MidWeek Thoughts

While this is not my blog, I have hoped to keep it going for all who have been posting here for a longtime, like myself. There are plenty of subjects to be discussed but discussions are short and aren’t really as entertaining as they once were.  I do have a strong idea as to why this is occurring, so I’m making a decision today that all of you can think about and if you don’t like my idea, then speak up and say something.  To make this short, the disrespect and personal attacks that some poster(s) can’t seem to refrain from are over, as of today.  This kind of talk will no longer be acceptable.  Disrespect and/or personal attacks will be disallowed.  If you won’t to engage in that kind of activity, feel free to do it somewhere else.  Let’s get back to talking politics and current events.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama is waging war against the coal industry, link coming soon.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    The Texas abortion vote sure made for some news, but the whole story still makes me wonder why it even exists. I abortion after 20 weeks that important that people have to say these things to those who support it? http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/06/tactless-verbiage-from-a-pro-abortion-troll/

    This is some nasty stuff, too bad the pro abortion crowd don’t feel the same about Freedom of Religion. 🙄

    • People have misunderstood the Texas abortion thing. Texas recognizes that it is going to happen. This bill was trying to force the abortion issue out of the back alleys into medical facilities and insure that the people that performed these operations were qualified medical personnel in qualified medical facilities. The Progressive left did not want that and filibustered it. No problem though…..a second session will be called and it will get passed. The Texas filibuster rules are pretty strict as there can be no chairs or tables to lean on, must stand at all times and there are no bathroom breaks. This filibuster lasted 11 hours….in order to have the next filibuster, rules will make it 36 hours with no breaks and no rest.

      It seems to me, whether or not you are against abortion or for it, you should be for taking this procedure out of the back alleys and get it into PROPER medical facilities performed by properly qualified medical doctors and get it away from the clinics and quacks. THAT is what this Texas bill was about and prohibiting late term abortions altogether.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Will there be another murder case if this thief dies? Will NBC cry racist and draw in Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Watch for yourself : http://conservativevideos.com/2013/06/see-what-happens-when-a-carjacker-encounters-an-armed-citizen/

  4. This is the most divisive President in my memory-there may be a lot of people who are happy about these actions-but many of us are not-He should have kept his mouth shut-they won-the President of the UNITED STATES-shouldn’t rub it in our faces-He is a petty, smartass jerk-and I hope and pray that he somehow gets impeached. He deserves to be impeached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Now anyone want to talk about these decisions-I am on the fence in some ways-trying to get my head around all the specifics-but it does come across as standing up for States rights while at the same time not standing up for the majority right to decide in California. Course that may be more the fault of the legislation in California and the Court system saying to hell with the voice of the people than the ruling at the SC.

    Obama Interrupts Gay Marriage Activists’ MSNBC Interview to Give Them Congratulatory Call
    Jun. 26, 2013 11:37am Madeleine Morgenstern

    President Barack Obama phoned the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 Supreme Court case in the middle of their live interview on MSNBC to congratulate them on the court’s ruling.

    “We’re proud of you guys and we’re so glad that in California and for a growing number of states around the country, because of your leadership, things are changing very quickly,” Obama said. “You guys should be very proud of today.”



    • gmanfortruth says:

      It was all for show V.H. I’m not sure that this issue is worth being concerned over. It’s more about money than anything else. Let’s look at marriage for what it is. It is a religious event that joins a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony. Here’s is the questions that I would like to answerr.

      1. Is getting married a “right”?
      2. Is government involvement needed when two people take the oath?
      3. Outside of religious reasons, is marriage necessary for a couple to be happy and have a family?
      4. Is govt involvement the real problem?

  5. I find myself being pushed farther and farther into the, let’s tear it all down and start over camp knowing full well what that entails.

    The SCOTUS ruling appalls me. Being a constitutionalist, I expected they would knock down DOMA since, the constitution says nothing of marriage. As much as I m opposed to gay marriage, I can see the logic in their position.

    The Prop 8 decision though, that is a whole other kettle of fish. As I see it they returned it to the lower court for the reason that the people of California have no standing! Only the government of California, according to the Supremes has standing. Since Jerry Brown and his predecessors did not defend Prop 8 and will never personally oppose gay marriage any more than they would oppose abortion even if 99% of their population would, the case is dead.

    It has now been officially codified by the court. The people have no rights except what the governors will grant them.

    PS, where the hell is Black Flag on Gold? Glad I did not listen to him.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Gold and silver are being manipulated. The paper shorts far exceed supply and that will blow up one day and prices will explode again. Economies are contracting, banks are beginning to fail. Despite what the MSM says, things are not wonderful.

      • Wall street has been destroyed by banks that have no fear of failure. You can no longer trust the stock market as a thermometer to see the health of economy, just like they have destroyed the usefulness of GDP.

    • Most of the conflicts on gay marriage can be solved with a few changes to some laws. Why not let a vet or anybody list who they want to receive their benefits after they die? Why does it have to be a spouse? Then we get to the real issue, gays are demanding society recognize them as “normal”. Five % of the population think this way. Sorry, not the norm….Want to teach this to my kids in K-12? I’m not Ok with that. Teach them not to hate or discriminate, sure, but not that homosexual relationships are normal?

      As for gold, when we started talking about this, China bought a bunch at $1050, which I would still say is the bottom. I wish I could buy right now! Weiss has this to say:
      Gold has just plunged by the most in two years. Silver, palladium, platinum and most commodities have also been smacked down.

      But these are all moves that Larry Edelson has warned us about — unambiguously and courageously — since before they peaked many months ago.
      And as he said in our interview published this past Saturday, we’re now very close to a major bottom in gold, probably in the $1,100-$1,200 per-ounce area, setting the stage for the next phase in gold’s bull market to $5,000 and beyond.

    • “It has now been officially codified by the court. The people have no rights except what the governors will grant them. ”

      This is where my confusion comes in-Yes the Court ruled that individuals don’t have standing in Federal Court-but since this is based on States rights and States are represented by elected officials-it sorta makes sense to me to have the State speak for the people-the problem comes in because the State officials refused to speak for the majority in this case. This too me seems like a dereliction of duty on their part.

      So somewhere in all this-the State is to blame-the majority voted against this in California-it seems like it should be mandatory that the State defend the majority opinion in cases like this one. The governor shouldn’t be able to just decide for them.

      Anyway my question is more -shouldn’t this problem of standing be fixed at the State level by making it required that the State support the majority opinion of it’s citizens?

      • I believe you are correct but it will never happen. Personally, in states that allow initiative, referendum and recall, the “people” are the governing authority because the State law has invested them as such. For the Supremes to bypass this view and say that they have no standing is to invalidate the entire process.

        Let us, for a minute go back to the removal of Governor Gray by recall in California. Had he refused to leave and the people who started the recall petition taken it to a federal court wherein the state AG refused to support their position, would the decision have been the same? Logically, it should have which is of course illogical.

        The inmates are truly running the asylum.

        • Okay, that straightened up my confusion-the people are the governing authority when it comes to a referendum vote. If they are not-then the SC just took all the rights out of the hands of the people of a State and put it into the hands of one elected official.

          • As Spock would say, logic would dictate that those touchstones of the progressive movement 100 years ago, Initiative, Referendum and Recall should by their democratic nature trump all. Guess the courts haven’t got to that concept yet.

            • Surprisingly, Justice Kennedy agrees with me in his dissent on the Prop. 8 case. He stated that Initiative, the voice of the people should be the governing factor. Wow! That’s a shocker.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Another new name to add to my collection. 🙂 I have so many now I had to write my real one down to remember it, LOL 😆

    • “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”

      Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the “overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements” put “to rest” questions about pollution affecting the environment.

      “The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it,” Obama said

      What a strange metaphor to throw out on this…the flat earthers were a consensus of scientists that attacked deniers…during the same time, the consensus of scientists insisted the sun and universe revolved around Earth…..Now here we are again, a “consensus of scientists” want to throw out scientific method which requires proving a theory whereby the results can be confirmed & duplicated. And how about getting them to explain why their theories and predictions keep missing? How can they get it wrong time & again but we must accept their theories?

      “The planet is warming.

      Well yes, the planet is warming…and cooling, just as it has for millions of years.

      Human activity is contributing to it,” Obama said

      Again, yes, but by how much? Do cows count as nature or get lumped in with humans because they are livestock? A friend stated to me that butterflies affect the weather. At some level, this has to be true, except it’s not. The scale of things also has an effect. Can you feel the wind from a butterfly across the room? No? Why would you then insist all the butterflies in the world can affect a world so much larger than a room?

        • Five Steps to a Man-ufactured Climate Crisis
          Anthony J. Sadar

          With the President dealing out another round of anthropogenic climate-change hype against an ethereal enemy–i.e., reliable, inexpensive energy–claims of humans caused this or that meteorological mayhem is sure to follow.

          Some climate activists apparently have discovered an effective scheme to constantly draw a association between noteworthy weather and human culpability. That dubious association comes in just five easy steps:

          1. Find a serious, recent weather event.

          2. Figure out what was unique about it.

          3. Claim that uniqueness was because of human activity.

          4. Get the media, politicians, spin doctors, pastors and pontiffs, Hollywood celebrities, and socialites and socialists of all stripes to vent your discovery of man-made disaster.

          5. Then wait for fame and fortune to fall from the frenzy.

          A man-ufactured climate crisis is easy when you stack the deck in your favor.

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/five_steps_to_a_man-ufactured_climate_crisis.html#ixzz2XQER798x

  6. Bottom Line says:

  7. Schools are not there to teach children to promote governmental policy and sure as hell isn’t to use children as spokesmen for the government. How about leaving the children alone and teaching them something that actually has to do with a good education. Hell why don’t we just stop calling them Schools. What’s a good name for an institution that is becoming nothing more than a convenient place to imprison children so that they can be indoctrinated and persecuted for the benefit of the liberal cause?

    California Schools to Train Kids to Sell ObamaCare
    June 20, 2013
    Loren Heal

    The Los Angeles Unified School District will use a state grant to train teens to promote ObamaCare to family members. Covered California, the state’s health insurance exchange, announced grants of $37 million on May 14 to promote the nationally unpopular law.

    LAUSD will receive $990,000. The district listed as a primary outcome for its project, “Teens trained to be messengers to family members.”

    Covered California spokeswoman Sarah Soto-Taylor said staff have not questioned this goal.

    “We have confidence that the model LA Unified brought to the table will be successful in reaching our target population, which includes family members of students,” she said.

    LAUSD will also use tax-paid staff to promote ObamaCare through phone calls to students’ homes, in-class presentations, and meetings with employees eligible for ObamaCare’s taxpayer-covered healthcare, the grant award says.
    Related Stories

    District Must Accept Parent Trigger Petition, California Judge Rules
    July 27, 2012
    California Allows Inexpensive Online College Textbooks
    October 24, 2012
    Free Online College Textbooks Approved in California [short]
    October 27, 2012
    ObamaCare to Fund Planned Parenthood Sex Ed
    November 9, 2012

    One in three Los Angeles students never graduates high school.

    Unpaid Propagandizers
    The district listed adult education students, part-time, and contract employees as its target population. Teens will be trained to be messengers not to those groups, but to their own families, to get more people enrolled in taxpayer-subsidized healthcare.

    If the project is successful, Los Angeles families can expect more use of students to push government-preferred messaging.

    “Teens are part of a ‘pilot’ program to test whether young people can be trained as messengers to deliver outreach and limited education to family and friends in and around their homes,” said Gayle Pollard-Terry, a LAUSD spokesman, in an email. “Teens will be educating adults that they already know (e.g., family or friends) and not other adults.”

    ‘Paid in the Rear’
    Grant recipients like LAUSD will be held accountable by the state for fulfilling their promised activities for outreach, said Larry Hicks, another LAUSD spokesman.

    “At a minimum, grantees will be required to submit to Covered California monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on their activities and progress towards agreed upon outcomes. If project benchmarks are not met, grantees may be required to submit additional ad hoc reports upon Covered California’s request. Grantees will also be required to report any proposed adjustments to their approved outreach and education plan using the information management system… Additionally, field monitors will be assigned to grantees to verify their progress,” Hicks said.

    Pollard-Terry said the district is familiar with running grants like this one and federal ones of similar size: “This grant is ‘paid in the rear,’ so the funding will come based on performance. The district front-funds positions and we have the ability to start using existing staff for the most part.”


  8. Why is everybody so upset at the SCOTUS ruling that pertains to California only. It is a State issue…..other states will simply ignore the SCOTUS, as Texas will.

    • D13, as I recall there is a clause in the Constitution that states must respect each others laws. Hence the next push will be for TX to accept as married gays who marry in CA. It will be dictated by the Federal Courts. So it is not just limited to state’s rights. Like others above I disagree with gay ‘marriage” as the term has a specific meaning that disqualifies it from describing the bonds between same sex individuals. With that said, marriage is a state issue the Feds need to stay out of it. So DOMA was a correct decision since it was based on state’s rights. The CA case is different. The issue of gay marriage was not decided. What was reinforced was that the people do not have standing to defend a law or constitutional amendment in this case voted on by the people if the state’s elected officers do not defend the law. As stated above, this is bad precedent as any laws passed by initiative then can only be defended by elected officials. Prop 8 was inserted on the ballot by a petition started by and signed by citizens. It was passed by the citizens. Elected officials had nothing to do with it and in fact were mostly against it. On top of that the district court judge who overturned it prior o the 9th Circuit was gay and did not recuse himself.

      • Understand…..and agree with the exception of the definition of respecting other state laws….yes, if a gay couple wishes to come here, no one gives a rat’s ass. BUT, no state is forced to change their laws to agree to another state….however, if there is a reciprocal agreement, that is another matter. Texas does not care if same sex couples wish to marry…no one cares. It is simply not recognized here and any state benefits that go to man/wife are not automatically granted to same sex couples. And there is no recognition of same sex marriages here in churches, etc. Right or wrong, moral or immoral….it is the way here.

        Much like the abortion issue…..it will pass. The gov has called a second special session…the filibuster length will be 36 hours….they cannot trade places, no rest breaks, no chairs…..it will simply pass. What I do not understand is why the Progressive movement does not want to eliminate back alley abortions….which is what this bill did.

        • Colonel, I agree with you but I think we both know that they will not give up until gay marriage is universal. They will find a case were a gay couple married in another state moves to a non-gay marriage state. Then they will argue that it is discrimination to recognize straight marriages across state lines but not gay marriages. They will also insist that they have a right to settle their broken marriages in your divorce courts. They are looking for legitimacy for something that violates nature’s laws. They will not stop until it is forced on everyone else. Abnormal will be DEFINED to be normal whether we agree or not.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Although I think that other groups will run out of time, look for Muslim’s and polygamist’s (including Bi-sexual’s) to demand multiple marriages.

            • Gman, I think they will try but they do not have the numbers.

              The talk on the radio this morning was to have marriages recognized in all 50 states, so the push has already started.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    V.H. and SKT! I have been following all day and thinking about the whole issue. Maybe, I can add something here that may lend a hand.

    Like you, I’m a Christian. I’m not really a very knowledgable one, but I get things rather clearly on this matter. I think what must be understood is that all the laws that deal with “married” couples cannot be religious based. The Feds cannot interfere with marriage, it is not a power given to them. That is now clear.

    The staes can, but only on the basis of contractual issues and issues of the children, but NOT religiously based. So, when considering the States LAWS on the issue of marriage, one should leave religion as a non issue, as all State laws should as well. These laws are not about religion, and should not be dealt with that way.

    With that said, I agree with the courts, that laws denying all couples equal protection (contractually) under the law are not Constitutional. What has all our undies in a bunch is the term “marriage”. In this I agree, that two men or two women cannot be “married” in a religious sense. The State laws can easily be changed to fix this. Change the “Marriage” term to “Civil Union” when it comes to government issued licenses. Let the Church issue a “Marriage” certificate to those who are wed in Holy Matrimony.

    With this, the laws apply equally and the sanctity of being wed in Holy Matrimony remains untarnished. If the Gays want the Holy Matrimony thing, let them find a church/religion that will do it within their beliefs. This is only hard because the Govt wants it to be. Fix them, and fix this!

    • They will not accept that! Period! The civil union thing could have been easily hammered out but they want to be, legislated, “Normal” and nothing less will do. That unfortunately is the issue.

      Don’t bet that they don’t have the numbers for polygamy. the gays did not have the numbers either and I would think that as recently as 20 years ago, what just happened in the SC would have been considered impossible. There are those who want to destroy every vestige of what this country was in the mistaken notion that what was bad, slavery, Jim Crow, was the norm and continues to this day. As much as I love Charlie and respect him, he has the mistaken notion that we are no different today than the antebellum South was. Destroy marriage, align with the forces whom would include polygamy, destroy education, teach about famous homosexuals in the 1st Grade. Just keep it up. There are always people who will call all these things “reasonable” and your opposition, “bigoted and mean spirited”.

      Our new radical, post 1968 (Chicago Riots) Democratic politicians are NOT the Democrats of my fathers generation. People ask why we won’t compromise? Th reason really is very simple., we already have. Time and time again, we have “compromised”. they have merely raised the bar and castigate us for not “compromising” more. Pick the issue, Gun Control, Gay marriage, Preferential treatment in admissions or hiring, immigration, English, whatever. we have always given them what they needed and they come back for more.

      I have made the Stalin analogy before. You givre him 50% of what he wants then he asks for 50% of what is left, you give him that then he wants the next 50%. All the time he is “reasonable”. There were people in the State Department, “foggy bottom” as Jack Kennedy would have said who found this eminently reasonable.

      The Birchers did get somethings right way, way back. They countered a NY Times ad campaign which consisted of print and poster ads showing happy, smiling people of various professions boasting they, “got their jobs through the NY Times classifieds”. The Birchers put out a one shot campaign with a smiling photo of Fidel Castro, with his cigar saying, “I got my job through the NY Times”. One thing about us right wing nuts, we have a sense of humor which is not vicious.

      Weather or not I approve of gay marriage, I would oppose it. The same as I would oppose public nudity, Street fairs as they have in San Francisco, open intoxication, open use of drugs, bad language in public places etc. Why? not because i don’t think you should do these things but because they cheapen and coarsen society. Perhaps more importantly, they effect others and your freedom ends where mine begins.

  10. (Politico)
    Dems who backed DOMA laud its end
    By DAVID NATHER | 6/26/13 9:30 PM EDT

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”

    He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”

    Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

    But Reid isn’t the only one. There was a long line of prominent Democrats Wednesday who all queued up to applaud the Supreme Court for striking down DOMA — even though they voted for it when it passed in 1996.

    Even Bill Clinton — who signed the bill into law — heralded the court’s decision.

    This is the hypocrisy that makes the left look like spoiled children. I would be embarrassed to support anyone of them.

    • But, nobody, except you and people like you, remember.

      • That makes me fear for the future of America, because I agree with you. The majority of voters do not expect integrity from politicians and therefore do not look to elect men and women of integrity. America has the government it deserves.

        • Matt Lockwood says:

          But there haven’t been many of integrity for a loooonnnngggg time! Which is why we are where we are- the lesser of two evils is still evil, just not as bad as the other guy!

  11. Huh-on the people not having a voice-I read what Cutter and Jones said-but I could find no logic or actual answer beyond-it turned out the way we wanted it to-so everything is A-OK. Did I miss something?

    New ‘Crossfire’ cast previews show with debate on gay marriage ruling
    10:30 AM 06/27/2013

    CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” viewers were given a preview of the newest incarnation of the network’s long-running debate show, “Crossfire,” which is set to debut until the fall.

    The cast debated gay marriage, after Wednesday’s decisions by the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. Host Piers Morgan kicked things off by asking Gingrich if he was “absolutely thrilled” by the ruling.

    “Well, I was thrilled that you’re missing the core point that 8 million Californians voted a particular way,” Gingrich said. “Their governor and their attorney general refused to defend them, and as a result, the court didn’t actually decide the substance of the case. David Boies was quite clear. The court said there is nobody here who has standing to defend the case, therefore the case is remitted because of that or remanded because of that. It strikes me that the 8 million people in California have a pretty good reason to be a little more alienated from Washington than they were yesterday.”
    Ads by Google

    Van Jones argued that there are other harmful influences on the institution of marriage than same-sex marriage.

    “Well, first of all, I just want to say, as a Christian, if you’re concerned about traditional marriage, Kim Kardashian has done more harm to traditional marriage than any gay person,” Jones said. “The institution of marriage has been falling apart because heterosexuals have been screwing it up. We’re the ones getting divorced. We’re the ones cheating. We’re the ones who are shacking up. The people who brought the dignity and the honor back to the institution are the lesbian and gay community. And the problem that we have now is, just because you put something on the ballot, if you had put on the ballot civil rights in 1950, we wouldn’t have them. The court has a job to do to protect people. I’m glad they did the job.”

    S.E. Cupp explained that even as a conservative, she is a supporter of gay rights, and she said she viewed Wednesday’s court ruling as a win for states’ rights and federalism.

    “Well, when it comes to Prop 8, I agree with Newt. It’s a rejection of the voices of the people, and that is — that’s a shame,” Cupp said. “I am a conservative who happens to support gay rights. I’m a conservative who supports marriage. I’m a conservative who supports gay marriage. So on DOMA I think there was a victory, but to me the significant ruling in DOMA wasn’t just that the federal government has to acknowledge the right of gay people to marry but that the federal government has to acknowledge the right of the states. As a small government conservative who supports federalism, I think this was a huge victory for federalism.”

    Rounding out the foursome was former Obama campaign adviser Stephanie Cutter, who applauded the decision on policy and legal grounds.
    Ads by Google

    “You know, I don’t think it’s a surprise where I stand,” Cutter added. “I am very happy about the Supreme Court’s decision today on DOMA. A lot of us have been against DOMA for a long time, have been fighting to overturn it. In terms of the decision on California, you know, yes, eight million people voted for a ballot initiative. But as Van said, people have voted before, and they’ve been wrong. That’s why we have checks and balances in our government. We have three branches of government, and the courts performed a check on the people and vice versa. And I think that today, you know, there was a check on ensuring that people have equality in California.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/new-crossfire-cast-previews-show-with-debate-on-gay-marriage-ruling/#ixzz2XQnsQDgB

    • Interesting, Gingrich and Cupp in effect support a 100 year old Progressive position on Initiative. Van Jones punts and ducks the issue, Stephanie Cutter is anti-democratic. as I said, interesting. Have the Conservatives become the true progressives?

  12. Proposition 8 might still be the law under the California Constitution

    By: Neil Stevens (Diary) | June 27th, 2013 at 10:00 AM | 9

    Yesterday, when the US Supreme Court denied the right of California citizens to stand up and appeal for Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment they voted in place directly, it looked like the lower court’s decision against the amendment would stand.

    After all, The Supreme Court has thrown out all of those appeals in Perry v Brown, leaving only the initial trial court injunction against Proposition 8 by George H. W. Bush appointee Vaughn Walker, and a stay against that by the Appeals Court, which will likely be lifted now.

    But Big Government has noticed that the California constitution may not take the word of one judge alone as binding on the state. So as of now, Proposition 8 may be the law of the land in the Golden State.

    Section 3.5 of the California Constitution says that “An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power… To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional.”

    Ordinarily this is not a problem, because ordinarily the state Attorney General does his job and defends the will of the people in court. However then-AG Jerry Brown refused to do his job, and his successor Kamala Harris has continued that refusal. So when California lost in the initial trial court, no appeal was made by the state.

    And since the Supreme Court has denied the people the right to defend the law ourselves, there is no currently standing appellate court decision against Proposition 8. There is the state appellate court which has heard the matter, but the state Supreme Court in Strauss v Horton ruled the amendment was constitutional.

    So if we go by the California Constitution, then Proposition 8 stands. However that’s the state-centric approach. If we look at this from the perspective of the feds, it’s a different story. Harris intends to follow this interpretation as well, and intends to ignore Proposition 8 as soon as the Court of Appeals lifts the stay on the Walker’s injunction, and will direct all counties to obey the injunction. And then that’s it.

    Elections have consequences. With a state government willing to fight, there would be options. But when the state establishment is firmly against science, judicial restraint, and the will of the people, then nothing will come of this.

    Any fight here will have to come in states with sound leadership. Texas would have a better shot at seeing this through than California ever would, sad as it is to say.


  13. Chuckle of the day: Women for Weiner!


    It seems Huma has taken a page from her (former) boss Hilary in that you support the man no matter how much he tramples on you. Or perhaps in this case, it’s her Muslim Brotherhood background where women are always subservient to men. Regardless, I can’t imagine any woman being involved in this limp effort. 😉

  14. Played out: The liberal racists’ “Uncle Tom” card
    By Michelle Malkin • June 26, 2013 09:23 AM

    Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar and a textbook example of plantation progressivism.

    On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

    This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

    After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, twitchy.com) and pleaded ignorance.

    “I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

    Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry … that he got caught.

    Just another day at the left-wing racist office.

    Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that we swallow their left-wing political orthodoxy whole and never question. When we don’t yield, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, name, authenticity and integrity have been routinely ridiculed or questioned for more than two decades because I happen to be an unapologetic brown female free-market conservative. My Twitter account biography jokingly includes the moniker “Oriental Auntie-Tom” — just one of thousands of slurs hurled at me by libs allergic to diversity of thought — for a reason. It’s a way to hold up an unflinching mirror at the holier-than-thou NoH8 haters and laugh.

    We conservatives “of color” are way past anger about the Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina attacks. We’re reviled by the left for our “betrayal” of our supposed tribes — accused of being Uncle Toms, Aunt Tomasinas, House N*ggas, puppets of the White Man, Oreos, Sambos, lawn jockeys, coconuts, bananas, sellouts and whores. This is how the left’s racial and ethnic tribalists have always rolled. But their insults are not bullets. They are badges of honor. The Uncle Tom card has been played out.

    Of course Winkler didn’t think it was offensive. Smarty-pants liberal racists never think they’re being racist. In their own sanctimonious minds, progressives of pallor can never be guilty of bigotry toward minority conservatives. Ignorance is strength. Slurs are compliments. Intolerance is tolerance.

    And when all else fails, left-wing prejudice is always just a well-intended joke. (PBS commentator Julianne Malveaux’s death wish for Justice Thomas set the standard: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”)

    Back in her day, before the advent of democratizing social media, Malveaux and her elitist PBS friends could get away with such vile bile. But liberal crabs in the bucket, viciously trying to drag dissenters “of color” down, can no longer engage in hit-and-run with impunity. Conservatives on Twitter have changed the dynamic in an underappreciated, revolutionary way. The pushback against liberal political bigotry is bigger, stronger and swifter than it’s ever been.

    You can delete, but you cannot hide.


    • It is the plantation mentality. The “minorities” cannot survive without the “guidance” of the white elite. It is hilarious that they don’t see this as the same thing you saw pre-civil war south. How many times have I read comments attributed to the old white plantation owners that their field hands could not “survive” without them. It becomes even more interesting if you see the dependency created by the white liberal establishment elite to make it de facto if not de jure true.

      Despite the Black Muslim label he had stuck himself with, Malcolm X had it right. When asked by that young white co-ed on Columbia’s campus what she could do to help in the struggle, he told her, “Go Home!” the white power structure makes it quite clear that they don’t want any strong black leaders. the invectives hurled at Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell are really more appropriate for the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s who are doing, for their own personal benefit the bidding of that liberal. elite white power structure.

  15. Yo Charlie. Is Trayvon Martin a racist? I mean, his friend testified that he called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      THe “star” witness got destroyed by the defense. She’s a lying pig and it was proven. Like I have always said, this is nothing but a farce brought upon by the race pimps and the left wing (NBC) media. The only racist……..

    • Anita, probably. What does that have to do with anything? I’m not calling GZ a racist. I think he profiled, but everyone does. I think he killed a kid for no good reason (losing a fight isn’t a good enough reason for me to kill someone).

      Not sure if this will go through … i’ve been given a time-out, you know. A certain person here can’t stand to lose either 🙂


  16. gmanfortruth says:

    I wonder who put this in the Immigration bill? It wouldn’t be a Democrat, would it?

    Seriously. You can’t make this stuff up. Senator Cruz was quoted as saying:

    “I filed an amendment that would have corrected one of the most egregious aspects of the gang of eight bill as it intersects with Obamacare legislation, namely a penalty imposed on U.S. employers for hiring U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. This bill says if an employer hires a citizen or a legal immigrant, the IRS can impose a $5,000 penalty on that employer. But if the employer instead hires someone with RPI status, that penalty will go away. That is utterly and completely indefensible.”

    “Nobody in this body wants to see African-American unemployment go up. Nobody wants to see Hispanic unemployment go up, youth unemployment go up, union household unemployment go up, legal immigrant unemployment go up. Yet every one of those will happen if this Gang of Eight bill passes without fixing this problem. If that happens, all 100 members of the U.S. Senate will be accountable to our constituents for explaining why we voted to put a federal penalty on hiring U.S. citizens and hiring legal immigrants. I hope this body will choose to pass my amendment and fix this grave defect in the Gang of Eight legislation.”

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/ted-cruz-exposes-amnesty-bill-5000-penalty-for-hiring-citizens-over-legalized-aliens/#ixzz2XTFhj5Wj

    • I’m gonna give them a slight pass for this being in the bill to start with-People did not want the newly legalized immigrants to be eligible for Obamacare-so they made them not eligible. But I won’t give them a pass for not fixing the problem-it is an obvious problem and they shouldn’t of let it ride.

  17. gmanfortruth says:

    From an email. Just wondering if lying is what Democrats must do to achieve their evil? I’m starting to understand why JAC thinks there will be a Civil War.

    Just this week, President Obama announced his comprehensive plan to tackle climate change. And guess what? The climate-change deniers are already out in full force.

    It’s astounding to me that in 2013 there are still people who claim that climate change isn’t real — a viewpoint with no basis in scientific fact.

    But because these people have the backing of powerful special interests, they’ve been able to control much of the conversation in Washington and halt progress on these critical issues. And while I hate to say it, if we don’t act quickly to support the President, they might win again.

    Will you stand up to climate-change deniers and stand with President Obama?

    Under the President’s plan, we have a real chance to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create a more sustainable future for our children, and our children’s children. But it won’t happen if we don’t act.

    I can guarantee you that this will be a big fight — many Republicans will deny science and claim that “those liberals” are making it up. But you, me, and 97 percent of scientists know better — climate change is real and we have to act now before it’s too late.

    As the President said, “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.” Stand up and fight today:




    Patrick Gaspard
    Executive Director
    Democratic National Committee

  18. Don’t agree science can’t decide abortion policy but none the less this is an interesting article. Was only vaguely aware that Europe was more conservative when it came to abortion, so I suspect it will surprise a lot of people.

    As far as Saladan not accepting babies in the womb can feel pain because he doesn’t trust pro-life people and the science is debatable-well, what the hell, lets ignore it, the only consequence is that you are torturing human babies to death.

    June 27, 2013
    A Science-Based Abortion Policy Is Impossible
    By Alex B. Berezow

    Thanks to Kermit Gosnell and various pieces of legislation, the ever-simmering culture war over abortion has yet again taken center stage. But there’s something strikingly different about the debate this time: It’s actually focused on the science of embryology.

    Currently, American women can legally have an abortion up through the 24th week of pregnancy, which is well into the second trimester (defined as weeks 13-28), assuming that an abortion clinic will actually perform it. (According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, only 23 percent of abortion providers will perform a procedure after 20 weeks.)

    But conservatives are making the case that an abortion after 20 weeks should not be allowed because some embryological evidence indicates the possibility that a fetus can experience pain at that point in development. In an article for Slate, William Saletan does an excellent job explaining that the science is complicated and debatable, but he still rejects the “pain standard” offered by conservatives. Why? Because he doesn’t trust them.

    Mr. Saletan believes that restricting abortion at 20 weeks is just one step on the path to banning abortion altogether. This “slippery slope” argument – like all such arguments – is completely unconvincing. Indeed, using that logic, the government should never pass any laws at all.

    Perhaps unwittingly, Mr. Saletan has demonstrated that science is not in a position to solve the abortion debate. It can illuminate the discussion by answering questions such as, “When can a fetus experience pain?” or, “When does a fetus gain consciousness?” Someday, science may be in a position to answer those questions, but even then, it will not be able to cast a decisive vote. That’s because the issues at stake here are not scientific; they are moral.

    Essentially, the only question worth asking is: “At what point does a fetus deserve the same rights that are afforded to every other human being?” And Americans have already answered this question convincingly.

    According to a December 2012 Gallup poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal through the first trimester, but 64 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. (A whopping 80 percent believe it should be illegal in the third trimester.)

    So, Americans have issued their verdict: Abortions should be banned after 12 weeks.

    Is that unreasonable? Progressives will say yes, accusing conservatives of trying to control a woman’s body. But this is demagoguery. Pregnancy involves three humans: A woman, a man and a fetus. Any discussion that doesn’t take reality into account should be dismissed.

    Since the left is fond of comparing the United States to Europe – that paradise of progressive values – it is worth examining European abortion laws: They are far, far more conservative than American laws. (Yes, you read that correctly.)

    Writing in The Atlantic, Garance Franke-Ruta explains:

    France permits abortions up until the 14th week of pregnancy… After that, abortions are only available in exigent circumstances, such as severe fetal deformities, or to save the health or life of the mother. France also has a mandatory one-week waiting period for all abortions (they prefer to describe it as a “cooling-off” period), unless by so waiting the woman would pass the 14-week cut-off, which coincides with the end of the first trimester.

    That’s France, the country Americans perceive to be the most sexually liberated of all. She goes on: “Other nations that restrict abortions largely to the first trimester include: Germany (14 weeks), Italy (90 days from the last menstrual period), Spain (14 weeks), and Portugal (10 weeks).”

    What would happen if we followed Europe’s lead and banned abortion after the first trimester? Well, roughly 1.2 million abortions occur annually in the U.S. According to Guttmacher, 88 percent (1.06 million) of those occur within the first 12 weeks. That means, potentially, 140,000 more children would be born each year.

    Is that really such a horrible thing? Does that justify the uproar coming from the pro-choice movement about the supposed conservative assault on women’s bodies? It definitely doesn’t sound like it.

    Unfortunately, abortion will probably be a hotly debated topic for decades to come. But, we should let data, science (when possible) and reality guide the debate, not demagoguery. Such a discussion is 40 years overdue.


    • A good take on this major “women’s health” issue:


      My question is, why do we let them take over the language? Abortion isn’t about women’s health at all – it is about convenience or actually inconvenience, really. In WI, it was recently passed that an ultrasound must be performed pre-abortion and as you might expect, the left went crazy. Really? Because what other medical procedure would you under go without the physician knowing and understanding what they were dealing with? Would you have a root canal with no x-ray? A broken bone set with no x-ray? If the left is so confident in their facts that this is nothing but a blob of cells, a parasite, what are they so afraid of seeing on an ultrasound and why, in the name of “women’s health” would they ever advocate for having a procedure without knowing fully what they were dealing with?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        what are they so afraid of seeing on an ultrasound and why?

        The answer is easy, the TRUTH! They will see fingers and toes, not a blob of nothing, which will destroy their whole narative. Even those who still believe in Glabol Warming (the Empty Head Society). The facts destroy their beliefs. They can’t handle the TRUTH.

        • “Even those who still believe in Glabol Warming (the Empty Head Society).”

          So much for “no more name calling”, huh?


          • gmanfortruth says:

            Empty Head Society).” Simply a response to Obama’s rhetoric, not directed to an individual that posts here. Can you comprehend the difference? 🙂

            • Well, let’s break down what you wrote, G.

              Even “those” who still believe … that would include quite a few people, me for one. That would suggest you’re calling me empty headed. But why let reason and logic get in your way …

              Notice there’s no comeback to the foolish attempt at sarcasm you made “Can you (I)comprehend the difference?”

              No need to … you were in obvious error … why kick a man when he’s down?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, I’m, according to Obama, a member of the “Flat Earth Society”, because I think Global warming is bullshit (and science is on my side). i DID NOT attack you directly, because I don’t know what you feel about the subject. I don’t care what you call people who do NOT post here. It’s not that hard to grasp my position, is it?

            • Move on, G … you’re not getting it and I don’t have the time or desire to teach you how to get it … somehow I don’t remember seeing (because it wasn’t there) Obama’s name in your original statement … oy vey

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, If you don’t see or hear of the polictical news that is happening daily (this is a political blog, as you know) I can not help that. If you need clarification, please don’t hesitate to ask. I’m sure most who read hear can respond with an educational link. 🙂

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    I like anything that is opposite Socialism. This idea may take off and end the insurance industries monopoly on healthcare. Screw Obamacare 👿


  20. gmanfortruth says:
  21. gmanfortruth says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      If Zimmerman was an off duty cop, would this trial still be happening!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Can or will anyone take a shot at this question?

        • Your argument is going to be presented with quite a few problems once the cop who interrogated Zimmerman gets to the stand. If you saw the Esquire article (i’m sure you don’t read Esquire), they have some of the transcript … Zimmerman not only admits to continue following TM, he also continues to say the following: “these assholes always get away” … then he calls TM a “fucking punk” and the cop tells him, “he wasn’t a punk.” It seems Z was feeling comfortable around his heros … but at least one of them wasn’t impressed … he’s probably the one who wanted to charge him with murder originally, but was overruled by someone higher … we shall see what happens. I suspect the phone friend you called a “pig” wasn’t the star witness after all … it seems to be getting more interesting as the days progress … today the dr. who examined Z didn’t have much to say about his “injuries”

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Your response has nothing tom do with the question. 🙄 I will say, however, that if Zimmerman is found not guilty, all hell may break loose in the cities, go figure?

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Following a number of tweets making threats to kill white people if George Zimmerman is acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, a former Chicago police officer warns that the outcome of the case could spark race riots in cities across America

    As Infowars reported yesterday, following the woeful performance of Rachel Jeantel, the state’s so-called “star witness,” a number of Twitter users took to the social network to express their intention to kill white people in retaliation for Zimmerman going free.

    Tweets included remarks such as “If Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white I see,” and “If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka.”

    • A Texas teenager who has been in jail since March faces an eight-year prison sentence because of a threatening joke he made while playing an online video game.

      In February, Justin Carter was playing “League of Legends” — an online, multiplayer fantasy game — when another player wrote a comment calling him insane. Carter’s response, which he now deeply regrets, was intended as joke.

      “He replied ‘Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s father, in a statement to a local news channel.

      The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.

      But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police. Carter was arrested one month later, and has been in jail ever since. He recently celebrated his 19th birthday behind bars.

      Authorities charged him with making a terrorist threat. If convicted, he will face eight years in prison.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/27/texas-teen-makes-violent-joke-during-video-game-is-jailed-for-months/#ixzz2XXvGEoMD

      Wonder if any of the twits live near a school, but then there wouldn’t arrest them for fear of profiling…..

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    Hi Ya’ll 🙂 Let me be clear. A lot of our subjects of discussion, to me are entertainment. All of us should be watching the economic events, as I do, with great passion. This will not simply happen because I say it’s important, you should investigate and learn as much as you can these days. All the political stuff and the murder trials that are the main focus of the MSM should be a clear sign as to what NOT to pay attention too, unless you are well informed to begin with.

    IF, by chance, you need some links to the econmic stuff, let me know. In the meantime, for those who are interested, here’s an update on the attempted lynching of G..Zimmermen : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349794/George-Zimmerman-trial-Rachel-Jeantel-Trayvon-Martin-prosecutions-star-witness-dragged-coals-defense.html

  24. These, these are the people Barry O and John McCain want us to support? Holy Crap!

    • As opposed to supporting Asaad? Oy vey … Glenn Beck … go figure … too bad Beck doesn’t have film of the gas attacks on civilians …

      “eating the heart and liver out of their enemies” … very funny. How can you listen to this lunatic?

      • Watch it! The Russians are right, Putin is right. I wouldn’t give too much credence to “poison gas” .Not particularly stupid. May have bought WMD at one time but now demand a little more than the say so of a pol with an agenda. What is that old line, fool me once, my mistake, fool me twice your mistake. Besides, who in the hell knows who had what poison gas.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          While not a fan of Beck at all, I can say that the use of WMD’s in Syria is still a question mark as too who used it. I will, and have said many times, the US funds the Syrian rebels, just like they did in Libya and Egypt. Obama is a coward, and he is getting strong disapproval from the military brass. I will be shocked if we actually go in to Syria, the military says NO. Times are changing, get ready folks!

        • I’m not a proponent of getting involved in any wars, trust me. I learned my lesson following Bush’s lead … supporting those two fiascos … never again, trust me. Unless they’re attacking my porch, I’m not much interested …

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I agree with you 100%! I would guess we are both fed up with the lies coming out of the District of Criminals. 🙂

  25. gmanfortruth says:
  26. gmanfortruth says:

    The net effect of all this is that the term “racist” is beginning to lose all meaning. It is being thrown around as a cheap, desperate attack by people who don’t have any strength to their own positions, so they toss out the racism grenade and hope it explodes in a barrage of verbal shrapnel.

    “Racism” is the terror weapon of modern-day language. It’s purpose is to cause mayhem and fear, not to advance a coherence argument or reach an agreement on something.

    Thankfully, the racism grenade is increasingly just a dud. More and more people are now recognizing that the “racism” accusation is counterfeit.

    We all know too well how the racist moniker get’s thrown by some people on a regular basis. Too bad for them it just don’t work anymore 🙂

  27. Ha, ha, ha …. you’re funny guy, Gman …

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I said this above ” Disrespect and/or personal attacks will be disallowed. ”

      I really meant this ” Disrespect and/or personal attacks will be disallowed. ”

      Strange, pretty easy sentence to understand. 😉

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    If anyone ever believed that our govt won’t kill it’s own people, read this: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/27/fbi-document-deleted-plots-to-kill-occupy-leaders-if-deemed-necessary/

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    I like this guy, very articulate and speaks a good message: http://conservativevideos.com/2013/06/lil-wayne-is-a-flag-stomping-coward/

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    This is interesting, if it’s true, we have a traitor in the Oval office!

    According to a Libyan intelligence document, the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where several Americans, including U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, were killed.

    Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites, including Veto Gate, quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i. Prepared by Mahmoud Ibrahim Sharif, Director of National Security for Libya, the report is addressed to the nation’s Minister of Interior.

    It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

    According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il…”


    More information concerning the blatantly pro-Brotherhood position of the United States continues to emerge. Earlier, U.S. ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson exposed the Obama administration’s allegiance when she urged Egyptians—including the beleaguered Christian Copts—not to protest against the Muslim Brotherhood as planned for June 30.

    Now, in a recent live interview on Tahrir TV, former Egyptian Member of Parliament, Mustafa Bakari, exposed the relationship between Patterson and Khairat al-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among other things, he pointed out how she recently visited him at his private residence—as opposed to the party’s headquarters—where she likely discussed with him internal matters concerning Egypt, including how “we [the U.S.] will stand with you [regarding the June 30 protests],” adding that she sees and treats him as the “true ruler of the nation.”

    Due to Patterson’s ongoing and very open relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, Bakari concluded that “in fact, in my opinion, she is a member of the sleeper cells of the Brotherhood, likely recruited by Essam al-Erian or Muhammad al-Baltagi.”

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/the-egyptian-people-proclaim-barack-obama-supports-terrorists/#ixzz2XeitKFU3

  31. gmanfortruth says:
    • First of all, it helps if the writer gets the governors first name correct. It is Andrew Cuomo not Michael. Second NY has always been against the use of Fireworks of any type. 55 years ago when I was a kid, only the children of policemen had fireworks (the ones their fathers confiscated). Bloomberg is a petty tyrant who can do no wrong according to his personal oversize ego. Recently it was revealed that the water filtration plant he demanded be built in the City, instead of upstate where it belonged, was running at 300% of original cost estimate and three years behind. Guess what, it is not his fault. Nothing ever is.

      • I actually feel bad for NYC residents. Bloomberg is a kook in my book and shouldn’t be in politics at all. He must have bought his current position. So who will be the next tyrant in line to continue the strangle hold on the city?

  32. I’m not sold that horse meat is such a bad thing. A well raised horse could feed a family for a long time in times of need. Although “last resort” should apply, as it just don’t sound appetizing. http://www.infowars.com/usda-approves-horse-slaughterhouse-to-produce-meat-for-human-consumption/

  33. Anybody watching the Gettysburg broadcast?

    • Yep, very disappointing. The authors during the day were great. The initial presentations were good by the Park Service and then Doris Kearns Goodwin started her talk and it went downhill. I really did not need a description of her life nor of the books on Johnson, FDR nor Kennedy that she wrote. Seemed somewhat irrelevant. Even if you took into account the linkage between emancipation and the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65, a minute would have sufficed better than a half hour. If I were a smart assed 21 year old again, I would have called it hokey.

%d bloggers like this: