Liar Liar Pants On Fire!

Millions upon millions of Americans are learning that they CAN’T keep the healthcare plan they liked.  Over and over, President Obama (now known as Smokey Pants) said, that Americans can keep the plan they like, PERIOD.  Those were his words, over and over.   Each time recorded, for the record.  President Smokey Pants knew that this wasn’t true, since 2010.  He, the President of the United States of America, openly and knowingly LIED to the American people.  Obamabots everywhere thought that Obamacare would be President Smokey Pant’s legacy.  They were WRONG, as usual.  As Kathy reminded all of us of Joe Wilson and his famous words “You Lie” during a SOTU speech, those words will now and forever be Obama’s legacy.  It is almost, ALMOST, the icing on the cake for all the voters who voted for a NOBODY with NO EXPERIENCE at much of anything (except Lying).   Why “almost” you ask?  Well, just what else has he lied about?  His past is hidden, he a compulsive LIAR!  You should now start to demand details of his past and his college records.  Failure to do, at this point in time, means you accept Obama and all his pathetic LIES.  Shame on YOU if you do!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    IMPEACH the BASTARD PRESIDENT! Treason is still a crime in politics. Hang the MFer!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Now, I can expect some folks in black suits to come visit me 🙂 I’ll just repeat the same words to them, live and in person, and remind them of the 1st Amendment. Then I’ll hand them the ROPE!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        OH, I didn’t get one question answered or even discussed from the last thread. The people can’t stop bad things before they happen if they don’t challenge them. Even as an NCO in the USAF, my commanding officers always wanted challenged when it came to decisions, when warranted of course. Great leaders who LISTENED! Our government don’t need to listen because nobody is pushing the buttons. Shameful. 😦

    • Seriously G-you need to chill!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Just having some fun 🙂 Smokey Pants is a LIAR. Everyone should be screaming for his head on a platter. Wait till the employee mandate kicks in, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

        Now V, honestly, can you believe anything about Obama?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Don’t worry V, I’m actually chilled quite well. My #1 issue is deer hunting. I’m up at 4 am and in a tree stand by 5:45 am. Depending on what’s going on, dictates how long I’m there. Yesterday morning it was 23 degrees with a 5 mph wind. That’s chilly up in a tree 🙂

          Tomorrow, same thing, after lunch, I’ll try and finish a new treestand, a bout 3/4 mile walk to get to it. I’ll have to use a block and tackle system to get it up, but it should be done tomorrow, that’s where I’ll be every morning and maybe all day next week. If the rut gets going, I’ll be in the woods, it’s an exciting time and the action is amazing. Very few people can do what I do every day, they are stuck being, as Charlie puts it, slaves to their wages.

          Stay safe my friend! PEACE 🙂

          • Tree stands? You hunt from tree stands? Have you no shame? Firing from ambush? What happened to the old fashioned method of tracking and stalking? Even Charlie stalks a plate of cannoli……

            However, you probably do not have the acreage to hunt on…..please tell me you do not bait…please, please, please………..

            Ok, enough fun…good luck…….you probably have a heater up there as well, either butane or white gas…..TV…….Internet……. 🙂

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Colonel, you certainly mistake me for someone who isn’t serious about hunting. My property borders a 200 acre farm, that I have full access to. That’s my South border, my West border is almost 10K acres open to public hunting. It’s owned by a lumber company, managed by the state game commission. Acreage is never a problem, except that no motorized vehicles are aloowed on the 10K acres, which means you walk, period.

              Baiting is illegal in Pa. It’s not necessary and other than a salt block in the backyard (for pictures only) we don’t need to go there. I love to still hunt during light rain or light snowfall, great for afternoon hunts when things are slow. Timing is everything! 🙂 I also have several ground blinds set up, one for those in wheelchairs, who otherwise would need to hunt from a vehicle.

              We eat everything we harvest, no exceptions. Occasionally, the game commission will contact the farmer about taking a doe or two for the needy families locally, I help with that mission also. And yes, I have a treehouse on a field edge, 12 feet up, 8ft by 7 ft w/ 7 ft ceiling, sliding windows, tinted, two lounge chairs, propane heat, and urinal, and AM/FM radio 🙂

              • Gman……I cannot claim that you are the only one…I have heard of such. But I also have been hunting up there once and the woods are thick in places. Never heard of hunting with a shotgun before until I went up there. I was not allowed to use a .270 Winchester or a 300 Weatherby…too much velocity I was told. I was told that I could use a .243 or smaller.

                Down here, the average shot is about 300 yards. However, we have so many deer, we are allowed “doe” permits. Some ranches have to thin their herds by 200 or more per year. Good luck on your hunting.

            • Thank you, Colonel … what a wuss (tree stands) … I grab my cannoli clean, NO weapons … just hand to hand combat.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                what a wuss (tree stands) , Coming from you Charlie, I’m honored. I’m guessing the closest you ever came to hunting would be in a bar looking for a prostitute 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, you should be proud of what I do, my tree stands could easily hold a 400 lb hunter, safely (safety is my #1 issue with stands). I will have 7 stands over a 2 sq mile area that are designed for comfort and safety. 😉

      • 🙂 I’ll say …

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    The Department of Homeland Security is to spend $19 million dollars on a private security force in Wisconsin and Minnesota, an armed unit that must have a “Top Secret” security clearance according to an official solicitation.

    DHS to Hire Top Secret Domestic Security Force 051113dhs
    Image: Department of Homeland Security.

    According to a solicitation posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the Federal Protective Service, a sub-agency of the DHS, intends to hire “armed Protective Security Officer (PSO) services at various locations throughout the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin.”

    “The project will have a requirement for the contractor to have a Top Secret facility clearance by the start of performance,” states the FPS notice.

    Unlike previous solicitations, which normally detail how the guards will be deployed to protect government buildings, the document does not divulge what role the armed security force will undertake.

    The fact that the contractors being hired must have a “Top Secret” security clearance clearly suggests that the DHS is not merely seeking to hire armed guards, but Blackwater-style mercenaries who will be engaged in some kind of clandestine activity.

    The notion of an armed security force operating domestically under a “Top Secret” designation, something normally reserved for foreign spying and military operations, underscores how the DHS increasingly treats America like some kind of occupied territory.

    The hiring of private mercenaries with Top Secret clearances also suggests the DHS may be planning on using the contractors as cutouts who will be involved in a variety of different operations outside the purview of public and Congressional scrutiny.

    For some, the idea of an ever-expanding federal government turning to a private security force with a “Top Secret” clearance will stir memories of Barack Obama’s pre-election promise to build “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the US military).”

    The DHS’ purchase of over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last 12 months has also prompted concerns that the feds are gearing up for trouble.

    As we previously reported, the federal agency has spent large sums of money in recent weeks hiring large numbers of armed guards to protect government buildings, a development some have connected to the likelihood of civil unrest in America which could arise from food shortages linked to welfare cuts.

    Fox News’ Neil Cavuto suggested that the Department of Homeland Security’s recent $80 million dollar outlay on armed guards to protect government buildings in upstate New York was related to potential food stamp riots.

    The federal agency is also seeking to acquire 723,000 hours of armed guard services to protect government buildings in Arkansas and other areas.

    The DHS also recently purchased half a million dollars worth of fully automatic pepper spray launchers and projectiles that are designed to be used during riot control situations.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-to-hire-top-secret-domestic-security-force.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      More questions? Or “no big deal”? What do ya’ll think?

      • Isn’t the ultra low frequency transmission system for communications with subs in the Michigan UP and n. Wisc.?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          HAARP has that job. I wonder how many know about the nuclear subs in the Great Lakes? 🙄

    • gmanfortruth says:

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-sought-firing-range-for-firearms-training-two-weeks-prior-to-lax-shooting.html

      Told Ya! TSA will be armed and everywhere soon. Welcome to the Police State .

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Narcotics search turned up nothing, but man was billed by hospital for EIGHT anal probes; All because he ‘clenched his buttocks’ during routine traffic stop

        Steve Watson
        Prisonplanet.com
        Nov 5, 2013

        Following an innocuous traffic stop, police in Southern New Mexico put a man through an ordeal consisting of cavity searches, enemas and even X-rays after he “appeared to be clenching his buttocks” while stepping out of his vehicle.

        KOB Eyewitness News 4 reports that details of the case emerged during a federal lawsuit recently, with medical records and police reports indicating that deputies with the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office and police officers with the City of Deming forced David Eckert to undergo multiple anal cavity searches, saying they had probable cause to search for drugs.

        His crime? Not making a complete stop at a stop sign.

        While a doctor at one emergency room refused to go along with the “unethical” process, physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City agreed to carry out the anal
        exam, happy that the police had secured a search warrant from a judge.
        http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-doctors-force-man-to-undergo-humiliating-enemas-anal-exams-and-x-rays.html

        Coming to an airport near you, free enema’s 😆 .

    • Whaaaat? Wisconsin? Keep us out of it all. Send it to the east coast – they love this crap.

  3. Go Tea Party … just cost yous guys Virginia! Gotta love it!

    • How so?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Expected. Democrats will keep winning elections everywhere. Why? They are the party of free cookies! This country now has more people receiving public assistance than work full time. So smile, enjoy and every time you look at your paycheck and see to “taxes withheld” section, that;’s what you want. I hope that number grows, like doubles or more. 🙂

      • Free cookies for everybody! Yay, team!

        How did the tea party blow it … you’re joking right, Stephen? Oh, wait, you’re not … which is what the Dems are counting on … you people living in the bubble. Don’t forget to double your efforts next election … 🙂

        • Charlie, you are not talking about the Democratic front runner that had a 16 point lead two week ago and wins by 2 points, are you? That election?

        • Lessee, the point spread was less than 2% . Winner being a guy with gazillions of bucks. Challenger down by double digits a couple weeks back. Spoiler pulls 6% of vote. Spoiler financed by????????. Spoiler’s natural supporters would have voted how otherwise? It’s like looking at the Senate race here in NJ last month. Considering that the lame but incredibly photogenic and financially loaded to the gills Cory Booker beat Steve (Who?) by 10% which translated to a real difference of 5% the defeat was a sign that things are achanging.

          If you look at the blow out in NYC where the RINO ran an incredible “Me too” campaign, now, that as a rout! Having always had a love for NYC politics, I have absolutely never seen a more poorly run campaign where you pick the issue and Deblasio ran well left of the late Hugo Chavez with with his “challenger” running in his shadow yelling as loud as he could, “me too, me too”!

          As an aside, the appearance of both Ron and Rand Paul at the side of the Republican candidate in VA, made it pretty clear that the “libertarian” candidate maybe wasn’t who he said he was or at best, was an unwitting dupe.

          The Jersey win by Christie was interesting. His opponent complained today that “well behaved” women (or some such balderdash) do not do well. She forgets one of Christie’s predecessors, Christy Whitman as well as the late NJ Congresswomen Millicent Fenwick and marge Roukema. Strong Republican women traditionally do well in NJ.

          Watching Christie last week campaign with Guilliani said something for those interested. On the Social issues, these guys could not be farther apart yet there was a mutual respect. On the bread and butter issues, they are in lockstep. So, the much ballyhooed division within the Republican Party is not necessarily what it appears to be. As I have said, people can disagree vehemently with you over issues yet they will support and vote for you if they are convinced that you stand for what you believe in. I think that on a national level, neither McCain nor Romney ever came across as being truly committed to anything.

          Christie;’s comment last year, “You have to win elections to change things” is about as pragmatic as it gets.

          Now, as a last thought, our media friends have now declared VA a purple leaning blue state with less than a 2point spread. . At the same time they do not call NJ a “red” state where there was a 20 point spread. Charlie, Believe nothing you read!,

          • There are winners and there are losers … guess who won? Figure out why (or don’t) … we love it … keep it coming, Tea Party! Stephen … you need to push the Kool-Aid to the side, my brother … try the caffeinated stuff. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Charlie, Believe nothing you read!,

            Seriously? You asking Mr. Gullible to not believe what he reads? BWAHAHAHA! Now that is funny 😆

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    @Charlie, Christi won big in Joisey. Palin/Christi 2016 vs. Clinton/Grayson. That would be some wild debates 🙂 Joisey also raised the minimum wage, which I’m sure you like (even if not enough). Let’s look at the unemployment rate in 9 months and see if it affects it!
    PALIN/Christi 2016

  5. Free cookies, raised the minimum wage … redistribute the stolen wealth … workers of the world unite! We won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Tea Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. “Even on twitter that woman is an idiot.” Go Tea Party!

    • English Gematria: Sarah L. Palin

      S=114, A=6, R=108, A=6, H=48, L=72, P=96, A=6, L=72, I=52, N=84

      114 + 6 + 108 + 6 + 48 + 72 + 96 +6 + 72 +52 + 84 = 666

      Don’t let her fool you, Charlie.

      Lol.

      • You’ve got LOL on there-so I’m assuming and hoping you are kidding.

        • Of course…besides, she is a woman, and ‘The Good Book’ says “a man”

          Maybe it’s Tom Cruise

          Jewish Gematria: Thomas Cruise

          T=100, H=8, O=50, M=30, A=1, S=90, C=3, R=80, U=200, I=9, E=5

          100 + 8 + 50 + 30 + 1 + 90 + 3 + 80 + 200 + 9 + 5 = 666

          😉

  7. @Stephen … did you notice the stats on the percentage of Dems that voted for Christy? Was it too much to handle … NJ is a blue state (wake up already) …

    • My dad was a registered democrat till the day he died (1984), Had not voted that way since 1956. Blue dog democrats, Reagan democrats. problem was and is, the republicans have not ever tried to explain to the folks what they really stand for and what they are against. Point I was making was that VA is red and NJ is blue but the cheering section in the press peanut gallery would not have you know that. The propaganda machine just keeps churning along. “Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

      I have several pretty conservative democratic friends. I repeatedly ask them. What exactly is it that party stands for and you support?

      Love union Democrats voting for the people who will eventually put them out of work or drag them out of the middle class by importing more and more cheap labor. Love blacks and other minorities. damn near 80 years of “helping” these folks and they are worse off then ever.

      Assume for a moment that the Repubs are all in the pocket of the ‘rich” which you and everybody at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NBC and the NY Times know. For a fact the Dems are in the pocket of the rich and based on congressional representation, are the rich. You don’t know. Who would you rather deal with, the enemy you know or the enemy you don’t?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Lets take a look at the difference between the numbers and the rhetoric that is attached.

      “Preliminary exit polls showed Cuccinelli underperforming McDonnell’s 2011 showing among Republicans and independents. He lost self-described moderates to McAuliffe by 21 percent, drawing support from about one-third of them, 13 percentage points less than McDonnell.” SO THE TP GUY GOT 33% OF THE MODERATE VOTE AND THE DEM GOT 46%. NOT EXACTLY A “REPUDIATION” BUT MORE INTERESTING IS WHERE DID THE OTHER 21% GO??? WAS IT ACTUALLY THE MODS WHO VOTED FOR THE LIBERTARIAN?? IF SO THAT IS NOT A REPUDIATION OF THE TEA PARTY AGENDA.

      “He lost women to McAuliffe by 8 percentage points, receiving support from 42 percent to the Democrat’s 50 percent. One fifth of the voters named abortion as their top issue, and McAuliffe won them by a two-to-one margin. ” THIS ONE IS EVEN MORE INTERESTING. PER THIS, 20% OF THE VOTERS FOUND ABORTION THE TOP ISSUE. IF WE ROUND OFF THE TOTAL VOTE TO 2 MILLION THAT MEANS 400,000 VOTERS HAD ABORTION AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL OTHER ISSUES.

      IF THE VOTE FROM THIS GROUP WAS 2:1 AS REPORTED THEN ABOUT 132,000 VOTED FOR THE TEA PARTY GUY AND 268,000 VOTED FOR THE DEM GUY.

      HOWEVER, IF WE ASSUME HALF THE VOTERS WERE WOMEN THEN THE TEA PARTY GUY GOT 420,000 WOMEN VOTES AND THE DEM GUY GOT 500,000.

      SO WITHIN THE COHORT WHERE YOU WOULD THINK ABORTION WAS THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION, WOMEN, WE FIND THE TEA PARTY LOST BY 80,000.

      BUT ON THE ABORTION ISSUE AT LARGE THE TEA PARTY GUY SUPPOSEDLY LOST BY 136,000 VOTES.

      AS A GREAT TEACHER OF MINE ONCE SAID, SOMETING AIN’T ADDING UP HERE.

      I SUSPECT ALL THIS IS ONLY IMPORTANT IF YOU OVERLAY THE URBAN VS. RURAL MAPS. SPECIFICALLY THOSE URBAN AREAS WHERE GOVT AND UNIVERSITIES ARE CENTERED.

      THE TEA PARTY GUY LOST BY 54,845 VOTES OUT OF OVER TWO MILLION CAST.

      FAIRFAX COUNTY: +66,482 DEM
      ARLINGTON COUNTY: +33,328 DEM
      ALEXANDRIA COUNTY: +20,150 DEM

      THESE ARE THE THREE COUNTIES WHERE ALL THE FED EMPLOYEES LIVE. THE HIGHER INCOME FED EMPLOYEES. THE OTHER NEIGHBORING COUNTY WENT DEM BUT THE SPREAD WAS ONLY A FEW THOUSAND VOTES.

      RICHMOND COUNTY: +32,939 DEM

      SO THE REAL STORY IS THAT THE GOVT DEPENDEENT URBANITES VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY FOR THE BIG GOVT DEM OVER A TEA PARTY GUY WHO SUPPORTS LESS GOVT, ESPECIALLY FED GOVT.

      SO HERE IS WHERE CHARLIE’S REPUDIATION OF THE TEA PARTY IS ACTUALLY LOCATED.

      NOW WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST OF THOSE ABORTION VOTES THAT WENT TO THE DEM WERE LOCATED? THINK PERHAPS THIS IS REALLY AN URBAN VS RURAL ISSUE AND NOT ONE OF ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION, WAR ON WOMEN, UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE ETC, ETC.

      DON’T GET ME WRONG. THESE ISSUES HAVE AN AFFECT. BUT THEY DON’T APPEAR TO HAVE AN AFFECT ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE AN AFFECT PRIMARILY IN THE URBAN CENTERS.

      IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A CONFIRMATION OF HOW AFFECTIVE THE DEM’S ARE AT DIVIDING THE ELECTORATE, ISOLATIONG KEY DEMOGRPAHICS AND THEN GETTING THEM TO VOTE.

      THE TOTAL MARGIN OF THE COUNTIES I LISTED IS +152,899 DEM. JUST A LITTLE MORE THAN THE TOTAL SUPPOSED MARGIN FOR THE PRO ABORTION VOTERS.

      WHAT WE CAN NOT KNOW IS WHETHER AN EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN TO COUNTER THE ANTI WOMAN CAMPAING OF THE DEMS WOULD CHANGE THESE NUMBERS. IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BE SWAYED FROM THEIR PARTISAN ALLEGIANCES ON THE ABORTION ISSUE.

      IT APPEARS THE URBAN WOMAN IS THE DIFFERENCE AND IT IS THE URBAN WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN AND WILL REMAIN A TARGET OF THE DNC ELECTION CAMPAIGN STRATEGY.

      ALONG WITH THE MINORITIES AND OTHER TARGET GROUPS. AFTER ALL, YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN YOU WILL NEED ALL OF THEM TO WIN.

      WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO SCARE THOSE ABORTION VOTERS THAT VOTED DEM, TEA PARTY GUY WALKS INTO THE GOVERNORS OFFICE.

      HOWEVER, IF WE HAD OTHER DATA I AM BETTING I COULD SHOW THE SAME IMPACT FOR OTHER KEY ISSUES.

      WHICH SHOULD HELP YOU REALIZE HOW PHONY MUCH OF THIS POST ELECTION ANALYSIS AND PUNDITRY IS AND HOW IT FITS THE LARGER AGENDA OF:

      FRAMING THE DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES.

      • Convince yourself, JAC … and then next election you’ll be right back here doing it again! 🙂 That’s the best thing about yous guys … you’re a gift that keeps on giving!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          I do not have to convince myself of anything. You on the other had seem to fit in that camp quite snuggly.

          You don’t even understand who the Tea Party is and is not. Who are the “conservatives”? Do their values change across the country??

          No, you are only interested in jabbing at people to stir you pot of emotional stew.

          • Nice try, JAC. I know this much about the tea party (the original tea party, that is, not the one co-opted by the Koch Bros.) … they weren’t so far off the page as us on pluto (except for that absurd capitalistic approach to an economy) … but it’s not important. Just a matter of time before we win 🙂 Your days of ruling the roost are numbered, my overzealous friend.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    @D13, is Christi/Palin 2016 better? 🙂

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    I do have another comment on Charlie’s link to the elections and the theory the TParty is dying.

    I couldn’t help but notice the two people claiming to be Republicans that voted Democrat just because they don’t like the TParty. Why not? Not willing to compromise, was their answer.

    Perhaps they could show us how the Dem Party COMPROMISED on anything with the R’s in the past 5 years. The bought off a couple of R’s on the ACA but the compromising was among themselves.

    I guess maybe you could claim the Sequester, but look how the Dems are demagoguing that and blaming the TEA PARTY entirely.

    To my point.

    These clowns support my view that there should be serious restrictions on who should be allowed to vote. Stupidity should be a criteria against voting. Perhaps a civics test and a current events test.

    If you cannot accurately describe a candidates ACTUAL positions on various issues then you should not be voting.

    Now I have something for all to consider.

    WHY do politically connected folks use the phrase “To the victor go the spoils” when discussing the outcome of a political race?

  10. Yous whackjob wingies will be happy to know that a so-called liberal on FB “unfriended” me because of my assault on the moderate Republican Barrack Hussein Obama … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      It took me 10 seconds to figure out the flaw in the argument.

      The “economy” is not working for people. Guess what? There is no ECONOMY working or not working.

      The REAL underlying question is this:

      Does FREEDOM work for people or does it not?

      If Freedom does NOT work for people then people must be RULED and CONTROLLED by OTHER PEOPLE.

      All the rest Charlie is just blathering academic idiots.,

  11. Pay attention and LEARN something … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You want us to learn something from a Linguist claiming that words have the opposite meaning in reality to that which has been real for centuries.

      Pay attention and LEARN something here Charlie.

      “A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is a ruler of a cruel and oppressive character[1] who is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character,[2] bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods, though it was clearly a bad word to Plato, and on account of the decisive influence of political philosophy its negative connotations only increased down into the Hellenistic period, becoming synonymous with “Authenteo” – another term which carried authoritarian connotations around the turn of the first century A.D.[citation needed]

      Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, “one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others”.[3] During the seventh and sixth centuries BC, tyranny was often looked upon as an intermediate stage between narrow oligarchy and more democratic forms of polity. However, in the late fifth and fourth centuries, a new kind of tyrant, the military dictator, arose, specifically in Sicily.”

      NOW PLEASE NOTICE THAT A SOVEREIGN IS REQUIRED. A “RULER” IS REQUIRED. THAT MEANS THAT PRIVATE PARTIES, BUSINESSES, CANNOT BE TYRRANTS. THEY CANNOT BE CALLED TYRANNICAL.

      ONLY WITH GOVERNMENT DOES THE WORD TYRRANY HAVE ANY MEANING OR RELEVANCE.

      • WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG AGAIN, JAC … DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF BEING WRONG?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          PROVE ME WRONG OR ADMIT YOUR ERROR.

          • PROVE YOU’RE RIGHT OR ADMIT YOUR ERROR … DUH!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Charlie, I want you to win and win big! I support your views and would love to see them happen. Let the cards fall where they may!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I really wonder if you ever actually read my comments.

              Your PROOF has absolutely NOTHING to do with my original comment.

              It has nothing to do with my point that Chomsky was creating a FALSE argument and as a linguist he knew better…………..that would be a LIE, in case you were not sure.

              This has nothing to do with my pointing out that Tyranny, by definition, requires Govt.

              As for the grand finale, I have personal experience with three employee owned businesses. Two failed within three years. The other is a small grocery store chain which is limited to a couple small states. But even they had to bring in a “management team” to run the show.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            OH My! JAC, your time would be much better spent at the nearest zoo trying to teach an Ape to spell the word idiot and to point at one! 🙂

            One thing I caught from all this is that ONE very important thing was ignored, government corruption. Not surprising, Mr. Gullible jumps on the anti-capitalism hay ride that simply don’t really exist. the claims that Capitalism, a non living entity, is responsible for all the problems we have is, well, ignoring corruption. I hope they win and win big. Let the Charlie’s have their way and let’s see what happens. How bad could it be? 🙄

            • No kidding. Sometimes you just have to let the crazies be crazy.

              • Which is EXACTLY why libs like me come here Kathy … to watch you in the act 🙂

                By the way, how’d your guys do last night?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Charlie, your rambling on about shit most of us don’t care about. Picking on Kathy only tells us your having issues at home, calm down Brother, not getting enough isn’t going to kill you 🙂

    • Kathy, the only way that Wendy Davis got elected to the Senate in Texas was through a court ordered gerrymandering…..She got blistered in Fort Worth for a city council election. What has not come out is that she claimed that the City Council was full of witches that date back to the 1700’s.

      The Dems are poring millions into her campaign…I sure hope she does not forget her picture ID when she shows up to vote. Former Speaker of the House Jim Wright forgot his ID and was not allowed to vote.

      I had a lot of fun this past vote by showing my CHL instead of my driver’s license or passport. The only question I was asked was if I was armed at the time and I said no because the state law does not allow firearms within 50 feet of the voting area.

      Interesting laws here…..one that is still on the books….no weapons allowed in your car within 50 feet of the voting area but all rifles must be in scabbard on horseback…..and you can tether your horse at the door. Love it.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    JAC, this is what needs to be explained to the Charlie’s of the world, not that they would ever comprehend it, but worth a try! http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/whoomp-dinesh-dzousa-destroys-obamacare/

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama is mentally ill and needs help. He has no idea what the real world actually is. Him and Charlie would be great roommates, don’t ya think? 😆

  14. Canine Weapon says:

  15. She was against the bridge to nowhere after she was for it? She lied?

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    The speaker in Charlie’s video:

    Richard D. Wolff (born April 1, 1942) is an American heterodox economist, well known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis. He is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Utah, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City. In 2010, Wolff published Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, also released as a DVD. He released three new books in 2012: Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism, with David Barsamian (San Francisco: City Lights Books), Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, with Stephen Resnick (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT University Press), and Democracy at Work (Chicago: Haymarket Books).

    Wolff hosts the weekly hour-long radio program Economic Update on WBAI, 99.5 FM, New York City (Pacifica Radio) and is featured regularly in television, print, and internet media. The New York Times Magazine has named him “America’s most prominent Marxist economist.”[5] Wolff lives in Manhattan with his wife and frequent collaborator, Dr. Harriet Fraad, a practicing psychotherapist

    NOW LET ME RETURN TO MY ORIGINAL POINT. THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH FREEDOM.

    BECAUSE IF FREEDOM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THEN PEOPLE MUST BE RULED BY SOMEONE.

    THUS THE NEXT QUESTION IS SIMPLY AN ARGUMENT OVER WHO GETS TO DO THE RULING AND WHO GETS TO BE RULED.

    I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT MR. WOLFF DESCRIBED MY PRIME RULE THAT WHEN YOU HIT A MAN WITH A STICK YOU GIVE HIM THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO HIT YOU BACK.

    HE RECOGNIZES THE PRIMARY PROBLEM BUT AS WITH MOST STATIST MINDS, CONCLUDES THE ANSWER IS JUST PUTTING DIFFERENT TYRANNTS IN THE CONTROL CHAIR. GIVE THE STICK TO SOMEONE ELSE. THAT WILL FIX IT.

    UNTIL THESE ACADEMIC TYPES REALIZE THAT OUR SYSTEMS MUST CONFORM TO OUR NATURE AS HUMANS WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOUNDER.

    IT IS MY OPINION THAT OUR NATURE IS CONSISTENT WITH FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. NOT WITH CONTROL BY ONE OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

    OH, ONE OTHER LITTLE THING. APPARENTLY MR. WOLFF MISSED THE MEMO ABOUT HOW COMPANIES IN THE USA WERE BEING MANAGED IN THE 90’S. THAT WAS THE PERIOD OF ADOPTING THE JAPANES MODEL OF EMPLOYEE COLLABERATION.

    HE ALSO IGNORED THE ROLE OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS. THOSE EMPLOYEES HAD VOTING SHARES, JUST LIKE THE OTHER SHAREHOLDERS.

    ONE OTHER LITTLE PART THAT IRRITATED ME IN HIS PRESENTATION. WHILE HARPING ON THE GREAT OWS MOVEMENT HE COMPLETELY IGNORES THE MOVEMENT THAT PRECEDED IT. THE TEA PARTY. COULD IT BE BECAUSE THE TEA PARTY AUSTERITY IS NOT WHAT HE DESCRIBES? PEOPLE LIKE CRUZ AND PAUL ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CUTTING GOVT TO PAY DEBTS BUT TO REDUCE OVERALL TAX BURDENS AND RELEASE OUR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.

    THE ATTEMPT OF CRUZ AND OTHERS TO NOT INCREASE THE DEBT LIMIT WAS THE EXACT MEASURE HE WAS SUPPORTING, THAT THE PEOPLE RISE UP AND SAY HELL NO TO USING DEBT FINANCING. BUT NO MENTION OF THIS OR HOW IT FITS HIS SCENARIO FOR POPULAR REVOLT.

    COULDN’T RECOGNIZE A POPULIST REVOLT IF IT DOESN’T BELEIVE MARXIST IDEOLOGY IS THE ANSWER I GUESS.

    • Seems to me, a few days ago, I spoke of “The Tower of Babel”. Could this be an example?

      More likely, we are dealing with a keep em guessing situation. I have said time and again that Americans are NOT Europeans. We took some things from them and left others. We took good ideas, refined them, to our peculiar circumstance and then left the rest behind.

      We are the tired, the poor the teeming masses :

      Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
      With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
      Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
      A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
      Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
      Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
      Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
      The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
      “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
      With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

      That’s who we are folks. Through trial and error we produced the system that provided the most good for the most people in human history. Charlie and his professors want to emulate the Europeans. These are the same Europeans whom we will celebrate next year for having begun World War part I which will then lead in 2039 to the celebration of part II. Of course starting in 2017 we will have the Centennial of the concurrent Bolshevik Revolution. Putting on my historian hat, these events in all their forms led to the deaths of well over 100,000,000 people between 1914 and 1991. Just who was it that stopped this nonsense? I want to be the guys who stopped it not the guys who started it.

    • “UNTIL THESE ACADEMIC TYPES REALIZE THAT OUR SYSTEMS MUST CONFORM TO OUR NATURE AS HUMANS WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOUNDER”

      And obviously, you believe our human nature is to be a species of greedy pricks … NO THANKS! 🙂

      • Charlie, that’s what we have now. That’s what Communism is. This is the end result of Government, a bunch of greedy pricks. As long as there is rulers (the have’s) there will alway’s be the ruled (the have not’s) Can you guess who the greedy pricks are? Why does Communism happen only at the end of a gun barrel? Why would an election in Virginia make a lady in Wisconsin a loser? The way I see it, everybody loses when there is an election, except the greedy pricks 🙄

      • Human beings by their nature are greedy pricks, We are “softened” to a certain extent by philosophy which began with religion and which ultimately leads to government and the self imposition of a social compact. I don’t bust your head, you don’t bust mine if I or you violate this, then the third party, government, steps in. To live in a civilized society, we agree to this.

        The social compact is breaking down. Has been since the early 20th century. Why is Jon Corzine wandering around free as a bird why is Angelo Mazziilo (Countrywide) wandering around free as a bird. Why did the Skakel punk get set free? You have my analogy to the tower of Babel to thank for all this. We are God. We are as smart as God. Our judges are always right and correct and certainly far above us. Our politicians are usually sacrosanct. We create our own morality which is constantly “evolving” .

        If you can figure out any other way to explain the deaths/murders of over 100,000,000 people during the 20th century, please inform me. The inquiring mind wants to know.

    • Their in big trouble if the NSA was listening. Here comes the IRS.

    • That was great! I’m SO PROUD of my fellow rednecks 🙂

      • Carrie Underwood is very talented and beautiful. I think I could sit and watch her sing all day long.

        I have to wonder though, …why didn’t they get booed like the Dixie Chics did?

        • I think the Dixie Chics were saying some “not very nice things” in regards to the troops. To us rednecks, dogging those who may never come back alive is a no-no. The Chics are gone, that ended their careers. I don’t miss them one bit 🙂

  17. Atheists Argue Gov’t Is Forcing Them to Compromise Their ‘Religious Scruples’
    November 7, 2013 – 6:03 AM
    By Susan Jones
    Subscribe to Susan Jones RSS
    Follow Susan Jones on Twitter

    Supreme Court Town Board Prayer

    (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci, File)

    (CNSNews.com) – Atheists told the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that the town of Greece, N.Y. has no business opening its public meetings with Christian or other sectarian prayers.

    “We hope the Supreme Court will agree that civic participation should not be conditioned on compromising one’s religious scruples,” said Americans United Legal Director Ayesha Khan.

    “It’s important to understand that we are not asking the board to discontinue its practice of presenting prayers,” she told reporters outside the court. “We are asking that citizens not be pressured to participate in those prayers and that the prayers be nondenominational and inclusive.”

    “I do not support the right to use the power of government to impose on religious minorities, and that’s what’s going on here,” said Douglas Laycock, who argued the case for the plaintiffs.

    He called the town’s prayer practices “highly coercive” as well as a sectarian endorsement, both of which “violate all the principles of the Establishment Clause.”

    According to Laycock, “Both sides of the (Supreme) Court, both the liberals and the conservatives, have agreed sectarian endorsements are prohibited and coercion is prohibited, and we have both those things in this case.”

    Religious coercion — being forced to compromise one’s “religious scruples” — is at the heart of another issue that is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court.

    If government can’t trample atheists’ “religious scruples,” and if “coercion is prohibited,” can the Obama administration force Roman Catholics to buy health insurance that covers services, which violate church teachings?

    Forcing Catholics, under penalty of a fine, to pay for birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization, for example — all of which violate Catholics’ deeply held religious beliefs — is an unconstitutional infringement of religious liberty, they argue.

    It should be noted that the The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which led the charge against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, sided with the town of Greece, against the atheists, in Wednesday’s arguments.

    “The Founders knew what it meant to have a state church and legislative prayer doesn’t come close,” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at the Becket Fund.

    “This case is about whether the professionally offended will be able to strong-arm cities into banning anything that could be remotely interpreted as religious.”

    – See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/atheists-argue-govt-forcing-them-compromise-their-religious-scruples#sthash.EvjvtmFr.dpuf

    Still thinking about the points made in this-seems contradictory but then at the same time the arguments seem to be a false comparison. For one thing why should one apply religious scruples to atheism? Anyway-what do you guys think?

    • The issue will always be the “Establishment Clause”. Charlies professor would nop doubt tell you that the European meaning of the word establishment was corrupted in America, probably by arrogant capitalists and the real meaning of establishment is “a religious establishment” or some hogwash.

      Wish I knew more about word usage myself. seems that conservatives would look at the word as a verb (to establish) while libs/progressives see it as a noun. Making someone join a particular religion or set of beliefs (Christianity) is quite different from allowing free practice of those precepts.

      As a Christian, I must say that if the issue revolves around the use of the name Jesus Christ then the town is wrong. The old timers were smart enough to end an oath with “so help me God” or the pledge with “under God”. God, is all inclusive. The founders would be appalled as we should be to restrict belief. Regarding the feelings of atheists. Tough! I can’t make everybody happy, hell, almost half the time I can’t even make my family happy. Suck it up boys (and girls), you will survive!

      • We’re asked to be tolerant (under threat of law) of gays, etc. so is it too much to ask the atheists for tolerance?

      • Obviously we need more information-because it boils down to what do they mean by ” nondenominational and inclusive”.

        • VH, if you feel that Christianity is under attack (as I do), look into the past to see where this may be heading. The day will come when one will have to hide their faith from the public view. It may become illegal to show anything religious in public. History has a great way of foreseeing the future. The only question that is left, is how far will it (the attack on Christianity) go?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      This SHOULD be very simple. But thanks to Buck’s theory of “living document” and the “P”rogressive practice of modifying the meaning of things, we find this case before SCOTUS.

      Here is why it should be easy:

      “Amendment I

      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.”

      Note those first four words. “Congress shall make no law”.

      The case before the SCOTUS has nothing to do with Congress or any law created by Congress. The case should have been dismissed WITHOUT STANDING before the Court.

      Now even if we grant the Buck’s living document theory its due, we are left with “respecting an establishment of religion”.

      A city council deciding to hold prayer before meetings is:

      1) NOT a law.

      2) Is NOT an “establishment of religion”.

      The First Amendment does NOT address the issue of carrying on religious activities by govt bodies. It clearly states that Govt is prohibited from the “establishment of religion”.

      A religion cannot be “established” by simple public prayer or even preaching. No matter where it occurs. A religion can only be established in one of two ways.

      1) By a group of people who acknowledge the religions existence as a “religion” and then PRACTICE that religion as MEMBERS.

      2) By Govt law……creating a STATE Religion.

      The First Amendment was designed to address the second method. But again, a city council prayer, or the prayer offered in Congress, does not ESTABLISH a religion.

      The worst it does is recognize the existence of religion in the lives of the communities citizens and the public practice of prayer.

      Now to the more philosophical issue of “coercion”. The atheist argument here would have us believe that ADULTS in a room where the council calls for a prayer are being COERCED in some way to take on or believe in a religion. That they are somehow “forced” to also pray.

      So these ADULTS who claim “free will” to reject God in all its forms, are claiming their Free Will is so week that it can be overcome by OTHERS PRAYING in front of them.

      Of course these same people will argue that Govt is NOT COERCIVE in other areas. Like enforcement of the ACA or Income Taxes, etc.

      The existence of coercion or use of force requires an actual EXISTENCE of the ability to coerce or carry out the force. Such as the Govts ability to fine, imprison or harass people into doing what it wants. There is NO power to enforce the coercion by simply having someone lead a group in prayer. There is no implied penalty. There is no actual penalty for non conformance.

      • …Buck’s theory…

        Hey, it’s not my theory…but I’ll take the credit if you want to give it to me!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          You should hang your head in shame for even thinking to be associated with that “theory”.

          • Despite your protestations to the contrary, the ‘living document theory’ was ascribed to by some of the founding fathers and surfaced in very early court cases as …as we have been through before and I’m just not going to get into with you again.

            The debate should not be about whether there should be a ‘living document’ approach to constitutional interpretation and application, but how far it should go.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              As I have said before, and as others have said, including those in your profession, there are TWO distinct “theories”.

              You cite the original concept while defending the second. They are DIFFERENT.

              The issue of interpretation was not the “living document theory”. The latter does not become a major consideration until the 20th century.

              See the article I provided below.

    • ” Anyway-what do you guys think? ”

      I agree with the Catholics and atheists. No one should have religious based values of others imposed upon them, …nor should people be forced to abandon or compromise their values…unless it is being used to violate others, of course.

      The USA is a virtual Christian theocracy. For a long time, the Christian majority has inserted their values into law. The precedent of government dictating values was set a long time ago. Now, it is starting to manifest into issues like people having to serve cake to gay people, or funding birth control and/or abortions, or accepting a legal definition of marriage that differs from their religious definition.

      Karma?

      Christians outnumber non-Christians in the USA by approx. 40M or 11% of the total population, …yet there are laws and standard norms everywhere which are very much predominately Christian in origin.

      If it isn’t telling people they can’t drink on the day of SUN WORSHIP, it is things like opening events with CHRISTIAN prayer and ONLY Christian prayer. What about the OTHER 160 million people who couldn’t care less about Jesus? Why should they have to comply or sit through a Jesus praising session?

      There are a lot of Christians who have the false idea that “the USA is a Christian nation”, when in reality, it is SUPPOSED to be about religious freedom. These are the same people who are so self righteous and thick headed in their beliefs that they cannot make the distinction between the concept of religion and THEIR God. …and yet cannot explain the very premise of their beliefs with any real rationale. This is the root issue. From my experiences, when you try to explain it to Christians, they get pissed off and uncooperative, inconsiderate of the view of others.

      Correcting “God said so” with ” YOUR God said so “, doesn’t work.

      Many years ago, when there was a big shift from Paganism to Christianity, the churches saw it fit to take advantage of illiteracy and ignorance by skewing and omitting truths as to try to blend the two religions, thus acquiring a greater number of followers, and therefore having a greater influence. 2000 yrs and 2.1 billion people later, everything that has been premised upon regurgitated rationalized misinterpretation and lies, is starting to show.

      So what happens when the world discovers the modern popular interpretation of Christianity, that has been jammed down everyone’s throats, is basically a false religion because it differs somewhat from the original message? The falling away? Backlash and Persecution?

      What happens when a lot of Jews have to admit the legitimacy of the NT and that ‘Jesus/Emmanuel/Sananda'(or whatever his real name was) was a real guy with a real message, Christians have to admit he wasn’t what they thought, and Islam gets a boost in legitimacy? (…or whatever the truth really is) Jihad? WW3?

      The USA needs to take religious values out of government in the interest of the wisely instituted separation of church and state. Public functions need to include other beliefs or none at all, and self righteous fundy Christians need to tone it down while they still have an opportunity to be humble.

      • is basically a false religion because it differs somewhat from the original message?

        How did you come to that conclusion? The Old Testament was written to the Jews The New Testament was written to everyone..specifically those who believed in Jesus, Christians.. you know, that New Covenant thing?.

        • ” How did you come to that conclusion? ”

          …by taking an intellectually honest and objective approach to religion, asking questions, using reason, researching the bible, Talmud, Koran, etc.. as well as history of religion going WAY back.

          You see, Anita, a couple of years ago I started doing things that I am still trying to understand and explain. In doing so, I saw truths that very much differ from the vast majority of humanity believes, and in a context that hardly anyone considers, and only because I am in a somewhat unique position. But, like everyone else, my understanding is only partial.

          So I started to try to put things into perspective, to find the truth in all of it, a solid premise….because I really value truth in a big way. What I have found is that hardly anyone knows what the hell is really going on, and that humanity is likely in an unavoidable heap of shit because of it.

          I am not claiming to know it all, or even a small fraction of it. What I am saying is that what I DO know tells me there is something very very wrong with religion on this planet…among other things.

          ” is basically a false religion because it differs somewhat from the original message?”

          Just to be clear, I see truth in both the old and new testaments. I am not so much questioning the legitimacy of the message in the bible, but rather the popular interpretation thereof.

          I DO, however, question the legitimacy of how it has been portrayed and taught to the masses. I also question the legitimacy of it’s authenticity in current form, as I suspect things have been manipulated and/or omitted, lost in translation, etc. A message of half truths and omissions taught for long enough will inevitably result in a false sense of reality.

          What I see is a great big rationalization of a blend of Paganism and Christianity by billions of people.

          WTF EXACTLY does ‘only begotten son of God’ mean?

          How in the hell does a virgin get pregnant?

          How come the bible identifies both Lucifer as well as Jesus as the ‘morning star/sun of the morning’ and ‘of the light’?

          If so many Christians believe that the bible is the true word of God, and that Lucifer is the son of Satan, and that Jesus is the son of god, does this suggest that Christianity recognizes Satan as the only true God in heaven? Praise Lucifer that died for our sins?

          How EXACTLY does the death of a man transfer to future humans exercising their god given inalienable free will to sin?

          How can someone claim exclusivity to a ‘truth’ they cannot reasonably explain, while simultaneously and self-righteously jamming it down people’s throats? If one is going to teach that 2+2=5, they need to show the math.

      • and furthermore…. I’m not liking your whole last paragraph.Just how do you plan on taking religious values out of government when some of the basic founding documents have direct references to God? I’m thinking some of you religion haters need to tone it down. It’s amazing how much effort you put in to blaspheme something that doesn’t hurt you in any way.And please don’t throw the ” then you must include all religions” on me. That’s getting as old as the race card. Christianity was here first, long before you haters came along.

        (not yelling at you BL..just tired of hearing it)

        • Institutionalized religion does far more harm than good (see Catholic Church) … other than that, I could care less who believes what. So long as your beliefs don’t interfere with my life, knock yourself out.

          • Agreed.

          • Ever hear of catholic Charities. You, a New Yorker should be somewhat familiar with teh saga of St. Vincents Hospital in Greenwich Village. When nobody else would touch an AIDS patient, they welcomed them. Went broke in the process and have been closed by a real estate deal. Condos are sprouting on the spot where the poor were taken care of whether they could pay or not. Oh, and that AIDS thing, never forget that it was the homophobic church who showed both love and charity. You a lapsed Catholic remind me so much of a reformed smoker. You have become a zealot, totally unable to see the good for the bad that was done by a few.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          My dear, you will love this.

          BL shares many of the modern arguments about religion that are used to try and denigrate and purge “religion” from anything Govt. Notice Charlies comment about religious “institutions”. In fact they want Govt to have NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION of any kind.

          YET that very same GOVT has BY LAW established PROTECTIONS for the Religions of the various Native American tribes in the country. Those laws were established upon insistence of the “liberal” minded folk of the USA.

          These religions are protected by the Fed Govt against those who would impose upon them or impair them in anyway. Including the harming of sacred grounds which are not clearly defined.

          How is your headache now??

          • I’m still trying to figure out what to say to BL! Now you had to pile on? I’m going to default by embracing a comment I posted from one of Kathy’s links the other day:

            “Shit gettin blurry”

            😉

          • ” BL shares many of the modern arguments about religion that are used to try and denigrate and purge “religion” from anything Govt. ”

            Not really. I just don’t like theocracy or living in a society heavily influenced by control driven fairy tales.

        • ” and furthermore…. I’m not liking your whole last paragraph.”

          Why? …because I lay it down straight? Perhaps I should elaborate, explain just what I mean…

          ” The USA needs to take religious values out of government in the interest of the wisely instituted separation of church and state.”

          Yep. …because when you try to impose the values of some upon everyone, you create conflict. Law applies to everyone, but not everyone has the same values. Deciding what to believe is a basic inalienable individual right, thus interfering or imposing beliefs is a violation of said right.

          ” Public functions need to include other beliefs or none at all, and self righteous fundy Christians need to tone it down while they still have an opportunity to be humble.”

          Yep. Because a lot of people are sick of it. When people go to a city council meeting or football game, they don’t all go there to praise Jesus. Many go there to take care of business or enjoy a sporting event.

          And eventually, if not taken care of, it is just one more thing to add to the potential for things to get nasty. According to the bible, it will.

          ” Just how do you plan on taking religious values out of government when some of the basic founding documents have direct references to God?

          I am sure there are a number of ways to separate religion from law.

          ” I’m thinking some of you religion haters need to tone it down.”

          I’m thinking you need to understand the difference between religion haters and defenders of inalienable rights.

          Personally I am sick of hearing about the war on Christianity, which should more appropriately be called backlash in response to ‘making everything about Jesus, like it or not’.

          ” It’s amazing how much effort you put in to blaspheme something that doesn’t hurt you in any way.”

          Oh, but it indeed does, in a BIG BIG way. I can’t even give you an explanation without potential consequence from radical idiots.

          ” And please don’t throw the ” then you must include all religions” on me. ”

          Oh, I won’t. The point I made above about including other religions, was to demonstrate the difference between exclusivity and equality, the difference between a Christian nation and one of religious freedom. Is it really about celebrating religion, or ONE PARTICULAR religion?

          What if Muslim prayer were played through loudspeakers 3 times daily in towns all across the US? What if Pagans and Jews and Muslims took their turn praying before a football game?

          “That’s getting as old as the race card. Christianity was here first, long before you haters came along. ”

          Bullshit.

          ” (not yelling at you BL..just tired of hearing it)”

          As am I.

          But no worries. This is just an invigorating conversation.

          🙂

          • Bullshit back atcha. They didn’t come here and place Mohammed or Budda or Zeus, or Nobody(atheists) in the documents. They placed God in the documents. They also placed “of religion” not “from religion”. OF… That means it’s OK. That doesn’t mean we are obligated to practice or listen to it. You act like it’s something evil. But that’s ok..I’m going to ask Him to be lenient on you, cause I would really like to hang out with you when WE get there. 😉

            “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” Luke 18:27

            • ” They placed God in the documents. ”

              Indeed, they were only human, and subject to mistakes. No one is perfect.

              ” They also placed “of religion” not “from religion”. OF… That means it’s OK. ”

              Of course it’s okay. And it is my opinion that religions should be explored and celebrated. But that’s not what has happened. What has happened is that people got all self righteous and decided to influence law based upon THEIR ‘god’.

              ” 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 ”

              Did congress specifically establish a state religion? No, but rather laws have been exclusively made in the support and interest of certain religions and their values and way of life.

              The gay marriage thing for example. Why is it an issue?

              A: Because at the root of the debate is that the Christian God said fags are an abomination.

              …Otherwise, people in the USA don’t care what fags do in their private lives. The ones that do care are the ones that are trying to impose their values upon others. Somewhere along the line, people decided to make law part of a religious ceremony/institution, whereby law screwed it up like everything else. And in addition to that, since no one knows what rights are, gay people think they have special rights regarding their sex lives, and are now fighting to not only be able to get ‘married’, but also to make people serve them cake and send their kids to fairy scouts.

              It’s friggin’ ridiculous.

              I would also argue that a lot of theocracy happens on a local level more so than a national one. It shows up in things like laws to regulate drinking alcohol on SUN worship day…or strip clubs being shut down or regulated into bankruptcy for sake of someone’s ‘superior’ moral convictions.

              I am almost as disgusted as most Christians are with some of these things. The difference is that I’m not supporting forcing people to comply to MY standards of morality.

              ” That doesn’t mean we are obligated to practice or listen to it. You act like it’s something evil.”

              But that’s just it, Anita. People ARE obligated to participate as these things effect everyone in society, either directly or indirectly. And it IS evil to force people into compliance of religious practices and/or values.

              But that’s ok..I’m going to ask Him to be lenient on you, cause I would really like to hang out with you when WE get there. 😉

              Don’t bother. I was condemned from birth.

              Either…

              A – someone is exploiting the laws of physics to play a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY sick joke on me.
              B – I am a decoy/ MAD sacrificial COW
              C – It’s me, it’s real, and all hell is breaking loose.
              D – All of the above.
              E – something else.

              “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” Luke 18:2

              Pffft..

          • So you want to separate religion from law-tell me who exactly is going to sit down and decide that this law is religious based and this law isn’t. I was under the impression that we attempted to stop laws based on whether or not they were Constitutional. But you want to ignore the democratically voted upon laws, not on Constitutionality but on whether or not someone deems them religious based.

            • Just an FYI-This Country is not a theocracy! 🙂

              • Yeah! What she said. You’re lucky you got out here on your own. I almost called you to the rescue earlier 🙂

              • You don’t need me or anyone else to come to your rescue Anita-I’ve read your posts when you feel passionate about the subject and they are very clear and usually backed up with proof.

              • ” Just an FYI-This Country is not a theocracy! ”

                Sure it is…at least in part. It isn’t called that, but the examples are everywhere.

                It is simple things like the ten CHRISTIAN commandments at courthouses, supported by intolerant ‘Christian’ judges.

                …or alcohol regulation exclusively on SUNdays, the Christian sabbath.

                …or the whole ‘gay rights’ thing.

                …or the way local governments target businesses like gentleman’s clubs or porn shops, etc.

                You may not see it because your religious views stifle your objectivity. But it is there.

                I think that what annoys me so much, is not only that it is enFORCEment of religious values, but because it is based upon something that cannot be rationally explained.

                It is similar to global warming regulations. The green crowd can’t even make the case because the facts are still unestablished. But they are going ahead and writing the regs anyway.

                Christians can tell us how to live, because they are of a superior moral idealism, and claim exclusivity on the true word of God above others. But when you ask them for a reasonable explanation as to the premise of their beliefs they base this superiority on, they fail miserably.

              • You can keep saying it-doesn’t make it true. So what we are a evirocracy and a theocracy-anything else.

              • ” You can keep saying it-doesn’t make it true.”

                Don’t take my word for it. Look around.

                ” So what we are a evirocracy and a theocracy-anything else. ”

                It sure looks like it is headed in that direction…or at least someone[s] are trying.

            • ” So you want to separate religion from law-tell me who exactly is going to sit down and decide that this law is religious based and this law isn’t. ”

              No one. I think law sucks because it is predicated upon coercion and violence.

              I think the more relevant question is with regard to what is and isn’t a religion based standard. But regardless of the origin, if it isn’t of universal benefit, it has no place in a social order, as it will only eventually lead to conflict.

              ” I was under the impression that we attempted to stop laws based on whether or not they were Constitutional. ”

              Operative word: attempted. ( I like how you worded that)

              Yep. Too bad there are people with a voter legitimized monopoly on violence. They don’t care about your Constipation..err …umm… Constitution. They have the power, guns, and personal interests that supersedes their motivation to look out for the people.

              …either that or they aren’t the perfect pseudo-gods they think they are.

              ” But you want to ignore the democratically voted upon laws, not on Constitutionality but on whether or not someone deems them religious based.

              I am an anarchist. I want to ignore laws in general because they are evil. Religiously motivated or not, they are backed with a gun to force your compliance.

  18. The last few weeks, I have been lambasted by some as I was making statements about the ACA because I have actually read it from front to back twice. Provide links, they screamed. I said links are not necessary just ask around and they claimed they did. Then they posted links from Wiki and left wing sites disputing my claims. Well, here were my claims:

    1) You will not get to keep your doctor and current plan if it does not meet the ACA standards. I was told prove it. It has been proven without links.

    2) I warned about Medicare and supplemental insurance. Medicare becomes primary, at age 65, and supplemental insurance will need to be purchased to cover the extraneous costs that medicare does not. I warned about the fact that if Medicare changes its rules and drops certain coverages or decreases the amounts that doctors charge, that the supplemental insurance offered by the exchanges will not cover those charges. LO and BEHOLD…….they will not. IT is written. It is now all over the news.

    3) I warned about the plans that were specifically targeted to Medicare, Part A and Part B recipients and that the ACA REQUIRES that they cover specifics not germane to them….birth control, contraceptive devices, maternity, etc. Interestingly…..the aged have to cover those as well and it raises the cost of medicare coverage.

    4) There were those that do not understand that Medicare carries a premium that is deducted from Social Security. I warned that the ACA does not cover the fact that Medicare becomes primary and mandatory at age 65…..but neglects the fact that the Social Security benefit is now on a sliding scale…pre 1938, 100% participation at age 65…1939 to 1958….100% participation from age 65 to 67…….BUT……Medicare is not on the same sliding scale. This forces seniors to pay cash for their Medicare until the scale is reached. I was told to prove it…..don’t have to..it is reality.

    5) Some joked about death panels….LO and BEHOLD….there is a panel that will be empowered in 2014 that will set rules on surgeries, medicines, end of life medical care…..and not one person on the panel is a doctor nor qualified medical official and if that panel decides that a particular service is not a covered service under Medicare…..no coverage will be provided.

    6) I warned about the new tax on prosthesis and their related costs. LO and BEHOLD….it is now extended to Veterans through the VA. A Veteran does not have to pay for the prosthesis but does have to pay the corresponding tax…in addition, the VA is now tied to Medicare and the Veteran will have to pay a new premium in 2014. IT is, however, based on their income.

    7) I warned about the Veterans heath care under Tricare, At age 65, Medicare now takes over. No longer can a Veteran keep his health insurance for life. Tricare becomes labeled as Tricare for Life. However, it is now subject o Medicare rules, under the ACA. If medicare does not cover something, neither will tricare for life cover it. AND just recently, the VA health services and Tricare were added to the approved lists.

    8) I have warned that the costs that are being shown on the websites assume that everyone qualifies for subsidies and this gives a false impression until they go to the income page,. It is based upon income…..and in most instances, the average premium is going to escalate significantly. This is explained in the ACA.

    9) I warned about the subsidies and the fact that they relate to premiums only….they do not relate to deductibles not co pay. Both those items escalate significantly. This is written in the ACA.

    This list goes on…and it will finally be revealed in the coming months.

    If you remember, sometime ago, I mentioned the fact that the doctors in Texas are all dropping out of Hospitals, and Medicare and forming what are called Coops or Concierge services……interestingly enough….one of the fastest growing industries now,,,,,,is concierge medical services in private hospitals, free of Federal Funding. Doctors and specialists are dropping our of Medicare and federally funded hospitals at alarming rates. In Fort Worth alone, there are two new 150 bed hospitals, run by doctors, that do not take medical emergencies, unless you are a member, do not take medicare nor medicaid, and they have created health savings accounts for their members.

    I wonder how long it will take the government to close these down.

  19. Just throwing this out here for those who don’t believe anything Obama has ever said. It is clear that nobody knows much about Obama’s past, maybe this will shed some light, (or not 🙂 )
    http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/11/mia-marie-pope-obama-went-by-barry-soetoro-strictly-into-men-says-he-was-foreign-student-2469788.html

  20. Let’s see, according to SUFA (many of you here) … a) our health care is the best in the world and all those living in the evil socialist countries are flocking here to get medical help (funny, but I haven’t seen a single Swede or Canadian at my doctor’s office yet) … b) the rest of the world is attacking Christianity (yeah, they’re dying by the thousands everywhere you turn) … c) the socialist countries are all about to go kaput (since I’ve been visiting SUFA you’ve said that) … looks like we might go kaput first.
    And how ‘bout those Rangers last night! 5-1 over the Penguins!

    • A) Head to my doctor then…so chock full of those dang socialist swedes trying to get their hands on my superior health care that I couldn’t get an appointment!

      B) not the rest of the world, just the good ‘ole US of A….its the war on christianity dontcha know!?

      C) The socialist countries ARE all about to go kaput….any day now…just wait for it…

      🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Good morning. Was hoping you would show up today.

        Those “socialist Swedes” along with many other “socialist” countries have been moving more towards “Capitalism”, while we seem hell bent on going to where they have come.

        So how do you explain that?

        Oh, and for the record I do believe there is a war on Christianity. Several wars in fact.

        But the one here in the USA is pretty small relative to the rhetoric regarding it. Small numbers are given much greater voice than they should have.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Canadians do come to the USA for medical care. Serious attempts to quantify and qualify this have found the number to be very small in terms of total Canadian population or Medical treatments. But the fact remains that Canadians to come to the USA for various reasons.

      And those reasons are linked to the inherent restrictions of a GOVT run health care system. Following are some reasons cited in one of the studies I mentioned.

      “Analytic framework.

      Canadians might receive care in the United States for a number of reasons: (1) Services are available in Canada but often involve extensive wait times (wait-listed services). Examples often include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiation oncology treatment, and selected surgical procedures such as total knee replacements, cataract surgery, and coronary artery bypass surgery.

      (2) Leading-edge technology services are unavailable in Canada. Examples include gamma knife radiation and proton beam therapy for some cranial tumors and specialized programs to treat severe brain injuries.

      (3) Services are available in Canada, but U.S. health care centers are more conveniently located for some Canadians (proximal services). Examples include some residents of rural border regions in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, or western Ontario seeking primary care in U.S. settings; and some residents of urban centers such as Thunder Bay, Ontario, seeking secondary or tertiary care south of the border.

      (4) Services are provided to Canadian snowbirds, who live in the United States during the winter months, or to other periodic business and leisure travelers to the United States (coincidental services).

      (5) Services are available in Canada but are perceived by the patient to be of higher quality in specific U.S. medical centers such as those listed as one of “America’s Best Hospitals” (magnet services).

      Across these categories, the sources of funding for care vary considerably. For example, patients in the fourth category will generally have their costs covered by varying combinations of provincial health insurance and private insurance. Services in the second category, approved by a provincial plan, would be paid in full by that plan at rates negotiated with the U.S. care center. Some services in the first and third categories may be provided under a contract between the provincial Ministry of Health and the U.S. providers. Other services in these two categories, as well as those in the fifth, require direct out-of-pocket payment by Canadian patients.”

      In Montana the leading cause of Canadians coming south for medical treatment was HEART SURGERY. They claimed they would be wait listed in Canada and didn’t want to die while on the list. Anecdotal? Yep. But that is the story they told the Doctors in Great Falls and Missoula.

      As for the quality of the US health care system it is most certainly the best in the world in certain categories of treatment.

      • “As for the quality of the US health care system it is most certainly the best in the world in certain categories of treatment.”

        Apparently not in infant mortality … guess who? Cuba .. Viva Fidel!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          CHARLIE

          The infant mortality is a PERFECT example of FLAWED comparisons. The metric is not Standardized around the world. Thus the data is pretty much useless for the comparison you are trying to make.

          • Says you … but you’re ALWAYS RIGHT! how could I dare show you to be wrong AGAIN!!!!!

            JAC … you’re losing … a little more each day … welcome to a socialized America … coming to a theatre near you soon 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              It is not MY claim. It is documented in several different studies of health care.

              Try spending some time doing your own research. Don’t stop when you find one you like. Keep looking for the dissenting opinions.

              It is not coming, it has been here for a long time. It is simply getting worse.

              But your dream will fail, of that I am sure.

        • Charles, ever hear of “Crack mothers and crack babies” Where the hell else in the world do you have that or would they tolerate that. Certainly not Cuber as JFK would have said.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    I have held my water on the Miami Dolphin controversy until more information came to light. Now that it has it makes just one more example of how our modern media, 24/7 headline grabbing and attention seeking media, creates a negative atmosphere BEFORE having all the facts or information.

    The message going around from Incognito to Martin using the words “half nigger” have been used as evidence of RACIST attitudes. Oh my, the Players, including the Black Players on the team DISAGREE. Could it be that taking a message without placing it in CONTEXT could harm someone’s career? Maybe we can claim Incognito as a victim of the “47% Syndrome”.

    Anyhow, the latest from MSNBC:

    Many Miami players had surprising reactions

    Well, most of us knew the situation going on with the Miami Dolphins was complicated. But complicated might have been an understatement.

    Several Dolphins players spoke up and met with the media on Wednesday and had many interesting things to say. FOX Sports Florida has full coverage of the news conference, but let’s run down the list here:

    1. QB Ryan Tannehill was under the impression that Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin were best of friends. Tannehill also said the two would hang out off the field. “When they wanted to hang out outside of football, who was together? Richie and Jon.”

    Tannehill went on: “Does he like to give guys a hard time? Yes. Does he like to pester guys and have fun? Yes. But he brought a lot laughter to this locker room, he brought a lot of looseness to this locker room. He was the best teammate I could ask for.”

    2. OT Tyson Clabo said Martin “needs to stand up and be a man. I don’t know why he’s doing this.”

    Clabo went on to tell the New York Post, “I think that what’s perceived is that Richie is this psychopath, racist maniac and nothing could be farther from the truth. The reality is that Richie was a pretty good teammate, and that Richie and Jonathan Martin were friends.”

    3. WR Brian Hartline is outraged and said Martin was passing around the voicemail that Incognito left back in April and laughing about it.

    4. Offensive lineman John Jerry said he has never heard Incognito use the “N” word around him and even if he did, would have “laughed it off.” As far as Incognito not being a racist, Jerry said, “He’s a guy I’m with more than my own family, so I know what type of guy he is, personally.”

    5. Offensive lineman Mike Pouncey and WR Mike Wallace both don’t think Incognito is a racist. Both also wished Incognito would be playing with them on Monday when they face the Buccaneers.

    Other notes:

    1. The Miami Herald reports that the prank that caused Martin to leave the team facility last week has been pulled on other players dozens of times. It was even pulled on head coach Joe Philbin. The prank is everyone gets up from a lunch table when the one being pranked sits down.

    2. Hall of Famer Warren Sapp told a story on the Dan Patrick Show on Wednesday, saying Incognito called him the “N word” during a game back in 2006. Sapp said “it’s a term of endearment where I come from.”

    3. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported Wednesday that Incognito was asked by the team to take Martin under his wing and even toughen him up.

    4. Pouncey told ESPN analyst Cris Carter that he would “never allow anyone to be bullied on my team.” And while Incognito thought he was trying to motivate Martin, Pouncey wishes “the words were different.”

    Here’s what clear: This story has taken a much different turn over the past two days.

    • I think there is still more to come out. Have we heard from Martin yet? What about the rookies being forced to buy expensive items for other team members as part of their initiation? Told to toughen up Martin? Like the Saints Coach encouraged “toughening” up? This Incognito (what a name!) has been a problem child for years – Dungy and another coach (can’t remember who) said he was on their ______ list – something like DSMI (Don’t Sign–Major Issues). Did Martin hang with him because he felt threatened if he didn’t, ie, keep your friends close, your enemies closer? Is Martin gay?

      Hardly believe the pranks were as simple as everyone getting up from a lunch table. Sorry JAC, think it is wishful thinking on your part that there is nothing here.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        I did not say there is nothing there. I am saying that the media had no idea but went forward with the usual character assassinations.

        Instead of you know, getting more information before editorializing.

        The use of nigger is something I find most interesting. WE assume it has a racial component because of the Framing we face each day. Meanwhile the younger generation has grown up in a Rap culture where the word has lost much of its offensive meaning. That is why you see some of these young black players blowing it off. Because they did not witness it used in a vile manner.

        The times are a changing. The PC police need to catch up.

        • I’m a lifelong Dolphins fan. I also have not brought this up because things didn’t seem quite right with the story being told. So, I waited. Incognito has had issues in the past, but I don’t think that is what the problem is. Just my humble opinion, I believe Martin may be suffering from a Bipolar issue and needs some medical help. I think this may be the real issue., Time will tell. In the mean time, I feel bad for Martin. I also feel bad for Incognito because I think he is possible being wrongly accused. But I won’t point fingers at anybody, I think it will come down to a medical issue that was not an issue in the past.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    The time has come to once again remind everyone of Living Document Theory created long after the Constitution was written and ratified.

    The Constitution: A living document?

    ——————————————————————————–
    Looking beyond the text a matter for debate

    By Ray Cooklis
    Enquirer staff writer

    America, it is said, has a “living Constitution.” In fact, the notion is so ingrained it has become a cliché. Junior high students lug home civics textbooks with that title.

    But what does that mean? Is it true? If so, is that a good thing?

    We can agree the U.S. Constitution – along with the Bill of Rights, now considered part of the core document – is “living” in one sense: It has been around longer than any other such document, and continues to be our civic touchstone – and the model for emerging democracies worldwide. On Friday, many Americans will celebrate the 217th anniversary of the Constitution’s signing.

    But the other sense – as a growing, flexible thing that should adapt to changing times and a changing society – has been the subject of controversy for more than a century, and still can generate heated arguments. We see the effects of this debate in everyday life. In our area, those include concealed-carry laws in Ohio and Kentucky, anti-pornography cases and the Mapplethorpe exhibit trial, the Klan cross and religious displays on Fountain Square, and even gay rights issues related to Article 12.

    Until the 20th century, the “originalist” view of the Constitution held sway. There are several variations on this philosophy, but it generally meant that judges should interpret the Constitution as its framers intended it and would themselves interpret it, using the text itself plus other documents of the time, such as the Federalist Papers. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WAS THE ACCEPTED VIEW UNTIL THE 20TH CENTURY. KIND OF LIKE A PRECEDENT DON’T YOU THINK? THAT SAME PRINICPLE WHICH THE PROGRESSIVES NOW TRY TO USE TO DEFEND THE CHANGES THEY MADE AFTER A CENTURY OR MORE OR THE ORIGINAL WAY. AS I OFTEN SAY, HYPOCRITES.

    Joseph Story, a prominent 19th century legal scholar, wrote that the Constitution has “a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be … not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, today and forever.” Judges should not stray from the text’s literal meaning, and the only proper way to change the text was by formal amendment – what Alexander Hamilton called “some solemn and authoritative act.”

    But another view began to emerge in the mid-19th century, inspired by the cutting-edge science of the time – specifically, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. HOW FUNNY, THE PROGRESSIVES USED DARWIN TO JUSTIFY AN EVOLVING DOCUMENT. AND OF COURSE THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST GOES WITH THAT. YES CHARLIE, THE PROGRESSIVES NOT THE FREE MARKET CAPITALISTS.

    Legal thinkers began to draw an analogy to a living organism that changes and adapts over time. By the start of the 20th century, Progressivists such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (of “falsely shouting fire in a theater” fame) were arguing that the Constitution “must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.” Holmes said the law was not a matter of absolutes but of the “felt necessities of the time,” to be justified by how it contributes “toward reaching a social end.” THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS, THE BEGINNING OF THE WIZARD COURT. BECAUSE ONLY WIZARDS CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX “NECESSITIES OF THE TIME”.

    To put it another way: Where the 19th century saw the Constitution as a set of immutable laws like Newtonian physics, the 20th century viewed it in terms of Einstein’s relativity, in which everything depends on where – or when – the observer is situated.

    The catch is that judges were the ones to decide how it was evolving. In the 1930s, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes put it bluntly: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Others argued that courts have the right to amend it, and that the Supreme Court is a continuing constitutional convention. WHAT IS THAT CHARLIE SAYS ALL THE TIME? BADA BOOM, BADA BING!

    But if, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, government “derives its powers from the consent of the governed,” how can judges who are unelected by the governed decide to increase those powers?

    That’s one of the arguments made as part of an originalist revival in recent years. These critics warn that judges who decide to make a “politically correct” ruling, then find some way to justify it through a creative interpretation of written precedent, can’t keep doing that forever. The Constitution’s language, notes Stanford history professor Jack Rakove, “cannot be infinitely malleable.” Stretch the text too far, and it may snap.

    Critics also point out that the Constitution hasn’t “evolved” consistently, but only in a socially liberal direction: The power to forbid any “establishment of religion” expands, for example, while the companion guarantee to the “free exercise thereof” shrinks.

    It’s not that the framers didn’t foresee these changes – or the turmoil that might result.

    James Madison and Thomas Jefferson debated the idea that each generation of Americans should write its own constitution. Jefferson sneered at the “sanctimonious reverence” some would hold for a mere historic document. Madison fretted that without some reverence for continuity, a nation could not have the “requisite stability.”

    Perhaps both were right. Perhaps we really have two constitutions – the written one, which provides a rational continuity, and an unwritten one, which embodies the basic principles behind the document as we now understand them.

    Take the “right to privacy.” Many Americans assume it is one of our basic rights, but it is not directly addressed in the Constitution. Instead, it has been created over many decades, using the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and especially the 14th Amendment’s principles of due process and equal protection. Courts have carved out legal zones of privacy around marriage, families and individuals, overturning laws that required public school attendance, prohibited the use of contraceptives, and more. Last year in Lawrence vs. Texas, a decision that threw out a Texas sodomy law, the court argued that because of the constitutional right to privacy, the government cannot impose a moral point of view on Americans. SEE HOW THE ROT OF RELATIVIST THINKING SPREADS OVER TIME?

    Sometimes, the written and unwritten versions conflict. Literally, the Constitution was constructed to preserve the 18th century status quo regarding slavery, but it was soon read to assert the principle that human rights must be expanded and extended.

    But we live with such conflict, and muddle through the uncertainties the Constitution will always present. As Justice William Brennan wrote, “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers on the application of principle to specific, contemporary questions.” YET HE IS MORE THAN WILLING TO CLAIM THAT HE HAS THAT PRECIANT ABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIETIES WANTS AND/OR NEEDS.

    HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF EVOLVING THEORIES AND HOW THEY AFFECTED THE LAW.

    ‘EVOLVING STANDARDS’

    • Freedom of speech/press: There’s evidence these First Amendment concepts were intended to prevent prior restraint, but not punishment afterward. The controversial Sedition Act of 1798, which expired in 1801, was aimed at those who would “write, print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government …” Over the years, consensus grew that a wide range of expression could not be punished. In 1964 the Supreme Court declared “that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

    • Establishment of religion: Many scholars believe this clause in the First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from establishing or sponsoring an official national church because this might cause friction among the states, each of which was dominated by one sect or another. The intent was not a “separation of church and state,” a notion that is not even in the Constitution, but in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote 15 years later. But as the nation became more diverse, that view changed. In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause forbids practices that “aid all religions,” not just those that prefer one over the other. That has led to rulings against school prayer and public displays such as the Ten Commandments tablets in Adams County schools.

    • Cruel and unusual punishments: This Eighth Amendment phrase was criticized as too vague when proposed, but was deemed necessary to halt practices such as cutting off ears, burning alive and disembowelment. “Cruel” and “unusual” are terms whose meanings have changed with American society. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1958, “The (8th) Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” That has motivated states to abandon the gas chamber, then the electric chair (including Ohio’s “Old Sparky,” by order of Reginald Wilkinson, state director of corrections), and increasingly is invoked as an argument against capital punishment itself.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    S.K. and others.

    Re; the questions about US vs. European, tower of Babel, etc. I thought it might be a good idea to revisit the following article.

    https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/building-a-foundation-for-resurrecting-america-part-iv/

  24. Yes, terrible, sin’ it. Abortions are still legal in Texas. Recognizing that, all Texas has done, is make it better and more professional to get one.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Re the issue of Organized Religion or Institutionalized Religion and its supposed negative affect on humanity.

    Given that various religions have been used to justify atrocious acts upon humanity and Given that the same can be said of those NOT using religion, then is it really the RELIGION that is at fault??

    Or is it the HUMANS themselves?

    Seems to me that history tells us it is the latter.

    If religion does not exist do you think wars, trespass, theft and even genocide will vanish from Humanities future?? I think not.

    As for the USA, there seems to be this disconnect among those who dislike religion and the role it played over the 1700 years prior to this nations founding. You only want to focus on the negatives and ignore all the positives. The very things that created the sense of community and singular purpose, the work ethic and faith in the American Future.

    The Christian Religions were the glue that bound us together. Even with the differences among them, and with the warts, it was a belief in God that UNIFIED the nation in combination with the Enlightenment philosophy of free will, reason, etc.

    Oh and of course lets not forget that many of those terrible Organized Religions were the leaders against the Institution of Slavery.

    • ” Given that various religions have been used to justify atrocious acts upon humanity and Given that the same can be said of those NOT using religion, then is it really the RELIGION that is at fault?? Or is it the HUMANS themselves? Seems to me that history tells us it is the latter.”

      Exactly.

      ” If religion does not exist do you think wars, trespass, theft and even genocide will vanish from Humanities future?? I think not.”

      False premise.

      Religion is not required for a peaceful organized society.

      ” As for the USA, there seems to be this disconnect among those who dislike religion and the role it played over the 1700 years prior to this nations founding. You only want to focus on the negatives and ignore all the positives. The very things that created the sense of community and singular purpose, the work ethic and faith in the American Future ”

      Well, JAC, …Given that various religions have been used to justify atrocious acts upon humanity and Given that the same can be said of those NOT using religion, then is it really the RELIGION that deserves credit? Or is it the HUMANS themselves? Seems to me that history tells us it is the latter.

      Religion does exist, yet wars, trespass, theft and even genocide haven’t vanish from Humanity.

      ” The Christian Religions were the glue that bound us together. Even with the differences among them, and with the warts, it was a belief in God that UNIFIED the nation in combination with the Enlightenment philosophy of free will, reason, etc. ”

      …or perhaps it was more about enlightenment philosophy, …because a lot of people came to the US to run away from religious tyranny of Europe.

      ” Oh and of course lets not forget that many of those terrible Organized Religions were the leaders against the Institution of Slavery ”

      I thought it was about the people, and not religion.

      😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BL

        You fail logic 101:

        ” If religion does not exist do you think wars, trespass, theft and even genocide will vanish from Humanities future?? I think not.”

        False premise.

        Religion is not required for a peaceful organized society.

        There is NO SUCH PREMISE in my question.

        The actual PREMISE is that Man will destroy man WITHOUT Religion. This is a TRUE statement.

        Here is another one:

        Man will destroy man WITH Religion. This is s True Statement.

        Therefore the problem is NOT religion. It is MAN.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Your thought processes are MIXED up.

        Your understanding of our history is also mixed up.

        The religious persecution they ran from was the opposition to their PURITAN religion.

        Sorry to burst your bubble. but this country was founded on those principles which developed primarily in England as influenced by the English PROTESTANT church, English common law and the new philosophies coming from the enlightenment period. Oh, and a great affection for the Roman Republic.

        The ENLIGHTENMENT was not the source of our nation’s principles for its construction. You would do better looking to ROME for that.

        • Interesting chat about religion. Just my two bucks worth, I always thought religion should be a private issue. Churches are for those like minded who choose to share their religion with like minded people. The issue of prayer before a govt meeting could be easily resolved, by simply having a 30 second moment of silence to allow for prayer or meditation. Nobody should be forced to “be religious”.. It’s called live and let live! I have no problems with Muslims and their prayer times, and for those that haven’t heard it yet, there are loudspeakers at Mosques across the US that call for prayer, loudly. Nobody seems to mind hearing that (few can understand the language so it is ignored, despite the same message). WHY, is this so hard to fix?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            Religion should be a private matter. BUT……….you know that great caveat in the sky…..

            Two points.

            One, there is a time for public display and I have no problem with the Christians openly praying even at town halls and football games. Why? Because those are special events where the community at large is asking for wisdom, courage or some other grace. I care no whether they fell God is granting of that grace or if they think it is self generated.

            Along these lines are those who bow in prayer during the hard times. No atheists in Fox Holes comes to mind here.

            Two, it is impossible to separate the moral and ethical character of a man from the basis on which he found those morals and ethics. So for those that argue SEPARATION, what they are really trying to say is that Mankind can have NO OTHER moral or ethical standards EXCEPT those derived from THEIR method, from THEIR way of thinking.

            If what we consider a moral man came by his morals via his religion, then why should we care what his source. Why should we denigrate him for his beliefs? Just because he arrived at the correct answer via a different method??

            I think this is what V.H. is getting at with her constant question which always goes unanswered. Which is HOW do you separate Religion and Govt when MEN comprise Govt and those men have a religious foundation. HOW do you separate religion from Govt when so many or our moral laws and ethical standards were derived from Religious tenants?

            Does the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” violate our “Enlightened” sense of Freedom, Liberty, or Justice??

            I think we sometimes forget to separate the criticism of Biblical stories and irrational claims by various “interpreters” from the Foundation of the Christian religion itself. That thing we might call the Basic Message. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

            Now should we remove all the laws that could be construed as being related to that principle, just because it was included in the Christian teachings?? That was rhetorical and not aimed at you Gman. 🙂

            P.S. I am so jealous of your dialing hunting excursions. Perhaps some day I’ll help you test that 400 lb stress theory of yours.

        • ” …various religions have been used to justify atrocious acts upon humanity…the same can be said of those NOT using religion, …is it really the RELIGION…Or is it the HUMANS themselves? Seems to me that history tells us it is the latter. ”

          Translation: It isn’t religion but the people. So don’t blame religion.

          ” If religion does not exist do you think wars, trespass, theft and even genocide will vanish from Humanities future?? I think not. ”

          Translation: It isn’t religion. So don’t give credit to religion.

          ” As for the USA, there seems to be this disconnect among those who dislike religion and the role it played over the 1700 years prior to this nations founding. You only want to focus on the negatives and ignore all the positives. The very things that created the sense of community and singular purpose, the work ethic and faith in the American Future. ”

          Translation: It’s religion. So credit religion.

          ” The Christian Religions were the glue that bound us together. Even with the differences among them, and with the warts, it was a belief in God that UNIFIED the nation in combination with the Enlightenment philosophy of free will, reason, etc. ”

          ” Oh and of course lets not forget that many of those terrible Organized Religions were the leaders against the Institution of Slavery. ”

          Translation: It’s religion. So credit religion.

          Well, …which is it? …the people or religion?

        • ” Your thought processes are MIXED up. ”

          Is it the people or religion? Perhaps I could discern your ‘logic’ better if you were mor consistent.

          ” Your understanding of our history is also mixed up. ”

          And you support this assertion with…?

          ” The religious persecution they ran from was the opposition to their PURITAN religion.”

          ” …because a lot of people came to the US to run away from religious tyranny of Europe.”

          Ummm…okay.

          ” Sorry to burst your bubble. but this country was founded on those principles which developed primarily in England as influenced by the English PROTESTANT church, English common law and the new philosophies coming from the enlightenment period. Oh, and a great affection for the Roman Republic.

          The ENLIGHTENMENT was not the source of our nation’s principles for its construction.”

          ” …developed .. in England… influenced by the English PROTESTANT church, English common law and new philosophies coming from the enlightenment period. Oh, and a great affection for the Roman Republic. ”

          Translation: It came from English common law and new philosophies from the enlightenment period, but not from the enlightenment.

          ??

          ” You would do better looking to ROME for that.”

          Perhaps some day I will.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BL

            You expressly claimed this nation’s founding was based only on the enlightenment and NOT religion.

            That is a FALSE claim.

            AS I have posted many times, it was a mix of many concepts and ideas.

            But there were certain values or principles common among the founders, and their Christian faith was one of the strongest. And it had a very strong influence on our founding and the laws passed before and shortly after.

            To deny that is to deny history.

            • ” You expressly claimed this nation’s founding was based only on the enlightenment and NOT religion. That is a FALSE claim. ”

              I meant it as more of a suggestion to entertain the idea thereof…hence the word “perhaps”

              Meh…semantics.

              ” AS I have posted many times, it was a mix of many concepts and ideas”

              Agreed.

              ” But there were certain values or principles common among the founders, and their Christian faith was one of the strongest. And it had a very strong influence on our founding and the laws passed before and shortly after. To deny that is to deny history.”

              Actually, I could argue. But I get your point. Indeed there was a theocratic influence from the start.

              😉

      • BL, Without the belief in the goodness of God there could never be Evil, for it is the opposite. Humans are the problem, not religion. Although the Muslims are doing there best to screw that up. I think we can all live together and allow for some time for those that are religious, it can’t hurt. These people that cry wolf over a prayer at a meeting are hypocrits, because they demand the everyone bow to their beliefs (or non-beliefs). Makes little sense.

        I hate laws too! In a proper Christian world we wouldn’t need them, proof that it’s people. Laws do nothing to stop evil, bullets do. So what is really needed, laws or guns? 🙂

        • G,

          You and I are in agreement.

          I don’t have a problem with this or that belief system. People can do or believe whatever they want. I don’t mind people preaching or whatever way they practice their beliefs.

          My issue is when it is imposed upon others, or used as an excuse to violate…and without any reason other than blind arrogant self righteousness.

          It also annoys the piss out of me that people don’t seem to understand the very belief system they claim gives them this moral high ground to decide what is best for others.

          But I think I am ‘preaching to the choir’, so to speak.

  26. Nanni state this, Bill O’Reilly 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9sJlgBnos

  27. Posted in Federal Register this past Wednesday……………exempting private and self administered insurance plans aka…..union plans. Told ya so.

  28. I have a question. If Christianity is a religion of peace, why are there wars?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Well based on the construction of your question I could answer:

      Because those who wage “offensive” wars are not Christians.

      • Because those who wage “offensive” wars are not Christians.

        I would say that a lot of Christians have been lied to by our government when it comes to wars.

        • ” If Christianity is a religion of peace, why are there wars? ”

          ” Because those who wage “offensive” wars are not Christians ”

          Agreed, JAC.

          ” I would say that a lot of Christians have been lied to by our government when it comes to wars.”

          Indeed. I will further that statement by positing that Christians have been lied to by a lot of people for a very long time. And not just Christians, but everyone.

          Someone[s] knows the truth, and are using it as an advantage over the rest of us. I see it, …just not all of it. But I do see enough to know the difference, …and oh what a big difference it is.

          No one is prepared.

          Knowledge is Power
          Truth is Freedom
          Order out of Chaos

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One more thought.

      If RELIGION is the evil used my Man to justify mayhem and slaughter, If NO GOOD COMES from ANY “Organized Religion” then how do the cynics explain the lack of Buddhist Armies that have tried to rule the world??

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Sorry G, I forgot to include my point, in case anyone didn’t understand.

        Maybe it is not religion but the PARTICULAR religion that is of concern.

  29. JAC you surprised me. I’ve always taken you as sort of a hater, but I sure do like all your responses tonight. Helps me organize stuff in my own brain..which BL is trying hard to scramble.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      I am not a “hater” but I have certain issues with how religion has been used. I have some serious issues with particular institutions, such as the Catholic Church.

      • Religion is not the problem, just the excuse for many. Good Christians would see how the feds have led them to immoral wars and denounce them, but they just keep voting for more 🙄

        • So you just recently became a good Christian?

          • 😉

          • So who gets to determine what a good Christian is? You? Charlie? I think NOT! 😉 Actually, not voting had nothing to do with my faith, but everything to do with waking up to the fact I was just accepting the corruption and lies by voting in Federal elections. I don’t act in the ways, why would I then be a part of helping someone else act that way? The system is rigged, the voters will never WIN. The monopoly on politics by the two parties is a big part of the problem, a problem that has been leaking into local politics for decades. The question maybe you should ask, am I being a good Christian when I vote for these bums? 😦

            • What? You already defined a good Christian…and it doesn’t look like voters made the cut..

              • My dear Anita, To be honest, that never crossed my mind, at all. I can’t and won’t even try to comprehend what makes a good Christian and what don’t. Not my cup of tea, I figure all Christians are good Christians, even if they are brainwashed to believe that voting in the Federal election is a good thing when it’s the opposite of Christian beliefs. Maybe we can have an entire thread on the subject if you’d like.

                To be clear, I think all the folks that post here are good people, even Charlie 🙂

                I hope you and yours are doing well today, PEACE 🙂

    • “..which BL is trying hard to scramble.”

      Not really. I haven’t put much effort into it…yet.

      😉

  30. Been wondering about this guy since accusations about an Obama bundler financing him. Kept expecting him to make some type of statement to deny the accusations but so far I haven’t seen one. So Libertarians-does he sound like a libertarian to you?

    Is Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Robert Sarvis a Libertarian-In-Name-Only?
    October 25, 2013 By Ben Domenech

    The final debate in Virginia last night between Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli didn’t feature Robert Sarvis, the libertarian candidate who has frequently brushed double digits in polling. George Will does his best to make up for this, writing that Cuccinelli is far from the best choice for Virginia, and effectively endorsing Sarvis.

    Hours before Gallup reported record nationwide support — 60 percent — for a third party to leaven politics, Sarvis was declared ineligible for the final debate for gubernatorial candidates because he fell a tad short of a 10 percent average in recent polls. None of this disturbed his leisurely enjoyment of a tuna-burger lunch before sauntering off in search of free media, about the only kind he can afford… “Like you, I can’t vote for Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow-minded social agenda. I want a Virginia that’s open-minded and welcoming to all. And like you, I don’t want Terry McAuliffe’s cronyism either, where government picks winners and losers.

    He joins Jennifer Rubin in gushing over the candidate without really getting into any of Sarvis’s policy positions.

    While I certainly wish the debate had included Sarvis – it certainly seems justified given the polling, even if it turns out that his support is a reflection of soft “none of the above” frustrations – there’s simply no way I can be as accepting of his viewpoint as Will is, for a number of reasons. While I’m closer to Sarvis’s viewpoint than Cuccinelli’s on marriage, marijuana, and I am sure other policy issues as well, there have been a number of concerning red flags about Sarvis’s positions.

    Take tax policy, for instance, where Sarvis just doesn’t sound like a libertarian at all to me. Virginia is around the middle of the pack when it comes to tax climate, and could desperately use additional reforms in a time when the state economy is doing so well to lighten the burden on workers. Yet Sarvis told Chuck Todd he didn’t actually favor more tax cuts, but finding savings through more “efficiency”. In that interview, he also endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare – which most libertarians in Virginia have been fighting tooth and nail (even Chuck Todd seemed mildly surprised at Sarvis’s willingness to trade vaguely defined “flexibility” for expansion, which the candidate described as “ideal”).

    Despite going through George Mason’s program, he doesn’t sound like he shares their views, telling Reason: “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” That makes sense, given that he’s endorsed more transportation taxes, too – including higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state.

    That last position is particularly nonsensical to me: a VMT, which generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven, is about the most anti-libertarian transportation tax you can think of – even those radical libertarians at Brookings think it’s a bad idea, and it was one of the potential bad ideas in McDonnell’s transportation plan that got killed over it: “The biggest concern may be privacy. Eighty-six percent of area commuters would oppose having a GPS device installed in their car to track their miles, according to a study by the Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board released last week.” Big government technocrats may like such steps, but I cannot think of a single coherent libertarian case for such an invasion of individual privacy.

    [Note: In response to Twitter queries following this piece, Sarvis’s staff-run Twitter account claimed that he was merely listing “user pays” options as opposed to endorsing the approach. And while his campaign says he wouldn’t support a VMT with a government GPS, Oregon has struggled with finding an alternative to the GPS approach.]

    But the fundamental reason I can’t personally vote for Sarvis is his position on abortion – not that he’s simply pro-choice, but that he appears to take the most radical positions in favor of it in a way that makes no sense to me. This includes repeatedly stressing that as governor, he will attempt to roll back recently passed safety regulations on Virginia abortion clinics. Here’s his campaign website: “The law requiring otherwise legal abortion clinics, but not other outpatient clinics creating a similar level of health risk, to be regulated as hospitals is simply an attempt to regulate abortion clinics out of existence. Misusing public health law for such an ulterior purpose is an abuse of the rule of law.”

    Backing up for a moment: Up until 2011, these facilities were treated like doctor’s offices, which are not subject to any inspection – no one was even looking at them, and in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell story, there was a push to change that. Essentially, the Virginia House of Delegates redefined abortion facilities as a type of hospital, and passed with bipartisan support legislation which asked the Board of Health to promulgate regulations related to standards, training, equipment, inspection control. This included things like infection prevention, storage and dispensing of drugs, emergency equipment on site, patients’ rights, fire systems, etc. The Board of Health did not require huge operating rooms or anything of the kind. Facilities were given two years to come into compliance, and since the regulations went into effect, 2 out of the 20 clinics in the Commonwealth shut down – but both shut down with two years to go before the standards went live, and both were already locked into financial and legal disputes. The other 18 clinics are still open and functioning (and hardly regulated out of existence).

    What did public health officials find when they went to these clinics for the first time? Mollie Hemingway writes about it today.

    As reported in a 65-page document, the facility was found to be blood-splattered and failing to comply with even basic sterilization procedures. Again, this was after being told when to expect a visit from health inspectors. The inspectors observed that two blood collection tubes, designated as “clean and ready for use”, actually had a “dark reddish substance” where the tube for blood collection attached. A staff member said that the cleaning process for these tubes is to run them under water and then soak them in alcohol at the end of the day, but not between patient uses. When the inspectors pointed out the substance, a staff member said, “That looks like blood. They aren’t clean.” So the staffer ran them under water and said the “blood” was gone.

    And that’s just the beginning. I’m not big on government regulations, but if you really do believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, that first part counts, too – and requiring the most basic reporting standards from these clinics acknowledges the bloody work that actually goes on inside their doors. There’s a reason these regulations attracted so little pushback from Virginia Democrats – when it comes to abortion, they’re just not as hardline as Sarvis.

    Maybe Sarvis isn’t the political naïf that he seems to be. Maybe he has a particularly good explanation for why he thinks these safety regulations should be rolled back, or why he thinks there’s no health risks involved in the kind of situation the facility reports indicate. Maybe he has a good libertarian explanation for why he thinks we don’t need to cut taxes further in Virginia, or why he thinks we should expand Medicaid, or why he thinks it’s a good idea to install a government GPS to tax you for driving your car. Unfortunately, Sarvis’s campaign didn’t respond to my requests for an interview on any of these subjects. That search for free media, it seems, only takes you so far.

    Update: Maybe we’d know more about Sarvis’s positions on expanding Medicaid, tax hikes, and more if he’d taken candidate surveys or evaluations from the Campaign for Liberty, FreedomWorks, or Americans for Prosperity. He dodged all three.

    http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/

  31. Exclusive: Obama’s Secret Iran Détente
    by Eli Lake, Josh Rogin Nov 8, 2013 5:45 AM EST
    Long before a nuclear deal was in reach, the U.S. was quietly lifting some of the financial pressure on Iran, according to a Daily Beast investigation. How the sanctions were softened.

    The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September.
    US Iran Timeline

    While those negotiations now appear on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran—relief from crippling sanctions—began quietly and modestly five months ago.

    A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

    On Wednesday Obama said in an interview with NBC News the negotiations in Geneva “are not about easing sanctions.” “The negotiations taking place are about how Iran begins to meet its international obligations and provide assurances not just to us but to the entire world,” the president said.

    But it has also long been Obama’s strategy to squeeze Iran’s economy until Iran would be willing to trade relief from sanctions for abandoning key elements of its nuclear program.

    One way Obama has pressured Iran is through isolating the country’s banks from the global financial sector, the networks that make modern international commerce possible. This in turn has led Iran to seek out front companies and cutouts to conduct routine international business, such as selling its crude oil.

    In this cat and mouse game, the Treasury Department in recent years has routinely designated new entities as violators of sanctions, forcing Iran to adjust in turn. In the six weeks prior to the Iranian elections in June, the Treasury Department issued seven notices of designations of sanctions violators that included more than 100 new people, companies, aircraft, and sea vessels.

    Since June 14, however, when Rouhani was elected, the Treasury Department has only issued two designation notices that have identified six people and four companies as violating the Iran sanctions.

    When an entity is designated as a sanctions violator it can be catastrophic. Banks and other investors almost never take the risk of doing business with the people and companies on a Treasury blacklist because of the potential reputational harm and the prospect they could lose access to U.S. financial markets.

    “Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation.”

    A Treasury spokesman contacted by The Daily Beast said the effectiveness of sanctions should be measured by their results and not the number of entities designated. (A White House spokesman declined to comment, directing inquiries to the Treasury.) The Treasury spokesman also said that the significant financial pressure on Iran in recent years changed the calculus of the country’s leaders and led to the election of Rouhani, who is a former nuclear negotiator and is considered more moderate than his predecessor.

    “In the months since the Iranian election we have continued to pursue our unwavering goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the spokesman said. “We have not let up on vigorous sanctions enforcement one iota. This includes new designations of sanctions evaders as well as other steps to address potential sanctions evasion.”

    But the enforcement of sanctions, experts said, is very different than the process of designating new violators. To start, sanctions enforcement means the levying of fines or other legal measures against those people and entities already designated by the Treasury Department as a violator.

    The designation process is more proactive. “The designations are important because they identify illicit actors that are abusing the international financial sector in addition to signaling the U.S. intention to isolate Iran’s economy,” said Avi Jorisch, a former U.S. Treasury official who has worked closely on Iran sanctions and has advocated for toughening these sanctions since leaving government.

    Advocates of sanctions relief also acknowledge that the administration has pursued a policy of quietly lessening financial pressure on Iran. They argue that was a logical policy when married to the process of renewing diplomatic negotiations with Iran, which according to the Wall Street Journal this week, has been going on for several months.

    “Before the election there were a lot of these designations,” said Trita Parsi, the executive director of the National Iranian American Council, a group that has advocated for ending sanctions on Iran since. “Their impact was probably not decisive, but it was a way for the White House to signal to the Iranians and Congress they were going forward with the sanctions train.” Parsi continued: “After the election [the Obama administration] wanted to give the opposite signal, a pause. The last thing you would want to do is let the sanctions train go forward and potentially scuttle an opportunity that could have been there.”

    Following the Iranian elections, there were also a lot of changes inside the Iranian government, making the task of designating officials and entities a bit more tricky, Parsi said. But a significant part of the administration’s decision, in Parsi’s opinion, was the belief that continuing a high pace of designations would “undermine the signal that they were trying to send, that there was an opening.”

    Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an organization that has worked closely with Congress and the administration on devising the current Iranian sanctions, said the slow pace of designations was only one kind of sanctions relief Obama has been offering Iran.

    “For five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief,” Dubowitz said. “First there’s been a significant slowdown in the pace of designations while the Iranians are proliferating the number of front companies and cutouts to bust sanctions.”

    The second kind of relief Dubowitz said the White House had offered Iran was through its opposition to new Iran sanctions legislation supported by both parties in Congress.

    By Dubowitz’s estimates, Iran is now selling between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of oil per day on the black market, meaning that Iran has profited from the illicit sale of over 35 million barrels of oil since Rouhani took office, with little additional measures taken by the United States to counter it.

    “Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation and has had his head handed to him,” Dubowitz said

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/08/exclusive-obama-s-secret-iran-d-tente.html

  32. November 8, 2013
    Goodbye to the Undue Burden Voter ID argument
    Bruce Johnson

    With the passage of the ObamaCare Act, health insurance has become an obligation. Also, of importance is that health insurance has also become a “right.”

    We have learned ad nauseam the difficulties involved in engaging the system and acquire the health insurance. Compare and contrast this to the effort required to obtain a state-issued identification card for voting purposes.

    Voter IDs can take on many different forms from drivers license to just a simple state-issued photo ID. It is said to obtain one is a burden on the poor and minorities. If the application for a state photo ID is a burden, then what is the ObamaCare signup procedure for acquiring the right to health insurance?

    Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Eric Holder seems to be running his own country. He still believes that a voter ID is a method for racially filtering people from the voting rolls. Lost on him are the facts, and lost are the comparisons to insurance enrollment.

    No longer can Holder point to the purported undue burdens of voter ID acquisition when the mother of all undue burdens has been served up by the Obama administration. If help lines and community organizers can assist people in signing up for ObamaCare, why not voter ID? Some states already will assist over the phone and send the ID via the U.S. Postal Service. The “victim” of such a burden never leaves his chair.

    Lets look at some demographics.

    There are more poor whites in this country than poor blacks. According to the Census, 11.6 of whites are in the poverty category, 25.8 % of blacks. That gives us 25,659 million poor whites as opposed to 9,472 million poor blacks.

    We are then left with these questions for Mr. Holder. What is a “burden” in today’s world? And, is voter ID really a racial issue? I would venture that a true burden, in today’s world, is more akin to submitting unredacted documents to Daryl Issa.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/goodbye_to_the_undue_burden_voter_id_argument.html#ixzz2k473hW7k
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Question for Mathius and Buck. Can either of you explain how one is disenfranchisement and the other is not?

      • If you can’t see the difference between being able to cast your vote and signing up for insurance, I can’t help you.

        Also, to your point on “If help lines and community organizers can assist people in signing up for ObamaCare, why not voter ID?”, I thought you were against acorn. Now I’m really confused! 🙂

        Too busy today to get into any real discussions….will try to check in later….

        • Wow, had to dodge 6 Canadians and 14 Swedes (all the Swedes were pregnant mothers who get 2 years maternity leave (plus another 2 for the husband = 4 years) flocking into my neighborhood for our great healthcare … unbelievable … We’re being inundated with foreigners seeking our healthcare … why don’t they stay where they get it for free … why take 4 years maternity when you can get 6 weeks!

          Oy vey … have yous Wingies got it all backasswards … 🙂

        • Buck, sure I can, it’s seems to take much longer to sign up for the ACA than it would to go downtown and get a free ID. But since they are poor and it’s such an issue (disenfranchisement), where are they going to sign up at? The poor won’t have computers and internet service, do they? If they do, they ain’t poor.

          Actually, it’s the point the article made, that basically, disenfranchisement is just Liberal BS, which I believe we have proven in a recent thread. 🙂

          I hope you and your family are happy and healthy 🙂

        • “sigh” Seriously Buck-you can’t help me-Please explain it to me because I am at a total loss. Please try to explain to me how everyone must by law buy insurance, which requires a lot of information or be fined at an increasing rate through the years. Just how is this not unfair to the poor but having to get an ID to vote is. Explain to me how people must have an ID to get welfare to get actual food so they can eat isn’t unreasonable but having to have an ID to prove they actually should be allowed to vote is unreasonable.

          The truth is anyone in this country that actually wants to vote and has the right to vote-DO
          So why are the democrats really worried about such a common and established requirement whenever you deal with the government?

    • They ain’t seen nothing yet, wait till this time next year when companies start dropping insurance in droves when it becomes cheaper to pay the fine. I’d put money that more than 2/3rds of Americans who need insurance will be forced into the ACA exchanges by 2014. Buck and Mathius are going to crap their pants when they get the bill 😦

      • No, they won’t……because they are smart enough to stay out of Obamacare…..they really do know the score despite their rhetoric of support………

  33. Actions have consequences. What do ya’ll think about this? I approve totally. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/07/louisiana-food-stamp-abusers-will-lose-benefits-over-wal-mart-free-for-all-86692

  34. After seeing this video and reading the article, is it too much to call Democrats “Murderers”? http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/11/obama-voter-pays-ultimate-penalty-time-die-cancer-insurance-gone/

  35. If you have a secret, you have something to hide. I believe there is a lot more to the Sandy Hook shooting that meets the eye. http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/11/update-campaign-continues-keep-sandy-hook-massacre-secret-crime/

  36. http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/08/former-msnbc-host-rants-at-obama-on-twitter-after-health-insurance-plan-cancelled/

    Funny, the man makes the point that Obamacare makes major medical illegal but from all the horror stories I’ve heard about outlandish deductibles-it seems like all we are getting with Obamacare are major medical policies at cadillac costs.

  37. Share15 Tweet11 Share43 Email0

    There’s nobody black people love more than black people (and why shouldn’t they?). So it’s totally logical that when Attorney General Eric Holder announces that a civil-rights lawsuit against George Zimmerman is still a possibility, we hear lots of celebratory whoopin’ and hollerin’ from blacks. Zimmerman killed one of their own, after all.

    In such a time of great racial division as we are currently living, afro-centric websites are among the most entertaining for news having anything to do with race (even news having nothing to do with race, which stories are invariably crafted to be about race).

    But first, the news from The Washington Times:

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said George Zimmerman of Florida may have been acquitted of murder charges in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but in the eyes of the federal government, he’s still living in a shadow of suspicion.

    Definitely not good for the Obama administration to suspect you of anything. You’ll find yourself hogtied as the IRS has its way with you.

    Mr. Holder said he’s still not sure if the federal government will pursue civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman, Breitbart.com reported….

    “I’m not sure exactly how much longer that will take, but we will get to a point where we are able to make a determination” about a civil rights lawsuit, [Holder] said.

    Now here’s how black-culture website Bossip handles this news:

    It’s been roughly 4 months since child-murderer George Zimmerman was acquitted of gunning down unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February of 2012, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says triggerman Zimmerman still isn’t completely off the hook.

    Listen to that language. “Child-murderer.” “Gunned down.” They’re so hysterical over it.

    Trayvon wasn’t a child, he was a young adult. And he wasn’t “gunned down” like what blacks do to other blacks in the city, but shot by the Hispanic “cracker” he was in the process of murdering and who, at that point, had been minding his own business.

    No civil-rights prosecution will happen. Eric Holder knows there was no civil-rights violation; he’s just paying lip service.

    But think about the message it sends to blacks when Holder suggests there was a civil-rights violation on Zimmerman’s part. Blacks are told that Zimmerman, in killing someone who was first trying to kill him, violated his would-be killer’s civil rights. If Zimmerman violated Trayvon’s civil rights, then that means it was Trayvon’s civil right to kill Zimmerman, because that’s the only thing Zimmerman stopped Trayvon from doing.

    The American government sets very low standards for black people (it’s what black people want), but this is a new low. What kind of people must Democrats believe blacks to be if they claim it is blacks’ civil right to kill without their victims putting up a fight?

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3602/eric-holder-blacks-civil-right-murder/#dXIvEMiJxAYFm0bM.99

    The racist’s aren’t white, Hispanic or Conservatives. The Racists are those who cry racism without regard to the facts (see Charlie’s posts when all this occurred in the media). Sorry to point to Charlie, but he was a classic Liberal racist when all the hoopla occurred. Hopefully, He learned from this 😉

  38. G, you’re still nuts, but we gotta love you (because you make us laugh) … how’s 20 weeks as an average across Europe as maternity leave … sure they’re swooping into the U.S. for health care … imagine wanting 6 weeks when you can have 20? That’s why the shores are so crowded now … all those Europeans! http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/maternity-and-paternity-leave-across-the-eu-2112229.html

    • Charlie, This ain’t Europe. Most of their economies on hanging by a thread from collapsing, so good for them. I don’t care what they do, if you like it so much pack your bags and haul your ass over there. They will welcome you with open arms and you will be happy living in Liberal land. The healthcare issue, as far as America being so great, now has cancer. It’s stage 3 and likely to turn it upside down. Then, Americans will search for a good Voodoo doctor, because that’s all that will be available in a timely manner.

  39. No wonder our infant mortality rate blows! We don’t consider that healthcare either!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/infant-mortality-rate-united-states_b_1620664.html

    • Charlie, might as well add all the infants aborted and really make the numbers bad. OH, nothing that comes from HuffPo has any credibility here, kinda like Obama and anything he has to say. Matter of fact, you don’t exactly post anything remotely intelligent either, just left wing liberal rubbish 😆

  40. We’re number 38! We’re number 38! We’re number 38!
    Look at how many socialist countries are ahead of us!!!!!!
    Way to go, Gman … force me to make a fool of you again!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

    • Charlie, I know your dementia is hard to deal with, but your argument is with JAC on this issue. Please re-read the above posts so that you can get things back into perspective. So, with that said, who’s the fool now 😉

    • Charlie, do you seriously give a donkey crap what the World health organization says or does. Even you know the data is seriously flawed. You need to quit yanking G’s string so hard…….you might give him a pox or something.

    • Here is the second comment from below the Friedman story. These comments are sometimes informative and instructive.

      Lynn Carlson Rudeen

      3

      11 Fans
      According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500g is not considered a living child.
      But in the U.S., such very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such babies – considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive – is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. infant mortality statistics.
      Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth.
      Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life.
      In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive.
      If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates. Differences in reporting practices go on and on leaving the statistics fairly unreliable. We need to make prenatal care available to all who need it. Period.

      Fave
      Share
      More
      31 Jul 2012 1:47 AM

      In addition, I bring back into the picture the whole issue of drugs and drug use. When my wife was pregnant with our first, she stopped smoking permanently and gave up even having a glass of wine. That persisted throughout her other two pregnancies. Birth weights ranged from 8.5 to 10.1. If you hang around poor neighborhoods long enough, you will see that they really don’t care. Sorry, it is not education or social welfare, it’s just they don’t care.

      Just for the heck of it. Consider birth rates too. Where people want few children, they tend to want them more, plan better and take care of them better.

  41. Charlie, this is very entertaining. It’s from the Nat Geo channel (they still believe in fairy tales like Global warming). Any way, it’s a decent flick that can really teach people what may happen without electricity, country wide. Let’s call a truce and learn something 🙂 what do ya say?

    http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/10/american-blackout-full-length-national-geographic-presentation-2648060.html

    • Without electricity, I can’t operate my Plutonian mega-hydra-wingnut-zapper … no truce regarding facts … wingies deny everything they disagree with … even when they’re proven facts … like global warming 🙂

      • Like I said above Charlie, your argument about healthcare and foreigners coming here is with JAC, not me. Although JAC is correct, when it comes to things like heart issues and cancer treatment, I really don’t think child birth falls into that category. Actually, child birth is plain irrelevant when it comes to that subject. Heart surgery, brain surgery and cancer treatment are all suitable subjects in your discussion. Paid time off after child birth is NOT healthcare. Here in the US, maternity leave is given to many employees, and in cases where it’s a required issue due to health, law guarantees 12 weeks. Over a year? Not on my dime. Move to Sweden if your planning on giving birth, then you’ll likely get way more than a year 🙂

        And speaking of global warming, I can’t wait till all the coastal cities finally are under water, wait, damn, it’s just not happening at all, so I guess someone is full of Poop. And the polar bears , well extinction will occur, maybe next century or the one after that, but now, there fine and striving. The polar ice caps are just fine. So no need to worry there. Maybe you should build yourself a nice underground bunker and hunker in for the next few decades while the rest of us suffer under all this terrible heat we have. Did you know you wouldn’t need any AC if you lived under ground? You would be welcomed by your extended family, the rats and weasels. A perfect marriage! 😉

        As a small note, facts are useless if they don’t fit into the discussion. But what the heck, at least you can pretend to be smart 😆

  42. Hairline, come now……you need to put things into perspective. The World Health Organization is dubious at best….however, I decided to look at the data. Interesting find. Infant mortality rate is defined as infant deaths per 1000 live births. The United States is 6 per 1000, Canada 5….. Most civilized countries fluctuate between 3-7, however, the majority of countries is well over 8 and as high as 75 per 1,000.

    The secret, however, is in the reporting. Infant mortality in the US includes all deaths…..sickness, accident, intentional. For example, Canada excludes what is called “crib death” and “non pathogenic causes”………car accidents etc. The US does not exclude those. So, the reporting is dubious at best since there appears to be no standard in the reporting.

    You like to reference Cuba, which stands at 5.8, whereas the United States is 6.2. Discounting the huge population difference, Cuba does not report accidental deaths nor crib death either. Consequently, therein lies the difference. I wonder what the real rates are if the reporting becomes standardized? That would be interesting.

  43. Interesting find in the ACA…….it appears that married couples do not get subsidies whereas the single person does qualify for subsidies. Still checking my numbers. What I have found so far…it is better to be single. Another marriage penalty in the tax codes…….sigh.

    • I have heard this before. What do Liberal’s have against marriage?

      • Why….it’s…it’s….way too traditional! We can’t stand it! It MUST be changed, for that reason alone!!! 😉

        Murf

      • We have nothing against marriage. Who says we do? If you would come to terms with the fact we’ll one day soon be universal health care, all of your issues will be taken care of, Gman. Universal health care … you know, most of the 37 spots ahead of us in healthcare by country are actually using universal health care … how cool is that? it’s just a matter of time … so keep your powder dry, you’re gonna need it. And it’ll still be universal health care after you’re out of ammunition. You can only fool the people for so long with all this patriotic bullshit before reality overtakes the bubble of bullshit you live in. 🙂

  44. I wish I had a time machine.

    I’d go find Jesus, treat him to lunch, and ask him a few questions.

    • Hear, hear! 😉

      • Better yet, go back and wait around and be ready to snatch him outta there just about the time they blocked the cave with that big rock. ya know…’Save Jesus’. Maybe bring him back to modern times, so he could set things straight.

        I could think of all kinds of things to do. I’d visit all my grandparents, rock stars, presidents, scientists, influential persons, royalty, etc, etc.

        Without telling her who I was, I think I would stop by and visit VH too. I’d find her as a youngER woman, be on my best behavior and ask her out to dinner. I would bring up politics…and mention that “the BOTTOM LINE is that we need to STAND UP FOR AMERICA” I’d say it in a way that would be peculiar as to ensure it registers in her memory for future reference…like say it three times loudly at dinner or something. lol.

        I would leave my mark all over history to let myself know where I have been. Imagine finding it before you went back or even knew about it.

        It’d blow yer mind…probably drive you completely nucking futs for a year or more.

        😉

%d bloggers like this: