an index of productivity are just as important when income measurements are interpreted from the point of view of economic welfare. But in the latter case additional difficulties will be suggested to anyone who wants to penetrate below the surface of total figures and market values. Economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.

    In 1962, Kuznets stated:[25]

    Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.

    Austrian School economist Frank Shostak has argued that GDP is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world, and, therefore, has little or no value in economic analysis. Says Shostak:[26]

    The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption. For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth.

    So what are we to make out of the periodical pronouncements that the economy, as depicted by real GDP, grew by a particular percentage? All we can say is that this percentage has nothing to do with real economic growth and that it most likely mirrors the pace of monetary pumping. We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world.

    Many environmentalists argue that GDP is a poor measure of social progress because it does not take into account harm to the environment.[27][28]

    Todd, there is a key error in your statement to FLP. As I recall you claimed that GDP was a measure of the economic “wealth” of a country. It is NOT a measure of “wealth”. Again note the warning by Mr. Kuznet.

    I would add that it is not even a good measure of “economic health”. Because “health” gets into things like sustainability.

    GDP is simply a measure of ALL spending on goods and services. Because it includes Govt spending it can create a false positive regarding the nations economic condition.

    Just imagine if ALL spending were done by Govt and there was no longer a Private Sector. This would not affect GDP one bit. But would you consider that MORE healthy or productive or vibrant or ????

    Also notice the problem with adjusting for “inflation” when comparing GDP from year to year.

    There really is no good way to “accurately” identify “inflation” as opposed to growth in spending due to expansion.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    A little something in OPPOSITION to the Krugman/Bernanke view of economics.

    A Good Talk for the Classroom
    by Mark Thornton

    Murray Rothbard argued that the cause of the Great Depression was the result of Herbert Hoover’s New Deal policies which sought to keep wages and profits high. Robert Higgs, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway extended this thesis to include FDR’s New Deal policies which created artificially high prices and profits and prevented the normal market correction processes, reduced employment, and consumer demand.

    Here is a great video of Lee Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, explaining how FDR kept the free market from working. It would make a great video to show in classroom.
    DiLorenzo on the Depression
    by John Cochran

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo in this 2004 Mises Daily, “The New Deal Debunked (again),” provides information behind the Ohanian video referred to above and the work by Cole and Ohanian.

    Highlights from DiLorenzo:

    Macroeconomic model builders have finally realized what Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn (among others) knew in the 1930s: FDR’s New Deal made the Great Depression longer and deeper. It is a myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt “got us out of the Depression” and “saved capitalism from itself,” as generations of Americans have been taught by the state’s educational establishment.

    This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis,” by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.

    And,

    On top of that, virtually every single one of FDR’s “New Deal” policies made things even worse and prolonged the Depression. Austrian economists have known this for decades, but at least the neoclassical model builders have finally caught on—we can hope.

    In this regard the most disappointing thing about the Cole-Ohanian article is that they do not even cite the pioneering work of Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway—Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth Century America—first published in 1993.

    Indeed, it is somewhat scandalous that they do not cite this well-known work while making essentially the same arguments that Vedder and Gallaway do.

    And,

    This last conclusion—that the abandonment of FDR’s policies “coincided” with the recovery of the 1940s is very well documented by another author who is also ignored by Cole and Ohanian, Robert Higgs. In “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War” (Independent Review, Spring 1997), Higgs showed that it was the relative neutering of New Deal policies, along with a reduction (in absolute dollars) of the federal budget from $98.4 billion in 1945 to $33 billion in 1948, that brought forth the economic recovery. Private-sector production increased by almost one-third in 1946 alone, as private capital investment increased for the first time in eighteen years.

    Too bad the true lesson has not been learned. DiLorenzo’s lesson:

    In short, it was capitalism that finally ended the Great Depression, not FDR’s hair-brained cartel, wage-increasing, unionizing, and welfare state expanding policies.

    Free-market capitalism is what is needed to generate real recovery from the current Great Recession. Slow recovery, or a double dip recession, will be the future with the continuation of the Fed-supported Bush-Obama hare-brained Keynesian stimulus spending, accompanied by war and welfare state expanding policies which are again generating significant regime uncertainty.
    Rothbard Vindicated Again
    by Joseph Salerno

    In 2009, Lee Ohanian published the article, “What—or Who—Started the Great Depression,” in the prestigious Journal of Economic Theory (JET) in which he cited Murray Rothbard. For this article, Ohanian spent four years poring over wage data and culling information from sources related to Hoover and his administration. Based on his research, Ohanian argued that Hoover’s policy of propping up wages and encouraging work sharing “was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression” and resulted in “a significant labor market distortion.” In a Mises Daily article in September 2009, I called attention to the importance of Ohanian’s article. Here is part of what I wrote:

    Ohanian contends that Hoover’s policy of propping up wages and encouraging work sharing “was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression” and resulted in “a significant labor market distortion.”

    Thus, “the recession was three times worse—at a minimum—than it otherwise would have been, because of Hoover.”

    The main reason is that in September 1931, nominal wage rates were 92 percent of their level of two years earlier. Since a significant price deflation had occurred during these two years, real wages rose by 10 percent during the same period, while gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 27 percent. By contrast, during 1920–1921—a period that was accompanied by a severe deflation—“some manufacturing wages fell by 30 percent. GDP, meanwhile, only dropped by 4 percent.”

    As Ohanian notes, “The Depression was the first time in the history of the US that wages did not fall during a period of significant deflation.” Ohanian estimates that the severe labor-market disequilibrium induced by Hoover’s policies accounted for 18 percent of the 27 percent decline in the nation’s GDP by the fourth quarter of 1931.

    Regarding the now-conventional explanations of the Great Depression, such as widespread bank failures and the severe contraction of the money supply, Ohanian points out that these two events did not occur to a significant extent until mid-1931, which was two years after the implementation of Hoover’s industrial labor market policies.

    Moreover, Ohanian argues,

    any monetary explanation of the Depression requires a theory of very large and very protracted monetary nonneutrality. Such a theory has been elusive because the Depression is so much larger than any other downturn, and because explaining the persistence of such a large nonneutrality requires in turn a theory for why the normal economic forces that ultimately undo monetary nonneutrality were grossly absent in this episode.

    The conclusion of Ohanian’s paper is quite—one is tempted to say “hardcore”—Rothbardian.

    The Great Depression that quickly superseded and distorted the benign recession-adjustment process was not in any sense caused by monetary deflation but by government-induced nominal wage rigidities, which of course can be temporarily circumvented by surreptitiously reducing real wages via unanticipated monetary expansion. Thus writes Ohanian:

    I conclude that the Depression is the consequence of government programs and policies, including those of Hoover, that increased labor’s ability to raise wages above their competitive levels. The Depression would have been much less severe in the absence of Hoover’s program. Similarly, given Hoover’s program, the Depression would have been much less severe if monetary policy had responded to keep the price level from falling, which raised real wages. This analysis also provides a theory for why low nominal spending—what some economists refer to as deficient aggregate demand—generated such a large depression in the 1930s, but not in the early 1920s, which was a period of comparable deflation and monetary contraction, but when firms cut nominal wages considerably.

  47. Just A Citizen says:
  48. Why does the left sympathize with terrorists? Perhaps Todd can answer? I don’t get it. Now it could be about (possible) concussions? What is so hard to grasp about radical Islam?

    http://www.therightscoop.com/an-article-you-wouldnt-see-in-print-if-the-boston-bombers-were-christian-or-tea-party-or-right-wingers/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      Why is this considered as “sympathizing with terrorists”??????

      It very well could be related to concussion if he in fact suffered from many. But that is purely speculative at this point.

      Brain damage can lead to people being led into all kinds of things. Or of acting irrationally. This fellow displayed aggression and violence in his not to distant past. This could all be related.

      The doesn’t eliminate nor cause “sympathy” for terrorism or any other criminal act. But it certainly could explain it.

      • Sure JAC – there’s been a lot of reported cases of concussions leading to jihad. Suicide? Maybe.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Kathy

          There are thousands of cases of head injuries leading to VIOLENT behavior. To imbalanced and irrational behavior. Suicide is only one of the outcomes.

          So what are you afraid of by looking into this possible connection to why he might have flipped to the Jihadist mentality?

          It makes no difference in the crime. Does it pose some threat to the narrative of Islam and Jihad that causes you concern?

          Besides, it would only apply to the older brother. The younger one may have been influenced but he was an ADULT when he decided to KILL PEOPLE. That is a CRIME by any standard.

      • JAC….because it is. I know you see through the charade. You have to……

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Some times it is and some times it isn’t.

          The key is to know the difference.

          And of course how to use it later to show the “hypocrisy” when it is applicable.

          • Your replies are interesting. I remember you defended Hasan at first too.

            AceofSpades has some good points towards the bottom of this page:

            http://twitchy.com/2013/04/23/sick-of-hearing-what-a-great-kid-he-is-the-five-twitterers-slam-media-hand-wringing-over-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Kathy

              Defended Hasan??? I sure don’t remember defending Hasan.

              I might have defended his right to trial under our laws. But how is that defending HIM personally or his actions???

              Is that your standard? If I stand behind our Constitution but you don’t like the outcome I am defending a terrorist?

              Let me ask you one. Do you support Lindsy Grahams desire to simply declare this 19 year old American Citizen as an enemy combatant, so that he can suspend his rights to due process??

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Kathy

              P.S. on the L. Graham rhetoric. Did you notice that his statements confirmed BF’s and others claims about what the Law was regarding declaring CITIZENS located within the US as Enemy Combatants and thus subject to military justice and/or Unilateral Assassination??

              Yes, that would mean that if Mr. Graham gets his way that every thing I said about the law would be WRONG. Well at least it would have been subverted.

              Open the door a crack and you had better jump back. Because the BEAST is sure to push his way into your home.

              • Knock – Knock…

                Just “Open the door a crack”…nothing to be afraid of here…

                Land Shark!

              • See reply above. US Citizen.

                I think the beast has already pushed its way in – the videos showing the house to house searches in Watertown showed us exactly what government feels it has the right to do.

      • JAC,
        I’m glad to see you can at least some value in this.

        This rolls-up everything I’ve been talking about. Scare tactics, ignoring science, and placing blame where it fits conveniently into “your” ideology.

        Just a few days ago the Colonel declared this Islamic Jihad. When I questioned that he said I might be the only one to see that way. Maybe, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true…

        I’ve been told many time to “wait until all the evidence is in before I pass judgment.” That never seems to apply to the right…

        Don’t let them drag you in – you might be the only “sane” voice left here…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Now your freakin me out. I’m writing this down on my calendar.

          Make no mistake…………..the SAME STANDARD should apply to EVERYONE.

          So yes, the evidence should be presented.

          And I see no reason to link consideration of mental illness with “sympathizing with terrorists”.

          There is one valid point, however. Well maybe valid, because it obviously requires a hypothetical.

          That is whether certain “pundits” would raise the same questions about a “white right winger”. But then maybe the left has already poisoned the well with all these “studies” concluding right wingers are off their rocker. We should thank them for giving us an “excuse” in advance.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Todd

          Furthermore, I do see utility in answering the question about mental illness due to injury or any other cause.

          It would seem useful to me to understand WHY people turn violent whether via Jihad or otherwise. I see no difference between this and that nut job who shot up the grade school. The more we understand you would think the greater the chance to prevent future disasters.

          But that is just the rational side of me thinking out loud. Apparently that offends some of the “progressive Republicans” or the “Conservatives”.

  49. How did the cable “news” networks make out on Boston bomb coverage:

    “In primetime, FNC garnered 2.874 million viewers on average for the week compared with No. 2 USA’s 2.621 million. CNN also climbed the cable ladder to finish No. 3 with 1.985 million viewers overall on average. History Channel was in fourth with 1.937 million viewers and A&E was fifth with 1.928 million.”

    How did MSNBC do? “Rival cable news network MSNBC was 19th in the cable primetime rankings with 923,000 viewers on average for the week and 16th in the total-day ranking with 578,000.”

    http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/fox-news-tops-all-cable-for-1st-time-since-2005/

  50. You might be a redneck…..

  51. gmanfortruth says:

    Good day 🙂 I’m waiting on more news on therapy for this mess of neck disc’s that I have. Soon I hope, or trips back to Y-town to help with the issue. That’s life now, and many more will experience this as the train wreck called ObamaCare moves forward. Shameful ! This is all because of Gubmint! When this is done, you’s lefties are DONE! 😉

    Seriously, I will start a new thread in the morning. Glad to JAC is with me on the Tyranny issue! Glad that Todd is still holding up the Left’s side, Charlie’s feelings are hurt, so who knows if he’ll be back,

    Kinda of coincindental that we had the Boston bombing and the Ricin mail scare right after. Spooky how that brings back memories of 9-11 and the weeks after.

    Rock on!

  52. Federal Government decides to shut down immigration reform for the time being citing too many loopholes…….interesting.

  53. gmanfortruth says:

    The land of liberals! Ya’ll can keep it for yourselves, just stay out of my business! http://www.prisonplanet.com/bostons-progressives-we-support-our-voluntary-police-state.html

  54. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/bloomberg-constitution-will-have-to-change-more-cameras-needed.html

    Bloomberg and all his lovers are WRONG! More cameras will not stop violence, they will, maybe, help catch the bad guys. That’s not much help to the victims.

    The problem with the left is they think that laws and cameras will make a difference. They will not, and Todd, you know why? Cause the bad guys will adapt. Real simple. You asked how will new gun laws “not work”? You just got your answer. Laws will not stop criminals, period. Deal with it. If the Left wants to be helpless, go for it, make it a personal decision, but don’t force your ideals on the rest of us.

    Understand?

  55. President Obama today…….it is reported by supposedly reliable sources that Syria is using WMD’s on its people. Obama said this would be a “game changer” for intervention. There is no proof, however………..interesting concept….intervention through rumor? I believe we have been there before…….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Colonel, When has our so called political leaders needed a valid reason for military action against a foreign nation under Obama? UMM, NEVER 🙄

  56. This is interesting. Wish I could see the actual tape. It says it is an interview that Chris Matthews did with the now Pope, before he was named such. It apparently was never aired.
    I can see why. (Cannot verify authenticity…..)

    http://angelqueen.org/2013/04/13/interview-with-pope-before-he-was-pope/

  57. gmanfortruth says:
    • LOL…….you have to be kidding.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Todd

      Not sure what this is supposed to be an Exhibit A for. From the same article:

      “It is hard to believe that just days after the cowardly acts of terror took place in our backyard that Representative Tremblay would thoroughly discredit herself with her bizarre, embarrassing and unfounded comments,” state GOP executive director Matthew Slater told Patch. “New Hampshire Republicans strongly reject her outlandish views and believe that anybody who holds such bizarre beliefs should not be taken seriously.”

      Also from the article is the acknowledgement that the author has no idea what comment by Beck that Tremblay is referring to in her comments.

  58. Nuts for America!

%d bloggers like this: