What’s On Your Mind, Part II

I like to put up a new thread around 200 posts to speed up loading times. Let’s continue some of the great discussions we are having, one comment in particular I would like to talk about. Charlie asked ” But it wouldn’t it be nice of we didn’t have generations of floor sweepers (i.e., if people weren’t born into the situations that leave them nothing but floor sweepers)?” So let’s take a look at where the majority of the “floor sweepers” are coming from. I’m going to tie this into racism as well, because I think there may be some historical significance to what and where the majority of the problem lies.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Let’s start with, where are the majority of the “floor sweepers” coming from. How about the inner cities, where the educational results are the worst. Agree?

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    charlieopera commented on What’s On Your mind?.

    in response to gmanfortruth:

    Charlie, Re; Unions. I don’t have a problem with good, smart unions. I was a Teamster for 10 year, I was a shop steward and on all the contract negotiating teams. Have you EVER experienced union activities such as that? My point was that Unions get greedy and price themselves out of work. That, Sir, […]

    I’ll answer as I have time … one at a time:

    You wrote: Have you EVER experienced union activities such as that?

    Yeah, I was a union window cleaner in NY for 10 years. It was as corrupt a union as you can find. Useless and totally in management’s pocket … so, what’s your point, Vanessa? (not an insult, just a line I like from Austin Powers) … most unions today are dirty … and the fact they support the Democratic Party so overwhelmingly is just a testament to ignorance and corruption … the Dems don’t do shit for unions … even the auto bailout (workers lost a lot more than management) … but that doesn’t change the fact that workers need to organize … take away Citizens United and put a cap on what anyone/organization/union/corporation can donate and maybe they can be effective again … maybe they can find some genuine representation … right now they’re victims (slaves, if you will) to the Democratic Party because the Republican Party would prefer they be called chattel rather than workers.

    Fair enough, I mostly agree that unions have become corrupt. I also agree that workers should unite and work together for better wages and benefits. Good companies give profit sharing checks to it’s employees. Let’s start with something like this, which ensures that the company stays profitable. 🙂

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    As D13 said, “You Can’t Fix Stupid”, the writer of the HuffPo article is a complete moron. http://clashdaily.com/2013/11/aint-special-huffpost-writers-list-obama-one-best-presidents-ever/#vB8ETMAFDgL4OPym.99

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    WHY are we still celebrating the presidency of a guy who screwed the pooch in the job and other women after work?

    Guess that old saying about how they will remember if you die young must be true.

    How ironic that Clinton and Obama are making a big deal our of the JFK memorial Today, but couldn’t make time for Gettysburg yesterday.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Don’t know, but this is a good read about that weekend in the NFL http://mmqb.si.com/2013/11/20/jfk-assassination-50-year-anniversary-nfl-fight/

    • On the other hand, Marc Levin, who never served in the military, was giving the gettsyburg tale yesterday … wow, what a patriot!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What is the issue with Gettysburg? Because Smokey Pants didn’t show? Who really cares? Obama should stay away from places where real men fought and died. Most of them probably wouldn’t let him smell their dirty underwear. I’m glad he didn’t go there. Lincoln, he is not even close and will never be remembered anywhere near the Legacy of Lincoln.

        I’m not a Lincoln fan at all, that’s how low I see Obama, disgraceful lying jerkjuice 😦

        • You have it in for Lincoln too? How BF of you! and Unpatriotic!

          • gmanfortruth says:

            No, I don’t have it in for him, just not a fan, why are my written words so hard for you to comprehend? Are you SOS? 🙂

            • Now I’m really confused, G … are you anti-American? I mean, you claim to hate the government, yet are willing to go to war for it (unless we’re supposed to believe you signed up for the altruistic (anti Ayn Rand, by the way) reasons of saving your fellow soldiers) … one minute you hate the government, and the next you’re defending America … you do realize that America was formed via a government, right? The constitution and all that stuff … I mean, do you even know what you’re supposed to be? 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                LOL, Your ignorance is beaming today old man 🙄 you do realize that America was formed via a government, no Charlie, the people FORMED the government. You may have just written the dumbest sentence of the year 🙂 You apparently don’t know shit about this countries history. No wonder everyone thinks you hate America. You hate the economic system (that is world wide), you hate the judicial system, which provides the fairest of criminals trials in the world, you hate people who you can’t BS (like me and JAC), you hate that people can choose to be who they want. You just hate, period. JAC is dead right, your a hater.

                Go back and reread my words again, because you are having a serious comprehension issue. Jesus Christ have mercy on your pathetic soul.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, Charlie deserves 100 Mathius points for dumbest statement of the year! Please provide ASAP 🙂

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    Let’s start with, where are the majority of the “floor sweepers” coming from. How about the inner cities, where the educational results are the worst. Agree?

    #2 Are blacks, who are basically herded into the inner cities, any different than American Indians? Isn’t the result basically the same?

  6. For those not in the know, Results on NY City crime were released (quietly) today. 70 % of murder victims are black. 70% of murderers are black. 27% of murderers are Hispanic, 3% of murderers are white.

    According to the non-scientists and people who failed statistics miserably in college who run the courts, stop and frisk must apply to all equally. Who, I ask is running this nut house?

  7. @G … “America was formed via a government, no Charlie, the people FORMED the government.” … Well, bust my buttons, G … you prove my point … and the government is made of what again? Rocks (your favorite brain food)? Timber? Deer antlers? Cars? Pool tables? Gee, I wish I knew the answer to that one.

    You make the dumbest comments on any blog anywhere, G … but you keep on rockin in the free world, my man … you’re why we’ll win … geniuses like yourself (and that’s not an insult — I truly believe you’re a genius!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      you do realize that America was formed via a government, right?

      That’s your statement genius, not mine. It has absolutely nothing to do with your statement above either. Yes, I know the people formed the government, after the country was formed into the 13 colonies BY PEOPLE, not by Government. Read YOUR words, Buckwheat 🙂

      • You take the cake on being consistent, my man. I’ll ask again, and a makes up a government? Rocks (your favorite brain food)? Tables? Chairs? Condoms? Deer antlers? Come on, G, I know you know the answer to this one. What is a government made up of? Is it possibly people? Or is the shoes they wear?

        What a putz …

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Your question says it all Charlie, it says that this country was formed VIA government. That is incorrect, quit trying to pull an Obama and lie your way out Buckwheat, it ain’t workin. BWAHAHAHA!

          I’m not going to call you an asshole, I will take the high ground and refrain from your childish name calling games 🙂

          • Who do you think you’re kidding G.., do I have to babysit you two every day 👿

            You guys are splitting hairs. You’re both saying the same thing. By the people..for the people..because of the people…who gives a flip? It’s still a government.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              My sentences are clear and correct. Blame Buckwheat 👿

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Besides, I’m having fun watching Charlie squirm out of this, even though we all know it was a simple mistake in wording that he most likely didn’t mean. All he had to do was clarify his comment and rewrite it so it stated what he really wanted to say. But, he chose the Obama way instead and I’m laughing my ass off 😆

  8. http://www.kentucky.com/2013/11/16/2932837/50-years-of-night-in-eastern-kentucky.html

    It’s a complicated world-any ideas on how to fix this problem.

    • Too bad I don’t currently have an article that speaks about Chicago and other areas in the big city to go with this one. Would be interesting to compare the two. Different areas, same type of problems.

    • I guess I should post this too-it lead me to this article and gives one man’s opinion and a few more facts.

      The Tragedy of the Dependency Culture
      By David French
      November 19, 2013 1:12 PM

      My old hometown newspaper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, is running an outstanding series of articles on the deep and persistent poverty of Appalachia. It’s worth studying long-term poverty in Appalachia not just because we care for our fellow citizens but also because the plight of the Appalachian poor in fact galvanized LBJ to launch the War on Poverty.

      On Sunday, Herald-Leader writer Jon Cheves took a long, unblinking look at the culture of dependency that dominates Eastern Kentucky’s poor counties. It’s an outstanding piece.

      To get a sense of the extent of government dependency in some Kentucky counties, in Martin County, Ky. (a county LBJ visited), consider this: Income from government transfer payments exceeds all income from wages and salaries — a ratio that far outstrips the national average.

      To be fair, since the War on Poverty began, poverty has fallen from its astronomical mid-20th-century highs:

      Hundreds of billions of dollars more poured into the region as welfare, food stamps, jobless benefits, disability compensation, school subsidies, affordable housing, worker training, economic development incentives, Head Start for poor children, and expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Martin County alone has collected $2.1 billion in government transfer payments to residents since the late 1960s.

      Life improved, to a point.

      Poverty rates dropped dramatically across the United States. Take a map of the country and a pen. Color the counties black where more than one in three people live in poverty. In 1960, nearly all of the Southeast, including Kentucky, would be black. By 2010, only a few such pockets of poverty remained, including the Mississippi Delta, the Texas-Mexico border and Eastern Kentucky.

      However, even in Martin County, deep inside Eastern Kentucky the poverty rate has been nearly halved, to 37 percent, since Johnson’s visit.

      But is the War on Poverty truly responsible for the improvement? What about free enterprise?

      Martin County’s sole economic surge in 50 years came from the coal boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s, prompted by the Arab oil embargo. The Norfolk and Western Railway spent $22 million to connect the county’s largely untapped coalfields with its West Virginia rail lines. It paid $2.6 million more to acquire 98,600 acres of surface and mineral rights, which it leased to Ashland Oil, Mapco, A.T. Massey and other coal companies.

      Unemployment dropped from nearly 40 percent during Johnson’s visit to 4 percent during the coal boom. Per capita income rose from $1,000 a year to $7,000.

      “LBJ didn’t do a damn thing,” local historian and poet Rufus Reed, then 87, told the Martin Countian newspaper in 1982. “It was the coal companies that brought Martin County out of poverty.”

      But coal is a boom-and-bust business. Today, coal mines are closing here and throughout Central Appalachia, struggling to compete because of cheaper natural gas, more accessible coalfields in the West and stricter federal pollution laws.

      So the government giveth (disability checks) and it taketh away (attacking the coal industry).

      One thing that is clear, however, is the dependency state is not a happy place to live. People get by on government assistance. They do not thrive:

      “A lot of people here have just given up,” said Kathy Howell, 51, who lives in Martin County.

      In 1977, at age 16, Howell dropped out of 11th grade in Kermit, W.Va., right across the Tug River. “Just didn’t like it no more,” she said. She moved to a plot of creekside land near Inez to marry a local boy. They had three children.

      Today, Howell shares a trailer with her husband, a grown daughter and six school-age grandkids. The family gets about $2,100 a month, mostly from her disability check, food stamps and spare cash from relatives. She suffers from asthma and other lung ailments that make it impossible to work as a waitress anymore, she said.

      In fact, it’s tough to overstate the importance of disability checks to the region.

      Congress limited traditional welfare in 1996, imposing work requirements and five-year lifetime caps. Claims of mental and physical ailments now echo through the mountains. Disability checks — yielding as much as $710 a month per person — have become the go-to form of relief. Martin County’s stagnant population has seen a 14 percent jump in disability enrollment since the 1990s, which doesn’t count claims pending or on appeal.

      Perhaps most disturbing of all — for those who seek private intervention to alleviate poverty and transform lives — it appears the avalanche of government aid inoculates the region against effective charitable assistance. In a separate report, Cheves details how charitable dollars also flow into Appalachia, to no discernible effect. In fact, local residents are often all too happy to let private volunteers do repair work they’re perfectly capable of performing themselves — sometimes leaving homes in disrepair until the annual summer influx of college students, all eager to help.

      The tragedy of government dependence is the tragedy of the slowly-dying human heart — the loss of hope and the rejection of any personal revitalization that requires more than a bare minimum of effort (followed by immediate and dramatic rewards). In my own time working with at-risk youth in Kentucky, my wife and I found it extraordinarily difficult to compete with the no-strings-attached federal money, where it was all too easy to reject any true reform or true personal initiative in favor of the life they knew. The only thing that worked was intensive, one-on-one mentoring that began at an early age.

      Simply put, once a kid has been raised to be dependent, to feel helpless in the face of larger, impersonal forces, it is extraordinarily difficult to change course. Waiting for another coal boom is not a plan, but policy-makers should also understand that economic and environmental regulations can carry enormous personal and social costs. Are Americans better or worse off now that it’s much harder to profitably mine coal? Is our nation truly “healthier” — spiritually and physically — now that miners draw disability checks rather than create energy?

      Americans are a compassionate people. It’s tragic that our compassion is not only bankrupting our nation’s finances; it’s damaging the very spirit of the people we so want to help.


      • Just A Citizen says:

        Looks to me like these programs provide a source for white supremacist recruitment:

        “Simply put, once a kid has been raised to be dependent, to feel helpless in the face of larger, impersonal forces, it is extraordinarily difficult to change course.”

        • He he-Yeah, JAC I thought you would notice -I think this article gives voice to many of those points Todd could of made that would have lead to an actual conversation.

    • ” It’s a complicated world-any ideas on how to fix this problem. ”

      An impoverished life in Appalachia is paradise. Those peepel ayn’t got no werees cuz lif iz vare simpel.

      A few acres in Appalachia and few thousand dollars worth of tools, equipment and building supplies, …and I would not be seen or heard from again by the modern world.

      If you live a life style where you only need to go to town every once in a while for ‘stuff’, and your food lives in your yard, …if you don’t have to worry about anything more than your basic needs, and/or whatever chores you need in order to facilitate them, you have very little overall stress in life. Bliss. It is why country people generally live longer.

      • Perhaps for some people-but from this article life isn’t bliss and the people aren’t able to /or don’t facilitate chores to cover their basic needs. Hopefully we will look at the reasons for that situation.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          VH, interesting find 🙂 This situation reminds me of when I was quite young and seeing the commercials about Ethiopia and the starvation that was occurring. Those commercials were always sad, but it pointed out something that seems to overcome “needing help”. It’s the lack of willingness for people to move to a more prosperous area. Some would say they lack the means to do so, but after several decades of the same problem, it’s more than that.

          • I think the following words-help put it into focus-the loss of hope can be debilitating, it can make you just give up-you hardly have the energy to breathe much less fight-It to me anyway shows the need for us sometimes giving people that hope but it also shows the danger of allowing that helping hand to turn into an easier way to just remain in that bad spot-where you can survive but not really live.

            “The tragedy of government dependence is the tragedy of the slowly-dying human heart — the loss of hope and the rejection of any personal revitalization that requires more than a bare minimum of effort”

            • gmanfortruth says:

              It makes sense. I’m sure that the loss of hope has much to do with it. Maybe this story can be applied to the blacks that have been herded into their inner city plantations. Charlie harps on the plight of the Indians (which he is right in many ways), but what about the plight of Black Americans? Would it be safe to say that the same kind of people that put the Indians on Reservations also have done the same with Blacks. Yes, I’m talking about the one’s who invented the KKK and perfected “playing the race card”. 🙂

        • V,

          I understand that people who are disabled or elderly, who can’t facilitate their own basic needs, are of concern. …as are they everywhere.

          I suppose that I was just trying to make the point that you can have a relatively comfortable life in spite of low economic status. Appalachia is naturally plentiful, thus a good environment for providing your own food and firewood, etc.

          It may not be as convenient, but it is low stress, and if you are that poor and still able, it can work out.

    • Cannot be fixed unless Warren Buffet or somebody decides to open up a factory there.

      “Grapes of Wrath” is instructive. The Oakies left when the land could not support them. There was no government assistance to speak of, no opportunity, no future. They left for greener pastures. Was it hard, was it traumatic? No, it was awful, an atrocity. They left behind everything. Many died along the trail. A new trail of tears happened on the way to California.

      The analogy is simplistic and cruel but it has to be made. The government decides to keep the last buggy-whip factory in America alive with subsidies. The decision was reached to be compassionate. People keep working, buggy whips are produced, stored, warehoused and eventually rot away. New ones are made to replace them. Everything goes along just fine for 100 years. Finally, in a Republican inspired budget cut, the subsidy stops. No one in DC fights for the factory because no one remembers what a buggy whip is. The S & M population cannot handle the surplus suddenly released from the warehouse. The town goes on Public Assistance, SNAP, Sect. 8 Housing Vouchers, free breakfast, lunch, dinner and late night snack programs. They survive but are not happy. The brighter more motivated ones start producing Crystal Meth and become, for the area, wealthy. The ones who give up use Crystal meth. Through all this, people continue producing kids with no future. The cycle continues.

      Is there an answer, oh, yes there is and it ain’t pretty. The longer it takes to implement that answer, the more pain it will eventually cause.

      This little Appalachian mess is playing out throughout the nation. From the small farming communities in the Midwest to the Coal regions of Pennsylvania to the former small fishing communities on our coasts. The only answer is growth, new jobs and opportunities, a stable economy and a willingness to do what the Oakies did, move.

      • I agree-but I would add that it’s also happening in big cities where jobs should be abundant but aren’t.

        • I’ve always felt that the answer is cheap energy. We cannot compete on the cheap labor market yet, with cheap energy, we could bring down the cost of production, eliminate the cost of international transportation while reducing to a fraction, domestic transportation. Result, jobs.

          I have always been reluctant to accuse the democrats of deliberately creating poverty and encouraging it. But, it is either that or they are the dumbest , stupidest, nitwits to ever come down the pike. The current proposed fracking regs. are an example. Wonder if there might just be some natural gas under those Kentucky towns?

          They obstruct energy production on every level despite evidence that the possibility of 95 plus percent of potential accidents could be eliminated and that safety is and has been a constant concern. What energy company wants to go through what BP and Exxon went through?

          As a science fiction fan, I would be all in favor of wind, solar and geo-thermal except they, after 40 years have not proved themselves economic or viable. Subsidies do not work. It just adds cost in a different form (taxes) to product. The possibilities are clean coal, clean oil, clean Natural Gas or safe Nuclear. Now, we all know that there is no such thing as 100 percent clean or 100 percent safe, but we are getting better and better and only a fool, liar or democrat would deny it.

          Battery power! I love that one, you have no clue of the possibilities for pollution that it opens up. From the lead poisoned kids of workers who manufacture and recycle to the carcinogens the “new” batteries use.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Another side of the story?
        Here’s how your hard earned money is being used to help the less fortunate:

        While workers out there are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us?

        I get to sit home… I get to go visit my friends all day… I even get to smoke weed…

        Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.

        Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?

        Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!

        So can you really blame us?

  9. I also found this interesting-but never having served in the service-I’m not totally convinced either way but the guys arguments are pushing me in the direction of agreeing with him.

    Kirsten Curses the Commanders

    New York’s junior senator goes too far.

    By Jed Babbin

    Print Article


    Liberals casually use our armed services as lab rats for all sorts of social experimentation. But even they used to have limits. The warrior culture — which has everything to do with merit and nothing to do with “diversity” — embraces every man of every race, creed, and religion who can make the grade. But the liberals have successfully attacked it in the past ten years with women in combat arms and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We’re all supposed to believe that none of that interferes with the culture of the warrior, military readiness, enlistment rates, or the retention of officers. We’re also supposed to believe that the military welcomes those changes despite rampant misogyny, bias, and discrimination within it.

    And that’s driving the latest experiment on the military. It’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) attempt to impose “social justice” on the military. Her bill, which would ensure “justice” by taking the military justice system out of the chain of command, may be voted on by the Senate as early as today. (Senate sources say Gillibrand lacks the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.)

    The idea she proposes is so bad that not only are the military chiefs of staff united against it, but even some of the most prominent liberals — such as Michigan Democrat Carl Levin — oppose it. You’d never think that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) would support it, but he does. He should know better.

    Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are required to obey any lawful order, a concept that covers a lot of ground. Illegal orders, such as an order to kill an unarmed prisoner (a war crime), are extraordinary rare.

    On the flip side, military commanders are held accountable for everything the people who must follow their orders do. Never mind that the officer of the watch was a junior lieutenant. If a submarine runs aground, it’s the skipper of the ship who’s going to be fired.

    One of the basic truths that makes our military function as well as it does is that if you have the responsibility for something, you pretty much are guaranteed the authority to accomplish it. Kirsten Gillibrand wants to take that authority away. She’s going where no social experimenter has gone before.

    Gillibrand’s idea comes from several high-profile sexual assault cases which, she claims, prove that victims can’t get justice within the military chain of command. Her proposed legislation takes away commanders’ authority to investigate and prosecute not just sexual assaults but all major crimes under the Uniform Code of Military justice and puts those crimes in the hands of “independent” civilian prosecutors.

    The proposal leaves only those crimes that would be misdemeanors in civilian life — and in the military are offenses such as being absent without leave — subject to the chain of command.

    Introducing her proposal in July, Gillibrand said it “will end sexual assault in the military. And the way we want to do it is to create an independent, accountable military justice system that is not partisan, not ideological, that can create the kind of transparency and accountability that our men and women that serve in the military need so that they can receive justice.” She said that her bill was crafted from what she had learned about sexual assaults from victims, that they didn’t trust the chain of command, and that justice wasn’t possible in the current system.

    Start at the beginning. Gillibrand’s claim that her legislation would end sexual assault in the military is laughable. You cannot place men and women together in close quarters under high stress without sexual incidents — both criminal and consensual — happening. Liberals like Gillibrand forced this condition on the military, and those incidents are an inevitable consequence.

    Gillibrand told ABC’s This Week on Sunday that military men and women “shouldn’t have a justice system that is rife with bias and unfairness.” Which is even more risible than her earlier statement if that’s even possible.

    For example, my law school pal Joe Rehyansky served as an Army JAG prosecutor for 18 years and then about a decade as an assistant DA in Tennessee. He told me, “In all my years prosecuting, in and out of the Army, I never saw a sexual assault allegation swept under the rug; never encountered a woman who was afraid to file a formal complaint; and never saw such a case handled as anything other than a crime that was prosecuted or not based on the evidence. Victims these days, especially women victims claiming sexual assault, see themselves as a privileged class. Something’s got to be done, regardless of whether the allegation is provable.”

    If the civilian lawyers of Gillibrand’s new system are outside the chain of command, who will prevent them from going on crusades pursuing soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are unjustly accused? That bias doesn’t concern Gillibrand. Her new legal force would be “independent.”

    In the current military justice system, the prevention of bias is one of the top priorities, and it’s a goal that is achieved. First of all, most commanders don’t interfere at all with the decision to bring someone up on charges. They rightfully rely on their lawyers. When they don’t, the military justice system deals with any interference they might attempt in a manner designed to protect the rights of the accused.

    There’s a concept in military justice called “command influence.” A senior commander — whether it’s a colonel or a multi-star general — is designated the “convening authority,” which means that the charges in a special or general court martial are brought under his orders.

    When any commander, or someone higher in the chain of command, tries to influence the lawyers or the judge in a prosecution, either by urging prosecution and conviction or by telling the lawyers or judge that a suspect should get a free pass for a crime, that’s improper command influence under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The consequences can be severe.

    When I was a young JAG captain in the Air Force in 1974, my JAG School class was flown to Washington and ushered into a meeting with the Judge Advocate General. One of the first things he said to us was if you have any evidence of command influence, “… call me directly and I’ll be on the first flight to where you are.”

    In the years since, the military hasn’t grown any less concerned about improper command influence.

    Our careless president found that out last June when he shot his mouth off about the kind of sexual assault cases Gillibrand thinks she’s going to prevent forever. Talking about two prominently reported Navy sexual assault cases, Obama said that those convicted should be dishonorably discharged. Soon after, a military judge ruled that Obama’s comments constituted illegal command influence. He apparently needs to be reminded that he’s in the chain of command. The judge’s ruling also said that as a result of Obama’s intervention, the two suspects couldn’t be dishonorably discharged even if they were convicted.

    So how is Gillibrand’s proposal going to affect the military should — Heaven forbid — it ever become law?

    Under Article 60 of the UCMJ, a convening authority can, upon conviction, review the conviction and the sentence, considering the trial record and additional information submitted by the defendant. In the convening authority’s discretion, he can commute or suspend a sentence in whole or in part and can even dismiss specific charges or reduce the charge to a lesser included offense.

    All of that is consistent with the idea that a convening authority is a commander, and that his judgment reflects his responsibility for those under his command. But Gillibrand’s bill would eliminate the authority of the convening authority under Article 60.

    Commanders learn, see, and hear things no civilian can. They have an understanding of the context of a crime that civilians can’t, because they haven’t served for years in the same places and conditions. The commander’s understanding of that context may as easily influence the commander against the convicted person as in his favor him. The context and understanding a commander has by the nature of his service is crucial to any accused’s Article 60 petition.

    Remove that, and you remove one of the fundamental powers of any commander to maintain the discipline, readiness, and morale of his force.

    Any general — or colonel or major or lieutenant — who would tolerate that is someone who shouldn’t be in command of anyone else. That’s the result we can expect from Gillibrand’s proposal. The only people who will want to command others will be unfit to do so.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      People who have never served in the military should keep their noses out of it’s business. I’m not sure that politicians are capable. Maybe we should remove the politicians power to make stupid laws (ACA), that would solve huge problems 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The military serves at the request of the people. We PAY FOR IT.

        So butting out is NOT AN OPTION.

        Perhaps the proposed solution is not good, but covering up or ignoring criminal rape is far worse. I don’t care what the “mindset” of the “warrior culture” is. And if that culture is responsible for RAPE then the culture should be destroyed.

        • Uh OH JAc…….”And if that culture is responsible for RAPE then the culture should be destroyed. ” Careful my friend….I can name you 3 cultures right this very minute that institute and condone rape as part of its domestic and foreign policy. Shall we destroy them?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            If they attack us………..ABSOLUTELY.

            If they exist within our borders…………ABSOLUTELY.

    • I will answer this..I have been a convening authority several times and on sexual harrassement cases.

  10. Wow, an article about monetary policy that is easy to understand.

    Janet Yellin’s Predicted Monetary Policy And The Tragedy Of The Commons
    I See Monetary Policy The Same Way Garret Hardin Saw Population

    By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) | November 20th, 2013 at 06:18 PM | 4

    The Monetary Commons Is Being Overgrazed.

    The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

    Garret Hardin’s intellectual popularity was a product of the Malthusian Fallacy. This doesn’t mean that he was analytically unintelligent. Even when Ptolemy argued the world was flat, given his data set he had a mathematical point that had to be systematically refuted by Copernicus, Kepler, Newton et al. Hardin makes the same sort of economic point, in his seminal piece “The Tragedy of The Commons” even if he is has been proven wrong about it with respect to human overpopulation.

    Hardin argues that commonly held property will be exploited without conscience because the costs thereof are not directly visible to those who use the property. The end result of this exploitation will be systemic failure as the exploitation is inexorably extended to a logistical limit beyond which a meta-stable economic system can no longer attain sustainable equipoise. Or as Instapundit Blogger-In-Chief Glenn Reynolds puts it, “That which can’t continue will eventually stop.” One example of a commons that is being exploited towards inevitable tragedy is the current monetary system involving fiat currency.

    We see everywhere a demand for more easy money, greater quantitative easing, a sub-zero ECB rate; a veritable Visigoth Holiday where credit is on tap like cheap malt liquor. As the time preference of the post-modern consumer approaches infinity, there is no consideration for the synapse-terminating hangover that will occur when the whole calliope crashes over the hard, unyielding cliffs of reality. Forbes Magazine describes the systemic unreality driving The Western world’s badly misguided monetary policies.

    The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal ran front-page articles and The Economist a cover story on a topic that is truly bizarre: The world economy is suffering because we don’t have enough inflation. The Journal piece focused on Europe: “Too little inflation will threaten Europe’s fragile recovery. … The latest numbers signal that dangerously low inflation–which Japan struggled with for two decades and the U.S. central bank has labored in recent years to avoid–is at Europe’s front door.” The Times story was equally strange: “There is growing concern inside and outside the Fed that inflation is not rising fast enough. Economists, including Janet Yellen, President Obama’s nominee to lead the Fed starting next year, have long argued that a little inflation is particularly valuable when the economy is weak.”

    What inflationary policy does to the value of money can be easily modeled by basic economic theory. Deliberately “goosing”, “Queasing”, “Pumping” or flat-out Benronning the money supply will only reduce the value of each individual unit of currency. This proves disadvantageous to anyone who postpones gratification and attempts to gather piles of said currency for future consumption. This does, however, benefit people who can arbitrage against this falling currency and it also empowers the government to borrow, spend and grow itself larger at the expense of all of these Middle Class families that are losing out. USA Today describes the process by which wealth is taken from the productive Middle Class and given to speculators and bureaucrats instead.

    Since the asset purchases began five years ago, the average American family has experienced rising prices and stagnant wages. The resulting decline in living standards explains why voters ranked rising prices nearly tied with unemployment as their top economic concern during the 2012 election. As the middle class struggles, America’s wealthy are benefiting from the Fed-induced rally in asset prices….Worst of all for those focused on limiting the size of government, Yellen’s easy-money policies are encouraging Washington’s continued fiscal irresponsibility. With the Fed as a ready buyer of Treasury debt, even the Tea Party Republicans have not been able to meaningfully shrink the government’s size.

    To complicate matters further, the immediate gain is recognized fully by a select group of individuals. The losses are dealt out gradually, over a longer frame of time. Hardin’s paper described the ultimate impact of that on the economic thinking of those who have deciding power over how much credit will be made available in an economy.

    “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1. Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons.


    And eventually the entire infrastructure upon which the bureaucrats and speculators feed is destroyed. This will happen just as every other speculative bubble that was blown has been popped. It will be interesting to see what happens when the bubble known as The Savior State finally pops.

    • By the way, as much as I’d like to take credit for those last statements they are not mine -I put the link in the wrong place.

      As I said, easy to understand but I did have to look up the word arbitrage.

  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. @ Mathius

    Neo-con…..aka ;Neo-conservative

    An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the liberalism of the 1960’s.

    (Raptors still on strip alert but willing to discuss the term “mild” neocon)

    So, my friend, we shall approach these one at a time. (picture D13 sharpening K bar)….

    Economic and social neocon defined as : In economics, neoconservatives believe that markets are an efficient means of allocating goods and services. They are not, however, wholehearted advocates of free-market capitalism. As Kristol remarked, capitalism deserves two cheers, not three, because its innovative character produces almost-constant social upheavals and disruptions. Moreover, as the neoconservative sociologist Daniel Bell argued, capitalism harbours various “cultural contradictions” that undermine its own social and ethical foundations. Capitalism presupposes a willingness to save, to invest, and to defer gratification; at the same time, through advertising and marketing techniques, it encourages people to indulge themselves, to live on credit, and to pay little heed to the farther future. Unregulated capitalism, moreover, creates great wealth alongside dire poverty; it richly rewards some people while leaving others behind. And since great disparities of wealth make the wealthy contemptuous of the poor and the poor envious of the rich, capitalism can create conditions that cause class conflict, labour unrest, and political instability. To reduce, though certainly not to eliminate, such disparities, neoconservatives support the graduated income tax, the inheritance tax, the modern welfare state, and other means by which a social “safety net” might be placed underneath society’s less-fortunate members.

    At the same time, however, neoconservatives warn that well-intentioned government programs can produce unintended and unfortunate consequences for the people they are meant to help. More particularly, neoconservatives argue that social welfare programs can and often do create dependency and undermine individual initiative, ambition, and responsibility. Such programs should therefore aim to provide only temporary or short-term assistance. Nor should the goal of social programs and tax policy be to level the differences between individuals and classes. Neoconservatives claim to favour equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. While favouring the existence of the welfare state, they also believe that it should be scaled back, because it has become, in their view, too large, too bureaucratic and unwieldy, and too generous. In the mid-1990s, neoconservatives approved of “workfare” programs designed to move people off the welfare rolls and into the workforce. In domestic policy theirs has been an insistent and influential voice.

    D13: Hmmmmmm. In paragraph one of this particular definition, it states that neocons are not wholehearted advocates of free-market capitalism….I do not think that I agree with this…I prefer an open and free market and let supply and demand dictate.I agree that capitalism can create differences in social status which i have absolutely no problem with as long as the laws and opportunities are the same for all…..cream will always rise to the top. I certainly do not support the graduated income tax nor the inheritance tax…not in the slightest. I certainly do not support going back pre 1960’s but I do not like all of what the 1960’s produced.

    I would say that paragraph two describes my philosophy more except that any safety net has a beginning and an ending.

    Ok……..so far mild is fitting. ( Putting Raptors on defcon 3)

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    OK VDLG party members.

    Is this a “PROPER” role of the Federal Govt??? Specifically the research and organization of the effort to deal with the threat.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Considering how government has basically destroyed the health insurance industry, maybe just coming up with the fixes to the problem, “that won’t cause other problems”. Which is near impossible for Government to do. They should just determine the cause, then suggest how to illiminate the cause. Get that message out to the people and let them decide how to move forward.

  14. @ Mathius………………hoo boy……foreign policy……( Raptors going to Defcon 2) K Bar is sharpened…now cleaning weaponry…rescue team for the pirate on alert….Cowboy Cheerleaders now fully clothed and not practicing on front lawn)

    Neoconservatives have been especially influential in the formulation of foreign and military policy, particularly in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. They contend that power—military, economic, or political—that is unused is for all practical purposes wasted. The military might of the United States should be employed around the world to promote American interests. And it is in the interests of the United States, they say, to promote the development of democratic regimes abroad, in as much as democracies (according to the “democratic peace” hypothesis proposed by some political scientists) do not wage war against one another. Neoconservatives wish, in the words of Pres. Woodrow Wilson, to “make the world safe for democracy.” And indeed, neoconservatives often describe their views on foreign policy as “Wilsonian.” They view Wilson as an idealist who came to the Paris Peace Conference (1919) at Versailles with proposals for a just and lasting peace that were denigrated and defeated by cynical European politicians bent on punishing Germany for its role in starting World War I. Back in the United States, Wilson’s proposals for a League of Nations and for the country’s membership in that organization were defeated by isolationist politicians. The all-too-real result of such cynical anti-idealism was another and even bloodier second world war. Thus, idealism, far from being impractical, can produce politically practical and even admirable results.From the 1980s, neoconservative idealism took the form of an assertive and interventionist foreign policy that targeted anti-American regimes and leftist movements abroad. Sharp increases in U.S. military spending in the 1980s very nearly bankrupted the less affluent Soviet Union and helped to bring about its disintegration in 1991. Meanwhile, communist-led rebel movements in Latin America were crushed with the help of U.S. economic and military aid to regimes regarded as pro-American. In the George W. Bush administration, neoconservative officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State helped to plan and promote the Iraq War (2003).

    D13: “They contend that power—military, economic, or political—that is unused is for all practical purposes wasted. The military might of the United States should be employed around the world to promote American interests.” AN ABSOLUTE NO WAY, JOSE’!!!!!! I do not believe in this at all. Nada, Nope. Nyet !!!!!!

    D13: “And it is in the interests of the United States, they say, to promote the development of democratic regimes abroad, in as much as democracies (according to the “democratic peace” hypothesis proposed by some political scientists) do not wage war against one another.” NOT ONLY NO BUT HELL NO !!!!!!! I do not believe in this philosophy at all. Nada, Nope, Nyet !!!!

    I would not have supported the League of Nations under Wilson….just as I do not support NATO nor the United Nations today. I do not believe in nor support a one world society and I do not support meddling in other country affairs. It is not our business. I support a 1.5 million manned military ( Army, Navy, Air Force ), trained to defend our country and only attack IF attacked or preemptively, provided preemptive is properly defined. ( Such as Somali pirates and their supporting country/countries ). I fully believe that the military should not be used as political pawns to further American interests, domestic or abroad. I did not support going into Iraq nor Afghanistan and do not support it now. I do not support Egypt, Syria, Iran, nor any intervention militarily. If a civilian company decides to do business in those countries….the risks are theirs. Do not look to the Military to bail them out.

    I do not support assassinations of foreign military leaders and or their families unless we are at war and then all…..are targets. War should only be declared by Congress and no President should have the power to wage war or military intervention without the majority support of Congress.

    I do not think this makes me a neocon in any manner of speak-ease. However, I did support Reagan and the military buildup because I was part of it and understood what he was doing….he literally BROKE the Soviet Union and its empire and the cold war was over without going hot……and hot was where it was headed.

    So if that tacit support of Reagan in that particular issue makes me a “mild” neocon….then guilty….but don’t you think that mild would be stretching that one a little far?

    (Taking Dr Pepper…..calming down…..grinning like Cheshire Cat….munching Doritos and jalapeno hot sauce…..thinking about a jalapeno sausage stuffed baked potato, extra butter, no sour cream or cheese, but chives, bacon bits, and chopped green onions)

    PS: Don’t you or anyone confuse my serving in the military in those environments as “support” simply because I am military. I wished to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic…….An oath of office and preserving my integrity and ethics are more important. To resign, over CIVILIAN authorized interdiction, would have been cowardice and unethical. The military carries out the orders of a civilian authority.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I was remiss earlier. Good Morning Sir.

      You have hit upon a very, very, very important concept. One that addresses Charlie’s constant questioning about how we can be against the Govt while serving in the military.

      “The military carries out the orders of a civilian authority.”

      While this concept creates a conflict in personal values and ethics, it is key to preserving a Civilian Govt. One that is immune to Military Coup or control.

      It is the META VALUE that binds the civilian and military together, rather than fear and influence. Such as occurs in places like Egypt.

      By the way, was I right or was I right about who the Neo Cons are. Link to Woodrow Wilson, in turn linked to Teddy Roosevelt. They are PROGRESSIVES.

      • Always liked TR. His progressivism was quite different from the Wilsonian one. TR was an American with a world view shaped by his Americanism. Wilson was one of the first one worlders seeing nothing in particular exceptional about America.

        Anyone have any info on TR’s take on a “League of Nations” and the potential US role?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          TR was an IMPERIALIST.

          Yes he had a grand view of the USA, and of himself. He wanted the USA to make good on the same dreams of Hamilton a century before.

          Make the USA THE WORLD POWER. Replace Europe and England as the major powers of the world. Wilson only differed in his tactics and willingness to subjugate his own citizens.

          • Yep, put us on the world stage as a power and major player. Great White Fleet etc. Enforced the Monroe doctrine and kept the Krauts out of Latin and South America. Used the bully pulpit well. Bought into the need to “civilize” the rest of the world, a common fallacy at the time.

            But, as you say, he was unwilling to subjugate America and Americans to others and that is one hell of a difference. You can see that in play right now.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13, As I cringe for correcting the good Colonel, the sentence should read : The military carries out the LEGAL orders of a civilian authority.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What would you do without us NCO’s? 🙂

        • Sgt……..Sgt…….sgt…….Actually, while you are correct…..you are also wrong……and herein lies the rub…..legal is a term that requires the military to become adjudicators and that simply is not the case. We do not interpret law…..for example…..you may consider that the occupation of Afghanistan is illegal in that it was not passed by Congress and we engaged in an act of war……as a commander, we will still go to Afghanistan. to do otherwise is a violation of military standards. If we are to be ordered to martial law…we may not like it but we will do it if the order came from the proper authority. Therein lies the conundrum.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    For fun I have to share this. Feeling a little devilish today so I just couldn’t pass up the chance to turn the racist gun around on a lefty who was ripping on the Black Senator from South Carolina, only because he is supported by the Tea Party.

    1,117 Fans

    And this baggrboy is the poster child for why the filibuster in the Senate must end…

    They clog and block everything just because they can to stop the day to day governance of this country by the very government they hate so much.

    190 Fans

    You racist pig. How dare you refer to a Black man as “boy”.

    I CONFESS …………It was PETTY and CHILDISH. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. I also expect it will be deleted by the HP moderators.

    • Did you get a reply? LOL

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Haven’t checked back yet. I am sure it won’t be very nice though, if it isn’t deleted first.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        My comment is pending. Here is the footnote that has been tagged to it for now.

        “Due to the potentially sensitive nature of this article, your comment may take longer to appear publicly.”

        The “baggrboy” got posted along with other obnoxious comments. But I am in a “sensitive nature” are of some kind.

        HP has an interesting policy. They allow certain people who comment there to flag and remove other people’s comments. So if you offend one of the regulars they can simply bounce your argument right into the Ether-net.

        • Yes, I use to post there-what I found was that they would put posts into pending -they would normally release them right around the time they would end up on page 12-so no one would actually read them. Never had any of mine actually removed but I saw it happen to others-though I spent some time in pending from time to time.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    On the MYTHOLOGY of JFK.

    A closing quote from Ms. King’s article on JFK’s assassination and the relationship her family had with the Kennedys. That is MLK’s family.

    This quote reflects the MYTH that has been created by Kennedy’s followers and partners in politics. It has little to do with the reality of the time, or his “actual” ability. She makes a point that his death created a legacy. I would add that it created an Urban Myth, which turned into Legend. The entire notion of Camelot was created by those who depended upon the legacy of this myth.

    Here is her quote:

    “We mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK with sadness and wonder at what might have been if this extraordinarily charming and visionary president had lived to complete two terms. Yet we know that his luminous example of hope and courage continues to set the standard — as does his challenge to the youth of America to pick up the torch of freedom and lead the way to a better future for all.”

    For the record, this “visionary” got us mixed up in the Viet Nam mess and he lacked the “courage” to get the hell out. Tapes of his discussions about Viet Nam with his primary Secretaries reveals a man conflicted, uncertain and more concerned with the “image” that would be created among the American voters if the USA was viewed as “losing” or being “chased out”.

    Kind of like our current POTUS, the man was charming and could deliver a rousing speech. The race to the moon was not HIS but he certainly used the moment to get America behind the program.

  17. “Sigh” Are they attempted to teach sex education or promote having sex-I wouldn’t be surprised if the lesson was followed up with a homework assignment.

    Mother Wins Battle to Stop Graphic Sex-Ed Classes at Middle School

    by Rita Diller | Charleston, SC | LifeNews.com | 11/21/13 10:34 AM

    “Safer sex curriculum” is a very inaccurate term for the salacious instructional fare promoted and taught by Planned Parenthood. A simple reading of the instructional materials shows that these programs are all about sexually stimulating even very young students—teaching them, in embarrassing graphic detail, and in mixed gender groups, the fun of sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse while attempting to persuade them to use condoms.

    One woman is standing up to fight Making Proud Choices!—one of the most graphic sexual foreplay curricula—and making a huge difference by doing so. Mary McLellan is fighting the implementation of this program in Charleston, South Carolina, middle schools and across the state. She coined the astutely descriptive term “sexual foreplay curriculum” after examining the content.

    Making Proud Choices! successfully passed through the Charleston County School District’s Health Advisory Committee (HAC), then moved on to the CCSD Education Committee, comprised of four school board members.

    “I was the only person in the room that opposed Making Proud Choices!” Mary reported. “Everyone else present were either supporters or CCSD personnel. Representation included the New Morning Foundation, Tell Them SC, ACLU, SC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (exclusive trainers for Making Proud Choices!), Florence Crittendon, and MUSC Empower, the program seeking expedited approval so that they could get a federal grant to push safe sex onto our children.”

    Mary brought the best evidence possible with her: the curriculum itself.

    In her words, “I basically provided a reading lesson for the board members.”

    McLellan instructed the education committee members: “Turn to page 86 and you will find a lesson on Condom Use Skills with a list of teacher supplies to include lubricated condoms, lubricants, and penis model(s). If this lesson is not depicting a sex act, then what is?”

    She continued reading as the board members followed along.

    The result was immediate. “One board member moved to table the curriculum until the Education Committee had time to review the content,” McLellan stated. “The motion passed 4-0.”

    She continued,

    Making Proud Choices! resides in the CCSD Education Committee until it is brought forth again. This could be any day and without notice if Planned Parenthood has the influence in the district that I suspect.

    Not bragging, but it only took one person (me) to stand up and read facts to get this nasty program tabled. Unlike the Health Advisory Committee, all four of the school board members were open to hearing facts and seeing the evidence for themselves and considering what is really best for the children of Charleston County.

    You really should have been there. I hope you will be, next time.

    Mary is right. If you are in the Charleston County School District, you should have been there. According to McLellan, “Making Proud Choices! is already in Anderson 3, Barnwell/Blackville-Hilda, Dorchester 2, Richland County 1, and Spartanburg 3.”

    McLellan warns parents that, unless they stand up and say NO to this curriculum, their children will be learning how to:

    • make condoms fun and pleasurable,
    • use condoms as a method of foreplay,
    • act sexy/sensual when putting condoms on,
    • hide [a] condom on your body and ask your partner to find it,
    • tease each other sexually while putting on a condom,
    • have fun putting one on your partner, while pretending you are different people or in different situations,
    • feel more relaxed and really enjoy yourself, and
    • use condoms to make erections last longer!

    Mary was able to get the curriculum tabled in the schools expected to approve the program just by speaking up. If hundreds, or even dozens—or maybe even just a handful of parents—will speak up, the curriculum can be permanently removed, and the children of the district will be one step further removed from Planned Parenthood’s evil influence.

    This is how we break the back of Planned Parenthood and its allies who have evil designs on our children. Don’t rely on someone else to speak up. If you want the children to be protected from this filth, you must speak up now!

    Board chair Michael Miller, and board members Tom Ducker, Rev. Chris Collins, and Craig Ascue unanimously voted to table this program. Let them know how you feel about Making Proud Choices! getting another hearing.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Middle school is a little early and much of this stuff comes from experimenting, which is part of the fun of being young. Parents should explain the basics, like be protected against pregnancy and STD’s. Teaching about STD’s is OK in my book, but beyond that, it’s a parent issue. Let the kids learn the basics on their own, like all of us did 🙂

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    As a faithful liberal lapdog, CNN of course, leads with what may be the least important part of the interchange – Rep. Westmoreland does not think that the Obama administration orchestrated a “complete cover-up” of the Benghazi attack. This isn’t unimportant, but it’s not the “most important” thing Rep. Westmoreland said.

    The most important part of the interview comes buried at the end –

    Westmoreland said the committee is looking into why a directive was released on August 11 telling the personnel in Benghazi that “you are on your own.”

    The compound itself is not set up for protection,” Westmoreland said, adding that the CIA operatives said “they couldn’t believe those guys were over there as unprepared and unequipped as they were.”

    Why did the State Department leave the people in Benghazi to fend for themselves, even as they were told by several different personnel members that Benghazi was not defensible, and was wide open to attack? Moreover, the State Department had actionable intelligence telling them that al-Qaeda was targeting the Benghazi consulate, and that they would be launching their attack soon.

    BloodCNN also quickly papers over the fact that Westmoreland clearly articulates that “everyone” (implying the White House, the State Department and the intelligence community) knew that it was a terrorist attack almost from the get go. “I don’t think there was any doubt that they knew it was a coordinated attack,” Westmoreland said. This means that the State Department and the White House deliberately lied to the American people about what had happened in Benghazi. Even worse, they railroaded an innocent civilian and laid the blame for the attack and the deaths that resulted from the attack at his feet. He even went to prison for his part in producing his YouTube film, “the Innocence of Muslims.”

    These two implications – that the State Department purposefully left the Benghazi consulate out in the line of fire, and the fact that the administration lied to cover up what really happened — are the most important parts of this story. Our government put American citizens in harm’s way for no good reason, and then they lied to try to keep the blood off their own hands. It’s disgusting.

    Whatever the results of the Intelligence Subcommittee’s investigation, the obvious conclusion is that, at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is to blame for the Benghazi debacle. She was in charge at the State Department, she is responsible for the denied requests of more manpower, and she is ultimately responsible for the lives lost in the attack.

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton make one hell of a team. If you need to hurt America – they’re the first ones you should call.

    Read more at http://eaglerising.com/3061/shocking-testimony-benghazi-hillary-clintons-fault/#1yJ7hH0tJt8aAXe3.99

    Now, just ask yourself what else can they be lying about? The economy? the FEMA camps? Martial law?

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    I agree 100%, Give us Biden till 2016, it can’t be any worse. http://eaglerising.com/3058/billboard-atlanta-calls-president-obamas-impeachment/

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    I just LOVE IT when the PRODUCERS fight back and kick the Govts’ backside, instead of giving in to the blackmail. And I take special pleasure here in the last statement about how the Rich can afford to fight the battles for us. Be thankful some of them have the courage to go along with the money.

    From Red State.

    “The existential threat to our way of life is not terrorism or nuclear holocaust, it is the metastatic growth of the regulatory state. One of the legacies of the New Deal is the proliferation of agencies composed of unelected busy bodies who have two overweening ambitions: controlling the lives of their fellow citizens and the aggrandizement of power to their agency. The second great threat is the unchecked militarization of our law enforcement organizations but that is a story for different day.

    Whenever someone stands up to this low level fascism, regardless of personal foibles they become a hero in my book. Such a man is the rather erratic billionaire, Mark Cuban.

    Over time, as detailed in this Wall Street Journal article by Cuban’s attorney, Lyle Roberts, the Security and Exchange Commission have succeeded in criminalizing knowledge:

    Contrary to a popular misconception about insider trading, there is nothing wrong with a person trading on the basis of nonpublic information about a corporation.

    An entire profession—the stock market analyst—is predicated on the idea that investors can and should seek an informational advantage to better manage their investments. Trading based on an informational advantage is only illegal when it results in a fraud, and that only happens in certain narrow circumstances.

    In the classic case of illegal insider trading, where a corporate insider trades on material, nonpublic information about the company for his own benefit, this fraud requirement is easily satisfied. The insider owes a fiduciary duty to his company’s owners, the shareholders, which he fraudulently violates when he trades (or deliberately tells someone else so that they can trade) without disclosing to the market the existence of the information.

    Where things get tricky, however, is when the trader is not a corporate insider. What if someone is just told (or overhears on an elevator or in the subway) material, nonpublic information about a company? If he proceeds to trade on the information, his liability under insider trading rules turns on whether he has breached a fiduciary or similar duty of trust and confidence he owed to the source of the information (this is called the “misappropriation theory”).

    The original idea here was to prevent an attorney, for example, from obtaining information from a client and using it for his own benefit to trade stock. The way the SEC has applied the misappropriation theory, however, deliberately blurs the lines in an overzealous attempt to regulate “unfairness.”

    The agency began in 2000 by creating a regulatory rule (Rule 10b5-2) designed to address how the misappropriation theory could be extended to exchanges of information between friends or family members. Under the rule, the required duty of trust and confidence is formed any time a friend or family member formally agrees to keep the information confidential.

    Soon thereafter, however, the SEC began citing Rule 10b5-2 in courts across the country as applying whenever any material, nonpublic information is exchanged and the recipient, regardless of whether he is a friend or family member, formally agrees to keep the information confidential. Recently, the SEC abandoned even that broad standard and essentially has argued that a wink and a nod (or even silence) to confidentiality when material, nonpublic information is shared is sufficient to hold anyone who trades on that information liable for insider trading.

    Cuban was charged by the SEC with insider trading and offered a deal, he could pay a $2 million fine and the matter would go away. That’s a nice life you have there, Mr. Cuban, it would be a shame if anything happened to it.

    Cuban refused and went to trial.

    This matter, which has been pending before the Commission for nearly two years, has no merit and is a product of gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Mr. Cuban intends to contest the allegations and to demonstrate that the Commission’s claims are infected by the misconduct of the staff of its Enforcement Division.

    Mr. Cuban stated, “I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff’s win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff’s process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government’s claims are false and they will be proven to be so.”

    The details of the accusation and trial aren’t germane here, but if you are interested Professor Stephen Bainbridge has a very good round up at Mark Cuban Acquitted of Insider Trading.

    Mr. Cuban spent $12 million of his own money to avoid a $2 million fine and was acquitted. At a press conference held after his acquittal he was not happy (the transcript is worth reading). He took the prosecutors to task, by name, for their actions.

    There were people on their side saying ‘look, it’s only business, it’s not personal.’ Janet Folina is like ‘hey, this is only business, I’m just here to litigate,’ Dwayne was like ‘hey, tell your friend Charlie that it wasn’t personal, it’s just business.’ It’s personal! When you put someone on the stand and accuse them of being a liar, it’s personal. Right? When you take all these years of my life, and try to prove a point, it’s personal. And to try and play off like this is just your job? Again, I don’t want to say that’s the way all the SEC works, but the people who were in this case could have said something, and didn’t say anything, and that’s just wrong.


    When they mischaracterize the facts. When they did everything to hide the facts, and not bring out the facts. That’s just wrong. And someone’s got to stand up and do that…and like I sad, when this started I won’t be bullied. I don’t care if this is the United States Government. And I don’t (sic) win anything today, I just got started today.

    What Mark Cuban meant by that has become very clear in recent days. He wants to meet with SEC Chairman Mary Jo White (who appears to be Moe Howard’s long lost sister) about how the SEC enforces financial laws:

    But the owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks won’t let it rest. Cuban, who has racked up $1.89 million in fines for his sideline outbursts, is expert at goading his adversaries. Never one to hold his tongue, he’s been using his blog, Twitter and the news media to beat up on the SEC for its handling of the case. The public showdown pits the eccentric billionaire against a buttoned-down agency that has been taken aback by the unusually acrimonious and personal nature of the attacks.

    For the SEC, going after a celebrity has a high payoff — if it wins. Unlike cases tried out of the spotlight, the verdict in a well-publicized case typically reaches beyond the defendants, creating a deterrent by showing that no one is above the law, agency officials say. That said, as Cuban has demonstrated, a loss can pose a public relations nightmare.

    Cuban said he is trying to get a face-to-face meeting with White and hopes to discuss how his ordeal can inform the SEC’s work. He said the agency measures success by its courtroom wins and losses without assessing whether these legal battles boost investor confidence or improve market fairness.


    In post-trial interviews, Cuban has bashed the SEC for eating up years of his life, and plenty of his cash, in an effort to find him liable on bogus charges. He says he rebuffed a $2 million settlement and paid $12 million in legal fees to defend himself.

    But it gets better. He is also holding the attorneys in the case to account for their conduct:

    Cuban said he wants to hold the SEC attorneys accountable for his ordeal, which is why he’s naming names and focusing on not just the appointed head of the agency, but the career lawyers who faced off against him in court. On “Leno,” he said there were good people at the SEC, but not Jan Folena, the agency’s lead attorney in his case. “F-O-L-E-N-A,” he told the audience. Linda Thomsen, the SEC’s enforcement chief at the time, may have targeted him because “she was just desperate for a skin on the wall,” he told USA Today.

    Thomsen, now in private practice, did not respond to calls requesting a comment. Folena declined to comment for this article.

    Immediately after the jury’s verdict, the SEC said Cuban’s remarks were “without merit and uncalled for.” The agency’s legal team “acted in the finest traditions of government counsel and entirely appropriately,” George Canellos, the SEC’s co-director of enforcement, said in a statement.


    Others say Cuban is misguided in taking on specific attorneys.

    “Jan Folena is not the policymaker,” said Bradley J. Bondi, a former counsel to two SEC commissioners and now a lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. “She did not decide to pursue this case. She was asked to try the case by her supervisors in the trial unit, and the trial unit was directed to try this case by the commission.”

    Most of us thought the “I was only following orders” defense became passé sometime in 1946. When you participate in an unjust act you don’t get a pass just because you were told to do it. You own the action. During the government shutdown in October I wrote about the petty bureaucrats who seem to believe they get a pass because they aren’t making policy (see The Little Eichmanns of the Government Shutdown). The same applies, but in much stronger terms, to people who are seeking to deprive their fellow citizens of life, liberty, and property for no greater purpose than making a newspaper headline.

    In a just world, Mary Jo White and her merry band of mindless drones would learn a lesson from this. They would resolve to treat future suspects with the respect humans are expected to extend to one another and err on the side of not prosecuting, remembering the adage from Blackstone that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer. A religious man might consult the exchange between God and Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked in Genesis.

    But this is not a just world. And we are lucky that there are rich men who are able to do what the rest of us are unable to do.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Senate Democrats win vote — 52-48 — to change filibuster rules, weakening the minority party’s power to block nominations.

    More on this story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/senate-nears-possible-vote-on-curbing-filibusters/

    They’ll regret this one day, then they will whine and blame the Republicans. Democrats are a JOKE in Congress. Can’t you guys vote for some decent Americans?

    • Can’t you help us vote some of them out? Don’t vote? Can’t whine.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let’s see Anita, ya’ll said things will change back in 2010, then again in 2012. Ain’t shit changed, ain’t shit gonna change after 2014 and 2016. Voting in Fedral elections is doing nothing but consenting to the continued corruption. I have removed my consent to be governed by a corrupt organized crime syndicate. Think about that for awhile with an open mind. You too gat be set free 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, I can whine! because I’m right 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Actually things have changed quit a bit G.

          Nobody ever claimed we could turn the ship entirely around in that time. But it has certainly moved.

          If more people take your approach I am afraid it will return to its original course in short order.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            JAC, you are delusional if you think that the corruption will end in DC. Voting will NOT change a thing. Sure, they throw some cookies out to make people think they matter, but that just feeds the LIE that voting works. Come on Man, wake up!

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I assure you I am WIDE AWAKE.

              Corruption will never end, anywhere, anyplace. At least not for a considerable time period.

              So why focus on D.C. Corruption? Why ignore that it is the one type of corruption we the people can actually affect.

              IF WE put our minds to the task and then ACT accordingly.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, in ways I can agree. I have taken action by saying no to their continued corruption. I no longer consent to their governance. That is action. You cannot fix it by voting for a candidate THEY chose for you. I have put my mind to the task and I am acting accordingly. What are you doing? Voting for the person they give you? Are there good people wanting to serve, yes, but they can’t break the 2 party syndicate, and the syndicate will never let the good people to have anywhere close to a majority. The Federal govt has been travelling the same highway, same direction, for decades. A minor left bend, right bend matters not, they are just cookies to the sheeple to keep them in line. There are 3 kinds of people, those that know (most of us here), those that don’t know crap (Charlie) 🙂 , and those that don’t want to know (the majority called sheeple, or Zombies, if you choose).
                Voting is rigged, and it’s rigged AGAINST all of us that know. 🙂

                Peace to you and your family! Hope you get that move you want real soon 🙂

            • G, Let’s just take your approach and no one votes. Then what?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Then they realize they are no longer legitimate. When a person(s) knows this, they go away, usually quietly. No vote = no consent. No consent= good bye losers. No blood shed needed. 🙂

              • Do you really think that will happen? I would think they would just stay put since they did not lose. No consent…what exactly does that mean? You don’t have to stop at red lights? You don’t have to pay taxes? What about your VA bennies, do you still get those? A cop pulls you over..you don’t have to stop?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No, it will never happen. Too many sheeple and too many who know it’s rigged but have a fantasy that voting will change things. I’m speaking of the Feds, not locally or even state. Just the Feds, which we can all survive and thrive without them. You’re a great person and a wonderful American, don’t you think deep down that I’m right about voting?

              • No. I think that by not voting..you JOIN the sheeple 😯 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                And I think you know better 🙂 Look what voting has gotten all of us now. Obama blatantly and knowingly LIED to the people. Yet, he is still President and no one within the syndicate is calling for his head on a platter. Lying, in my eyes, of this nature, is treason. What are YOUR people in congress doing about it? Answer: NOTHING Why? Because they are all on the same team and you and I are not invited. Keep voting. Keep giving consent. You reap what you sow. By voting in Federal elections, then you approve of their corruption. It’s that simple my dear! 🙂

  22. JFK fifty years down the road. Last night I watched Anderson Cooper who had an interesting roundtable on JFK. Not too much hero worship and Andrew Sullivan was refreshing as an “objective” panelist who was not around for ” The New Frontier”.

    In my own mind I have this dichotomy about JFK,. Tomorrow I will cry, I know it. I will cry for a country that changed irrevocably on 11/22/63. JFK was not a particularly good president though he was by today’s standard, a conservative. His personal life sucked, he blew the bay of Pigs, almost started WW 3 during the missile crisis and did a few other not so smart things and yet I grieve for his loss.

    I think Sullivan had it right last night when he said our feeling of loss was the loss of an ideal. JFK probably wrongly represented that Ideal but he represented that ideal front and center.

    Perhaps that explains why those of the left and those of the right can all claim a little bit of JFK’s legacy. If your an idealist and of a certain time, JFK represented you.

    For those “kiddies” out there, maybe you won’t get the humor, but here it is;

    A different time when we took things less seriously.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I was born in ’65, so I don’t know much except for what I have read. But his name will always be read in history books.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      You are touching on my point. If you look objectively at the time there is NO IDEAL that was lost or busted or damaged.

      The one positive to that point was pushing the civil rights issues and the use of the Nat Guard in Alabama.

      My point is that the belief in a loss of “IDEAL” was created. The media of the day loved him, and he had a powerful group of influential “authors” and “academics” attached to him.

      They immediately launched into the notion that the nation had been “forever changed”.

      HOW?? Perhaps we were a little naïve about the possibility of assassination, but that was due to our own blind faith and unwillingness to look around.

      I believe his popularity was centered primarily around his AGE and then his LOOKS. He was a WW II vet, and he represented a change in the guard from Eisenhower’s generation to Kennedy’s generation.

      I think that was the actual source of the supposed “optimism” and “hope” for the future.

      Which raises the point of HOPE itself. Funny how that word has popped up again as a major descriptor of a “young” Democratic President.

      • Yes, Obama was JFK to some of the young and not so young today. He represented a new era. Unlike JFK, he will be discredited before his term ends. JFK’s death precluded establishing a legacy. To this day, people think that the Civil Rights bills were passed because JFK supported them! On the other hand, Johnson gets full blame for Vietnam. Kennedy’s convenient death allowed people to pick and choose his legacy for him.

        Barry Goldwater who I doubt was blowing smoke often talked about the plans Kennedy and he had for 1964 and the debates. While the Kennedy charm may have again won them, he certainly would have a hard time defending his screw ups.

        One of the other great points brought up last night on CNN was the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy was bold, bright and stood in contrast to the staid plodding Ike era. Last night, four of the guests made incredibly positive comments on Ike and the ’50’s and no one took issue. So, it seems that anyone with half a brain gets JFK’s limitations but nonetheless, Hope and Change, which never would have been fulfilled, never got the chance to fail. So, against all logic, they still circulate out there in the ether as part of “Camelot”.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    OH MY, the Kooks are teaching our kids. JAC, your neck of the woods?
    Did you know that eating or even talking about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich could be considered racist?

    Apparently, it’s because people in some cultures don’t eat sandwich bread. Verenice Gutierrez, principal of Harvey Scott K-8 School in Portland explained in and interview with the Portland Tribune:

    “Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year,” the Tribune said.

    “What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” Gutierrez asked. “Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”

    …The Tribune noted that the school started the new year with “intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives,” to help educators understand their own “white privilege,” in order to “change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.””Last Wednesday, the first day of the school year for staff, for example, the first item of business for teachers at Scott School was to have a Courageous Conversation — to examine a news article and discuss the ‘white privilege’ it conveys,” the Tribune added.

    Gutierrez completed a week-long seminar called “Coaching for Educational Equity,” a program the Tribune says focuses “on race and how it affects life.” She also serves on an administrative committee that focuses on systematic racism.

    “Our focus school and our Superintendent’s mandate that we improve education for students of color, particularly Black and Brown boys, will provide us with many opportunities to use the protocols of Courageous Conversations in data teams, team meetings, staff meetings, and conversations amongst one another,” she said in a letter to staff.

    You can read more about principal Gutierrez’s sandwich-sensitivity philosophy here.

    Next time you’re in the bread aisle at the grocery store, you may want to think twice. Sensitive liberal educators are now recommending the “torta” or the “pita” as a more culturally inclusive alternative.

    Now that you’ve been made aware of the evil of PB&J, there’s only one question left to answer: Is white bread more racist than whole wheat?

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    A good read on the most recent examples of DELIBERATE use of Rhetoric for the purpose of FRAMING. In short, PROPAGANDA. This time it relates to the ACA.


  25. gmanfortruth says:
  26. Just A Citizen says:


    The TIGERS made a GREAT MOVE today. I think they need to unload Cabrerra as well, but I doubt they will risk that one.

    • I was very shocked at the Fielder move. I figured he was here for the long haul, like his twin..er..dad! I’m not familiar with the other guy but I guess he has the stats to justify the trade.Fielder has been dead weight during these last two playoff years. Hands off our triple crown and ’13 MVP’er, Cabrerra. Besides he’s a nice guy!

  27. Interesting developments today…..in the Senate

    Harry Reid on the nuclear option in 2005 “But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.”

    Senator Obama 2005 “I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate”
    Senator Obama 2005 What they [the American people] don’t expect is for one party – be it Republican or Democrat – to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”
    Senator Obama if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere of Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.”

    Senator Hillary Clinton 2005 “If you can’t get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you’re sending to us to be confirmed.”
    Joe Biden 2005 And we should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It’s nothing more or nothing less.
    Joe Bide 2005 quite frankly, it’s the ultimate act of unfairness to alter the unique responsibility of the United States Senate and to do so by breaking the very rules of the united states senate. Mark my words, what’s at stake here is not the politics of 2005 but the federal judiciary and the united states senate of the year 2025. This is the single-most significant vote, as I said earlier, that I will have cast in my 32 years in the senate. The extreme Republican right has made Justice Ginsburg’s “Constitution in Exile,” the name of a work he wrote, the framework of that “Constitution in Exile” their top priority.

    Nancy Pelosi 2005 “The nuclear option that us being prepared by Senator Frist is the most diabolical and arrogant power grab that could ever be considered by the US Senate. It thrashes the UAS Constitution to pieces and anyone who votes for the nuclear option should be impeached.”

    Dianne Feinstein 2005 “The height of hypocrisy and the destruction of the US Constitution will be complete with the nuclear option. To change the Senate rules after 200 years is obtuse.”

    D13: Need there be anything else said?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      D13: Need there be anything else said?

      Yes, voting has changed something.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Just curious as to what Buck, Todd, Mathius and Buckwheat have to say about this. I would be embarrassed to be on that team 😦

      • Fair enough, but only half the story.

        Without bothering to do the research, I 100% guarantee you the other side of the equation looked like this:

        Red Shirts 2005: We have to because the Blue shirts are being obstructionist and abusing the filibuster.

        Red Shirts 2013: The filibuster must be preserved! FREEDOM ‘MURICA JESUS EAGLES DON’TTREADONME OBAMACARE LIBERTY!!

        • Of course, Sir Mathius…….it was the opposite in 2005……the only difference is that the Republicans caved and did not do it….the Dems play hard ball and the Repubs do not know how……as a military commander, I would rather have a commando group of progressives and democrats than I would republicans. Why? Because the Republicans take prisoners and the Progs and the Dems do not. I want fighters who would eat their children for breakfast, screw their moms at lunch, throw their grandma off the cliff at dinner, and take their wife to the opera at night. That is metaphorically what Progs and Dems do.

          There is only one bright spot……..now that the filibuster is dead and the minority party no longer has a say……Washington will now be in a gridlock worse than the Pirate in your basement. One day, the Repubs will regain power……..the Dems will be the minority….I wonder if the Repubs will get their retribution……I certainly would. As it stands now, the country be damned……that is what has happened and no spin can straighten this out.

          I foresee States taking more power for themselves and disavowing the Federal government and I hope that happens.

          Am I a neocon now?

          • Even a mild one? 🙂

          • as a military commander, I would rather have a commando group of progressives and democrats than I would republicans.

            It’d be odd to have a commando group full of people who hate guns and have no idea what to do with them..

            Let’s play “Spot the liberal”:

            • Lol……that was funny. Not at all odd…..give me a commando group with the Dem/prog mindset…..I will show them the final power of firepower. No….I stand by my wants. I want no prisoners.

              Now, a question for you and the Buckster ( I can see him cringing as I type ). This vote in the Senate kills his theory that no majority should have absolute right over the minority. It is now a simple majority wins vote…..I like that…..love it…..always have. What a precedent and it extends beyond the Washington corridors but it hands a very powerful weapon to the Libertarians and the Tea Party, I think.

              With the filibuster, a minority party, albeit dem or repub had a voice….now they have none. The rules have been changed…….and I like it.

              • Actually this doesn’t kill my theory at all. Remember, the theory is: majority rule with safeguards for minority rights.

                Not to mention I’m pretty sure (perhaps JAC knows for certain) that the Republicans can still launch a true “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster over any judicial appointment. So if the minority truly believes the President is appointing someone unqualified for the position, they can still work to stop that appointment. What they can’t do anymore is sit back and simply refuse to allow for an up or down vote on a Presidential appointment just because the appointee is a Democrat.

          • I foresee States taking more power for themselves and disavowing the Federal government and I hope that happens.

            Isn’t it amazing how people always foresee the things they want to foresee?

            My crystal ball is very accurate, but sadly, it doesn’t always give me the answers I’d like to see. Oh well.

            Anyway.. here we go..


            I see, states becoming weaker and weaker.. Texas turning purple.. then blue.. more and more power centralizing in Washington.. “national security” apparatus growing.. without Texas, the Red shirts are hopeless at the national level.. country divided into 13 districts, two representatives from each district are sent to the capital each year as tribute..

            ::crystal ball clouds over::

            Well, that’s all for today, I guess. Tune in tomorrow. Same bat time, same bat blog.

            • D13 has dubious look…..grabs Mathius’ crystal ball…..::::violently shakes it:::::: observes that it gets more cloudy…….turns it over and it says ” Made in China “. Sigh…………..

              • ::sigh::

                You’re doing it wrong.

                “Made in China” is just a view of the future of America. Seriously, do you have no idea how to use these things?

                My crystal ball was made, not in China, but by the Elves of Valinor. (adding, boy, I’m a nerd, I readily admit.. but these people.. wow.. some people take it to a whole other level..)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Mathius and Buck, Thanks for answering 🙂

    • Can someone explain this in layman’s terms please? I’ll start what I get so far:

      For 200 years the filibuster rules were __________________. that’s all I know 🙂

      • While your asking-I’m very curious why we have a law that allows them to change a law that demands 60 votes with only 51. I can see changing to 51 after they got a 60 vote approval to change the filibuster but not before.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          It’s part of being a Constitutional Republic, rather than a Democracy. The rules ensured that the minority had a fighting chance. Our founders were very smart when it came to fair play and protecting the minority political view. Now, the Democraps can put in a whole bunch of liberal judges, without a fight. 🙄

          • I understand that -I guess what I’m asking is why couldn’t they filibuster the nuclear option?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I’m going to guess that the subject was not one of the subjects that could be filibustered?

              • I’m thinking they did it to try and get immigration reform and gun control through-AND THEN RIGHT BEFORE THEY LOSE CONTROL they will change it back.

              • let me clarify-I know right now it only effects nominations and such -but they may be limiting the change right now to get a read on the reaction of the people.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I think it only covered judicial nominations, but could be wrong. But yes, they will likely change it back before the next fraud, I mean,…….election.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Because it was a vote on whether the Parliamentarian had interpreted a “point of order” made by Reid properly. Under their rules there is not filibuster and if there were it would be overridden by a 50% +1 vote. Because of the type of vote it was.

              This was an absolute BACK DOOR slimy move by Reid. One that Reid himself had chastised Republicans for suggesting when they were tired of the Dems filibustering judges.

              As I understand it, the new rule applies to ALL appointments EXCEPT the SCOTUS.

              • “a vote on whether the Parliamentarian had interpreted a “point of order” made by Reid properly” SAY WHAT? 🙂

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. gmanfortruth says:


    Just more video. Maybe it is time to threaten a race war. That’s what they want it seems.

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    “a vote on whether the Parliamentarian had interpreted a “point of order” made by Reid properly” SAY WHAT? 🙂

    1. All organizations have a means of validating whether a motion or resolution is in conformance with its rules. The Parliamentarian is the person charged with “interpreting” those rules and issuing a decision as to the validity of a particular motion or resolution.

    2. Most organizations include within their rules a means by which the BODY can OVERRULE the Parliamentarian. These seems goofy but was probably to avoid ONE person upsetting the rules as they are understood by the Body.

    So Reid makes a motion dealing with a point of order. Which is a request for a ruling on whether the rules state x y or z. Now I do not have his motion in front of me, I only know this is what has been reported.

    Next the Parliamentarian FINDS that Mr. Reid’s motion is “out of order” as it violates the rules, in some way.

    So someone else calls for a vote to challenge the parliamentarian’s ruling. They win that vote 52 to 48.

    By winning the vote the Parliamentarian is “overruled” by majority. The point of order was dealing with the filibuster. So Reid set this up so that the “overruled” vote would result in a change in the rule itself.

    Example, Reid moves that the Senate declare the sky is pink and the sun rises in the west. A point of order is called. The parliamentarian rules that Mr. Reid has NO authority to make such a motion. A call tor overrule is made and on a vote of 51% the body decides the Parliamentarian is INCORRECT.

    Now the fact that Mr. Reid has not authority in reality doesn’t matter. What matters is the Parliamentarian said he did not and 52 Senators said he did. So by Vote of 50% +1 Mr. Reid’s original motion becomes VALID by the default. Becauese 50% + 1 voted that his motion WAS Valid.

    This identifies the weakness of any system in the hands of dishonest and dishonorable people.

    These procedures were established to prevent a minority from hijacking the rules. Either by floor vote or by Parliamentary ruling.

    They did not anticipate a Cabal of 52 getting together to essentially declare that an existing RULE was not in fact a RULE. Thus allowing THEM to substitute THEIR new rule in place of the one that ACTUALLY IN TRUTH Existed.

    Good lord, the more I try to explain this the worse it gets. Lets stop there for now.

    Any questions?

    • Yes, I believe I’ve got it-at least enough to be disgusted-still contemplating how exactly a minority could hijack the rules without a 51 vote majority-but I have my basic question answered. Thank you!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The how is that they did not actually vote on a resolution to amend the rule.

        They voted on a procedural matter as to whether such a rule was valid. This usually carries only a 50% threshold because a majority is not usually expected to use this to change the actual rule.

        Pure BS trickery. And I believe some Republicans in the past may have used the same tricks on other resolutions.

        • if the republicans ever have- we will be hearing about it very soon.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            We have just been told to forget what the Founding Fathers wrote, we (the govt) is in charge now. History has been written today, the results will not be good.

    • Thanks JAC. I read another point about this too that I see you didn’t get too..Obama can now increase the number of judges per district to however many he pleases, then he can stack the deck nice and deep. They say it’s temporary? Is there a way around this right now?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I pretty sure that ONLY Congress has the authority to set the number of Judgeships.

        I also believe that such a proposition would be subject to the filibuster.

        Not that the Dems could not use the same trick to over turn that rule as well. In fact the same trick could be used to eliminate the filibuster all together, just as Diane Feinstein herself stated on the floor of the Senate during the Bush years.

        Now, you are correct that once the number of seats is expanded they could then pack the new court without opposition being able to stop it.

        Meanwhile, the issue with the D.C. Circuit for the Dems was that the court is currently balanced with R and D appointees. Approving Mr. Obama’s current nominees will give the D’s a three vote advantage.

        This is important because while the D.C. Circuit is the LEAST congested of all the Circuits, it will most likely be the place where the law suits against the EPA are heard.

        This gives the Administration the ability to now push MORE REGULATIONS betting that the D.C. Circuit will UPHOLD those regulations. By the time such litigation reaches SCOTUS we will have a New President, and the “Transformation of America” will have been done already.

        Here is one of MY predictions. If all this happens and it looks like the Dems will actually lose the Senate in 2014 or 2016, KING HARRY will play the same trick to change the filibuster rule BACK TO 60 to stop the filibuster.

        • JAC — although you may technically be correct to point out that currently the DC Circuit is evenly split 4-4…

          However (and this is a big however which I feel you are conveniently leaving out since I am sure you know this) — the DC Circuit also has 6 senior judges, 5 of whom have been appointed by the GOP. Not to mention the senior judges are very active on this court and often hear cases…

          You also neglect to mention that the DC Circuit is an 11-judge circuit. There are currently 8 judges (senior judges don’t count for this purpose). In the Bush years there were the full 11. But the GOP in the Senate, knowing that to confirm 3 Obama appointees, would result in diminishing republican control of the DC Circuit.

          • JAC…a quick Google search….given that the DC Circuit hears cases in panels of three judges….the vast majority of cases are decided by either 100% Republican or 2/3 Republican panels….interesting….

            • Just A Citizen says:


              My experience with Circuit courts is that the full court decides when to allow the short panels to deal with cases. And even then the full court may override or take a closer look after the panel has decided.

              So it is not the slam dunk 2/3 Republican rulings you are portraying. That is if the D.C. circuit acts like the 9th.

              You are also using one of the Dems typical tricks of rhetoric here. In the matters that we have discussed moving forward, the full court will most likely hear those cases. Because of their significance.

              So the total number of cases in the past is not relevant, necessarily. It is the precedent setting cases that are of the greatest concern to both sides.

              You argument is starting to sound like the Dems attempt to make this about balance. It is obviously NOT about balance but gaining advantage. KING HARRY would not have risked creating an all out civil war in the Senate over just gaining balance. Trust me when I say KING HARRY is all about making Power Plays that give him full ADVANTAGE.

              • Of course its about gaining advantage — that’s kind of the whole purpose of winning an election.

                But right now, given the make-up of the DC Circuit, it is nowhere near balanced.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Wanted to address your other comment/question about filibuster.

              YES, the minority can still filibuster ALL nominations if so desired.

              The RULE CHANGE is the number of votes needed to STOP the filibuster.

              So, if the minority can get enough of the majority to support the filibuster it can still occur.

              But given the current PARTY loyalty of the Dems I don’t expect to see this happen.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Actually I did not know of the Senior Judges. I never think of them when I am thinking about the various Circuits. Question for you. Don’t the sitting judges determine what goes to the Senior judges for review??

            I did not leave off the total number on purpose. I assumed everyone knew that 4R + 4D + 3 vacancies = 11 Seats on the court.

            Of course the obstruction is designed to keep the D.C. circuit from going to the left. Just as this move by Reid is to force it to the left.

            I don’t think anyone here believes otherwise.

            Where I have serious disagreement with the Left on these matters is their characterization of ALL Republican appointees as supposedly “Conservative”.

            Seems to me the R’s have a losing record when it comes to their appointees toeing the ideological line when compared to the D’s appointments.

            Now lets look at Hillary Clinton’s statement when the R’s were proposing this same move.

            “If you want your nominees confirmed then bring us better candidates”. OK, that was a paraphrase of her quote. Don’t feel like looking it up right now. But that was the gist of it.

            So lets get off the they did it so we can do it better crapolla.

            What is YOUR view of Political Appointments to the Court itself? Should we find a better way of appointing judges?

            What about the Filibuster? How do you protect “minority rights” without such a mechanism in the Senate Rules?

            WHY should the Senate be run on “majority votes” anyway? It was purposefully NOT DESIGNED to function as a “Democracy”.

            • “Don’t the sitting judges determine what goes to the Senior judges for review??”

              I’m not sure how the panels are assigned for each case. But I know senior judges often sit on panels so with 5 out of 6 senior judges being republican appointed, the vast majority of cases are heard by a republican-appointed court.

              “I did not leave off the total number on purpose. I assumed everyone knew that 4R + 4D + 3 vacancies = 11 Seats on the court.”

              My reason for explicitly bringing this up was in response to any argument of ‘court-packing’. That is NOT what is happening here. Obama had nominated 3 judges months ago. All of whom are qualified (1 of whom even served in the Bush administration). All of whom cannot get a vote.

              “Seems to me the R’s have a losing record when it comes to their appointees toeing the ideological line when compared to the D’s appointments.”

              That’s because as people age, they get WISER! 🙂

              On your other points, I am 100% ok with political appointments for judges. Perhaps there should be some acknowledgement of minimum qualifications for the job though? If the appointee meets the minimum qualifications, they get an up or down vote. If not, filibuster. Something along those lines could perhaps work. I’ll give it some more thought.

        • You’re right JAC..I was thinking short term, what can happen between now and 2016,,Obama has the votes in the Senate so he can flood the landscape with liberal judges. ..Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Sebeilius ………. 🙂 🙂

  31. @ Buck……..counselor…..you and I both know that the ” Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ” filibuster is DOA…..makes for great movies.

    Ok, sir, you and I will have to sit back and watch…..this, and I know you understand this, has nothing to do with the “justifications” for judicial appointments….and we both know that this senate vote will extend far past that.

    But for what it is worth, I like it. A simple majority rules the roost. The precedent is set. Legislation is next and I like that……..a simple majority rules.

    • I’m not a mathematician but I do not think that 51% of the Congressional seats represents a majority of the people’s voices. 60 might not either but it comes a lot closer.

  32. This move in the Senate gives us a great weapon against Wendy Davis in Texas…..we love it.

  33. @ Mathius

    I used to like to walk the straight and narrow line
    I used to think that everything was fine
    Sometimes Id like to sit and gaze for days through sleepless dreams
    All alone and trapped in time
    All alone and trapped in time
    I wonder what tomorrow has in mind for me
    Or am I even in its mind at all
    Perhaps Ill get a chance to look ahead and see
    Soon as I find myself a crystal ball
    Soon as I find myself a crystal ball
    Tell me, tell me where Im going
    I dont know where Ive been
    Tell me, tell me, wont you tell me
    And then tell me again
    My heart is breaking, my bodys aching
    And I dont know where to go
    Tell me, tell me, wont you tell me
    Ive just got to know
    Crystal ball
    Theres so many things I need to know
    Crystal ball
    Theres so many things Ive got to know
    Crystal ball
    If you should see me walking
    Through your dreams at night
    Would you please direct me
    Where I ought to be
    Ive been looking for a crystal ball
    To shed the light
    To find a future in me…
    To find a future in me…
    Crystal ball
    Theres so many things I need to know
    Crystal ball
    Theres so many things Ive got to know
    Crystal ball

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Since we were bathing ourselves in Democratic Party hypocrisy and ironies this morning I wanted to add one more.

    One of the Senators yesterday gathered several Black members behind him to make the point that the filibuster had been used in the past to stop legislation that would have supposedly stopped lynching and Jim Crow laws.

    Paraphrasing one comment from the group, “before you today are those people who have suffered directly from the use of filibuster”.

    The IRONY????

    It was members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY who used the filibuster to stop those laws from passing.

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    You identify the sickness of our current system:

    Buck says:

    November 22, 2013 at 12:16 pm (Edit)

    Of course its about gaining advantage — that’s kind of the whole purpose of winning an election.

    But right now, given the make-up of the DC Circuit, it is nowhere near balanced.”


    I always remember a high powered political operative telling a room full of industry executives that “To the winner goes the spoils”. The rest of the message was that if they wanted to prevent further losses they had better get more ACTIVE in the future. In short, pony up WAY MORE MONEY.

    This goes to the heart of our problems with Partisan politics and the Corporatist or Fascist problems in our Govt.

    If it is truly “to the victor” then it does become about “winning” and then it becomes about “winning at all costs”, and on and on.

    We need to find a better way to do business. Otherwise we will continue to be whipsawed by those fighting to get hold of the STICK. Each wanting to beat the other, and both forgetting who started the whole thing.

    • It’s not a sickness (though sure, taken to the extreme, I would agree with you). One of the major advantages of being elected President is the ability to make judicial appointments. This has always been the case. And of course a President is going to appoint like-minded folk to the bench, jurists who possess a similar legal/political philosophy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If you look at history prior to 1900, there were many different Presidents and many more judicial appointments. Yet the broader constitutional issues before those courts did not change all that much.

        So I disagree with the notion that this attitude has always prevailed. I think it begins with the Progressive changes in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

        This is when more activist judiciary arrives. Thus making the “who sits in the White House” ever more important to those aligned within the party power structure.

        I do think that some of this was inevitable as any society is going to eventually show its divisions within its politics. One reason we should have LIMITED the Govts power over us.

        If you don’t want to get hit with a stick, they you should remove the stick. It is much easier than removing all the other people.

  36. I’ve been thinking about this since I went to bed last night-I think all the discussions about how this affects courts and talks on filibusters and all that are important-BUT-. Not always understanding how all this works I was under the FALSE IDEA that they AT LEAST actually voted to change the filibuster law, but now know that isn’t what they did. Members of congress stood up as a group and just straight up lied. Not a lie that we can argue isn’t a lie because some people interpret this law this way and the other thinks it means something else BUT A STRAIGHT UP LIE. A LIE A CHILD WOULD KNOW WAS WRONG. THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS HAVE SHOWN THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CHARACTER-NONE AND THIS IS WHAT WE AS A PEOPLE SHOULD AGREE ON AS A PEOPLE. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF WE HAVE TO STOP NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE ISLE DOES IT.

    My God, I have lived my life thinking we actually had the rule of law-turns out we don’t-they have twisted and rapped it so much it should sicken everyone of us.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Well said my dear Lady. Well said.

      A great big 5 smileys for that one.

      🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Vh, I almost think you’re my sister, because I was thinking the same thing. let me expand on your words. When judges rule based on political ideology, the rule of law is lost. It is not hard to read and understand the constitution. It is very clearly written and it’s intent was to SUPPRESS government interference on the people. This has been going on in courts for a long time. If you find yourself wrongly accused of a crime (as I have once been) you had better know what the politics of the judge are, or you already lost. This is not what our country should be, for any of us.

      Looking at politicians in general. They are supposed to represent those who voted for them. However, more and more, they represent their political ideology, not the people. We have lost all 3 braches of govt allowed by the Constitution, they no longer follow the intent of what our countries most important law says. It is only going to get worse for everyone. Nobody will be safe from the political decisions that only support an ideology. Even if you agree with one political decision, there will be just as many you will suffer from. That’s not what our govt should be.

      I hope this further explains why I have removed my consent to be governed by this corrupt syndicate we call the Federal govt. I’m not doing it quietly, I tell everyone who will listen 🙂 For the record, I was found innocent of the false charges against me and the Liberal black cop who did it got a month off without pay 🙂 I not only proved my innocence in a trial, but got him to prove he was a racist. All these idiots playing the race card don’t even know what one really is, unless his name is Archie Bunker 🙂

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    For those wondering WHY the D.C. circuit is being raised as the battle flag, here is a summary that explains why the D.C. Circuit is “different” and “important”.

    Special notes: This is the only Circuit where there is NO District court to here the case first. It handles most of the Federal Agency cases. Appointments are not subject to Committee obstruction, blue slips, making filibuster the ONLY means of delaying or stopping appointments to this circuit. Now you see why this Court was used as the “reason for the need” to change the rule.

    Another note on the R vs. D fight: The R’s have been trying to REDUCE the size of the court due to lower work load. I think some D’s agreed. The court was reduced by one seat not long ago.

    Here is the clip from Wiki:

    United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

    Not to be confused with United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

    United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, Washington, D.C.

    Established February 9, 1893

    Chief judge
    Merrick B. Garland

    Active judges

    Senior judges

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (in case citations, D.C. Cir.) known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a discretionary basis by the Supreme Court. It should not be confused with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is limited in jurisdiction by subject matter rather than geography, or with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is roughly equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia, established in 1970 to relieve the D.C. Circuit from having to take appeals from the local D.C. trial court.

    While it has the smallest geographic jurisdiction of any of the United States courts of appeals, the D.C. Circuit, with eleven active judgeships, is arguably the most important inferior appellate court. The court is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rulemaking of many federal independent agencies of the United States government based in the national capital, often without prior hearing by a district court. Aside from the agencies whose statutes explicitly direct review by the D.C. Circuit, the court typically hears cases from other agencies under the more general jurisdiction granted to the Courts of Appeals under the Administrative Procedure Act. Given the broad areas over which federal agencies have power, this often gives the judges of the D.C. Circuit a central role in affecting national U.S. policy and law.[1]

    A judgeship on the D.C. Circuit is often thought of as a stepping-stone for appointment to the Supreme Court. As of January 2013, four of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are alumni of the D.C. Circuit:Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan was nominated to the same seat that Roberts would later fill by Bill Clinton, but was never given a vote in the Senate. In addition, the Reagan Administration put forth two failed nominees in 1987 from the D.C. Circuit: former Judge Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and former (2001–2008) Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg (no relation to Ruth Bader Ginsburg), who withdrew his nomination after it became known that he had used marijuana as a college student and professor in the 1960s and 1970s. Before the 1980s, Chief Justices Fred M. Vinson and Warren Burger, as well as Associate Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge, served on the D.C. Circuit before their elevations to the Supreme Court.

    Unlike the Courts of Appeals for the other geographical districts where home-state senators have the privilege of holding up confirmation by the “blue slip” process, because the D.C. Circuit does not represent any state, confirmation of nominees is often procedurally and practically easier. However, in recent years, several nominees were stalled and some were ultimately not confirmed because senators claimed that the court had become larger than necessary to handle its caseload. The court has a history of reversing the Federal Communications Commission’s major policy actions.[2]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit meets at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, near Judiciary Square in downtown Washington, D.C.

    From 1984 to 2009, there were twelve seats on the D.C. Circuit. One of those seats was eliminated by the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 on January 7, 2008, with immediate effect, leaving the number of authorized judgeships at eleven. (The eliminated judgeship was instead assigned to the Ninth Circuit, with the assignment taking effect on January 21, 2009).

    The D.C. Circuit is the only U.S. Court of Appeals that publishes its cases in its own official reporter.[citation needed] All decisions of the other U.S. Courts of Appeals are published only in the Federal Reporter, an unofficial reporter from Thomson West.

    • “…not confirmed because senators claimed that the court had become larger than necessary to handle its caseload.”

      Key word: CLAIMED. These are the same senators that happily voted to appoint Bush’s nominees to the court.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The seat was eliminated in 2007 legislation and took effect in Jan 2008. Bush was PRESIDENT still.

        Yes, they claimed it was over staffed then and the number of seats were reduced by ONE>

        They still claim it is over staffed. So what Bush appointees were confirmed AFTER they reduced the number of seats??

        Seems to me your are confusing separate issues.

        Filling a number of seats does not preclude you from concluding that other seats are in excess. Or that even some of those you fill today are in excess.

        • Come on JAC, you know full well that its all political. If there was a Republican president these same senators would be arguing that the seats need to be fulfilled and chastising the Dems for holding up confirmations.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I would agree if not for the fact that these Senators were arguing for reducing the size of the Court before these three seats came up for appointment.

            So I am not convinced of your argument.

            Now, would some of the R’s make that claim? Most likely.

            I have never said they are immune to fallacy, contradiction or hypocrisy. Nor are they immune to lying or cheating. I just think they are held more accountable by their voters for the “lying” thingy.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    I have not found “how” the circuit chooses the panels but I did find the rules on en banc hearings. This is consistent with my experience with the Ninth Circuit.

    Rule 35. En Banc Determination
    (a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are
    in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be
    heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and
    ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
    (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
    (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
    (b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en
    (1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
    (A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court
    to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the
    full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
    (B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must
    be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of
    exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative
    decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.
    (2) Except by the court’s permission, a petition for an en banc hearing or rehearing must not exceed
    15 pages, excluding material not counted under Rule 32.
    (3) For purposes of the page limit in Rule 35(b)(2), if a party files both a petition for panel rehearing
    and a petition for rehearing en banc, they are considered a single document even if they are filed
    separately, unless separate filing is required by local rule.

    Based on this I am now wondering if the THREE judge panel is the ASSUMED STANDARD for all Circuits and a majority is then needed to require En Banc review! Call one of your court related legal friends and find out where we can find the “rule” regarding “panels”.

    It might be faster than me trying to find it on the google machine.

  39. Mathius™ says:

    Some perspective on that nuclear option.. just sayin’..

    • Glad someone got around to posting that chart.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      This goes to my comment earlier to Buck.

      Reid is a propagandist.

      This graph is only important if you ignore two things:

      1. How many were resolved and the appointment made. Reid counts all filibusters, regardless of reason or outcome.

      2. What was the NATURE of the filibuster. Again, he includes ALL. Even those issued on some very personal/state issues.

      We should NEVER use any evidence presented by ANY politician as any kind of evidence of what they claim it is proving. This should be one of your universal laws.

    • Gentlemen…..everyone is over looking a very important issue. It is not about appointees….it is what this will entail AFTER appointees. I will promise you……the Dems will use this in the legislative agenda before 2014 elections….and somehow that is ok with ya’ll.

      And, JAC, you are quite correct……just before the 2014 elections, Reid will see the light…..and magically restore the 60 votes. I just hope the Repubs have learned how to eat their young before then.

  40. Canine Weapon says:
  41. Mathius™ says:

    Wall Street Journal, 2005:
    Which brings us to the proposed change in Senate precedents that Democrats call the “nuclear option” to make it sound radical. If the Democrats filibuster again, Mr. Frist would ask for a ruling from the presiding officer that under Senate Rule XXII only a simple majority vote is required to end debate on judicial nominations. Assuming 51 Senators concur, the Senate would then proceed to an up-or-down floor vote on the nominee.

    What this should really be called is the “majority-vote advice-and-consent” option. The aim is to restore the Founders’ intent when they gave the Senate the responsibility of confirming or rejecting a President’s judicial picks. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote and says nothing about a super-majority of 60 being needed to stop a filibuster.

    Wall Street Journal, 2013:
    “Today’s Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. […] They view the minority as an inconvenience to be rolled.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The difference between 05 and 13? The Repubs didn’t do it. Would you say after hearing the comments made by Obama, Ried ect in 05 makes them clear hypocrits? I know I do 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        Would you say after hearing the comments made by Obama, Ried ect in 05 makes them clear hypocrits?


        Would you say that, having backed down or not, the comments made by the Red Shirts et al in 2005 and 2013 make them hypocrites as well?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, with the exception that the reds only threatened it, they did not carry it out. For the record, I think both sides are corrupt to the core. Right now, the Left is in control (I can’t stand Obama, I think he’s a lying weasel), so they get my Ire. When the Right is in charge, then I’m sure I will dislike them equally. Corruption don’t carry a political moniker, their all in on it together, that’s why Obamacare will NEVER be repealed. 🙂 PEACE!

        • Yup

      • Similar to Nixon wanting to use the IRS against his enemies and the current administration actually doing it. Jimmy Carter was the fool who first equated “lust in the heart” with actually cheating on your wife. I never have. Seems to me, wanting to do something is not the same as doing it.

        Buck and Matt I believe are in the carter camp.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And those Dems who said hell no in 05 are now using the same crappy argument the WSJ presented in 05.

      Funny how that works isn’t it?

      So tell us Mathius.

      You condoning this Crap Weasel behavior?

      Seems to me everyone here has agreed it is BAD behavior by BOTH SIDES.

      So why are you posting the Dem Party arguments?

      • Mathius™ says:

        And those Dems who said hell no in 05 are now using the same crappy argument the WSJ presented in 05.

        Funny how that works isn’t it?

        Funny, indeed.

        You condoning this Crap Weasel behavior?

        I condone nothing.

        I call a spade a spade. This is sheer hypocrisy.

        Seems to me everyone here has agreed it is BAD behavior by BOTH SIDES.

        So why are you posting the Dem Party arguments?

        Because I don’t seem to be seeing the “both sides” from anyone other than Buck and myself. I see people blasting the left for (A) wrongful action (ie, exercising the nuclear option and (B) hypocrisy over it. But I see no one other than Buck and myself (perhaps I just missed it? Feel free to point it out to me and I will, of course, retract) talking about what the Red Shirts did in ’05 other than a hand-waving over the fact that “yea, but they didn’t go through with it.”

        Also, no one here seems to be talking about the fact that the Red Shirts have blocked more of Obama’s nominees the every single filibuster in history by either party.. combined.. and then some. So that, perhaps, the Blue Shirts do have a leg to stand on when they assert that the filibuster is being grossly misused.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I do think you have missed several comments today about how Reid’s actions are unacceptable no matter which party does it. And that there is hypocrisy to go around. Just look at V.H.’s comment about this essentially being a LIE. I think it was last night that I pointed out some Republicans had used the same procedural gimmick to get some rule changed before. However, not the filibuster rule.

          The Blue shirts have a valid complaint about how the filibuster is being used. However, that is not justification in my view to play crap weasel games with the rules to address the problem. So Reid is not only a hypocrite but a weasel as well.

          However, you need to recheck the historical record. While the number of times is greater now, the change from substance to frivolous started with the Blue shirts. At least in my memory. People like Mr. Schumer in particular.

          In fact it probably starts with the Dems torpedoing the Bork appointment. Seems to me things have never been the same after that.

          What we have witnessed with the appointments filibusters is a constantly escalating war. Neither side has been smart enough to stop it. Instead they choose to escalate it while always blaming the other guy for the “last time”. In fact I think I made a comment here once that it is similar to the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict in this regard.

          Now as I asked Buck this morning.

          What is the proper role if any of a filibuster?

          I think it should exist within the Senate. And if it exists then it matters not who uses it or how often. If I view the POTUS’s candidates for judge to be biased to the Progressive side I should be able to filibuster their appointment. It is my only recourse to getting some moderation.

          The problem is when I am unwilling to compromise on even a truly moderate appointment just because THIS Potus made the nomination. That is wrong and not very Statesman like.

          But that is where we are in politics. And don’t fool yourself if you don’t think the hard left in the Dem party don’t plan on doing the same thing if faced with a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in the White House.

          Almost forgot. While I completely agree with the filibuster and think it should require 60 or more votes to halt, I also think it should be real and require ACTUAL speaking on the floor.

          More than one person should be allowed to carry it forward, and the first to rise should be allowed to leave for bathroom breaks. Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden by the Constitution, after all.

          When the floor is occupied no other business is transacted. This provided motivation for the body to listen and try to reach compromise with the minority. If the issue is to divisive then eventually those speaking will have to yield, as they will collapse from exhaustion.

          Part of our current problem in Congress is that members no longer have to LISTEN to debate from fellow members. The floor is supposed to be where arguments happen and minds are swayed, if possible. Instead it has become a TV show, with few in the room.

          Sorry, got off track a little. Just a little though. You can see how it all relates.

  42. You are correct, VH. This is just the start.

    “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”


  43. Just A Citizen says:


    Since you posted Reid’s rationalization chart I have a question.

    Why do you think they called it the Nuclear Option??

    No peeking………… what do you remember off the top of your head?

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    I’m listening to a live radio show from Dallas Texas. It’s all on film and I’ll link it when it comes available. There are some folks having a rally for the 1st Amendment. Being peaceful, they waited till the official events were over before they were allowed into some building. They were just talking, nothing violent, and then were basically attacked by the Sherriff’s dept deputies (apparently on the orders of the DHS). The Dallas police were even flabbergasted by this. More to come, including lawsuits, LOL.

    Folks, this is what is happening to our rights. The “militarized” police should be of grave concern to everyone. More to come 👿

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Update, Deputies removed badge numbers (Velcro on black uniforms). Film review confirms these cops were speaking to DHS prior to engagement. There was no provocation for the attack, as the films will show. More to come 👿

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Best answer I heard today to the idiotic question of “how would the world have been different if JFK were not killed”? From an “actual” historian. Again….a paraphrased quote by me.

    “I don’t think JFK would be as popular as he is today. His popularity is largely due to dying young and before he had to make some hard choices that would come later. His infidelity would have finally become public and that would have hurt him at the time.”

    This I heard on an HuffPo live broadcast for those who wish to seek it out. The topic was What the world would be like if JFK had lived.

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    Knockout game turns deadly : 60 Year Old Woman Shoots and Kills 2 Teens After Being Punched

    Police are still trying to piece together the events of Monday night after a woman was attacked and then fired shots into the crowd of teens that assulted her.

    Beulah Montgomery, who just turned 60 yesterday, says she was walking home after purchasing lottery tickets when she says a group of teens, 7 of them, approached her. Montgomery initally thought they were going to attempt to steal her purse but says she was instead hit by one of the individuals as a second attempted to hit her. That’s when she grabbed her gun.

    “All I could feel was pain and I said to myself I had made it to 60 and I wanted to atl east see 61,” she recalled. “Then I started praying and I asked the Lord to guide my hands” Montgomery says she then reached into her purse and and shot in the direction of the teens and they started to flee. However two of them didn’t make without being hit.

    Beulah who is a member of her local neighborhood watch said she has always carried a gun after being mugged once before. “Its a shame you can’t walk through your own neighborhood where you are supposed to feel safe without being assulted and mistreated,” she continues. “I purchased the gun hoping I would never have to use it, but I’m glad to still be in the land of the living.”

    The same cannot be said for her two victims, Montgomery fired 5 times hitting one of the teens in the chest and the other in the stomach. Because of their age police are not releasing the names at this time, but are saying the teens died as a result of the gun shot wounds. Police are still looking for the others teens who were apart of the group. Witnesses say they ran off after the gun shots were fired.

  47. Just out on CBS news..from the CBO….108,513,000 employer based health plans to be cancelled because of the ACA…..that is one hundred eight million five hundred thirteen estimated health plans the CBO expects to be cancelled. The number of employees were not mentioned. The CBO estimates that by March 31, 2014, there will be 101,000,000 that will be without health insurance because of affordability and/or opting out and paying the penalty.

    It was further stated that major colleges will begin dropping semester insurance in droves.

    Mount Sinai hospital has decided to not participate in Obama Care and it is feared that this will lead other major hospitals to not participate.

    The hits keep on coming.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    One more hypocrisy by the Dems in this filibuster argument.

    Reid last night, and others, were trying to make the argument that the Constitution did not allow congress to require more than a majority vote because it specifically includes other items where a 2/3 majority is required.

    OK then, the Constitution contains ZERO mention of the Congress having authority to implement a national Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamp, CHIP or ACA program. Therefore these programs are NOT allowed by the Constitution.

    Now lets wait to see how long before the Republicans take the “living document” argument to extremes JUST TO OPPOSE this logic by Harry Reid.

    There is hardly an honorable person among the entire group. If I believed in the greater good I could easily rationalize hanging them all en masse. The loss of a few good men and women would be a small price for the good of the order. 😉

  49. America has gone from government of laws to semi-political banana republic

    By Patrick Caddell
    Published November 21, 2013

    The rule of law has been replaced in Washington by “yes we can.” The events we witnessed Thursday in the Senate, that is Majority Leader Harry Reid’s success at invoking the so-called ‘nuclear option,’ stripping the minority party of its primary power to block nominations, have become a stunning capstone to what has been already a steady erosion of a government of laws down to a sort of semi-political banana republic.

    We are now living in a republic in which politicians do what they want without regard to tradition or the best interests of our country.

    The rule of more than 200 years since the Senate was formed, as described by James Madison, to be “…the saucer of the hot cup of the House” has been overthrown.

    We are now living in a republic in which politicians do what they want without regard to tradition or the best interests of our country.

    The role of the Senate is to be a deliberative body. The rule of filibuster was overthrown Thursday by a change in the rules. It’s a change which could never have even been conceived of before in our history, even in those periods when we’ve had total one party rule.

    However, let me state for the record that when the Republicans tried the “nuclear option” I was as outraged then as I am now.

    It was as wrong then as it was today in Washington.

    It’s depressing to see the people who put their party registration ahead of their responsibilities as American leaders.

    Then, Democrats where screaming like stuck pigs. Yet many of those same representatives supported the nuclear option Thursday.

    But this is not a short term, temporary political matter. This is not just about the upsetting of short term political rules. It’s much bigger and should be upsettting to any America who puts their country ahead of their party.

    For some time now we have been living in a period where a government operating on this slippery slope has been evident.

    Consider in recent months, the reports, which are yet unproven but appear look serious about the possible tampering with official unemployment numbers.

    In the past, even when the unemployment numbers have been gathered — and not always without error — the mere thought and the appearance that they were not published in good faith or tainted by politics never entered into the discussion.

    The process of picking the numbers is sacrosanct. The possibility that politics influenced official employment figures strikes at the very core credibility of government. It means that government is now being turned into a mere servant of politics.

    This is most troubling because for the first time we cannot dismiss the possibility of this out of hand. Such an issue, even the suspicion, goes to the very core of the credibility in the people’s government.

    The most recent and jarring example is the Affordable Care Act where the president has, despite the actual language of the law, assumed powers to exempt people, to change the meaning of the law. Of actual legislative statue.

    In a way that is stunning. Indeed, the most egregious was the Democratic and Republican leaders coming together to agree to ignore the language in the Affordable Care Act legislation and grant themselves and their staffs a special subsidy. Sadly, this is something very few people have bothered to speak out against.

    The slippery slide into semi-banana republicanism was not just a problem with President Obama.

    You could see this disturbing trend emerge in the presidency of George W. Bush. And it has only accelerated from there.

    For example, President Bush’s claim, on signing statements, that he had the right to not enforce some of the things that were included in the law. That he believed he could designate parts of the law he had just signed as something he was not required to enforce.

    Barack Obama campaigned against this in 2008 but since ascending to the presidency he has only expanded the process.

    President Bush in his administration claimed “presidential prerogatives” that were never heretofore known in the areas of national security and in war powers.

    It was a Republican administration and a Republican Congress that passed the Medicare Part D provision by illegally holding the vote in the House open for four and a half hours while the White House threatened and wheedled members of Congress into voting for it.

    And of course it was a Republican-led Senate, supported by a Republican president that first threatened to invoke the nuclear option until responsible Republican senators were willing to act for constitutional government, and protectionary institutions and for the nation’s greater good, over a short-term partisan agenda.

    Thursday, only three Democrats were willing to put the institution before this effort
    to achieve a short-term political goal.

    That, my friends, this is the very definition of a slippery slope.

    Surprisingly the outrage from the Republicans has been somewhat muted to say the least.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has complained that this event today was merely to distract attention from ObamaCare.


    I have had conversations today with at least two conservatives who have said, “so what? It will work for us next time, as soon as we take the Senate back.” And I doubt that those sentiments that were expressed are unique only to me.

    What is missing, the dog that is not barking here, is that the Senate Republicans have not been willing to bring the body to a screaming halt to stop this institutional crime against a government of rules. And they could.

    First of all, the Senate, by it’s own rules, has a specific way of operating. There are many, many things, mundane things every day that occur only by “unanimous consent.” The dissent of one senator can often delay the workings of the Senate.

    Imagine what would happen if 45 or 48 Senators decide that they will agree to nothing in the face of this.

    But they don’t.

    Imagine if every bill and every proposal in front of the Senate were filibustered on principle and that it required an effort to constitutionally over it?

    Is not preserving representative government important enough?

    Should not this effort, this coup d’état not be greeted with an attitude of “wait till we get there” but with a genuine outrage of men and women of principle?

    We are in grave danger.

    Tuesday we honored the 150th anniversary of government of the people, by the people and for the people when we remembered Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

    Now, just two days later, we are reminded just how grave the danger to that concept exists by members of a political class and their apologists in the maninstream media who will put political interests before the good of the United States of America.

    What is astounding is the large degree and matter of fact complacency about this institutional act of coup de etat.

    American self-government is under threat. And the American people no doubt know it. And something must happen.

    This is why an undeclared war now exists between the mainstream of American and the established political class of both parties.

    I feel, without question, that there will soon be open warfare between the great vast majority of the American people and this self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing ruling class that is willing to put their ambitions and power above a government of the American people.


  50. gmanfortruth says:

    The sheeple are in the pen and the gate is closed. Soon it will be locked if the sheeple don’t pull their heads out of the ass’s. Then it’s over, the people are now the RULED. Bow to your masters 🙄

  51. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/22/krauthammer-filibuster-change-turned-all-republicans-sicilians

    They’re laughing so it must be funny-Would anyone care to explain the joke to me?

%d bloggers like this: