Fathers Day, a Reflection

Sunday many will celebrate Fathers Day. This will also be a time of mourning for those whose fathers are no longer with us. Let us not forget that this day is not always a happy one. It shouldn’t be for any of us.   We are failing our fathers and their fathers before them.  We are allowing a tyrannical govt to take over every aspect of our lives and we are too cowardly to stand up a fight them.  Our Govt is lost, they have become too corrupt to fix at any level above the local level.  Many County Govt’s are just as bad as the Fed’s.  So what should we all really do to celebrate Father’s Day?  I will submit that we all denounce the Federal Government’s actions and tell them they are no longer an effective organization as written in the Constitution.  They have overstepped their approved authority, by passing illegal laws that give them the illegal authority.  Enough is enough!  Let’s give our Fathers a real present, a promise to fight for freedom and liberty, as the Founding Fathers of this nation did.  The freedom and liberty of future generations is the best gift any father could ever ask for,  it’s time to make that promise, to those living and to those who have passed.  Let’s make Fathers Day a day to truly remember in 2013.   God Bless America! God Bless our Fathers too!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:
  2. gmanfortruth says:
  3. Let’s not! 🙂 How about everyone go to their own corners and celebrate being a family and leave politics out of it…jus sayin.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes Anita, Let’s just make more excuses for ignoring it it. What corner do you want to go to, the one being filmed by drones, the one being listened to by the FBI, the one being watched by the DHS or the one being broadcast live to the White House by the State Dept? Jus sayin 🙂

      • G, G, G…No need in persecuting me for not wanting to play the game for a day. Are you going to save the USA on Sunday? Part of the game is mental. You mean to tell me you can’t let it go for a day? Freedom is also a state of mind. Stop,step back and smell the roses sometimes. It doesn’t hurt 😉

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Fear not my dear friend, I will be my usual cheerful self on Sunday 🙂 Today, however, ain’t Sunday, LOL. I do have to work the garden today, which will take most of the afternoon. My father already understands the problems, (he hates Obama, the old school way) so I won’t have to tell him anything.

        • Anita,

          It’s not Father’s Day yet-so I’m gonna continue to rant today and probably tomorrow 🙂

          • Rant away V. I’m sure you’ll be doing your share of partying Sunday. G….He needs a time out! 🙂
            Now I’m going down to find Bottom Line.

  4. I would like to take a moment to wish the US Army a happy birthday, 238 years ago. We should also take a moment today to observe “Flag day”.

    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I second the motion 🙂 We fly 3 different flags here, the US flag, a POW/MIA flag and the Gadsden flag. Plus separate flags and holders for special occasions and holidays. While I don’t have any love for our government, I do love this country. PEACE 🙂

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/trayvon-martin-supporter-tries-to-infiltrate-zimmerman-jury-2682802.html

    Even a fair trial is of no desire by the Progressives. JAC, are the Progressives the real enemy of the people, or just one side of the next Civil War?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      When I refer to Progressives I use the Capital “P” to identify them as the core radicals. Those who carry on the agenda of the original Progressives that are Socialist in nature. The “P” Progressive movement is responsible for development of FASCISM around the world.

      Now over time and due to many causes we have discussed here, many Americans have come to accept Progressive’s agenda as good or benign. Because all they see is things like “equal protection” or “civil rights”, etc, etc. They don’t realize that America’s “IMPERIALISTIC” tendencies come from the “P”rogressive Movement.

      Because so many Americans see them as neutral, good or disconnected it is hard to say they are the “enemy” of the American People. If so then we could say the American People are their own enemy. While there is truth in that I don’t think it is accurate enough to have meaningful debate and education.

      So in my mind the “P” Progressives are ENEMIES of Freedom, Liberty and Justice. They are Anti-American, where American is defined by our “Traditional LIBERAL” principles.

      They are ALSO one side in a potential Civil War. They are the “radicals” , the ones who are always screaming angry accusation at anyone who disagrees with them. They are the destructive force within the Democrat’s Party, that currently holds control over that Party.

      My point on the Civil War is that IF we freedom loving types were to begin being successful in turning back the tide, in restoring traditional American principles and Constitutional adherence, I think these hard core types would get violent. That is one trigger.

      The other is if THEY were to move to quickly in their power grab and set off the “right wing radicals”.

  6. It is flag day….mine are out.

    • It certainly points out that the bottomline problem is government is too large and powerful.

  7. Freedom: The Unfolding Revolution
    Jonah Goldberg | Jun 14, 2013
    Jonah Goldberg
    Recommend this article

    Comments 66

    It’s a little bizarre how the left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress. The idea that rulers — be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos or wonkish bureaucrats — are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man’s discovery of fire by millennia. And yet, we’re always told that the latest rationalization for increased state power is the “wave of the future.”

    That phrase, “the wave of the future,” became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another — fascism, communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn’t progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These “waves of the future” were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.

    The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it’s still unfolding.

    Indeed, what’s remarkable about all of the states Lind identifies as proof that libertarianism doesn’t work are in fact proof that it does. What made the American experiment new were its libertarian innovations, broadly speaking. Moreover, those innovations made us prosper. Even Sweden — the liberal Best in Show — owes its successes to its libertarian concessions.

    I’m actually not a full-blown libertarian myself, but it’s an ideal I’d like America to move closer to, not further away from as we’ve been doing of late — bizarrely in the name of “progress” of all things.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2013/06/14/freedom-the-unfolding-revolution-n1619386/page/2

    • I just realized I accidentally posted just the second page of this article-thought I pushed that button to make the article one page. Sorry- but this is page 1

      Freedom: The Unfolding Revolution
      Jonah Goldberg | Jun 14, 2013
      Jonah Goldberg

      “Why are there no libertarian countries?”

      In a much-discussed essay for Salon magazine, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”

      Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.

      Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign, he is the captain of himself.

      It’s true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America’s great, but it ain’t perfect. Sweden’s social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.

      Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They’re ideals. They’re goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.

      In the old Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and today’s North Korea, they tried to move toward the ideal communist system. Combined, they killed about 100 million of their own people. That’s a hefty moral distinction right there: When freedom-lovers move society toward their ideal, mistakes may be made, but people tend to flourish. When the hard left is given free reign, millions are murdered and enslaved. Which ideal would you like to move toward?

      Lind sees it differently. “If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried …”

      What an odd standard. You know what else is a complete failure? Time travel. After all, it’s never succeeded anywhere!

      What’s so striking about the Lind standard is how thoroughly conservative it is.

      Pick a date in the past, and you can imagine someone asking similar questions. “Why should women have equal rights?” some court intellectual surely asked. “Show me anywhere in the world where that has been tried.” Before that, “Give the peasants the right to vote? Unheard of!”

      In other words, there’s a first time for everything.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Says alot about the leftist’s and what they really want. Lot’s of dead people 😦

    • Reading this-all I could think was-this sounds just like a Union Thug. The IRS has become nothing more than a group of Union Thugs.

  8. The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission

    By George Neumayr on 6.14.13 @ 6:09AM

    In its upcoming Sunday magazine, it acknowledges most women turned away from clinics are happy they gave birth.

    Talk about burying the lead. In a piece in its upcoming Sunday magazine, the New York Times allows in an absurdly roundabout way that a recent study has found that the vast majority of women denied abortions end up glad that they gave birth.

    If you blink, you might miss the decisive quote from the researcher, Diana Greene Foster. It comes very late in the piece: “About 5 percent of the women, after they have had the baby, still wish they hadn’t. And the rest of them adjust.”

    Put less grudgingly, Foster’s conclusion is that almost all the women in the study were happy they gave birth. That should have been the headline of the piece. Instead, the headline strikes a foreboding note: “What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?” One waits and waits for the answer and at last it comes, appearing at the conclusion of a rambling anecdote about a disadvantaged woman whom the author labels “S.”:

    S. now says that Baby S. is the best thing that ever happened to her. “She is more than my best friend, more than the love of my life,” S. told me, glowingly. There were white spit-up stains on her green top. “She is just my whole world.”

    The author of the piece is Joshua Lang, a student in the U.C. Berkeley-U.C.S.F. Joint Medical Program. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Lang quickly trots out a bioethicist to explain away this troubling pro-life finding with some quasi-Darwinian mumbo-jumbo:

    Some would use these data as justification to further restrict abortion — women rarely regret having a child, even one they thought they didn’t want. But as Katie Watson, a bioethicist at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, points out, we tell ourselves certain stories for a reason. “It’s psychologically in our interest to tell a positive story and move forward,” she says…

    These women are telling themselves a positive story? No, they are experiencing a positive story, a story as timeless as the natural law’s first precept: preserving innocent human life is good; taking human life is evil. “S.” didn’t need the half-baked theorizing of an egghead to figure that out.

    The women in Foster’s study all wanted abortions. She restricted her study to so-called “turnaways,” women who were turned away from clinics, usually because they arrived too close to the viability point of the unborn child and the abortionists didn’t feel comfortable or legally free to proceed. This complicates the story even more for the Times, as it makes the change of heart even more dramatic. But Lang works hard to find a dark lining in this white cloud:

    Yet it is still true that being denied an abortion resulted in some measurable negative effects for S. She had to give up work and her apartment, and her precarious finances became more precarious. When women seek abortion, you have to ask yourself, Foster says, what is the alternative they are trying to avoid? And how might the life of a turnaway look if she’d had the abortion she sought? “You would need to look at the people who managed to get the abortion and find whether a woman who started out similarly is now in school, building a stable relationship, career or, possibly, that later she had a baby she was ready for.”

    Lang mentions hopefully a case of a woman whose abortion freed her up to find a “job operating heavy machinery at a manufacturing plant for $15 an hour.” He is eager to show that giving birth has many “negative” effects on the mothers and children, as if his calculus trumps the unexpected contentment of the turnaways. He reluctantly allows that “there is a chance” S. and her baby will “thrive.”

    The piece is comically conflicted. Researcher Foster, whose pro-abortion bias is clear, also sounds a bit crestfallen. She says early in the piece, “The unstated assumption of most new abortion restrictions — mandatory ultrasound viewing, waiting periods, mandated state ‘information’— is that women don’t know what they are doing when they try to terminate a pregnancy. Or they can’t make a decision they won’t regret.” But she can’t refute the assumption now that her subjects stand as testimony to it.

    A study that pro-aborts hoped would undermine pro-life claims is instead buttressing them. By the end of the piece, Foster sounds a bit discombobulated, as if she doesn’t know where all this might lead. “If abortion hurts women,” she tells Lang, “I definitely want to know.”

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/14/the-grey-ladys-grudging-aborti

  9. Bottom Line says:

    Romanticized statist propaganda and worship of nationalist idolatry and symbolism only works to assist your enslavement.

    The reality is that everyone is being enslaved via exploitation of human nature. Every aspect of your lives are being utilized and controlled by your perception of what you think you need.

    How many systems are in place that include your name somehow attached to a number?

    How do you live in modern society without your name being attached to a number?

    What is the approximate distance between you and your cell phone at any given moment?

    Do you really need that big of a house or that particular model car?

    Do you spend half the time appreciating that piece of artwork that your house cleaner spends dusting it?

    Do you really care if your lawn isn’t perfect? Does it look better or worse than nearby lawns?

    Do you cope with life, or take a pill for it?

    Do you wear the latest fashion, or are you not ‘hip’? How perfect are you? Do you ‘deserve’ admission to the ‘best’ nightclubs?

    Do you love and respect your wife because you appreciate her values and the wonderful person she is? Are you honored and appreciative that she picked you as her mate? ..or does she have a nicer rack than most women? What are her dimensions? Is her father wealthy? Is he impressed with your golf game?

    Are you really interested in things like watching people go through a game-show style engagement? ..or is there nothing else on TV?

    Is your Harley as shiny as your coworkers’ Harleys at the office? Are they as free and rebellious as you are on Saturdays?

    Which celebrity will be the next to become a drug addict and end up in prison? Will they be able to take their Gucci purse with them?

    Were you born the right color? Are you fat?

    What’s your favorite brand of God?

    Can your God beat up the other gods?

    What does your God think about being attached to idol worship?

    Is your god rooting for your football team?

    What political category is going to appear to ‘win’ next time?

    Which ‘side’ is going to get to force the rest next time?

    Did you remember to cross your t’s and dot your i’s on your tax form? Did you double check the math?

    Do you forget how to drive when your license expires?

    Was there a Muslim boogie-man hiding in your daughter’s underwear at the airport?

    Are terrorists hiding in your email?

    What did the state teach your children today at daycare service while you were earning taxable income? Did the school prescribe them the right pill to help deal with their teachers’ impatience?

    Did you say anything ‘radical’ or socially unacceptable today?

    Who was the 22nd president? Who was the last school shooter? Which one do you have to Google?

    What do your leaders say makes you happy? Did they write it down on paper and sign it? Was it worth the money that someone paid?

    Do dead women and children make you feel proud to ‘win’ a war?

    Do you believe the investment group of your ‘news’ channel?

    … etc, etc, etc, …

    snap – snap – Wake – Up.

    • You’ve been pretty snappy lately sonny! But this time I have to say you nailed it. I’m not in denial that we’re screwed but I’m not in a camp yet and I’m not gonna let it get the best of me. It’s all a mental game too.. Cheers BL

      • Bottom Line says:

        I don’t mean to be critical or judge people for what makes them happy, but rather wondering about of all these strange goofy things we humans do.

        We are an odd species. Our whole civilization is turning into 1984, Stepford, and “Planet Starbucks”, …and our focus is where?

        What is important to us?

        While we’re preoccupied with all this stuff, someone[s] is thinking of it in terms of how and where to direct the herd.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Don’t be part of the herd! That’s what I’m fighting for!

          • Bottom Line says:

            Right on, Gman.

            Aside from government enslaving everyone on demand, we’re just as likely to be enslaved by propaganda or media or social pressure in creating standards, defining normalcy, telling us what to wear, what to want, what to be, what to believe or value, etc.

            It manifests in ways like teenage girls vomiting to ‘stay’ thin. Is it not okay for them to have DNA that makes them a little chunky?

            …or getting breast implants at age 15. They aren’t even done growing yet, and why is breast size so damn important anyway?

            How many teen girls vomited to ‘stay’ thin in 1830? Is not vomiting any better than wearing clothes that restrict breathing?

            Why do women pump diluted weapons grade toxins into their face?

            When you found your first gray hair, did you think you were going to never get laid again because a TV commercial said so?

            Do you wave your flag and say “GO USA!” when you hear of a wedding getting air bombed in a foreign country? Does it make you feel more free?

            Why do suburban white kids with educated upper middle class income parents pretend to be low income inner city black kids?

            If you were God, creator of all things, in your infinite wisdom, would you demand people kill anyone that disagrees? Would you care who wins the local high school football game?

            Do you feel spiritually enriched by using law to boss everyone around?

            Do you tend to your yard because you take pride in your property and enjoy the exercise and artistic expression of designing your landscaping, …or are you trying to compete with the guy three doors down that doesn’t like you? Or do you care at all, and just do it every Friday without thinking about it?

            Are Tele-tubbies gay because they don’t shoot people?

            It’s like everyone missed the point, and instead got wrapped around the axle of the bullshit wagon…like we’ve become slaves to everything we consider normalcy and attach our ego to.

            I don’t personally care if people poison their faces, call toddler shows gay, or how they cut their lawn. But I may wonder why.

            We humans are a weird bunch…and we’re all related too.. it figures.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Most people live in populated areas that are controllable. I’m not one of them. I spend a lot of my time prepping to the next deer season. That is my passion and my way of finding peace. The garden is exploding and the firewood is cut and split for the winter, going to get another winters worth next week or the week after. I really like the country life. 🙂

  10. Emergency manager: Detroit won’t pay $2.5B it owes
    AP 6/14/2013 4:26:41 PM
    (AP) Emergency manager: Detroit won’t pay $2.5B it owes
    By COREY WILLIAMS
    Associated Press
    ROMULUS, Mich.

    Detroit’s emergency manager says the city is defaulting on about $2.5 billion of debt.

    Kevyn Orr said Friday that Detroit is asking creditors to take about 10 cents on the dollar of what they’re owed. Underfunded pension claims will get less.

    Orr spent about two hours Friday morning with dozens of people representing banks, insurers and companies holding Detroit debt. He told reporters earlier at an airport hotel in Romulus he wants to fix fiscal problems that have made the city insolvent.

    He has instituted a moratorium on all of Detroit’s payments on unsecured debt, seeking forgiveness of millions of dollars owed by the city.

    He also said $1.25 billion will be set aside over 10 years for public safety, lighting and neighborhood blight elimination.

    http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA6TK8FO1

    • Holy Crap! Anita – you haven’t done any business with them, have you?

      • Not on your life. Shoulda heard the dustup before Orr was named EM. The brothers and sistas in the D were ready to lynch poor Snyder if he was going to appoint a white EM. Guess what? They don’t like the black one either.

        10 cents on the dollar though? It’s a wonder anyone does business with Detroit. I was due some large cash from NW Airlines back in the day, prebancruptcy. Kept having companies offering me X cents on the dollar for that debt. I held out for two years but ended up getting 80 cents on the dollar…much better than the 18 cents they started with.

  11. I know JAC mentioned he doesn’t like references to Nazi when discussing current regime, however, in this article, it seems appropriate. (Did someone post this already? Apologize if you did!)

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_smoking_gun_in_plain_sight.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      This article is not doing the same thing I complained about. Although it could have used many other examples of how LEADERS avoid paper trails.

      Now think about the reports of key Obama Cabinet officers using “off record” EMail and other computer services to avoid anything being reveled in a FOIA request.

      Ironically, the NAZIS were addicted to meticulous record keeping. While the big man couldn’t be directly linked, it was their own records that got so many hanged or imprisoned for life.

  12. Gmanfortruth says:

    Anita, I will not take a time out. 🙂

  13. Enterprise is the most ‘effective altruism’
    5:20 PM 06/12/2013

    Anne Bradley & Jay W. Richards
    The Institute for Faith, Work & Economics

    There’s a new movement afoot: talented Ivy League grads are joining Wall Street in order to make scads of money — and then give it away philanthropically.

    These young people might seem to be inspired by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who advised the faithful to make all they could, save all they could, and give all they could. Not bad advice. But these graduates are responding to a call from controversial ethicist Peter Singer. In a recent TED talk, Singer referenced the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its philosophy that “all lives have equal value.” In light of that, Singer suggested, people in wealthy countries should not just focus on helping each other, but should also help those in less developed countries.

    As Christians, we agree that all (human) lives have equal value, but we’re skeptical of Singer’s hyper-utilitarian approach, which he calls “Effective Altruism.” His is an artificially mathematical and abstract way of dispensing help. In effect, it treats individuals as commodities to whom we deliver units of charity. But the most effective charity treats individuals not just as mouths to feed, but as whole and particular persons, with material, moral, cultural, and spiritual needs. That process can’t be reduced to an impersonal utilitarian calculus.
    Ads by Google

    The other problem with this Singer-inspired movement is economic rather than philosophical. “Effective Altruism” encourages young and old to pursue the jobs that earn the highest paycheck for the sole purpose of giving most of their income away philanthropically. This treats philanthropy as if it were the only, or at least the most effective, way to act altruistically — that is, for the benefit of others. It also implies that business pursued for its own purpose is morally suspect.

    In reality, the primary way widespread poverty is alleviated is with plain vanilla factors such as business, hard work, property rights, a reliable dispensation of justice, and enterprise.

    The Gates Foundation has saved an estimated 5 million lives thus far. But we rarely hear of the countless lives saved or improved by the profit-seeking activities of Microsoft. It’s not clear how we could even measure the total effects.

    One effect is the Foundation itself. To be able to start such a large aid organization, Bill Gates first had to be a successful entrepreneur. As a philanthropist, Gates is not “giving back” to the world, as if he had taken from it in the first place. His philanthropic giving is possible only because he first “gave” as an entrepreneur.

    Perhaps only God knows what Gates’ motives were as a businessman; but there’s no evidence that it was inspired by anything like Singer’s “Effective Altruism.” For all we know, the software billionaire was motivated just by self-interest and a desire for profits.
    Ads by Google

    Still, he and Microsoft succeeded only because they provided value for hundreds of millions of people. Gates had to meet the needs of his customers better than his competitors could. And to stay ahead, he had to invest wisely rather than consume or give away all the profits.

    A healthy market economy can channel not just compassion but also self-interest into outcomes beneficial to others. This is how wealth is created and accumulated in free societies.

    It’s the same story in the developing world. Because of increased global trade and market liberalization, the number of people suffering from “absolute poverty” has been reduced by half in the last 20 years. YaleGlobal reports that we are in the fastest period of poverty reduction in world history.

    Free exchange between countries is not a zero-sum game. It allows our work to serve others by focusing on things we do well and relatively inexpensively — our comparative advantages — while trading for other goods and services. This is why most of us purchase imported coffee beans rather than growing the trees ourselves.

    So why do over a billion people still suffer absolute poverty? Because their societies are beset by corruption, lawlessness, a lack of property rights, and no small amount of despotism. They’re cut off from global markets, often by their own and other governments. Even if they work their fingers to the bone, most will stay poor until these impediments are removed.
    Ads by Google

    Of course, charity has a role to play, especially in emergencies; but charity outside the discipline of free exchange is not a sustainable way to lift countries out of poverty. We could give away all the wealth of the richest on the planet. It might provide some short-term relief for the destitute, but unless that wealth is leveraged by large markets, it won’t give rise to widespread wealth creation.

    Truly free markets unleash human creativity and ingenuity. They channel our legitimate self-interest, allow our labor to become productive, and compel us to serve others in order to improve our own lot. That’s effective altruism.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/12/enterprise-is-the-most-effective-altruism/#ixzz2WDd85aWz

  14. Abortion and fatherhood — a man’s take

    By Brian Fisher, Brian Fisher

    Published June 13, 2013

    FoxNews.com

    A dear friend of mine recently confessed to me that he was the father of one living daughter and four deceased children. The four were aborted, three with his consent and one without. My friend said the pain of those deaths is something he copes with on a daily basis. “The guilt and pain can be overwhelming,” he said.

    Another friend still can’t hold back tears, even after 20 years, when he shares that he took his then-girlfriend to Planned Parenthood to erase the “mistake” they made a few months before their wedding. Now married for two decades and the parent of four other beautiful children, he recounts how his marriage was difficult and tumultuous for years until they sought counseling. The root of their conflict and strife? The abortion.

    As we approach Father’s Day once again, more and more men are realizing the impact abortion has not only had on women, but also on themselves. And the impact is anything but positive.

    Abortion didn’t empower women. It empowered men.

    What’s going on here? Abortion is a women’s issue and has nothing to do with men, right? Why are men struggling with the loss of their aborted children?

    Because, despite what the law says, fathers are fathers from conception, not from birth.

    The landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, effectively stripped the father of all legal rights regarding his unborn child. Before that decision, men were fathers from the day their child came into being, at conception.

    But, with the stroke of a pen, fatherhood jumped nine months into the future. Mothers, meanwhile, maintained their parental rights from the day of conception. So much for equal rights for men and women.

    Of course, millions of men welcomed the change. The sexual revolution was booming, and men were experiencing a new kind of empowerment we hadn’t previously enjoyed.

    We could now sleep with anyone we wanted without any fear of responsibility if our female partner became pregnant.

    The one thing that had kept us from expressing our rampant sexuality, fear of conception, was now of no concern.

    Not only did we no longer have to fear a pregnancy, we had no legal right to make any decision regarding the child in the womb.

    If our partner decided to abort, well, that was her call.

    If she asked us our opinion about an abortion, all we had to do was utter our all-too-common response, “It’s your decision, babe. I’ll support whatever you decide.” Which, of course, was our way of saying, “I don’t care enough about you or the child to have a real opinion.”

    Abortion didn’t empower women. It empowered men.

    Fast forward to Father’s Day 2013.

    Fifty-five million aborted babies later, it seems many men are realizing the Supreme Court got it wrong. Fatherhood doesn’t start with birth. It starts when we opt to sleep with a woman. And, despite federal law, our consciences testify that we are wired to protect and care for a child when it is conceived, not nine months later.

    There are also an estimated 15 million fathers who, for whatever reason, lost children to elective death in the womb. Men have failed their families and their children.

    The tide is beginning to turn, however. Men are realizing no one escapes the hell of abortion.

    We are waking up and realizing that children are killed and women are exploited.

    We are just now considering, though, that we victimize ourselves.

    Depression, guilt, shame, a loss of self, a loss of honor, and destroyed relationships are common male consequences of abortion.

    In our heart of hearts, we are coming to grips with what we’re doing. We are willfully taking the lives of those we are wired to protect.

    We are born to be fathers. Strong. Honorable. Self-sacrificing. Men of courage. Men of valor.

    We are born to provide for the weakest among us, and that most certainly includes our own unborn children.

    Father’s Day is the embodiment of all those things we love and respect about or own fathers, grandfathers, and male role models. It’s a day to honor those men who raised us, cared for us, provided for us, and protected us.

    If we pause to reflect, however, it is also a day to mourn. We mourn those millions of fathers who refused to provide and protect. We mourn fathers who have no legal right to do so. We mourn the loss of faithful and true fatherhood in America. And we hope, we pray, we plead, for it to return.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/13/abortion-and-fatherhood-man-take/#ixzz2WDicLxdL

  15. Just A Citizen says:
  16. gmanfortruth says:

    Under the terms of the National Defense Authorization Act that he personally signed into law, President Barack Obama should immediately be arrested and indefinitely detained for providing support to Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.
    Arrest Obama Under NDAA For Supporting Terrorists in Syria 140613obama

    President Barack Obama

    Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA law allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

    The indefinite detention provision also applies to Americans who have given “substantial support” to terrorists or other “associated groups”.

    Although the administration has attempted to differentiate between FSA militants and Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria, the two groups have become one and the same. Even if you make a distinction between the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in Syria, the FSA is still clearly an “associated group” under the terms of the NDAA.

    By announcing that his administration will arm the Syrian rebels in anticipation of a no fly zone being imposed over areas of the country, President Barack Obama is giving direct support, aid and comfort to terrorists. Obama and his top administration officials clearly represent a national security threat to the interests of the United States and should immediately be arrested and detained under the NDAA.

    The evidence that FSA militants in Syria are being led by Al-Qaeda terrorists and are carrying out terrorist atrocities is overwhelming.

    – Jabhat al-Nusra is now the leading front line fighting force in Syria and is commanding the other rebel groups.

    – In April, the head of Jabhat al-Nusra pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

    – FSA rebels are defecting to Jabhat al-Nusra in droves.

    – Jabhat al-Nusra killed U.S. troops in Iraq.

    – Immediately after the State Department declared Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist organization, 29 different FSA rebel outfits pledged allegiance to the Al-Qaeda group.

    – FSA rebels have vowed to “fight the U.S.” once they finish with Bashar Al-Assad.

    – FSA rebels have been filmed burning US and Israeli flags on more than one occasion.

    – FSA rebels have been filmed singing songs that glorify Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks.

    – One FSA group even calls its fighting unit the “Osama Bin Laden” brigade.

    – Another video shows FSA rebels chanting, “We are all with Osama bin Laden!”

    – FSA rebels have voiced their desire to see the Al-Qaeda flag fly over the White House once the rebels are victorious across the region.

    – FSA rebels have been filmed cutting out people’s hearts on camera and eating them while chanting “Allahu Akbar”.

    – FSA rebels have been responsible for innumerable beheadings over the course of the conflict, chanting “Allahu Akbar” as they decapitate their victims.

    – FSA rebels have committed innumerable sectarian murders, including beheading a man for being a Christian and feeding him to the dogs.

    – FSA rebels have also forced children to behead people and carry out other atrocities.

    – FSA rebels have ransacked Christian churches.

    – FSA rebels have massacred entire villages of Christians.

    – Earlier this week, FSA rebels slaughtered a 14-year-old boy for supposedly insulting Mohammed.

    – FSA rebels have murdered numerous journalists in targeted killings, including Maya Nasser and most recently Yara Abbas.

    – FSA rebels have been pictured numerous times flying the black flag of Al-Qaeda and wearing uniforms with Al-Qaeda insignia.

    – FSA rebels have been caught on camera preparing chemical weapons attacks.

    – In March, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte said FSA rebels had used chemical weapons.

    – FSA rebels have forced prisoners to become suicide bombers.

    – According to eyewitnesses on the ground, at least half of the so-called “Syrian rebels” aren’t even Syrian and are foreign jihadists sent by the likes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    In announcing that his administration will provide arms to Al-Qaeda terrorists and associated groups like the FSA, Obama has violated his oath to protect and defend America against its enemies and should at the very least be subject to immediate impeachment proceedings, if not detained under the NDAA which clearly outlines the illegality of providing support to terrorist organizations.

    *********************

    Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com

    And that is, what the end of the story should be!

  17. gmanfortruth says:
  18. gmanfortruth says:

    A look from inside Syria. This crap is very sad so if you are offended easily, don’t watch the video : http://beforeitsnews.com/international/2013/06/syrian-girl-the-looting-of-syria-sex-organ-trafficking-oil-artifacts-theft-2460268.html

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Huffington Post

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.

    Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right. President Barack Obama signed the measure, but insisted his administration would never use it.

    Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by avote of 200 to 226.

    But opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.

    “It is a dangerous step toward executive and military power to allow things like indefinite detention under military control within the U.S.,” Smith said. “That’s the heart and essence of this issue.”

    Smith’s amendment, which also had Republican sponsors including Reps. Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Justin Amash (Mich.), would guarantee that anyone arrested in the United States gets a trial.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    The boogieman that we all are supposed to fear is a hoax, just like Global Warming, just like Obama’s pat, all of it. Wake up people: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/06/judge-napolitano-fbi-have-been-involved-in-17-false-flag-terror-non-events-video-2683204.html

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    My oh My! I didn’t know it was now part of the music world, but what else can one expect from California. The first video tells it all, literally 🙄 http://beforeitsnews.com/watercooler-topics/2013/06/made-clear-obamacare-in-one-video-2433180.html

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m not sure why all the fuss over this Snowden person. He hasn’t really divulged anything that many of us didn’t already know. More stuff that I have known for years about the lack of privacy we all have. http://www.infowars.com/thousands-of-companies-have-been-handing-over-your-personal-data-to-the-nsa/

    I think those in govt who are making all the noise on this are just mad cause the sheeple know now. The want to keep the sheeple stupid. Stupid people are controllable.

  23. Check this out! Check out the comments too, the docs themselves are participating in the discussion. One of the docs posted this link proving it’s been written into the ACA. Haven’t checked the link yet: http://www.dpcare.org/health_reform

    http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20130614-232724-6523

    • OH!. The first link has some good info to!
      What’s Happening in My State?

      Direct primary care medical homes currently exist in at least 21 states, and are estimated to be serving as many as 100,000 patients today. For a list of known direct primary care providers in your state, visit our DPC PRACTICES page. If you are a direct primary care provider and would like to be listed and receive regular updates from the Direct Primary Care Coalition, please join us.
      http://www.dpcare.org/practices

      • …..and it just stood right out at me that the names of the docs listed are mostly American sounding names. hmmmmm…..

        Ok I’m done.

        • There was a doctor here in Folsom CA that tried something like this. He charged a flat annual fee. The state said he was selling insurance and had to comply with all the regulations. The is an anti-government immune system that will kick in to rid us of this spreading virus attacking O’s perfect health care system.

  24. Martin Bashir’s Nostalgic Liberal Racism
    June 15th, 2013 – 9:45 am

    A few days ago, CNBC commentator Martin Bashir, in high dudgeon, accused critics of the IRS scandal of racism toward Barack Obama. I’m not going to rehearse the number of black conservatives — including intellects of the stature of Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele — who would then be racists, or even go into my own personal story as a white civil rights worker in the South in the sixties (I’m older than Bashir) and how insulting it would be to people like me to be lumped in as racists because we object to the president’s policies.

    Never mind the massive declines in racism in our (and other Anglo-Saxon) societies documented in a recent Pew Poll and never mind the late Andrew Breitbart’s offer of one hundred thousand dollars for evidence of the use of the n-word by even one of tens of thousands of Tea Party demonstrators for which not a single bid came forward.

    What interests me is why people like Bashir maintain this need to brand anyone even vaguely to the right as racist. It’s almost a disorder worthy of classification in the DSM-5 — PRDS: Projective Racist Derangement Syndrome.

    Actually, I don’t think it’s quite that sick, although it does have definite pathological aspects. A more obvious motivation is old-fashioned fear. The liberal canon is under heavy intellectual and practical assault at this moment. Keynesian economics hang by a thread as monumental deficits threaten the global financial system. Unemployment numbers coupled with entitlements escalating into the stratosphere spell disaster for all. The welfare state is on the brink of bankruptcy — or over it in many instances.

    For the rational person, something must been done about this. But to do so would mean the dismantling of the liberal orthodoxy. For people like Bashir that would also mean undoing or questioning everything (or a great deal of) what they had believed since high school or college or even earlier. Not fun. I know — I had to do it myself. Like it or not, you pay. (If you’re an employee of MSNBC, you lose your job.) Most liberals I know don’t even dare to examine this.

    Much better to blame the other and accuse him or her of racism, taking the ideas off the table and dehumanizing your opponent.

    This is a common scenario and helps explain why most racists today are on the left. They are racists by projection and by nostalgia. Oh for the good old days when America was racist and folks were easily classifiable.

    That’s not really true, of course. As a young Democrat in 1964 I was appalled by the number of members of my party blocking the Civil Rights Act while it seemed okay with so many Republicans. There are numerous other instances of such confusion. But today the Democratic Party depends on racial division for its electoral success. If people voted based on policy and not ethnicity, the party would be extinct.

    Paradoxically, that would not be a good thing. America needs a two-party system (at minimum). Democracy does not exist otherwise.

    Martin Bashir clearly cannot “contain” that knowledge in the psychoanalytic sense, so he projects out rage at his adversaries, accusing them of racism for which he has no evidence other than his own fantasies.

    If you’re looking for a real division in our society — rather than an imaginary one — the IRS scandal provides one that is truly disturbing. Apparently 95% of IRS workers are Democrats. Not only does that render the question how much Obama was personally involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups almost moot, it is the closest thing to a license for totalitarianism I have ever heard about in this country.

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/06/15/martin-bashirs-nostalgic-liberal-racism/?singlepage=true

  25. BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
    June 14, 2013

    Pathological Altruism
    A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought.

    By JAMES TARANTO

    We don’t think we’d ever heard of Oakland University, a second-tier institution in suburban Rochester, Mich., but Barbara Oakley, an associate professor in engineering, may help put the place on the map. Earlier this week Oakland’s Oakley published a fascinating paper, “Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism,” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The paper is a concise summary of an innovative idea that informed Oakley’s two recent books: “Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts” (Prometheus, 2011) and “Pathological Altruism” (Oxford University Press, 2012). The former has been described as a true-crime thriller; the latter is a dense, 496-page collection of 31 academic papers, edited by Oakley and three other scholars.

    The PNAS paper has the virtue of brevity, running only eight pages despite including 110 footnotes. Yet it’s remarkable for its breadth and depth. It introduces a simple yet versatile idea that could revolutionize scientific and social thought.

    Oakley defines pathological altruism as “altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm.” A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, “an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable.” Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn’t pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.

    As the latter example suggests, the idea of “codependency” is a subset of pathological altruism. “Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior,” Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.

    Yet according to Oakley, “the vital topic of codependency has received almost no hard-science research focus, leaving ‘research’ to those with limited or no scientific research qualifications.” That is to say, it is largely the domain of pop psychology. “It is reasonable to wonder if the lack of scientific research involving codependency may relate to the fact that there is a strong academic bias against studying possible negative outcomes of empathy.”

    That is a provocative charge, and one that Oakley levels more generally at the scientific establishment:

    Both altruism and empathy have rightly received an extraordinary amount of research attention. This focus has permitted better characterization of these qualities and how they might have evolved. However, it has also served to reify their value without realistic consideration about when those qualities contain the potential for significant harm.

    Part of the reason that pathologies of altruism have not been studied extensively or integrated into the public discourse appears to be fear that such knowledge might be used to discount the importance of altruism. Indeed, there has been a long history in science of avoiding paradigm-shifting approaches, such as Darwinian evolution and acknowledgment of the influence of biological factors on personality, arising in part from fears that such knowledge somehow would diminish human altruistic motivations. Such fears always have proven unfounded. However, these doubts have minimized scientists’ ability to see the widespread, vitally important nature of pathologies of altruism. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt notes, “Morality binds and blinds.”

    “Empathy,” Oakley notes, “is not a uniformly positive attribute. It is associated with emotional contagion; hindsight bias; motivated reasoning; caring only for those we like or who comprise our in-group (parochial altruism); jumping to conclusions; and inappropriate feelings of guilt in noncooperators who refuse to follow orders to hurt others.” It also can produce bad public policy:

    Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this “altruism” to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.

    The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we’ve argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their “disparate impact” on minorities.

    Universities altruistically established admissions standards that discriminated in favor of minorities, a policy that proved pathological because underqualified minority students struggled to succeed and even qualified ones face the stigma of being assumed to be “affirmative action” beneficiaries. The institutions tried to help by setting up separate orientations, which of course only reinforced their separation from the broader student body.

    And when, in 2003, the discriminatory admissions standards faced a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court upheld them. In Grutter v. Bollinger, a five-justice majority declared that administrators’ declaration of altruistic intent–“obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”–was sufficient to meet the court’s purportedly exacting standard of “strict scrutiny.” It was left to Justice Anthony Kennedy, in dissent, to note the absence of “empirical evidence.” The court is currently revisiting the question– Fisher v. Texas is expected to be decided in the next few weeks–and one hopes that, if it stands by the “diversity” rationale, Kennedy will finally succeed in imposing some scientific rigor.

    Pathological altruism is at the root of the liberal left’s crisis of authority, which we discussed in our May 20 column. The left derives its sense of moral authority from the supposition that its intentions are altruistic and its opponents’ are selfish. That sense of moral superiority makes it easy to justify immoral behavior, like slandering critics of President Obama as racist–or using the power of the Internal Revenue Service to suppress them. It seems entirely plausible that the Internal Revenue Service officials who targeted and harassed conservative groups thought they were doing their patriotic duty. If so, what a perfect example of pathological altruism.

    Oakley concludes by noting that “during the twentieth century, tens of millions [of] individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism.” An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Along this line, I was given a choice on another site this week. Either I could get on board the Nanny State Massive Federal Govt we have or I am a Barbarian.

      Because without Govt intervention people will suffer, go hungry and not be able to live with “dignity”. Thus opposing Govt is the same as “causing” these things to happen which in turn is Barbarian.

      I think you can guess my response. But wanted to give an example of the pathology mentioned above.

      • I always vote barbarian. Woden!!!

      • Either I could get on board the Nanny State Massive Federal Govt we have or I am a Barbarian. Because without Govt intervention people will suffer, go hungry and not be able to live with “dignity”. Thus opposing Govt is the same as “causing” these things to happen which in turn is Barbarian.

        A few things we do know about non-government intervention, VH … slavery (actual slavery, including lynchings) … separate but equal … zero safety precautions in manufacturing … no child labor laws … etc.

        I mean, since you want to talk about pathology and all … unless you’re against those things mentioned above …

        sure, let the market take care of it …

        So happy to stop in tonight … barbarians at the gate 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Charlie, All of those occurred with a Federal Govt. We still have slavery, just a different form, we are still very separate, see the comment about slavery. Children are still being exploited, just in different ways. Not much has changed, it has only changed it’s appearance.

        • charlie, you do realize that the Democratic “Jim Crow laws” where government enforced laws, right?

          charlie, you really need to quit using the straw man fallacy, small government does not mean no government. Just to help clarify… “zero safety precautions in manufacturing”… this is a straw man.

          • “charlie, you do realize that the Democratic “Jim Crow laws” where government enforced laws, right?”

            FLP … what is the government made up of, especially in the south during that time period? Could it have been men bought by the rich? (sound familiar?) … could it have been a mindset (since it’s where slavery thrived for more than 100 years and lynchings continued into the 1950’s? Do you have any idea how specious your argument is?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, your right, govt was just as corrupt then as today. The rich buy them off and in return the rich are protected (sound familiar). That is why most of us want a much smaller govt with far less power. By taughting big government you contradict everything you stand for when you bring up the corruption in govt.. Is it not time for you to get this straight? 🙂

              • Actually, G, the problem lies with how the corruption occurs … the smaller the government, the more power the wealthy yield (or haven’t you noticed that yet–time to get it straight) … remove the lawyers and lobbyists and FINALLY give the power to the people … on a quick rotating basis (no term limits) … put farmers and truck drivers and teachers and plumbers along with lawyers, etc., into government with short stays … create consequences for when do turn corrupt (not bailouts) … remove the insanity of capitalism and maybe you have a shot .. right now, your government of the rich by the rich and for the rich is a result of private property … get rid of it … then MAYBE they’ll be some fairness to the process … but not until then … in case you haven’t noticed, it gets worse by the day …

              • my mistake … Term limits a must! 2-4 years max …

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m good with term limits. Private property is right that all people should quest for, your talking about failures of the past and Agenda 21 now, you can keep that crap. You say ” the smaller the government, the more power the wealthy yield (or haven’t you noticed that yet–time to get it straight) ” please provide proof of this, because it hasn’t existed in our lives here.

                I doubt that no govt will ever occur, but limited govt with limited power (Federal Govt), same with State govts. Let the people handle the rich and their crooked ways through the local elections and local police. If they become corrupt, make it a death sentence and hang them in the public square.

              • “your government of the rich by the rich and for the rich is a result of private property … get rid of it … then MAYBE they’ll be some fairness to the process”

                Get rid of private property? How did that work out for the marxists? How about any communist/socialist government in all of history?

                charlie, here is a piece of wisdom that I am betting you will not only disagree with, but will not grasp. Private property is the only protection against the greed of others.

              • A corrupt official is the most deadly thing to our democratic republic. To freshen everybody’s memory bit, Randy (Duke) Cunningham, Navy Ace of the Vietnam War, Congressman and convicted felon just finished eight years in the slammer for taking 2.5 million from contractors. I guess there will always be the question as to whether he would have recommended the projects even without a payoff.

                Point is this, in the scheme of things is relatively small potatoes. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd got special things too and almost collapsed the entire US economy. Yet, they do no time, are not indicted and go about making speeches and getting paid for it. It all depends on who you know I guess.

                There is in business that old expression that Donald Trump used from time to time,. If I owe you $ 5,000 I am in trouble. If I owe you $ 5,000,000 YOU are in trouble. I only got to see this in action once back in the early nineties. My boss, a really great guy, got in over his head only because the banks stopped writing mortgages at the same time he was finishing up three projects where he had extended his own money. When he couldn’t mortgage the rehabs, he started running late on some previous mortgage payments. They did not even give him 30 days but moved to foreclose immediately. This was despite the fact he had a flawless 12 year lending history. At the same time, another developer had just closed on several large mortgages in the neighborhood which netted him $ 50,000,000. He put the money in his back pocket, walked away from the properties and left the country. To this day, my ex-boss is anathema in the real estate community despite the fact that his buildings ultimately fetched more than they were mortgaged for at auction. The other guy,? Well. his name and what he did have basically vanished from the public record.

                the corruption out there, at all levels of business and government is probably the worst it has ever been and there is, for certain people,no punishment. .

    • Somebody ought to pay you for coming up with this stuff. Thanks.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    Happy Fathers Day 🙂

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Road Trip time again. Happy Dad’s day to tall the SUFA dads.

    Will be on the road the next two weeks. Will try to look in from time to time if I can find a wifi spot.

    Don’t get to far off into the weeds while I’m gone.

    Best to all
    JAC

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama and Kerry’s friends. With friends like these who needs enamies. I say both should be arrested for aiding the enemy, what say you SUFA? http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/06/syrian-rebels-kidnap-behead-christian-feed-him-to-the-dogs-2447134.html

  30. I don’t know, he seems transparent and I’m still calling him courageous. Note questioner with name of Mathius1……

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/full-transcript-of-qa-session-with-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden/

  31. FL Patriot said: Get rid of private property? How did that work out for the marxists? How about any communist/socialist government in all of history?

    I think you need to take another look-see at a few socialist governments before you step off that ladder, my friend. And all of those in your all inclusive “in all of history” comment seemed not to have perished the way your Ronald Reagan revisionism likes to believe.

    For G: prove what, G? We started as a small government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich and it’s only become bigger because of it … still protecting one class of society at the expense of everyone else. So, what’s your point? Change the structure of the government and replace those who run it with actual workers (in all the forms of workers as well as all the forms of professionals) and maybe you have a shot. Leave the wealthy their power and big or small, my friend, they’ll always do whatever they like (you have to be kidding to think it’d change if government were smaller–that’s just absurd).

    And how can you possibly consider land private property? Think about this beyond your republican bullet points … same for Stephen … how dare you consider what you “bought” private property (says the cannoli meister) … it wasn’t yours before you were born and it won’t be yours long after your dead. Temporary privacy? As in leased? Makes a lot more sense to me … share the wealth that is produced by all rather than permit the few to horde what they can’t possibly earn? That works too … but leave things as they are and the gap widens until it bursts … and that is only a matter of time … and then the wealth will be seized one way or the other … there’s no avoiding that.

    • TCM had “A Tale of Two Cities ” on the other night. However valid the cause, it always ends badly.

      You are of course correct, we only “borrow” the things we have while we are here.

      • I agree we’re doomed for it to end violently, one way or the other … and then those who replace this ruling class will be just as greedy … why it can only stand a chance if it’s an actual mass movement … when enough people turn their backs on the two political parties that jerk us all off at every turn. Some of our beefs with government are pretty damn similar … but I’m not about to yield to the fear of Stalinism, et al … we’re not talking about another Stalin … we’re talking about people making decisions … not the military, not a puppet of money … and not for longer than 2-4 years … with absolute consequences for those who game the system and the people they’re supposed to represent. Send a few bankers to Raiford … Rahway … Rikers … let them mingle …

        • Dear sweet Jesus, do I ever agree with you on the bankers. One of the reasons I have always been so hard on drug dealers is the way they mess up innocent lives. From drive by indiscriminate shootings to a mom or dad standing over a coffin being lowered into the ground. I feel the same way about bankers after 2007. Lots of people did nothing wrong and lost their homes and jobs and futures because of companies like Countrywide and slime like Angelo Mozilo.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      For much of what you say, I agree. Without private property, what is there to strive for in life? I didn’t own what I own when I was born and really don’t care when I’m dead, but at least I had my small speck of earth to do as i wished while I was breathing. Why is that so bad? Please explain what people would work for if not for their own speck of land? The world wants to know what is more enticing 🙂

      • “Why is that so bad? Please explain what people would work for if not for their own speck of land? The world wants to know what is more enticing.”

        It’s a great question, G (even if you’re breaking my shoes :)) … I’d respond with “why do you have to “own” it?” … what’s the difference? It’s the possessive ideal behind capitalism (private property, ownership, accumulation, etc.) that has led so many to believe it is the ultimate goal in life (to become rich, to own, etc. … the old American dream that has become just about unobtainable for true middle class kids today … they graduate from college and owe a mortgage … and if they don’t find a job, they wind up spending their next 10 years catching up … no chance to accumulate/own while those with (the upward 2%) do nothing but accumulate (and all based on what they already had — none of them have to do a thing to continue to accumulate) … People can be divided into hard workers and slackers, but please don’t tell me it has to do with wanting to own something. Some of the laziest SOB’s I’ve ever worked with “own” more than one property and are the biggest sliders when it comes to work (they’ll let other people slave around them while they find a way to avoid work) … that goes both ways … and it has NOTHING to do with the enticement of owning private property … the point being, you shouldn’t fall for the propaganda you’re so quick to point out to others … incentive is more a personal matter than it is a collective mindset … greedy people will be greedy in any environment … same goes for hard workers (they’ll work hard in any environment … and slackers will slack in any environment) … it has nothing to do with the great big American prize of owning a home/two cars/becoming a millionaire someday (which isn’t much anymore, so best to change that to multi-millionaire) …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You and I both know there are no guarantees in life. I often laugh at those on the hard left who think people have the “right” to live a dignified life (only if your host makes it past the nearest Abortion Clinic enough time). While it would be nice if life was like that, it isn’t and never will be. What I considered dignified is different from your ideals, so who gets to decide? The rich (no thank you), the elected class (no thank you), the individual (now we’re talking). Just like with private property, some prefer to rent in a building with many others, some prefer to own land for farming and living in the country. It’s individual choice, as it always should be, because individual choice is the epicenter of freedom. I think you understand what I’m saying. 🙂

  32. Let’s get jiggy with it, SUFA …

  33. Bottom Line says:

    The Queen of Light took her bow and then she turned to go
    The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom and walked the night alone

    Oh, dance in the dark night, sing to the morning light
    The Dark Lord rides in force tonight, and time will tell us all

    Oh, throw down your plow and hoe, race now to my bow

    Side by side we wait the might, of the darkest of them all

    I hear the horses thunder down in the valley below
    I’m waiting for the angels of Avalon, waiting for the eastern glow

    The apples of the valley hold the seeds of happiness
    The ground is rich from tender care, which they do not forget, no, no
    Dance in the dark night, sing to the morning light

    The apples turn to brown and black, the tyrant’s face is red

    Oh, war is the common cry, pick up your swords and fly
    The sky is filled with good and bad, mortals never know

    Oh well, the night is long, the beads of time pass slow
    Tired eyes on the sunrise, waiting for the eastern glow

    The pain of war cannot exceed the woe of aftermath
    The drums will shake the castle wall, the Ringwraiths ride in black (ride on)

    Sing as you raise your bow, (ride on) shoot straighter than before
    No comfort has the fire at night that lights the face so cold

    Oh, dance in the dark night, sing to the morning light
    The magic runes are writ in gold to bring the balance back, bring it back

    At last the sun is shining, the clouds of blue roll by
    With flames from the dragon of darkness, the sunlight blinds his eyes

    Oh, bring it back, bring it back…

  34. From a tweet – should be the definition used by SUFA:

    “fair share”: whatever amount the person who earned the money feels like sharing

%d bloggers like this: