A New Week

After a quiet weekend, we begin a new week. Egypt is burning again as the Egyptians want the US imposed rule of the Muslim Brotherhood thrown out. An estimated 17 million turned out for yesterdays protest. That’s a lot of angry people. Ed Snowden is making Obama and his puppets look very weak.  No one wants to give him up and Obama, in a moment of immaturity, says he won’t send jets after a hacker.  While I’m still waiting on Snowden to release something that we “didn’t know”, many are still claiming he is a traitor.   Obama is in Africa at a cost of around 100 million bucks,  so much for sequestration being such a bad thing for government.  Enjoy the summer SUFA  🙂



  1. gmanfortruth says:


  2. I should run for president, it seams the best way to see the world and attend concerts from your favorite artists. Not to mention the ability to play gulf when ever you want, no matter what is going on in the world. And not mention the awesome food you can get at those “state dinners” that you hold packed full of movie stars you can get your picture with and pretend they like you.

    Winning the presidency is better than hitting the lottery. You get all the perks without any responsibility.

  3. By MALTE SPITZ – Published: June 29, 2013

    “In Germany, whenever the government begins to infringe on individual freedom, society stands up. Given our history, we Germans are not willing to trade in our liberty for potentially better security. Germans have experienced firsthand what happens when the government knows too much about someone. In the past 80 years, Germans have felt the betrayal of neighbors who informed for the Gestapo and the fear that best friends might be potential informants for the Stasi. Homes were tapped. Millions were monitored.”


    Americans are like children, we can be told by those that have lived through mistakes about the consequences of our actions and we will ignore them so that we have to suffer them for ourselves before we learn our lesson. Wouldn’t it be better to listen to the warnings of history and do our best to not repeat their mistakes?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have often why the mistakes of the past a not spoken of much. No sense in warning the sheeple what their in for I guess.

  4. gmanfortruth says:
  5. Snowden may not have released anything we don’t already know-but is his releasing information that concerns other Countries really helpful to the US. It’s not like he’s out there proving that other Country’s spy on us too. No, all he’s doing is giving other Countries a reason to have to talk bad about us while they are doing the exact same thing, something which hurts us. No, I don;t like Snowden anymore-I suspect he’s a far, far left holier than thou nut case that wants to hurt this Country. If not, he would have kept his comments on the NSA spying on Americans. Not trying to damage and weaken America as a Country.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Fair enough. Did you ever think it is possible that Snowden is a CIA asset trying to take down Obama? I have read a few stories about this possibility. This is being talked about because nothing he has said hasn’t already been reported by news agencies, including everything that you mentioned.

    • Sorry VH – I disagree on this one. If the truth damages or weakens America as a country, we really weren’t that strong after all, were we? I am so sick of all the cover-ups that maybe the cleansing of all this dirty laundry needs to take place before we can ever hit a reset button.

      • No law that says you have to agree with me 🙂 But what exactly about gathering intelligence information in other countries is dirty laundry.

        • Oh I don’t believe anything that has come out from Snowden is dirty laundry at this point at all – even though all the pols act like our deep, deep secrets have been told. My point, is that as we “find out” about spying on our allies, our allies aren’t exactly thrilled (but obviously knew and do it themselves). I just mean all these “secrets” should be out in the open. Then we can work on rebuilding relationships. (sorry – on a conference call and trying to listen, write notes and type this – not sure it makes sense!)

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I don’t see how has made the country less safe, as they all keep saying. Safe from who? we the people need to be safe from the corrupt govt, I’m glad they got outed on this. 🙂

  6. “It’s long past time for Congress to create a federal law that defines and protects journalists.” Sen. Dick Durbin

    Does this make you feel safe about your first amendment rights?

    If they take our second amendment rights the rest will fall quickly.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Durbin is a loser. Maybe he should read the Bill of Rights.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

      It’s that part that states “SHALL MAKE NO LAW”. Any law that defines journalists would be abridging the free press.

  7. Another reason to despise if not outright hate Lindsy Graham and John McCain. His blood and the blood of the thousands of others are on their hands.

    Someday, somehow, somewhere, people are going to “get” the fact that there are repressive autocratic governments who can morph into more Democratic Governments without having to go through the bloodbath of “revolution”. Assad was not Kim Il Jong, nor was Quadaffi. Jury is still out on Saddam.


  8. Thinking of everyone in Texas today! Stand for Life for sure! Take a moment to watch this video of Heath White and his daughter Paisley.


    • That made me cry-Little girls giving their daddy’s a kiss is always so sweet.

      I know you’ve noticed this but it bears repeating.

      Abortion Devotee Wendy Davis Dares Not Utter ‘Abortion’

      By Jack Coleman | July 01, 2013 | 11:25
      2 4 Reddit0 0
      A A

      …. Almost as if there were something inherently abhorrent about it, which at risk of stating the obvious, there is.

      Never ceases to amaze me how liberals, having elevated the killing of unborn children to the realm of sacrament, go out of their way to avoid actually saying the word “abortion”. (Video after the jump)

      This peculiar tendency was on inglorious display yesterday when Texas state senator Wendy Davis, newly-minted left-wing rock star after her 11-hour filibuster in defense of “abortion rights,” appeared on “Meet the Press.”

      In the course of a five-minute interview, Davis adroitly tiptoed around the donkey-in-the-room subject at hand while deploying a creative array of euphemisms for it. To avoid sullying herself by saying abortion, Davis instead spouted these —

      “matters of personal liberty”

      “intrusions against our personal liberty”

      “doctors who are able to function in this arena”

      “turning back the clock”

      “women’s healthcare”

      “reproductive decision-making”

      Davis was also duplicitous when asked pointedly by Gregory on whether she opposes abortion after 20 weeks, answering in such a way that it sounded like she does, when the entire point of her filibuster was adamant support for abortion on demand through the entirety of pregnancy —

      GREGORY: Senator, do you think a 20-week ban on abortion is acceptable? Do you think it’s reasonable?

      DAVIS: Right now, that ban, of course, is being talked about because of the idea of fetal pain and at the constitututional level what we, of course, have assured is that women have the ability to make these reproducive decisions up to the point of viability. That has to remain the key question here and, of course, when we’re talking about that particular issue there are very, very few. It’s used more as an emotional trigger point as part of the argument, but remember, it’s a huge omnibus bill that involves many, many other aspects to it that are setting Texas back.

      Once again, the curiously vague language, along with Davis’s frequent resort to the royal “we” — as in, “at the constitutional level what we, of course, have assured is that women have the ability to make these reproductive decisions up to the point of viability.” In other words, “we” agree with the Roe v. Wade framework that allows abortion to the end of the second trimester, but only under extraordinary circumstances after viability is established at the onset of the third trimester.

      After emphasizing that this is “of course” what “we” believe, Davis hastened to add that there are “very, very few” — as in, ahem, third-trimester abortions. That being the case, why all the sturm and drang over an allegedly rare procedure that “of course” should not be taking place anyway?

      Sounds like what you’d expect from an ambitious state senator all but running for governor and keenly aware that just as many women oppose late-term abortion as do support it.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/07/01/abortion-devotee-wendy-davis-dares-not-utter-abortion#ixzz2XoPatwyj

  9. BREAKING: Egypt’s Army Threatens Intervention, Gives 48 Hours
    July 1st, 2013 – 3:01 pm

    (To be updated as details arrive)

    Egyptian television has just broadcast a statement by the armed forces: if the current turmoil is not resolved within 48 hours, the armed forces will have to announce a new “roadmap” for the future, and will enforce new measures that would include all factions.

    This is either a warning that everyone better get off the streets, or an actual coup threat to remove the government.


  10. gmanfortruth says:

    ‘m not sure what the prosecutor is doing in the Zimmerman trial, but it sure seems like he’s throwing the case. He’s doing more to help Zimmerman than hurt him from what I see. Strange 🙄

    • The district attorney in FL only charged George to make the mob happy and now their lake of any real case against him is being seen. Of course the mob will cry foul play and riot if their blood lust is not satisfied.

      I wonder if the left will call racism when a lynch mob of blacks hunts down a Hispanic man or destroys Hispanic owned businesses in a riot?

  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. gmanfortruth says:

    The Guardian released another shocking NSA scoop on Saturday, revealing collusion and mass harvesting of personal communications among the United States and at least six European Union countries — only to delete it from their website hours after publication.

    The article, titled “Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America,” was written by Jamie Doward, who reported information from Wayne Madsen, a former Navy Lt. and NSA employee for 12 years.

    Doward wrote:

    Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

    Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

    He went on to say that seven European countries and the U.S. have access to a fiberoptic cable network, intercepting phone calls, emails, and user logs from websites. The article describes Madsen as having “been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues.” http://www.infowars.com/the-guardian-…

    This is how most of the info that Snowden released was made public over the last ten years or so. SO, if all these countries had agreements for the info, there is no harm by Snowden. I don’t know why I’m supporting him, but I’m just not seeing treason here. Someone help me out and present a solid case for his actions being illegal. 🙂

    • I’d say the main problem is that the “Truth” is only being released about the US and our allies-our enemies -nothin

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I would say the main problem is govt’s spying on their people without cause. If this doesn’t happen, it would not be an issue 🙂

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Interesting read about some lessons of history and what may happen in the future.: http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/07/01/americas-coming-guerrilla-war/

  14. Zimmerman just buried himself … yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwwwwww!

  15. He never ID’s himself (something he could’ve done several times).

    He was just moving in the same direction, he wasn’t following TM. (Yeah, right).

    But here is what was important (to me): GZ was being punched in the face 25-30 x’s (sure doesn’t look like it) … his head was being “pounded” on the cement walkway … TM had his hand covering GZ’s nose and mouth (he couldn’t breathe) … so explain to me how he was screaming for help (his mouth is covered/he’s being punched 25-30 x’s and his head is being bashed) …

    He looks like he was slapped a few times … his nose could’ve been broken with the gun AFTER he killed the kid (we’ll never know) … but that was the worst of his injuries (a broken nose) … from 25-30 punches to his face/his head being bashed and he couldn’t breathe.

    Yeah, right.

    He gets off, it’s an injustice.

    He gets manslaughter, it’s a beautiful thing (he deserves it).

    He’ll never get a 2nd degree conviction.

    • You are watching a very different trial than I am, or, your not paying attention to the facts of the case. You have made your judgement, as I have, long ago. Lets just see what the jury say’s, after all, they are the chosen 6 in this case .

      • There prosecution got crushed today!

        • AND ……… there wasn’t a trace of GZ’s blood or DNA on TM … nothing on his hands … knuckles … he must’ve thrown those 25-30 punches to GZ’s face with a feather …

          • THat part of the trial has not happened yet. Patience old friend, the autopsy report will come out soon , (p.s. I have already read it, have you?)

            • Just read it … small abrasian on his ring finger. That’s it? 25-30 punches, head bashing, covering his mouth and broken nose (if it was broken during the “attack”) … all that and a single abrasian on his ring finger … no blood trace … no GZ DNA … not even under his fingernails … looks like a fugazy self-defense claim to me ….

  16. Just finished watching the movie “Dogma” for the ninth time. What an interesting view on religion and Christianity. If you can get past the F-word (my wife can’t) it has a lot to say and think about.

  17. Ah, Stephen! Dogma … the basis of my thesis for my MFA … I continue to struggle with whether or not I can believe. I want to but can’t invest everything yet. Alan Rickman and Alanis Morrisette visited me in the thesis from time to time …

  18. Captain Cannoli’s summation (thus far): Zimmerman claims he was hit in the face 25-30 times … his head was being slammed against the concrete sidewalk and that Trayvon Martin was covering his nose and mouth, cutting of Zimmerman’s breath.

    Aside from the fact Zimmerman’s injuries don’t seem to come close to that kind of attack, there’s this: how the hell does somebody scream for help during that kind of battering. If you’re getting hit in the face 25-30 times, your head is being bashed on the sidewalk and you can’t breathe.

    The prosecution’s opening statement claims there was no blood traces on Trayvon Martin (none of Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Trayvon Martin). How is that possible if you’re getting hit in the face 25-30 times, your head is being bashed on the sidewalk and you can’t breathe. Assuming the broken nose occurred during the battering (Zimmerman first claimed he was punched in the nose first), how does Trayvon Martin cover his nose and mouth and not get blood on his hands?

    Obviously, Zimmerman’s story has been embellished.

    The autopsy report shows a single abrasion on Trayvon Martin’s ring finger. Really? After he punched Zimmerman’s face 25-30 times?

    • I watched for awhile yesterday (rainy weather), got to here the female cop who conducted the first interview, which they played the recording and read the written statement GZ wrote right after. 25-30 times was never mentioned (not sure where you’re getting your info). Your jumbling everything together, then claiming how can he scream (you obviously are not getting good info). You missed the part where Martin was holding his mouth/nose and said” Now your gonna die”. This according to GZ’s interview. (Conveniently missed that, ah Bro?) I really don’t need to go any further, cause there’s lots to go in this case. What is important is that in Florida, GZ doesn’t have to PROVE sefl defense, the prosecution must PROVE beyond a shadow of doubt that he didn’t think his life was in danger. After watching yesterday and bits and pieces earlier, I still think the Prosecutor is throwing the case. Just my opinion of course and I could be wrong

      • Jumbling everything together … well, let’s see … GZ told 3 different tales about what happened … “now your gonna die” (GZ’s words … nobody else heard them) … very convenient. You were watching with your eyes closed, me thinks. Doesn’t make a difference about the outcome … OJ was innocent, right? Today try and pay attention …

        • I won’t be watching much today, no rain and lots to do in garden (we’re growing lots of tomatoes for canned pasta sauce, the good Italian stuff too!). Despite all the media attention, I still think it’s over. No way can the prosecution disprove self defense. Once Martin threatened to kill GZ (as he claims). The fact that no one else heard that is irrelevant, perception is reality in one’s mind. But enjoy the case today, maybe the Prosection has some great big surprise for the jury (maybe GZ used the N word when he was 12 🙂 )

  19. At Captain Canoli……Why is everybody so bogged down in semantics? I don’t get it…..I am not watching any of this but catching sound bites…… all of the facts really do not matter, do they? It is the self defense doctrine that is on trial in Florida….and Florida only.

    It matters not whether or not Zimmerman was following anyone…..it matters not whether or not this kid was trying to “get out of the rain”……it boils down to….or should boil down to…..was this kid on top of Zimmerman. If he was…..provoked or not……is self defense justified? Is fear of life,…..a logical defense? Is there objective reasoning as to when a “fear of life becomes a reasonable defense….and whether or not that defense is justifiably lethal.

    Fear of life is subjective……TOTALLY subjective. There can be no objective reasoning for the feeling of “fear of life”. What may be fear to me….may not be to some people…..but no one has the right to say my fear is wrong….NO ONE has that right. So,…does it really matter the circumstance? Response to fear of life does NOT…DOES NOT have to be proportional.

    So…all these little circumstances do not really matter. If this Zimmerman character grabs this kid by the shoulder or something, then the kid is justified to use whatever means necessary, including lethal, to create his safety zone….and vice versa.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Colonel. I hope the heat wave finds you more comfortable.

      On target, dead center Sir.

      My opinion and affection for the legal profession diminishes each time I see them in action.

      • Heat wave? Is it hot? Las Vegas and Phoenix can probably claim hot…….126….that is a little toasty.

        Not too bad here, sir. 98-101 but the friggin humidity was about 85%……sucks the life right outta those not used to it.

        • I’d move to Texas in a heartbeat if that temp wasn’t so dreadful. 85 and up and I don’t like being out. We’ve had a mild summer..only a couple days in the high eighties, and plenty of rain..great for the garden..bad for lake time.

    • “Is fear of life,…..a logical defense? Is there objective reasoning as to when a “fear of life becomes a reasonable defense….and whether or not that defense is justifiably lethal.”

      So, then, if I want to whack somebody (for money or whatever) … all I need to is push him and when he goes to hit me back, I can shoot him in the face and claim self-defense (my word against the dead man’s) … think about it … absurd.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        No, that should not be the case. If you start the fight then you are at fault. Unless the fight stops and you walk away and then the other guy changes his mind and chases you down.

        But realistically, if you allow people to defend themselves legally then what criteria can you use?

        The fear of injury is a legitimate threshold. The problem is that it is subjective.

        That is why so many cases have been dropped in Florida. We once debated this here and BF proposed that the person killing someone bears the burden of proof that they acted properly. Remember the discussion of reciprocal reaction? You hit me I don’t shoot you, but I can hit you.

        My problem with that then and now is that the person’s state of mind and physical condition play a role in their vulnerability. For example, in my younger days if you attacked me, you would have been in for one hell of a fight. If your friends joined in they might also get hurt. Today however, if you attacked me, given my age and your stated size and strength, I would simply shoot you dead.

        So the “reciprocal” nature in my example is not equal force but “protecting myself” against further injury. So if people don’t want to get killed then don’t go around jumping on other people. You had better make sure the reasons for jumping are darned solid and necessary.

        But even applying that to Zimmerman gets us no answer in court. Because nobody seems to have witnessed the entire chain of events. This is not like writing a book. Chapters, or pieces, of a story don’t necessarily make a complete story.

        And again, it shows a weakness in our system. Criminals are now using the law to justify killing others, where there are no witnesses to prove otherwise.

        • JAC: I believe you and I are having a civilized discussion. Big ups to you, brother.

          For example, in my younger days if you attacked me, you would have been in for one hell of a fight. If your friends joined in they might also get hurt. Today however, if you attacked me, given my age and your stated size and strength, I would simply shoot you dead.

          Hold on a minute, JAC. We just made friends and now you want to kill me. 🙂

          Captain Cannoli is like the Hakawee’s (contrary to how too many here perceive NY’ers) … Hakawee’s and Captain Cannoli are lovers, not fighters.

          I agree with this in total: And again, it shows a weakness in our system. Criminals are now using the law to justify killing others, where there are no witnesses to prove otherwise.

          That is my issue with the stand your ground law (which is not being used here). But, all we have are GZ’s words … so the prosecution needs to prove he’s embellished his version (which I don’t think anyone in their right mind would not do had they just killed a kid, whether they did so in self-defense or not). I think the state went for the political charge (here G-man is “almost” right … it was whipped up by the big mouths like Sharpton (to this day I’ll never understand how this clown has gained “legitimacy”), but it wasn’t a case at all until some kid put it up on Youtube (it was being ignored). It’s a tough call … nobody knows what happened or what the jury will do. I just can’t believe for a second his life was in actual danger. Someone arrived 20 seconds after he shot the kid. 20 seconds more and the kid remains alive. I think it’s manslaughter or negligent homicide or something much less than 2nd degree, but no matter what the kid was prior to that night, all he was doing was heading home, was profiled and then pursued by a guy who had no business doing so (and had been told not to do so). Yes, it isn’t a crime to do so, but that has to be considered by a jury (that he was complicit in his killing the kid) … there’s no way around that.

          Good on you, sir. You may’ve whipped my butt back in your day, by the way … or, as most of my fights with good fighters went, we both walked away much, much, much more marked up than GZ, and we both believed we (each of us) had won the fight … that said, the worst beating I ever took was from a skinny cowboy in South Dakota … he was drunk and looking for a fight. He was mine the first 2 minutes (maybe 90 seconds) … then I was gassed and he kicked (literally) my ass. I looked like Joe Frazier after the last Ali-Frazier fight. So it goes … I’m grateful he didn’t shoot me, I’ll tell you that much …

  20. Wendy Davis had her 15 minutes…..the bill will pass.

  21. Texas reshaping its rules on the gallery in the Texas house. Never before has a gallery in the House been used for protests…to where a vote cannot be taken. Decorum will be followed without fail. There will be one warning…..then you will be escorted out. Want to protest???? Go out on the lawn and be as loud and obnoxious as you want but not inside.

    Everyone thinks that this filibuster by Wendy Davis was heroic..it was not even heroic. She catheterized herself in violation of rules…….this time, she can filibuster if she wants…but Senate Bill 1 is the first of three bills to be considered….A transportation infrastructure bill is also on the table as well as improving the Juvenile Justice System. So, the first bill to be worked on is the abortion bill……it will pass as will the other two.

    • Oh,and I might mention…..if Wendy Davis wishes to filibuster……go for it…..she will have to weeks….no chair, no food, no water, no restroom breaks..no props. Stand up there and talk all you want…..till you drop.

      All the bleeding hearts can claim that this woman is being mistreated all they want…….but in Texas……….she has the same rights as any male in the filibuster. Go for it Wendy……then shut up…..you got put in the legislature through court order on redistricting….you were not elected properly anyway……so………..go for it.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, as usual things get interesting when I am away. So time to add a comment or two from the last two weeks events. First up, the SCOTUS ruling on California Prop 8.


    As explained in an HP article regarding the argument by Justice Kennedy:

    “In his dissent, Kennedy, a California native, wrote that the majority “does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California,” which, like 26 other states, “uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative.”

    Because the court “insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference is to lose the case,” Kennedy continued, the majority’s decision “means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”

    I will explain later why I think Kennedy displays error in his DOMA arguments, in this case he NAILS IT.

    Final analysis? SCOTUS has become a legal representation of the lack of character and mushy thinking that pervades our politics, and as supported by the Legal Profession. We are now the subjects of Wizards in Black Robes.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Next up; Zimmerman vs Martin.

    The Colonel gets it right. The ONLY question is whether Zimmerman felt threatened. So most of the testimony so far is nothing but distraction designed to affect the emotions of the jury. A jury by the way that is NOT representative of a Jury by Our Peers.

    Did Martin attack Zimmerman after Zimmerman walked away? If so then Zimmerman is innocent. The degree of injury or the type of abrasions on Martin are irrelevant. Hate the law if you like but that is all the law should be dealing with here. After all, SCOTUS has said the courts should not involve themselves in political issues, right?

    If Martin did nothing but come towards Zimmerman then Z could be found guilty because simply walking towards someone, yelling or not, may not be reasonably construed as a life threatening situation by most rational people. But this situation could depend on what happened before.

    • “The ONLY question is whether Zimmerman felt threatened.”

      WRONG as usual, JAC … if Zimmerman started the altercation, which he well may have, he doesn’t get to shoot the kid (which he did) …

      Okay, just saw you covered this in your last para … good boy.

      • Not so fast, my friend. If he (Zim) started the altercation……physical altercation….actually martin could claim self defense. I find it interesting that there is no self defense claim from Martin…..

        Profiling and following is not against the law and not a life threatening issue……becoming pissed because you are being followed and then jumping on someone….is life threatening. So, I do not know all of the facts as this jury does……I do not know who jumped on who…..but whoever did the jumping……is the guilty party and self defense is authorized.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You are wrong in one context. If Zimmerman assaults Martin but is pushed away. And then Zimmerman leaves it is Martin who is now initiating the threat by following him.

        If Zimmerman walks up to Martin and starts an altercation and brandishes his weapon then Martin has the right to defend himself. As the Colonel notes, nobody ever claimed this to be true. Unfortunately I haven’t seen anyone testify to KNOWING this to be true or not true.

        This is the weakness or potential trouble spot with any self defense claim. Was the response reasonable given the situation.

  24. Just A Citizen says:


    I did not say we WILL have a Civil War. I said it was far more realistic than a general REVOLUTION against only our Govt.

    In reality how does none distinguish between Revolution and Civil War when both are limited to within a country?

    The difference I see between the War of Northern Aggression and the next Civil War is the next one may not be based on STATE boundaries but IDEOLOGICAL boundaries.

    This may be why the LEFT is so concerned with diluting STATE sovereignty. If State’s retain their legal autonomy we could see a Balkanization based on ideology. Then a Civil War would have geographical boundaries. If Federal primacy prevails then it will be neighbors against neighbors.

    The latter will look like broad scale rioting and civil unrest. Thus allowing the Fed Govt to impose marshal law and use all forces available to stop the “rioting”.

    • Your views seem to be inline with many others views about this. If Zimmerman is found innocent, which I believe will occur, the rioting may start when that happens. Sad times ahead I’m afraid.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I am not sure he will be found innocent.

        I think that is why the prosecution is raising issues and descriptions that are so meaningless with respect to the law. To cloud the defense to the point the emotion of a “young kid” was killed for no good reason. So the killer must pay somehow.

        I watched a little CNN this morning on this. The anchor and selected guests were actually being snarky and sarcastic towards Zimmerman’s claim and the defense. It was blatantly designed to convince the audience that Zimmerman is guilty. I was appalled, and frankly surprised by how open it was.

        So if the rioting does happen…………. somebody needs to put the blame squarely in the laps of the media.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Note on how many think of our Constitution.

    Yesterday I responded to a comment on HP regarding a Republican who is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage. The comment was that this was foolish and a waste of time because such an Amendment was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

    My comment was to the affect of “do you realize how ignorant such a statement is?”

    The responses were that the Constitution prevents discrimination against any type of person. I explained that an Amendment legalizing Slavery would be constitutional was met with the usual “your crazy” type responses.

    I saw a 60 minutes special on the Historian McCullough the other night. At the end he proclaimed that Americans have become IGNORANT of our history and that is partly why we see the hollow and irrational Political discourse we have.

    Well I submit that my example above fits his conclusion quite well.

    • I remember Roberts saying that elections have consequences when he made his “tortured” ruling on Obamacare. I didn’t take the comment all that seriously at the time-but watching the actions of the Court on Prop 8-I’ve come to believe that to Roberts that statement has major implications on how he’s gonna run the Court-per him, it looks like only our elected representatives have a voice-it looks like our rights and our voice has been whittled down to meaning nothing more than the right to Vote-and only the right to vote for our representatives.

      Can the AG’s in other States file a case to fight this ruling based on standing. I’m not talking about a case about gay marriage-just a case to fight against the people not having standing in any case like this one?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I would say YES. Roberts would have trouble making the same argument if the AG’s brought the case. On the other hand, if you remember Roberts and others questions “standing” in the Obama Care cases. The argument was that nobody had actually been harmed yet as the law was not implemented.

        Yet they ruled anyway. Thus the MAGIC of the Wizards in Black Robes. LAW is simply created by incantation and from thin air.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I can’t get that to play. What is the gist of his commentary?

            • I had trouble with it earlier too. The gist is that we have a Supreme Court making laws through LOOPHOLES..and that now we have to fight the Excutive (EOs) Legislative (forgot that analogy), and now the Judicial (loopholes) to stay anywhere near where the FF would have agreed on.

              • He was really an ass last night – even more than usual. He was on vaca all last week too; maybe didn’t get enough time away.

                I’m really perturbed at his non-qualified, complete approval of the Senate’s immigration bill and not allowing any of his guests to even point out some of the flaws. He’s been yanked by someone. Laura Ingraham schooled him on it right before he left for vaca and I was surprised she was allowed to cover for him last week. O’Reilly doesn’t like to be made to look like a fool and Laura sure did that.

  26. “Maybe we should wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a ‘human right.’”

    I couldn’t agree more!

    Kirsten Powers: I Don’t Stand With Wendy Davis
    by Kirsten Powers Jul 2, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

    Stand with the pink-sneakered Texas legislator and her fight to allow mothers to abort babies past the 20th week of pregnancy? Never—and most women wouldn’t either, says Kirsten Powers.

    It’s amazing what is considered heroism these days.

    A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

    People actually cheered this.

    When Davis’ filibuster was stopped, spectators voiced their anger.

    But the fight is not over. The bill will be reintroduced, and supporters of the ban are optimistic it will pass. For now, Wendy Davis has achieved the dubious victory of maintaining a very dark status quo. Texas women will still be able to abort a healthy baby up to the 26th week of pregnancy for any reason, as the current law allows.

    According to the Parents Connect website, if you are in the 25th week of your pregnancy, “Get ready for pat-a-cake! Baby’s hands are now fully developed and he spends most of his awake time groping around in the darkness of your uterus. Brain and nerve endings are developed enough now so that your baby can feel the sensation of touch.” Let’s be clear: Davis has been called a hero for trying to block a bill that would make aborting this baby illegal.

    In addition to the limit on late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 after the Gosnell horror. The New York Times warned that the Texas bill “could lead to the closing of most of Texas’s 42 abortion clinics.” That sounds familiar. In 2011, the Pennsylvania ACLU claimed a post-Gosnell bill “would effectively close most and maybe all of the independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania.” Last month, a Pennsylvania news site reported that “several” abortion clinics have closed, which isn’t quite the Armageddon the abortion-rights movement predicted.

    So no, I don’t stand with Wendy. Nor do most women, as it turns out. According to a June National Journal poll, 50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest.

    One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent. In many European countries, you can’t get an abortion past 12 weeks, except in narrow circumstances. Gallup reported in January that 80 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, and 64 percent think it should be illegal in the second trimester.

    Maybe we should wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a ‘human right.’

    If the majority of Americans oppose elective late-term abortion, why do we have Davis complaining to CBS’s Bob Schieffer that the male politicians who are championing the late-term abortion ban are “bullying women”? Maybe it’s she who is bullying the rest of us into supporting a view that is mocked by scientific advancement; namely 3-D sonograms. Maybe we should be thankful for the men and wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a “human right.”

    Human-rights movements have traditionally existed to help the voiceless and those without agency gain progressively more rights. Yet in the case of abortion, the voiceless have progressively lost rights at the hands of people who claim to be human-rights crusaders. Abortion-rights leaders have turned the world upside down. They want us to believe that a grown woman is voiceless, that she has less agency than the infant in her womb who relies on her for life. A woman has so little agency, we are told, that she is incapable of getting an abortion before the fifth month of her pregnancy. To suggest she should do so is a “war on women.” It’s an insult to women dressed up as “women’s rights.”

    On ABC’s This Week, Peggy Noonan responded to the chants of “I stand with Wendy” by noting, “What she is … standing for is something we would recognize as infanticide, late-term abortion, the taking of a little child’s life.” Standing for that is not heroic, and it is not something to be cheered.

    • Kudos once again to Kirsten Powers. She honestly might be the only lefty I know who has the ability to think through something and not buy into standard rhetoric.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    OK V………… you drug me into this one.

    Re Wendy Davis. My answer?

    Wendy Davis = Sandra Fluke.

    How’s that for brevity? LOL.

    • You know JAC-I had to post this one 🙂

      It’s about time someone on the left called them on their oh-so-extreme positions on abortion. They talk so much about science, yet they ignore it, when they don’t like where it Should lead them.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        As I have said before, I like Kirsten Powers. Don’t always agree, but I love her style and her willingness to think and attempt a rationale argument.

    • Agree JAC. Only this woman is old enough to know better.

  28. “UnitedHealth said it had notified state regulators that it would leave the state’s individual market at year-end and force about 8,000 customers to find new coverage. Last month, Aetna Inc., the nation’s third-largest health insurer, made a similar move affecting about 50,000 existing policyholders.”

    Obama: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” I guess he forgot to tell us that we wouldn’t have a choice to keep our plans when the companies are forced to drop your plan because of the increased cost of doing business.

    • This works great … eventually, we’ll go to universal health care, like the rest of the civilized world, and it will no longer be an issue … Oh, Canada!

      • But Charlie, the rest of the “civilized world” is moving away from universal health care….(1) Canada, (2) Japan, (3) Germany, (4) Finland, (5) England, (6) Italy……are all beginning to privatize their health care…..

      • “Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

        The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.”

        Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”

        “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”


        • I don’t know a single Canadian (and I know several) who complains about their health care … more importantly, none of them had to give up their homes/assets for getting sick.

          • The only complaint that I have had Charlie, from some Canadian friends is that it is rather selective as you get older and that hospital beds are hard to come by. The other complaint that I have heard is that there are very few specialists available.

      • Charlie, do you really want this corrupt govt, run by the 1% to have the decisions on your healthcare? If you really do, then you must really like all the corruption and stuff in DC. 😦

  29. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/extremely-disturbing-video-apparently-shows-police-arresting-man-for-filming-officers-then-shooting-his-dog-4-times/

    Personally I think that officer should be fired, then prosecuted and then spend about 10 years in jail. The son of a bitch shouldn’t have shot the dog at all but even if one believes he was in danger there was no reason to shoot 4 times. The heartless son of a bitch. Just a little common sense, the dog stopped, he only reacted when the officer walked toward him. This was senseless cruelty-and on top of all of it-why did they even arrest the man.

  30. HV, Most young cops in the cities are control freak sociopaths who demand you accept their authority. One only has to remember Boston and how those people were treated if they didn’y OBEY their orders.

  31. More on the Zimmerman trial, prosecution is getting killed by their own witnesses. http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/detective-says-zimmerman-never-changed-his-story/

    This is why I think the prosecution is throwing the case.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have been watching the Communist News Network (CNN) as of late. I thought I’d listen to a different view of things and see where I stood on their coverage. Overall, they have been way over-hyping the Zimmerman trial, almost to the point that their is an intended reaction to the final verdict. Fox News isn’t all that much better either, which concerns me. Let me explain.

      UI’m starting to see the MSM as being just as much “news makers’ and ‘news reporters”. Are they not stoking the fires for civil unrest in the future? Does the outcome really matter, as long as their are riots that they can talk about? Let’s face it, if Zimmerman is found guilty, the hatred that blacks have grows, some civil unrest may occur against Hispanics, as well as whites (not where I live). If he is found innocent, multiply the reaction by 100.

      I’m not sure where this will ultimately lead, but the direction is bad, no matter what. Be safe my friends by being prepared 🙂

  32. California teachers suing to end mandatory union dues
    Published July 01, 2013
    Washington Free Beacon

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/01/california-teachers-suing-to-end-mandatory-union-dues/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2Xuww5bYp


    • I just read some more on this subject-they had control of this child for 6 years! I think this is the sickest thing I’m read in my entire life-it is hard to even have the words to convey this feeling of absolute disgust-and why , why is 40 years the highest level of punishment for this type of crime-why isn’t this man sentenced to life without parole-and why aren’t they commenting on the other guys sentence-I read he was the one who gave the authorities the codes for the computer-is he helping them with the investigation -so he’s getting a lighter sentence. Lighter in this case should be-we won’t literally torture you everyday for the next however many years you live if you help us, we’ll just put you in prison.

  33. This is hilarious! “Conscience of a Liberal” (whaaaat???) “The Always Wrong Club” by none other than Paul Krugman! LOL! So many opportunities there….


    Love the commenter several down that mentions Krugman is like the guy falling 40 stories that at the 10th floor says, “nope, nothing bad happening”. Good analogy.

  34. Laugh for the day from those clever Twitter users (Michello O whining about prison is pretty good too)


  35. I was one of the 50,000.


    Got home about 5:30. Spent the next 90 minutes replacing the carb on my generator and getting it started. Just as I was ready to plug in the frig, the power came back.

  36. Obamacare being delayed for one year………for business’. Being delayed until AFTER the 2014 elections? Single individuals are NOT exempt. The CBO now confirms the billions in deficits will grow significantly……much different than the REDUCTIONS that were promised. People being laid off in droves……another delaying of the pain. Business quit hiring because of the increased costs…..it is hitting home. The Obama administration is now discussing taking away the definition of part time work……right now it is 29 hours per week…they, the administration, has realized that employers will drop the hours to 29…..and did……so now…..take away the definition of part time work.

    Well, I can tell you now that the impact on the fast food industry is becoming devastating, to name one. Mom and pop restaurants and the small convenience stores are going down in flames……I do not eat at the local Mickey D’s any longer…I refuse to pay 7 bucks for a burger and fries. It is much cheaper and more healthy to avoid these chains now….and worthwhile to take more time to shop. Convenience is no longer worth the cost and it is being realized.

    Tax revenues are going to drop dramatically as already realized by the delay……the CBO under estimated the penalty phase of the implementation….instead of paying penalties….employers dropped employees. Of course, the administration end was warned but chose to neglect the warnings….sigh.

    • Universal health care …problem solved.

    • By the way, how many of you realize that in 2014, you will pay an additional $2,300 in individual income tax, for those making under $ 75,000 per year AND the 3.8 percent tax on selling a home and buying a new car in 2014?. I did not think so.

      • Does the individual mandate apply to those on welfare? Disability? Out of work?

      • The medical deduction threshold has been raised from 7.5% to 10% so if you have medical expenses as I do, the tax bite will be bigger. The home sale sales tax has a threshold so all will not pay it. Of course this is on top of any capital gains. Also remember that there is a tax on medical equipment. I am not sure how far this goes. Are band aids and such taxed? Expect scooters, wheel chairs, walkers and such to be more expensive. All this is enough to make one start drinking and smoking but then that is what they want as they get to keep your SS.

        Both Aetna and United Healthcare have opted out of the CA exchange and individual insurance business. LA schools are now going to indoctrinate the kids to sell ObamaCare to their parents. CA has set aside millions of dollars just for advertising the exchanges. Couple that with the ads for food stamps, flex alerts, …. What a waste.

  37. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354135/Treasury-Department-source-Obamacare-employer-mandate-wait-2015-Democrats-breathing-room-2014-midterm-elections.html

    “A Treasury Department official who declined to be named confirmed to MailOnline on Tuesday that the Obama administration will not begin enforcing employer mandates in the Obamacare law until 2015 – one year later than originally planned – and pinned that change of direction on a combination of politics and economic realities in the marketplace.

    Mark Mazur, the Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy, announced on the agency’s blog that the administration ‘will provide an additional year before the … mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.’

    The blog post explained that the delay was intended to leave time to simplify reporting requirements and give companies time to adapt.

    But the Treasury source said the extra year will give the White House an extra year to persuade health insurers to participate in the exchanges that make up the backbone of the Affordable Care Act.

    The revised timetable, the source added, will also push back the final implementation of Obamacare’s penalties past the 2014 midterm elections, providing Republicans fewer chances to highlight the law’s potentially harmful effects on businesses’ bottom lines.”

    And the sheeple will line up to cast their votes for the Democrats. How thick must their blinders be.

    • This guy teaches history? Last I looked while the slaves benefited, the federal government grew into the behemoth we complain about today and the industrialists, those 1 per-centers of Charlies did very, very well indeed. Marx was an idiot!

      • Marx was a genius … he called it and it has happened … we’re all slaves to our labor … or we can starve … so a very small percentage of the population can piss in solid gold toilets … the Kings and Queens and us 🙂

        • Only a lazy looter would think that way, and your not a lazy looter are you charlie?

          My life alone proves Marx wrong, and my story is not unique in America. Marx was a lazy looter that lived off of his parents and Engel’s money, while never working a day in his life.

  38. http://www.infowars.com/if-george-zimmerman-is-found-not-guilty-can-the-american-people-handle-it/

    Regarless of the outcome, I’m betting on social unrest of some sorts. I am not in any harms way should this occur, but some of you may find yourself caught in the middle of this mess. Anybody worried about riots in your neck of the woods?

    • I am in Kissimmee, far enough away that I do not see any danger for my family. But our community is a Hispanic majority and if the media turns blacks against Hispanics I will have to keep an eye out.

      I do not foresee much unrest if George is found guilty because the MSM will be happy they got what they are rooting for.

  39. Listening this morning to the rationale for extending the deadline on Obamacare. This guy and his white house are the most cynical SOB’s that ever came down the pike. You can say an awful lot bout the Nixon White House and its enemies list but there has never been anything like this in our country’s history. Lets mislead the people some more, poush it back after the mid terms. Pelosi and Reid are I guess even worse since they hve the experience the boy wonder lacks.

    When are the folk’s, as O’Reilly calls them, getting the message that this is not their Grandfather’s Democratic Party? Watched a replay of JFK’s Berlin 26JUN63 speech the other night. There is nothing, absolutely nothing left of that party. can the “brand” really be that powerful? It didn’t work for “New Coke”.

      • WTH is wrong with these people? Look at the signs they are having THEIR KIDS hold!


        • You don’t get it, they’re on roll now. With the Supremes giving the green light to “gay marriage” , they feel their power. Saw some of the Texas photos. Some of the women in the crowd were just plain frighting and frankly, they my not be, but they sure as hell looked like the stereotypical Dykes we have come to know and love over the years.

          • I’ve always found it a little wierd that gay woman seem to be a really big part of the abortion pusher brigades when the only time they would presumbably be affected by abortion is if they where raped and became pregnant which isn’t mathamatically almost nil-but men who are the actual fathers of all these aborted children are supposed to shut up and mind their own business. Then you look at there attempt to make the words husband and wife and mommy and daddy just go away and you start to grasp the reason and the PLAN!

            July 3, 2013
            Gay Weddings, Synthetic Babies, and the Brave New Court

            By Robert Oscar Lopez

            Mark Steyn published a must-read piece in National Review Online. He argues that the way gay marriage received federal recognition by the Supreme Court was in its own class of bad.

            As Steyn points out, our gay marriage consensus compares unfavorably even to the socialist democracies of Latin America and Western Europe, dissolving amid riots, bankruptcy, and birth rates below replacement level:

            When less advanced societies wish to introduce gay marriage, the people’s elected representatives assemble in parliament and pass a law. That’s how they did it in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, etc. But one shudders to contemplate what would result were the legislative class to attempt “comprehensive marriage reform,” complete with tax breaks for Maine lobstermen’s au pairs and the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents to verify business expenses for page boys from disparate-impact groups. So instead it fell to five out of nine judges, which means it fell to Anthony Kennedy, because he’s the guy who swings both ways.

            The bad news doesn’t stop there, though.

            A bill in California forcing the public health plan to finance lesbian sperm-banking dovetails with a current bill on surrogacy contracts pending in the nation’s capital. Lesbians must have the “right” to sperm, and gay men must have their “contracts” with surrogate mothers safeguarded.

            Straight people started the artificial reproductive technology morass to deal with infertility, but it’s now the gay lobby that promises the future growth market for the synthetic baby business, as well as the most compelling ideological pretext to normalize commercialized procreation. (Hypocrisy alert! In the 1970s, homosexuality was fervently de-pathologized by the medical field, but now homosexual activists compare themselves to heterosexual couples with medical disabilities such as infertility in order to qualify for artificial reproduction rights.)

            In the context of gay rights, homosexuals must be legally shielded from the expectation that they ought to fertilize their eggs and implant their sperm by flirting, courting, and making love to the opposite sex. Not only must they have access to the flesh-and-blood parts to manufacture obedient, loving children — they must reshape culture and laws to force all of us to refrain from judging or criticizing them.

            Bring this up to any liberal reporter, and you’re quick to get the adoption dodge: “What if there’s a baby nobody wants and it will languish in an orphanage or else be in a loving gay home?” (For some reason people who defend homosexual ideology love to speak in contrafactuals and imaginary scenarios.) The problem is that we know the gay lobby has helped to put Christian adoption agencies out of business if they refuse to allow same-sex couples to adopt. Pretenses of caring about orphans are disingenuous.

            In the end, adoption is a smokescreen for the bigger push to equalize gays to straights by severing the act of lovemaking from parenthood.

            All legal and cultural references to the adults who brought us into existence must be dramatically transformed. No longer the offspring of fathers and mothers, we shall become the property of purchasers.

            In Washington, D.C., there are strict laws against “surrogacy,” or a woman bearing a child and abandoning it to a couple in exchange for pay. Such codes are laws against buying and selling human chattel. (You know, the crime against humanity that we fought a Civil War about.)

            There are currently efforts in the name of “family equality” to roll back the law against surrogacy. Before the city’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Nancy Polikoff, who is a professor from American University and serves as the faculty chair of the powerful pro-gay Williams Institute, told a fawning audience that “[f]or more than 20 years advocates for lesbian and gay parents have emphasized that genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient to create parentage.”

            The speech given by Poliakoff is not isolated. Argentina is the latest nation to pass laws — again, invoking gay and lesbian equality — mandating that public health plans finance in vitro fertilization:

            The law’s basic tenet is that every adult, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, gender expression, or economic situation, has a right to reproduce. Now Argentina, like the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Israel, and the province of Quebec, is committed to providing IVF as a matter of universal health care and services.

            “Genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient.” That’s a universalizing statement, and it points to a swollen state apparatus that will deem what is necessary and sufficient for parentage. There’s no mystery as to which interest groups will likely hold decisive sway over the government entities empowered to “assign” parentage in a world where parents are no longer the mother and father who produced a child by making love.

            Just read the recent Supreme Court opinions to see the preamble to the tiny gay lobby’s brave new world.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/gay_weddings_synthetic_babies_and_the_brave_new_court.html#ixzz2Y0C20e5p
            Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

            • “I’ve always found it a little wierd that gay woman seem to be a really big part of the abortion pusher brigades …”

              I think it’s about woman’s right, VH … after all, it is the woman left with the burden of pregnancy/raising a child.

              • I think that you have touched the surface only. It goes a lot deeper than that. Part of it is to see just how outrageous you can get, pushing the edge of the envelope. The hope I think is to crash evil western civilization.

                I have been following transplants for some time and am amazed at what has been accomplished so far. Seeing arms transplanted and people living normal life span with someone else’s heart is truly amazing. Criswell predicts…….before not too very long the transgender community will demand and receive transplants of sexual organs to allow them to reproduce! Female to male will be problem because of the nerves that probably cannot be synched in but male to female ovaries and uterus seems doable. Probably require a C-section delivery but doable. Brave New World indeed!

        • Maybe it’s me (being morally bankrupt 🙂 … I don’t see the big deal with the signs. “Every child a wanted child.” I guess they mean vs. those who have one parent who abandons them at birth and mothers who aren’t ready to be mothers, etc. (whether it’s their age, economic situation, maturity, etc.) … After all, your people hold up pictures of fetuses, right?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Did you read ALL of the signs?

            • Didn’t see them all, no. I’ll take another look-see now.

              • Okay, the one “If I wanted … I’d ** a senator”?

                Poor, poor, poor, taste … but only because the kids were there. I’ve seen worse on both sides …

              • Just A Citizen says:


                That was the sign that was being criticized. And YES it was because they hung it on a kid. Not just present but hanging around a child’s neck.

                Otherwise it is certainly no worse than many other ignorant signs.

                The sign should have read “If I wanted Govt in my uterus I would support Govt Health Care”.

      • Nah, it’s not the entire left (too broad a generalization) … but there is some poor taste going on there … nothing to get over-excited about. That doesn’t signify the end of western civilization as we know it … or any civilization … The Kardashians might … or Dancing with the Stars … or Lady GaGa … bring back Beethoven!

    • Yet that weakened, pathetic, immoral party whipped yours … go figure.

      • Assuming you are talking about the last election, I think Rush got it completely right. The Limbaugh Theorem. Obama is detached and immune from all these catastrophes. Somehow his likability factor trumps his fingerprints all over these things. Interesting review of the past fifty years. Kennedy had it, Clinton had it, Regan had it, Obama really has it. Johnson, Nixon Bush I and Bush II did not have it.

  40. Does anyone else wonder how Obama has the authority to just change a law without first going through Congress? NO, EO’s cannot violate laws. Anybody?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      It is not all that uncommon for the Admin branch to MISS a deadline set by Congress in enabling legislation. Congress is usually informed of the delay and goes along.

      Now with that said, I don’t know what the actual legislative language was so I can’t make a more definitive statement. And this delay is a little different than the type of actions I am used to.

  41. Just A Citizen says:


    I am curious as to your view of the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

    My quick evaluation reveals many nuanced and questionable legal rulings dating to the original passage.

  42. Nothing new here, but it certainly explains why we are in this place right now. Just your normal, average American upbringing. Baseball and apple pie.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good day!

      The author could have shortened the whole thing to: “Thieves like to associate with and hang out with other thieves”.

      I once read a history of JFK’s rise to POTUS that included a complete history of EVERYONE involved in his background, which included the Power ELITE of the Dem party. With JFK you can trace the “coincidences” back 60 years before his election. Yes, before his birth.

      JFK was not some spontaneous candidate any more than Obama was. They are all tied to the power base and all have been mentored along their way.

      Before someone laughs this off with “yeah right, they knew when he was 5 he would be president” ignorant rants, you need to recognize that mentoring occurs with many people in each Party’s structure and the elite. So JFK could have failed and another “new face” would have replaced him. He was in fact the back up for his brother who was killed in the War. If Obama had failed Hillary would have been the other success story.

      The elite steer the process but don’t control all the variables. Populism can overcome the best laid plans, so it is best to have more than one quarterback on the team.

    • As Bond, James Bond would say, first time happenstance, second time coincidence third time…..Enemy Action!

  43. So how exactly does this work? She didn’t do anything wrong, but blew her Pleading of the 5th, so is now demanding immunity. What is the process? How do we know, if given immunity, she will give us ALL the goods? Do we have to accept her demand for immunity since she already blew her 5th? Do we have to give her complete immunity? Like walk away free and clear? This is the legal end of it. What about the bad employee side of it?

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    An interesting quote that could lead one to conclude how a conspiracy to take down the USA might manifest itself………….bwahahahaha!

    Calvin Coolidge, profiled in “Why Coolidge Matters,” a terrific new book by Charles C. Johnson, echoed the Founding Fathers’ emphasis on virtue, restraint and work ethic. “If people can’t support themselves,” he concluded, “we’ll have to give up self-government.”

    I clipped this from Malkin’s lead commentary today. A good piece on the need for “active” Citizenship AND virtue.

    • “Calvin Coolidge, profiled in “Why Coolidge Matters,” a terrific new book by Charles C.
      Johnson, echoed the Founding Fathers’ emphasis on virtue, restraint and work ethic.”

      G, you’re the funniest guy i know … you do remember some owned slaves, right? I guess that’s having an emphais on “Work ethic” … oy vey …

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Funny how you always accuse us “crazies” of seeing the world as black and white.

        Seems to me it is you who is incapable of recognizing the nuances of history. Thus you have no idea of how society at large functions.

        • Seems to me it is you who is incapable of recognizing the nuances of history. Thus you have no idea of how society at large functions.

          You’re kidding, right, JAC? The “nuances of history”? That’s some nuance, the enslavement of a race of people, especially when the point G was making had to do with the “work ethic” of the founding fathers. There’s something gray in there? Please, enlighten me. Tell me how someone’s work ethic can be extolled while they own slaves.

          “Yeah, he whipped his slaves, but he was really sweating while he did it.”

          “Hey, he’s up before the sun, and then he has to wake those lazy slaves or they’ll sleep right through morning. He doesn’t poor water on their heads, how’s he going to plow his field?”

          Oy vey …

          Tell me how society at large functions, JAC. Explain it to me so I can understand. Use small words, please. Explain to me how the ruling class doesn’t keep the rest of us in financial bondage. Explain how the founding fathers were really thinking of their slaves when they wrote the declaration of independence and constitution. Maybe you’re right and I just can’t understand the nuances of masters and slaves. Please, JAC, enlighten me … enlighten us all.

          As Professor Kingsfield used to say in The Paper Chase: “Fill the room with your intelligence.”

          • Fill the room with your intelligence … but stay close to the toilet 🙂

            • The facts: An overzealous “patriot” declares the founding fathers extolled, among other things, a “work ethic.” The founding fathers were a group of wealthy men who authored a document declaring “all men are created equal.” Some of them own slaves. Find the nuances in that contradiction and win a cookie.

              • Let me see if I can explain this to you Charlie-Charlie always tells people we should help our fellow man but Charlie also said it was okay to murder babies in the womb. Find the nuances in that contradiction and win a cookie.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            First of all, I posted the quote not Gman.

            And the quote is applicable today just as it was when it was made. It does not even address the “work ethic” of the founders themselves. It mentions their views of the work ethic.

            The fact that some of them owned slaves did not eliminate their view nor their practice of a work ethic. They were all hard working men and women. Because you see, if they did not work they would starve.

            The fact that some held slaves is irrelevant to the point made by Coolidge; ” “If people can’t support themselves,” he concluded, “we’ll have to give up self-government.””

            What the founders did or said is also irrelevant to my point. Which is that there are those among us who see dependency on Govt as a goal. So perhaps that goal is really to end “self-government”.

            This would be consistent with that groups view of Federalizing everything and eliminating all State sovereignty.

            • ” It mentions their views of the work ethic.”

              Yep, it sure does … and I’ll give them this much, it takes stones to mention it. They were hard working men and women … too bad they didn’t consider their slaves people …

              Oy vey …

              • Just A Citizen says:

                More proof of my prior claim. Where is your example that the Founders did not think of slaves as people??

                I think your trying to show they viewed them as “lesser” people. But even that does not hold for all the founders nor the framers.

                Why can’t you give those great men their due? Nothing but the naggus bitchus from you when it comes to their great accomplishments.

                As I said before, you criticize the black and white discussions but that is exactly how you deal with the Founders or anyone else in the past whose political ideology doesn’t align with yours.

  45. @VH “Let me see if I can explain this to you Charlie-Charlie always tells people we should help our fellow man but Charlie also said it was okay to murder babies in the womb. Find the nuances in that contradiction and win a cookie.”

    I never said there were nuances in abortion, VH … and helping our fellow man (to me) means those in existence … those outside the womb. Sorry if you were confused.

  46. @ JAC … More proof of my prior claim. Where is your example that the Founders did not think of slaves as people??

    Only in your mind, JAC. Proof of what? My proof is pretty obvious. They remained slaves, yes or no?

    I think your trying to show they viewed them as “lesser” people. But even that does not hold for all the founders nor the framers.

    Actually, no, JAC. You don’t keep people in servitude and still consider them equals … not for a second. Oh, wait, let me amend that. YOU might think that way. There’s nothing to nuance, unless you’re into worship and need excuses for who or what you worship. Hitler was an animal lover. That nuance his treatment of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.? This clown in Ohio who kept 3 women chained for 10 years, got one pregnant, was also helping in the search. That nuance his feelings towards women any? There were “some” founding fathers who were against slavery, but that’s never qualified in the worship of same, is it? I didn’t notice your quote saying “some founding fathers” … or did I miss that, too?

    Why can’t you give those great men their due? Nothing but the naggus bitchus from you when it comes to their great accomplishments.

    Well, first off, I’m not as convinced as you at their alleged “greatness” … I don’t toss out hero worship quite as easily as you’d like. I have no doubt they were extremely talented men and women, and I’m sure they believed they were doing the right thing across the board, but like Columbus worship for Italians, there’s the other side to the story you don’t get to ignore just because it’s the 4th of July (even if July 2nd is the actual independence day). Columbus was responsible for lots and lots of death … and my people hate to admit it.

    As I said before, you criticize the black and white discussions but that is exactly how you deal with the Founders or anyone else in the past whose political ideology doesn’t align with yours.

    No, actually, you’re only seeing the gray area of the “founding fathers” (your heroes) because what they did was despicable to those they left in bondage for how long would it turn out to be again, nearly 200 years? Sorry, you can turn a blind eye to that all you want, but I’m not buying their sainthood. They put a system in place that helped to continue to abolish the native Americans who were there long before they arrived, they kept another race of people in bondage (while they dotted i’s and crossed t’s), and they made damn sure their private property was protected above all else (at the expense of those who had none, even though they had to take it from someone before them).

    Heroes to somebody like you, I’m sure. You have no problem with Ayn Rand’s philosophy against violence after violence was used to accumulate what you have (how convenient). And then you anoint them sainthood.

    I’ll pass, thank you very much.

    Now don’t get your feathers all ruffled and shoot me dead. Without me, especially lately, this has become the most boring political site on the Internet (all of you naggus bitching) against all those pinko communist statist parasites … why anyone who visits here from the left questions my sanity (because reading the comments on this page most days is like attending a whining festival).

    You want me on that wall, JAC … you need me on that Wall. Now, go shoot off a few rounds in the backyard and make believe it’s some commi like me your aiming at. That’ll give you wood for the night. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Up to your old tricks again. Constantly changing the argument by substituting words but claiming they mean the same thing, when they don’t. So lets tackle one thing at a time.

      You said; “too bad they didn’t consider their slaves people … ”

      I asked where they claimed that slaves were not people.

      You said; “You don’t keep people in servitude and still consider them equals … not for a second. Oh, wait, let me amend that. YOU might think that way.”

      Now you see you changed from “people” to “equal”. Totally different arguments.

      In fact, depending on where you were in the world historically slaves were considered equal and people, but also “property”. Their slave status made them “unequal” only in terms of the law and their condition of freedom, or lack thereof.

      It is quite obvious that some Founders abhorred slavery altogether. Others participate or tolerated it while viewing the African as “people” but to some extent “lesser people” than they were. Some viewed them as “people” equal in their rights except also as property, just like the ancients did, and as expressed in the Bible.

      This is the nuance I am referring to Charlie. The contradictions that occur in history per our standards are not contradictions if you apply the standards of the time. This of course makes the Hitler accusations fallacious because genocide was “unacceptable” when he tried in on the Jews.

      I have never claimed the Founders were perfect or that they all lived up to the ideals they espoused. That does not detract from the GREATNESS of what they achieved in human history. It was quite remarkable.

      By the way, nothing the Founders constructed in the Country’s formation is responsible for what happened to the Indians. Except if you want to condemn them for not establishing stop gaps against the type of migration and settlement that was common in the world of 1787.

      • Now you see you changed from “people” to “equal”. Totally different arguments.

        How can someone “own” someone else unless they are deemed unequal, JAC?

        In fact, depending on where you were in the world historically slaves were considered equal and people, but also “property”. Their slave status made them “unequal” only in terms of the law and their condition of freedom, or lack thereof.

        A minor detail … geesh. In America, JAC, they were property (no matter how some “owners” treated their slaves) … they were property … often chained and lynched, but always in servitude. Your nuances (using the strawman of “depending where you were in world historically”) … in America, from 1776 to the end of the civil war and the thirteenth amendment, they were chattel … in fact, they weren’t “equal” until 1965 … and last week minorities were stripped of their protections from 1965 … but I’m sure you regard those as inconvenient facts. So be it.

        It is quite obvious that some Founders abhorred slavery altogether. Others participate or tolerated it while viewing the African as “people” but to some extent “lesser people” than they were. Some viewed them as “people” equal in their rights except also as property, just like the ancients did, and as expressed in the Bible.

        And some screwed and had babies with them, but that’s all in good fun, right? It is amazing how you attempt to minimize slavery … some abhorred slavery altogether, probably true, others “participated or tolerated it …” Sweet Jesus on a vespa. No wonder you and G use the exact same language (accusing liberals of being racists) as they did in Florida during the height of black lynchings (1940’s – 50’s). I hope you’re not suggesting “as expressed in the Bible” as some form of acceptance. First off, it’s a book of fairytales, not something to be used as some form of authority. Slavery is slavery, JAC … I don’t know how you get around that.

        This is the nuance I am referring to Charlie. The contradictions that occur in history per our standards are not contradictions if you apply the standards of the time. This of course makes the Hitler accusations fallacious because genocide was “unacceptable” when he tried in on the Jews.

        If I apply the standards of the time, JAC, slavery remains slavery. Absolutely unacceptable (unless you’re white, I guess). I understand the nuance you’re attempting to apply, but it is unacceptable. At no point in time (reread your Ayn Rand), can one man “own” another without it being slavery. The standards of the time, in much of Europe for instance, it was unacceptable. As for Hitler, applying the standards of the time, at least in Germany (if one wanted to argue with your reasoning), he was doing what was acceptable in Germany (an absurd argument). Of course genocide was unacceptable, but so was slavery in 1776 Europe (from where we started).

        I have never claimed the Founders were perfect or that they all lived up to the ideals they espoused. That does not detract from the GREATNESS of what they achieved in human history. It was quite remarkable.

        And I never claimed they were absolute screw-ups. In fact, that is where I am willing to apply the standard of the time as regards they’re breaking free from England, but I don’t kid myself as to why they did that. It had more to do with their individual prosperity than it did the good of Americans.

        By the way, nothing the Founders constructed in the Country’s formation is responsible for what happened to the Indians. Except if you want to condemn them for not establishing stop gaps against the type of migration and settlement that was common in the world of 1787.

        That’s exactly what I want to condemn them for, an assumption that the land was theirs to take moving westward … manifest destiny (aka the raping of western Native American culture).

%d bloggers like this: