Changing the Legacy

thAs we all know by now, Obama’s approval ratings are at an all time low.  This is a very bad thing for many reasons.  Obama is an ego maniac who demands people like him.  He’s a narcissist.  He is power drunk and really likes spending other peoples money.  He likens himself to a King, thinking he can just rule with his fancy ink pen.  For Americans, he is the most dangerous man in the United States today.  Why, you ask?  Because his legacy is in the gutter and people like him can’t allow that to continue.  He is called a spineless cowards when it comes to foreign policy and his domestic policy is a complete disaster.  He has only accomplished making matters worse for many Americans.   With 3 years to go in his Presidency. a difficult mid-term election coming up and his ratings not having much of a chance of improving, what will The Liar N Chief do to improve his legacy?



  1. 😎

  2. plainlyspoken says:

    Sorry, didn’t realize a new thread was up and running. 🙂

  3. Plainly, I am not sure what I think of Islam these days. There more I see, the more I dislike it. I figure if it don’t affect me, I’m not going to affect it, so to speak. I’ll call this the “Leave Alone Policy” . Now, let’s go back in time and change some laws, say back to 1980, after the Iran hostage situation ended. The government, in all there wisdom, decide to expel all foreign born Muslims from US soil. Only diplomats would be allowed to reside in the US while performing their duties. Let’s say the law stayed in effect and still is today, how many US lives would have been saved? Disclaimer: I’m not suggesting this, only brought it up for the purpose of discussion, which may include other issues. 🙂

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Not necessarily a single one Gman. It wouldn’t have stopped the WTC attacks necessarily. The attackers would have just flown under some different false flag. Besides, how do you look at someone from that area and know whether or not they are a Muslim? It’s like looking at an American and determining if they are a Christian.

      Plus, any law like that would have just continued to show America’s prejudice as it has traditionally throughout the country’s history as we decided who should be restricted and who shouldn’t. Chinese, Irish, Mexican……and on and on.

      • Ah, but if no Muslims are allowed in, the hijackers wouldn’t have been here. They needed passports to enter, that could have been a game changer. What others thought about the law is irrelevant.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Guess I am missing something? Since when do passports show your religious (if any) preferences? Or are you just excluding anyone from a Muslim religious country? Why not just say “Sorry,we’re closed. Entry prohibited to all”?

          Plus, don’t you think bin Laden, through his support network, could have arranged passports for the men sent to attack the WTC that would not be suspect?

          No G, your “restriction” law you postulated for discussion would be a failure.

          • Just trying to find a possible solution. Yes, all people from Primarily Muslim countries would be barred (keep in mind, this would be played off as a temporary issue). There next option would be to hijack a plane coming from Europe, would it not? At least the simplest.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Well, it’s no solution I’d ever want to see and certainly would never support. It’s pure discrimination, whether a temporary “law” or not. Heck we didn’t keep all Germans and Italians out during WW2, nor did we exclude all Koreans (Korean War), nor all Vietnamese (Vietnam War), nor do we exclude all Afghani’s in our current war.

              And don’t even point at the Japanese and what we did to them (even those who were Americans) during WW2. That was wrong then, it would be wrong now and should NEVER have been allowed by the Supreme Court.

              • I would not support something like that either, so that idea is off the table. Since 9-11, we’ve lost lots of lives and sustained thousands of injuries. This as a result of Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden and WMD’s that didn’t exist. Now, the problems in Iraq are probably worse now than then, which means based on history, we will have to go back to crush the little terrorist’s that have made home of the place. We are still in Afghanistan, guarding the Poppy fields. Can we even pretend to stop terrorists without turning the US into a much worse police state?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                The current problems in Iraq are not ours to deal with either. They need to deal with their own problems and not even so much as glance our way for help.

                We had no business being there the first time and shouldn’t compound that mistake a second time around.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Didn’t one of the flight schools that these guys were taking classes at drop a dime to the FBI saying there were students there that had NO interest in landing a plane? not just once but several times. At all times ignored by the FEDs

  4. plainlyspoken says:


    Yep, guess it is true. Here is a link to a Denver Post article on the subject:

    As Forrest Gump would say, “stupid is as stupid does.”

    G – careful, they may not be liberals. Notice how this is structured on traditional marriage? Civil Unions are exempt (and I would suppose common-law marriages would be too since no ceremony or license of any kind is necessary). The founders could very well be traditional conservatives.

    • Somehow I doubt Conservatives would come up with this, unless it’s to undermine gay marriages and make it harder. But I agree, pretty stupid. Just go over State lines and get married, problem solved.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I don’t doubt that at all. Conservatives would. They are no better than liberals really.

        • I’ll stick with Liberal’s, they think they know what’s best for other people.

        • Plainly,

          Always remember what I learned way back in “65 in the Bill Buckley for Mayor campaign. There are traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. That distinction DOES matter. The arguments today within the Republican party are offshoots of this. The most interesting thing on the news up here in the last few days for me is the endorsement of Mussolini Cuomo by former Republican (conservative) Senator Alfonse Damato.

          Senator Damato was referred to in NY as Sen. Pothole because he had a wonderful constituent service record. Elected three times as a conservative in the final term he turned sharply left. In my opinion, the left made a conscious effort to recruit him. He was wined, dined and shown just how wonderful things could be if he became “reasonable”. Unlike Christ whom the devil took up on the mountain. Damato said yes. He was easily defeated in his fourth run by Chuck Schumer again verifying the Trynosky Political Theorum (TPT) that people will not vote for Democrat light.

          If you stand for something that people may disagree with they will support you because they perceive you as dedicated and honest. Waffle and your are toast (breakfast analogy). I think Reagan, Guilliani and Christie prove my point rather nicely.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Like James Jeffords from VT and Arlen Spector from PA. Jeffords replacement was Bernie Sanders a dedicated socialist, but totally principled and never wavering from his views.

            • Agree about Sanders. I think Specter suffered from the Damato thing. He was there too damn long and started believing his own propaganda. The thing that annoyed me about him was that Santorum really campaigned hard for him when he faced a serious challenge. When Santorum needed him a few years later, he was nowhere to be found. I think Rick is a principled guy but was overly loyal to the party and President. When Bush, Cheny and Rumsfeld came under fire, he kept defending them and by then the obviously mistaken Iraq policy. It cost him his seat. To beat him, the democrats had to actually do something they had not done since ’76 in the Jim Buckley – Moynihan race in NY. They had to pick Casey, a pro lifer, to suck solid votes away from Santorum. Even with his falling popularity, PA would not have elected an ultra liberal democrat.

  5. SK

    re your Cuomo comment on the previous page.

    Yyyyyyeah. How does that work considering he’s Catholic? He better be worried how many more he just ran out of that state. Some mood music from the Stones makes sense here:

    “Don’t you know the crime rate is going up, up, up, up, up,
    To live in this town you must be tough, tough, tough, tough, tough!
    You got rats on the west side
    bed bugs uptown
    What a mess this town’s in tatters I’ve been shattered
    My brain’s been battered – splattered – all over Manhattan.”

    • Catholic by birth. Meanwhile back at the ranch he is divorced from Kerry Kennedy and living with his girlfriend and daughters sometimes in the executive mansion. I doubt he has any real affinity for God or his Church. He is a grad of Archbishop Molloy High School and Fordham University too. Guess the religion classes didn’t take.

  6. Drop and run! Hi to all – been busy but will try to catch up later.

    It’s now Climate Justice according to this Professor of Peace Studies:

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Changing the Legacy……………….My Prediction.

    The goings on in the world will be what they will be, regardless of Obama’s popularity, or Obama himself.

    Pretty much the same for Domestic policy, except he WILL try using that PEN of his just to shore up the hard core Progressive wing of the party for the next POTUS candidate.

    Here is what is going to change. All that RHETORIC about “The Great Intellectual Leader of the New Age, the Messiah”, will be replaced with “HE WAS THE JACKIE ROBINSON OF AMERICAN POLITICS”.

    He had to sacrifice much of his goals and dreams just to allow the TRANSITION of a WHITE AMERICA to a place where BLACKS can be accepted in the White House.

    Black men will be able to run for POTUS in the future and not have to live with the stigma that poor Mr. Obama had to suffer. Because after all, it was a simple fact that some people didn’t like him simply because they could not fathom nor tolerate a Black Man in the White House.

    As for that PEN. His use of that method will be targeted to those things which the Democrats party can use to beat up on Republicans next year and again in 2016. Those things that deal with “compassion” and “harming people”. Like extending Unemployment, health care, food stamps, etc, etc. He will also have to make some moves to make it look like the Dems ACTUALLY give a shit about the degradation in the Urban areas where Black folks are concentrated. His legacy will depend on passing the “Black Vote” to future Democrats. If he does not then the HISTORIANS in academia will be writing him out of the history books.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      “to make it look like the Dems ACTUALLY give a shit about the degradation in the Urban areas where Black folks are concentrated.

      They only “care” when it comes to lining up votes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Largely. But I still cannot forget what a Democratic Party leader told me in the 70’s.

        “Welfare is a small cost to pay for keeping those poor folks in the cities. ”

        In other words, trapped in the city so they won’t migrate to the “burbs” and bother the middle class White Folks……………that is MY paraphrasing. The above was pretty much his words.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Nothing other than a form of oppression. My how the high-valued principles are overlooked. I agree with your paraphrasing. No matter how “equal” they are – keep em down and away from us mentality still rules.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    JAC, I’ll respond on this new thread.

    Very good summary of the conundrum we face due to our bankrupt foreign policy over the past 150 plus years.

    Thank you. I appreciate the compliment.

    While many claim the Shah being allowed into the US was the “reason” for the takeover of the embassy it is not “exactly” true. It caused demonstrations which were called for by Kohemini. But it turns out the occupation had been planned BEFORE the Shah was allowed into the US. Obviously the agitators did use the event to fan the flames even further.

    Indeed it was planned earlier. That tends to be overlooked however in the “hysteria” of the nation’s reaction of “how dare they!” which is the same kind of reaction (only more heightened) of the country to the WTC attack. Yes, it was much worse, but has the resultant years of war the US conducted in two different countries made Americans feel any better?

    By the way, I didn’t fail to recognize how the others would view our action. I am sure they would be very upset depending on the circumstances. And justifiably so. But as you say, bad people have been exiled or given refuge in a myriad of other counties in history. But such “exiles” are mostly formal in nature and they are cut off from “working their evil”.


    Bin Laden was not cut off and in fact was aligned with the Taliban. So in my view we had justification to take on the Taliban as the “Govt” of Afghanistan. Now that is a bit simplified and I am aware of that.

    Because Afghanistan was not a “normal” Nation State then. It was divided into regions run by traditional tribal/clan groups and their leaders. So this acts against my position to some extent. On the other hand there is little doubt the Taliban were the GOVT in control of the region they claimed, and the area where Bin Laden was given free reign.

    Understood, but a reasonable person should now there is no way we could attack militarily in that specific region and not angered the whole of the country – regardless of who was in charge in the other regions.

    The initial US incursion was more in tune with this reality, and that is why I thought it a good method at the time. If we had the intel. and capacity to hit Bin Laden and Taliban without putting people on the ground it would have been preferred. The next best thing was to simply give support to the OTHER Clans and let them put the Taliban and Bin Laden on the run.

    Either of these two options would have been much more acceptable to me. Hell, even a surgical strike in the vein of the one that actually took out bin Laden would have been more acceptable than a general war, though my problem there is executing him (unless you really believe the intent was to capture him and return him for trial?) and entering the borders of a sovereign nation to do so without the permission of that nation’s government (which could be affirmed after the strike to maintain operational security).

    Now I want to make something very clear in our discussion. I am NOT disagreeing with your view on 9/11 as primarily a “criminal” issue rather than a war issue. I am simply saying that in this case our attack on the Taliban was “justified” per what I consider the proper function of Govt and the use of our military. That being Defense and Retaliation against attack.

    Understood and duly noted.

    Since the Govt has been so good at keeping anything that might enlighten us on the matter most of the what was “the best option” is unknowable at this time.

    I would have and still support your approach as “First Option” in a case like this. But my memory is that we had little ability to execute such an option. We had supposedly been chasing Bin Laden for years via the “criminal prosecution” and “law enforcement” method.

    True JAC, but let me say that one needs to remember that Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (aka Carlos the Jackal) was the most wanted terrorist by European nations for a good 30 years until he was finally captured and turned over to the French in 1994. This nation has expended a lot of it’s service members in the pursuit and death of bin Laden, much more than we lost in the attacks on the WTC. bin Laden may have hidden forever, but considering his known medical issues it might have been a short forever. His death at the hands of US military forces helped solidify his “martyr” status among militant Muslim extremists.

    On the other hand, I question the voracity of our Govt in that effort. Notice how fast we started rolling up bad guys once Congress pumped some more money into CIA budgets.

    The CIA, while far from perfect in it’s operations over the years of it’s existence, is the agency we should have relied on to track bin Laden down (and grabbed him if possible). Of course, it has not helped that the agency has been gutted in different ways and at different times over the 25-30 years leading up to the WTC attacks. Spying is acceptable since every nation on Earth does so, that is just a part of the political world.

    I also wanted to raise the issue so those who read here stop and think about the complexity of the Geo Political scene. And of course what the USA should represent and how it should act within that reality.

    Fair and valid point.

    I say Defense or Retaliation to an attack. But how do we react to attacks that are carried out by Non State third parties, even if supported covertly by Nation States? Do we retaliate against the Nation State in some “equal” manner?

    While the US doesn’t – and shouldn’t -use terrorism directly, are we not willing to support third-party terrorism (such as when we support opposition groups to some government of a nation)?

    My view is leave people alone. But if they attack us we impose so much pain on them it won’t happen again. Chinese hacking into our internet commerce and breaking into Govt systems is a current example. I am not comfortable with the eye for an eye. More like an eye and two arms for an eye.

    I’m all for “leave people alone.” Yet, how do you punish the Chinese more severely for their hacking attacks on the US? How do we achieve that “two arms and an eye” for an eye?

    Oh, and we need to acknowledge to the world that we have been BAD PLAYERS in that our actions have at times been in conflict with our principles. Our apologies should be aimed at the Central American and Caribbean states, however. Not the Middle East. Our monkey business in the ME is minor by comparison. And of course there are differing causes.

    For those that don’t remember, I did not pile on Obama over the “Apology Tour”. I am not confident his motives were pure and maybe his timing was bad. Certainly driven by much Hubris. But we as a nation do have some things to apologize for to the world.

    We certainly do.

    Oh, I forgot to share one thought on Afghanistan. Thought of it while typing but forgot to put it down. What would the PUBLIC reaction have been to Bush II if he has NOT invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and go aver Bin Laden??

    What would the Democrat Party’s rhetoric have been for the four years he was trying to use the “criminal or Law Enforcement” process??

    Imagine the Campaign Rhetoric by John Kerry in the 04 elections, that is if Kerry even won the primary. It might have been a more “Hawkish” democrat, if they have one.

    I believe it would have been the same type of reaction Carter got for standing down and taking no military action in Iran in 1979. But, that would have been – IMHO – the better road to take than the one we’ve gone down.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      My apologies JAC – I messed up on using the italicize tags in some places.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        No worries. I caught on pretty quick.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          JAC and Plainlyspoken……I put a post over in the previous thread you might want to read.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Saw it Dale. I amend my comment accordingly, the British and Soviets originally brought him to power and the USA & British restored him to power in 1953.

            And spent the next 26 years supporting & protecting the Shah’s power.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      One slight disagreement.

      “Understood, but a reasonable person should now there is no way we could attack militarily in that specific region and not angered the whole of the country – regardless of who was in charge in the other regions.”

      Actually there was and that is the way we did it IN THE BEGINNING. It was not until the mission CHANGED that the broader “opposition” began to grow.

      Remember, in the beginning we were simply supporting the OTHER Clans in their effort to get rid of the Taliban, while using our troops to cut off bin Laden’s and Al Quaida’s escape.

      SOMEBODY changed the mission after we got a foothold. That is when it goes to hell.

      As for the part about supporting third party revolutions in other countries, you are correct. It is no different and WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT.

      As for CHINA and its Hacking…… Halt TRADE, kick out their diplomats. Be BOLD.

      OR……………Hack into their banking system and steal back our Debt Notes.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Well, supporting the other clans I can live with, provided it was done without “boots on the ground” as they say. We managed to support opposition groups throughout the years in different countries this way (until recent history) to include the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviets.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Oh, forgto to mention China. Sure kick em out or hack em – that I can live with. If they get hacked then they can find a way to come get the “criminal” responsible if they want. 😉

  9. I do not agree.

    Obama is no different than any of them.

    To single out Obama infers that someone else would “be better”. But one merely needs to review the last 150 years and one finds them all doing the same evil.

    Do not pick on Obama.

    Pick on the concepts that give any man such evil power.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I am with BF on this one. Obama isn’t any different than a Bush, Carter, FDR, etc.

      And yes, it has taken me years (decades) to come to this understanding.

    • I’m not sure what you do not agree on, I really didn’t compare him to anyone. You are correct, he is no different than those in the past and will be no different than those in the future. For now, he gets to make some decisions that could affect all of us. He sucks as a President. He sucks as a man. That’s really not what aiming to prove, just trying to get some opinions on how he is going to try a suck less 😉

      • plainlyspoken says:

        G – do not judge the end, judge the means to that end.

        • My point being is that people like him want to be known as heroes, not as losers. In his sick mind, he will advocate an action that could achieve this, or at least he thinks. The problem is being a hero requires something that is life threatening to others. Just sayin 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I disagree. He is different. And his methods are different, at least from some.

      This does not mean he is significantly different when it comes to Govt control, only the THINGS he wishes to control. And the means he is willing to use to do it.

      It also does not mean that “better” is available. Only that he is a different brand than the others in recent history.

      More along the lines of a Wilson than a Reagan.

      • His methods are not different.

        FDR did the same thing.
        Teddy did the same thing.

        Indeed, an analysis of them all, they did the same thing.

        On the fringe there may be small differences, but at the core, they are the same.

  10. plainlyspoken says:

    From my post to JAC on the other thread I bring out this piece for open discussion here.

    The outcome of Noriega’s capture also begs the argument of the fact that he was captured as a prisoner of war, brought to the US, tried by the federal court system and imprisoned – makes a rethink of Guantanamo and our actions with the prisoners we took in war and how they were/are being handled now. But, that’s a different topic we could go on about.

    Thoughts anyone?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      My thoughts are this, and are the same as when we discussed it a couple years ago regarding torture.

      Geneva Conventions apply. We should NOT have invented a new category. So those captured needed to have a “Hearing”, not a trial, to determine their “STATUS”.

      If designated a POW then they can be held in Guantanamo until the End of the WAR.

      If classified as “spies” they should have been imprisoned, upon trial, or executed.

      Those classified as civilians could be held in “safe areas” until they could be returned to their homeland.

      If we are declaring a WAR and conducting ourselves as if in a WAR then the RULES OF WAR apply.

      If NOT then the RULES of Criminal Prosecution apply. Which means that hearings and TRIALS should have been held by now.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Exactly, so what the administrations of Bush and Obama have done & are doing is criminal..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Yes, although, as I said long ago, it is the “lawyers” who get to define “crime”.

          The term “torture” for example is not as concise in the Conventions as one might think. International “lawyers” are no different than our own. Always leave room for “interpretation” or “gray”. It assures future employment. 😉

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Maybe we could use Guantanamo to house the lawyers instead. 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Thinking…………. hummmmmmmm…… nope.

              Barrow Alaska or Tonopah, Nevada would be much better.

              Those lizards would turn Guantanamo into a country club given the weather down their.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Point taken. So we better use Barrow AK since the lawyers would get along too well with the snakes in Tonopah.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Unfortunately all their hot air will cause more “climate” change and melt the icepack

    • A few montsh ago, my son, heading off to Command and Staff School lent me a monograph written by a French Colonel in 1962 or so. the subject was “new war”, “Wars of National Liberation” and “Guerilla war”. The Colonel was a veteran of Indochina and had fought extensively in Algeria.

      The theme was counter guerilla warfare. A Sub topic was how to treat the guerilla and what his rights were if captured. He used the term guerilla and terriorist interchangeably.

      As I remember it, he made a point that someone going to war and facing soldiers in combat as a combatant is risking his health or his life. When captured he has paid his dues if you will. A guerilla/terrorist on the other hand risks absolutely nothing while acting in that role. He wears no uniform, cannot be identified and slinks back into society after committing his acts. The Colonel’s position based on Algerian experience was that torture could be justified against these terrorists. In effect it is paying their “dues” for being combatants. They risked nothing on the battlefield but after being caught were going to experience some of the things that soldiers do. After the information needed is extracted it was his position that they have earned legal combatant status and should be treated as any other POW.

      Generally speaking I have always resisted the concept of torture but I must admit his points were well taken by me and I have become “open” on the issue at least as far as his proposals.

  11. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: Wendy Davis.

    Follow up from Malkin, including copies of Wendy Davis’ attempt to Twitter her way out of the mess.

    Which provides SUFA with a good example of one kind of Political Strategy. ATTACK when ever you are discovered. Sound familiar???

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    It has been awhile since I read anything that was pretty much “purely” political about the current goings on. Since I decided to not post on HP any longer there is little to tackle.

    But I came across this today and thought I would share it with everyone. Nothing like STEREOTYPES from the LEFT to get your blood pumping.

    Notice that now the Tea Party and Right Wing Christians are apparently one and the same. First you make the accusation then you report it as fact. It has taken about 5 years but now you see first hand how the “establishment” works to destroy its opposition.

    The greatest irony of this story is that it was linked in a Huff. Post story where the comments were going on and on about how the R’s are kowtowing the Big Business and the Plutocrats. Yet here we see the left denigrating the very people trying to UNSEAT the Plutocrats and Crony Capitalist lackeys.

    Proving once again that the First Victim in Politics is the TRUTH. The Second Victim is HONOR and the Third is Civility. Which cannot be maintained when the other two are dead and gone.

    • Proving once again that the First Victim in Politics is the TRUTH. The Second Victim is HONOR and the Third is Civility. Which cannot be maintained when the other two are dead and gone.

      JAC, I agree with you here. Truth, Honor and Civility are long gone within politics. That is why voting is useless. Or do you feel that voting for the least of two evils OK?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the theory that voting does not matter. It DOES matter and even our national elections show this.

        The arguments against voting are based on ABSOLUTES, not on changes alone. You and BF claim there is NO AFFECT because a COMPLETE CHANGE is not created by any single election.

        Well GMan……….we got from where we were to where we are by people VOTING for a certain general type of politician. What we are is completely different from what we were only a hundred or so years ago.

        As for the lesser of two evils question……………It depends on the situation.

        Had I lived in a State where it would have made a difference I would have voted for Romney last election. But I did not so I could vote for the Libertarian without any reservation.

        I continue to work towards making OTHER parties viable. Then actual CHOICES may be available. But until then, there will be times when “lesser” is acceptable.

        Another EFFECTIVE use of our time is to find ways to get GOOD people to run. Either through Tea Party Patriot or other groups, depending on your Flag Color. Until GOOD people start running there is little chance of making large changes.

        In order to provide cover for these folks, we need to use letters to the editor, internet and any other means to COMMUNICATE to our fellow citizens that the “Regular/Good” folks running are not the anti-Christ portrayed by the LEFT or the Oligarchs in the Republican Party.

        If WE sit on our Arses and do nothing but Vote then yes, your prediction of failure will happen.

        You see, for mankind to continue to survive requires mankind to ACT. And to ACT in a way that does continue his existence he must ACT in accordance with REALITY.

        And you know what is REALITY?? We have and will continue to have Government. The type and nature of that Govt will DEPEND on OUR PARTICIPATION.

        We can sit back and watch or we can work as hard as possible for change. As with all things in the Universe, working hard does not assure success. But sitting on your hands guarantees FAILURE.

        • I’m sure we can find agreement in many areas, the subject of Federal elections is not one of them. First, let me say that I mean no disrespect toward you, I have been quite combative lately, Those reasons are many, but is no excuse for being disrespectful. If I have been so, then I apologize.

          Now, on the subject of Federal elections (which I want to be clear, is what I’m talking about), right now we have two political parties that have a monopoly on politics. The money involved is far too much for good people to ever become part of establishment. I know that current politicians talk the talk and it seems as though they are making a difference, but I see no difference in government since 2000. The only thing that has changed are a few faces that give each side of the false left/right paradigm that is our government. Two puppets, one on the left, one on the right, they have the same puppeteer.

          We are participating everyday we talk about all thing political. This site has a good reading audience and our writings often lead to some bigger mainstream articles. I think we can both agree that we stay ahead of the media game by discussing issues that later become issues at the MSM level. So with that, I feel we are doing something, rather than sit on our butts and just vote (or not).

          I do not advocate the least of two evils, because evil is evil, in reality, there is no LESS. Slower maybe, but not less. That is what you get when you are given your choices on who your voting for. The Primaries are rigged and each side already knows who will run. The corruption is too deep to change that via the ballot box.

          I have already claimed that your choices for the next President are already decided, Christie vs. Clinton. I have no doubt as to that being the plan. No difference in ideology, one is just slower, both are evil.

          We can’t fix corruption when the corruption only allows the corrupt on the ballot. The few exceptions are cannon fodder for the illusion of choice. If you can prove otherwise, that is how I feel and will react to that reality.

          PEACE 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:


            If they are all the same then you are arguing that the Republicans would have passed the Affordable Care Act if the Dems had not WON THE ELECTIONS which gave them Both Houses and the White House.

            Do you really think that would have happened?

            While they both believe in Govt intervention in various things, there is a DIFFERENCE in the details.

            And those differences can be significant.

            As I said above. You condemn voting because you do not see CHANGE in one or two election cycles. Well you see, true “cycles” are longer, more like 15 to 20 years.

            You have to prepare for those as that is when you get to make WAVES with the system.

            I think you have a misconception about how the “nomination” process works within the parties. No doubt the players all have their horses in the race. They know most of the time what the list will look like. But the outcome is NOT certain at all.

            Just remember how Hillary was the anointed Consensus CHOICE for the Dems??

            • If they are all the same then you are arguing that the Republicans would have passed the Affordable Care Act if the Dems had not WON THE ELECTIONS which gave them Both Houses and the White House.

              No, I do not believe the elections are honest. I believe the whole process is an illusion of choice. The election provide that illusion, nothing more.

              As I said above. You condemn voting because you do not see CHANGE in one or two election cycles. Well you see, true “cycles” are longer, more like 15 to 20 years.

              Wrong again my friend. We are going in the same direction that began in the early 1900’s. The only thing that changes is the speed. Left faster, Right slower. It’s still the same direction. The end game is for society to be controlled, totally, by a ruling class. We can go further on a new thread, this mat take awhile, LOL 🙂

              I think you have a misconception about how the “nomination” process works within the parties. No doubt the players all have their horses in the race. They know most of the time what the list will look like. But the outcome is NOT certain at all.

              I have no misconception at all. Even the choices in the Primary process is chosen by the ruling class. It’s all controlled by those with the money and power. The OUTCOME doesn’t matter, the path still travels in the same direction.

              Just remember how Hillary was the anointed Consensus CHOICE for the Dems??

              And you really believe the little games they play? The media helps a lot, they made that LIE seem like reality. Believe what you choose my friend, I am no longer fooled by the constant LIEs that is politics. Sorry, you are only helping them achieve their goals. Voting will only continue the illusion of choice, which allows the ruling class to further their control. With most people locked up in cities, by the push of a button they can cause total havoc and take total control, after they reduce the number of the living. Remember the saying “it’s easier to kill a million than it is to control a million”?

              PEACE 🙂

  13. A humorous response to Cuomo’s idiotic statements.

    Cuomo lead the pack when it comes to tolerance, don’t he?

  14. plainlyspoken says:

    This article comes from the neck of the woods JAC is inhabiting at the moment, Oregon.

    GRANTS PASS, Ore. – A federal appeals court ruled Friday that bloggers and the public have the same First Amendment protections as journalists when sued for defamation: If the issue is of public concern, plaintiffs have to prove negligence to win damages.

    Seems like some courts still understand the protection of speech in the 1st Amendment, at least sometimes.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      While I support the notion that the First Amendment applies to All of Us equally and that Journalists should have no SPECIAL immunity, this case is not one I would brag about in this regard.

      Why is “negligence” required when the court admits the ACCUSATIONS made in a PUBLIC FORUM were in fact FALSE and DEFAMMATORY??

      The person was ACCUSING these guys of illegal activity without ANY proof. Note in the article the academic lawyer uses other “advocacy groups” as having similar protections.

      I dealt with this in my prior life. The Sierra Club and Natural Resource Defense Council (aka; Bobby Kennedy and his crew) create FALSE and deliberately misleading accusations against others and the “others” have no legal recourse against them.

      The “others” are forced to try and defend themselves in the Press/Media, where they are already viewed with distrust and disdain.

      They hide behind “It is just my opinion on a matter of public importance”.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Even the Brits take very seriously libel. They tried, convicted and imprisoned a member of the house of lords a few years back. Name Jeffery Archer

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    The Chickens are coming home to roost. Thank the Algorians.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I particularly liked this part:

      Trans-boundary pollution has for several years been an issue in international climate change negotiations, where China has argued that developed nations should take responsibility for a share of China’s greenhouse gas emissions, because they originate from production of goods demanded by the West.

      Maybe the Chinese should have there nation’s producers charge more for their ‘cheap’ goods in order to pay for their own pollution control efforts? Oh, wait – that might cause their buyers to look elsewhere for the goods.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh my God, the inequities of the GAP in Wealth Distribution. Apparently the GAP between the Rich haves and the Rich have mores is a “crisis” building????

    Or…………. Good Grief!!!

  17. Another example of Democrats being totally stupid, ENJOY:

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Me thinks he wasn’t briefed well and should have practiced his statement more – or, if he spoke off the cuff – go get some firearms training. lol

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    If any of you get the chance you should stop and visit the Evergreen Museum. Next door is a huge indoor water park with slides that all start in a 747. So you have the Hughes H4 in one building and the 747 in another.

    If you like aviation the collection of other planes from the earliest days to the modern is quite rewarding.

  19. The Obama administration has also changed the definition of adjudication of a mental illness from requiring an action by a board, commission, or other lawful authority to allowing anyone in the VA or other government agency to find someone incompetent or mentally defective.

    There is no longer any due process required and while military veterans are still the primary target, the ultimate goal is the disarming of all Americans. This mirrors the actions of the Nazi party in Germany and other dictatorships that have used alleged mental illness to disarm, imprison, and control their populations.

    JAC, when you said you wanted government to do home inspections, that is were I parted ways with you and your political views, the other day. I will never accept such a thing, for any reason. I post this article as an example why. Trying not to be on the attack, but have you thought about the government doing home inspections because of homeschooling? I don’t think Anita would appreciate government entering her home with white gloves on inspecting for cleanliness, do you?

    • Anita, this is not a knock on you at all, but govt don’t want homeschooling, so imagine how an inspection would go 😉

    • plainlyspoken says:

      They need a better editor. It’s NCIC (National Crime Information Center), not NICS. lol.

      I wished the article had provided links or copies of the Executive Orders to read for myself.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I did not say I WANTED home inspections. I proposed it as one means of addressing the Safe Storage of weapons in homes where Mentally Ill people live.

      You don’t like that option then come up with you own.

      But…….. it has to address the prevention of having innocent people killed by a mentally ill person who simply takes a gun from home. A gun they did not purchase but was kept by a roommate or family member.

      Saying if is a matter of personal responsibility doesn’t do any good for the people killed by the person if they go off the deep end.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        JAC, I thought about this at the time but failed to – in your proposal what is the definition of “mentally ill”?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Legally determined although that could be a diagnosis by a physician not a court.

          My son for example, had no “LEGAL” determination as to his capacity until we had to get Guradianship at age 18.

          But he should never have had access to guns and ammunition Before then.

          When we found out his issues I changed how I stored both. Guns were in the open at times but the Ammo was locked away and hidden and not easily available to anyone under 6 feet tall.

          Under my proposal it would be up to the psych evaluator who was chosen to give the eval in order to get the permit. During that process perhaps there need to be questions about others in the home. And if needed, an additional evaluation done for them.

          The vast majority of people who have potential issues will have been identified in the “school system” so the parents should be aware.

          It is a tough call but if there is a place we can make a difference it seems to be in this area.

          The alternative is to simply ACCEPT the casualties then try to get compensation from the person who should have kept them away from the guns.

          And………..this does not prevent ALL such incidents because the ill can still purchase ILLEGALLY. This or any system is not fool proof unless ALL GUNS are DESTROYED.

          • I agree 🙂 It is up to those around the Ill take the necessary precautions. I certainly would. No comment on the meds these folks are taking?

            All guns being destroyed will never happen, so why even consider it. Even if guns were outlawed, the sword would take over and the problem will still exist. The weapon is not the problem, its the person using it for evil that’s the problem.

            The alternative is to simply ACCEPT the casualties then try to get compensation from the person who should have kept them away from the guns.

            No, we can’t accept the casualties. We can be more prepared in public places to defend ourselves. We can train and arm teachers to protect our kids, Israel does this quite well. We CAN minimize the casualties by taking BIG PHARMA to task on their meds and their end results. They own the govt, so good luck with that. There is many things we can do, without destroying peoples rights.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I asked even m0ore so since in the press release on the EO’s it mentions that the DOJ is proposing a rule “to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments.”

            Which is a very generalized rule. What if someone goes involuntarily to a mental institution after a suicide attempt? Should this then disqualify that person from owning a firearm or having a permit? Should it require, under your proposal that guns be locked safely away from this person? I ask because I know someone who was in a mental hospital after a suicide attempt – sent involuntarily and then remained beyond the hold voluntarily until not feeling suicidal anymore. And no, a gun was not used in the attempt.

            • The end justifies the means!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Under my proposal the “determination” would be up to a Trained and Licensed professional with respect to WHO gets a permit.

              The issue is “stability” relative to potential for harming others. In my son’s case it is the lack of cognitive recognition of a hazard.

              In the case you cited, I am not sure what a Psychologist would decide.

              The HAZARD in this is the potential backlog at first and then the potential for backlash against Psychologists. One or two major lawsuits and everyone gets a NO GUNS punched on their card.

              The reason I liked it, on the other hand, is that the entire process is focused on the PERSON with the permit rather than the Gun. The latter is absolutely worthless and provides no means for private citizens to verify “legal status” without going through the Govt “system”.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                The HAZARD in this is the potential backlog at first and then the potential for backlash against Psychologists. One or two major lawsuits and everyone gets a NO GUNS punched on their card.

                Probably would need a liability protection in the law implementing your proposal.

                The reason I liked it, on the other hand, is that the entire process is focused on the PERSON with the permit rather than the Gun. The latter is absolutely worthless and provides no means for private citizens to verify “legal status” without going through the Govt “system”.

                You’d open your system for public access? Why?

      • I do understand your concern. Nothing the govt does will stop these nuts from doing evil, period. Adam Lanza killed his mother and used a key to take guns from a safe. A govt inspection would have been useless.

        When I do speak of personal responsibility, it also means to be responsible and ensure the mentally Ill don’t have access to guns, but just how mentally ill was Lanza before his actions? Nobody is saying at this point. Are the drugs being taken by the mentally ill having and adverse effect and causing these violent explosions? They don’t want to answer that question either, but it is a common denominator in most cases, yes?

        There are far too many unanswered questions to even think of govt entering one’s home. Frankly, the suggestion itself gets me boiling. We aren’t NAZI Germany, YET.

  20. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Has anyone ever seen a report put together as to WHY our “Constitutional” law professor president was disbarred? Granted the actual BAR Association trial records may be sealed, but there sure had to be plenty of records prior to the disbarment. Usually its pretty egregious ethical and illegal activity to cause such actions. Also Michelle.
    Like Clinton convicted of lying to a grand jury, getting disbarred and who knows maybe in the not so far future the 1st “first husband”

    • All Obama’s records are sealed and cannot be viewed. That’s one reason for the Birther movement, and a very good one. Professional forensic investigators have already said his birth certificate he released is a fraud. When people hide things, that’s because they have something to hide.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        How can anyone in this day and age scrub EVERY record of their existence from the public. I agree his proof of a birth certificate was a fake. Using the same computer techniques as cloned images of the Israeli bombings in Beirut as an example.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        I believe I saw an article while he was a candidate, though quickly disappeared, that he as a State representative advocating causes of ACORN, he was still a paid legal advocate of that organization. As he was before election to any State offices. Conflict of Interest was the charge I believe. Just wondering if anyone else caught it before his election as Pres.

    • No – but perhaps, and this is only a guess, but perhaps I’ve never seen a report on Obama’s disbarment because he was never disbarred…

      • There are hundreds of articles, but they all dispute each other, LOL. If his records were actually available to public scrutiny, it would answer lots of questions, and could put a lot of the birther stuff to rest. It doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen, so the accusations will go on, unanswered. 🙄

        • As far as his law license goes, the records are there and pretty clear. So tired of this utter nonsense already…

          • I don’t believe he was disbarred, but let his license expire, rather than continue with education and pay the fees. He got busy in politics, so that’s understandable. That’s no excuse for the lack of other information, like his college transcripts.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I am with Buck, this is a dead issue and isn’t worth the effort to revive it. And, as I stated back in the original discussions on his birth certificate – it makes no difference because even if he isn’t US born and unqualified to be President, anything he signed into law and such will never be undone. Congress won’t allow that to happen. Another dead issue.

            • The only thing I EVER wanted to know was how he, a student of mediocre performance ever got into Columbia and Harvard. I’d really like to know, just for my own satisfaction if he “gamed” the system by pretending to be a foreign student. The other stuff is all window dressing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You beat me to the punch. I recall that his “membership” in the Bar elapsed and he elected not to renew it.

        Is this the case?

        I didn’t know you had to “maintain” membership in the BAR once you passed the exam to get your license.

        Or was it the LICENSE he did not renew?

        • If memory serves correct – he had voluntarily retired from the practice of law while the First Lady had went on inactive status years ago.

          Maintaining active status is both costly and timely.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Aaack…………you were to fast for me. See below.

            Curios though what the cost is in maintaining a license.

            Continuing education?? Other?? Fees???

            Please share.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Never mind…………..I found some source information. Of course the “reasons” are speculation but there was NO INVESTIGATION ever done or pending on either of the Obamas.

        Now one for you. A few of us have been having a pretty good discussion on a couple big issues. I even asked you the other day for some legal opinion.

        Yet out of all this discussion you respond to the Obama license thing that you are so “tired” of.

        Why not ignore that stuff and comment on the bigger things??

        Just asking!

        • Must have missed your question – haven’t been checking in often these days. Care to repost and I’ll take a crack after putting the little one to bed?

          I responded to this because it just grates me – especially after having debunked this BS not too long ago.

          I stayed out of the gun control debate because the good Colonel and I had come to some sensible solutions last time this came up.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I probably missed that discussion while on my sabbatical from all things political. Can you point me to it?

            • Honestly have no clue as to when it was – perhaps the Colonel remembers?

              • It was awhile back…..we had some reasonable positions……except for the size of magazines. You were/are stuck on the issue that a thirty round magazine can cause more damage and I am of the opinion, from actual experience, that 7 and 10 round magazines can cause more damage. Other than that,we were pretty close… to the permit that JAC subscribes to…….I can see some merits to that but I greatly discount the size and types of weapons….shotguns vs AR 15’s or other types…. as having any different aspect on anything until you get to explosive type weapons.

              • Meh, relatively minor details that can be ironed out over a good steak and bottle of wine.

                2016: Buck-Colonel!

              • Dont you think Colonel Buck sounds better?

              • Much!

              • Wow – since when did I become a Colonel!?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was mostly curious about your thoughts on my PERMIT proposal as a replacement for the constant background check system.

            • I like the general concept of having an individual permit and that’s that – clearly no need for open v concealed carry permits. Obviously some details to be ironed out; I think there should be some limits on types of guns, but agree this can be accomplished through different classes of permits. Also the issue of standards for denying a permit, what obtaining the permit entails (eg, training course), renewals / length of permit, and what would cause a suspension.

              There would still need to be a check at point of sale to ensure permit still valid but this would be easy to accomplish at little to no cost.

              • Permits….shmermits….let’s just strap ’em on…go to the middle of the street….start blastin’…..last one standing wins but has to clean the mess…..

              • Colonel, But someone might shoot an innocent bystander 🙄 There would be a major medical emergency for Liberals with bullet wounds to the feet and legs 😆 The sight of all those guns would cause a heart attack frenzy 🙂

              • Is there such a thing as an innocent BYSTANDER? The term bystander, to me, indicates NO innocence. You are watching something that is violent. Were the Romans in the stands of the gladiatorial days innocent? Were they not just as guilty as the gladiators in the arena killing each other with their “thumbs up or down” indicators and their attendance?

                Now, the sight of weaponry to the left wing fringe…..well…….

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Hello Buck *waves* Good to see you. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Here is the scoop on the law license thangy.

  21. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Anita… you homeschool? Doesn’t the State still require advancement/compenancy tests that they oversee? Just asking, I never had any reason to inquire. Kid done with school in the 80’s Maybe if I had been able to homeschool him, I’d have been able to get divorced sooner.

    • ” Doesn’t the State still require advancement/compenancy tests that they oversee?”

      Not typically.

      State-schools give State curriculum which then the State provides State tests to measure your regurgitation of the State curriculum.

      When you provide your own curriculum, you can create your own tests. A State test does not test the student (your kid) on YOUR curriculum.

      If you do not use State curriculum, you won’t get a piece of paper from the State saying you passed the State curriculum, commonly known as a “Diploma”. But you could give YOUR diploma if your kid passed your curriculum.

      IT may be true some universities may not recognize such a paper, like they do not recognize such from another country – but there are many alternative ways to get into a University if that’s what the kid wants.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      My kid is home schooled too and yes, she has to take the yearly state exams required of all students.

    • Rules differ from state to state. Michigan is a non reporting state, meaning no testing by the state and no reporting anything to the state. I was required to teach Math, Language, Social Studies, and Science. Record keeping is a must to prove your child was taught the core subjects. I literally pulled my son out of school at the semester point and began homeschooling no strings attached. Curriculums are available for purchase online. We went with textbooks as opposed to online classes.

      I homeschooled for 1 1/2 yrs, through middle school. I decided to enroll him in public high starting fresh at 9th grade. Couple reasons. One was my fear of not being able to get through the high school math. I was not able to help my daughter, an excellent student,.. with her AP classes in calculus and the like. Hired a tutor at $30/wk for her. Didn’t want to be caught in the same situation with him. I doubt he’ll be in any AP classes though. Also learned that homeschool credits won’t transfer to high school, so 9th grade was the appropriate time to make the switch back. Also knew that I’d have to get back in the workforce before he’s done with high school.

      I dread the switchback daily. He’s much more suited for homeschooling than public schooling. He’s not a morning person, and he’s also class clown type. So, I’m right back into the morning fight of getting him out of here and of course I’ve had to deal with several calls from the school on conduct. I hate it. No amount of reward or punishment seems to get through to him. He’s far from a bad kid, no violence or cop trouble, he’s just one where he lives for the moment, consequences be damned.

      I truly enjoyed the time spent homeschooling him. Many, many benefits to it. I recommend it to everyone. This is a long answer to your question, but I never did fill my buddies at SUFA in to the fact that he’s back in the (asylum) system.

  22. A nice musical break! PEACE and LIVE FREE!

    • Flying in an F-15 Eagle simply can’t be described in words. Amazingly powerful is an understatement. The most incredible experience. And I DON’T get air sick, talk about a pilot that had fun with me, geez, did every trick in the book. Took off with full afterburners straight up to 26K feet. It was better than sex !!! 🙂

  23. “The Illinois law only defines them as employees in terms of unionization and no other rights at all,”
    Everytime I’ve read about this the last few years-I’ve wanted to scream at the insanity of it all.

    Supreme Court to Hear Case on Forced Unionization
    At question is law requiring home healthcare workers to pay SEIU dues


    BY: Bill McMorris
    January 20, 2014 5:00 am

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments about forced unionization among government workers on Tuesday in a case that could greatly curtail powerful labor groups.

    At issue is an Illinois law crafted by imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D.) and enforced by his successor Pat Quinn (D.) that forces home healthcare workers, including family members caring for relatives, to pay union dues.

    The state claims that the caregivers are government employees since patients receive taxpayer dollars through Medicaid and Medicare. But the issue is more complicated than who is signing the checks, according to lawyers for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF), which is spearheading the challenge.

    “The Illinois law only defines them as employees in terms of unionization and no other rights at all,” said NRTWLDF lawyer Bill Messenger. “This is a scheme for compulsory lobbying.”

    The caregivers do not receive liability insurance coverage or retirement benefits that other government workers are entitled to, according to Messenger. If the court holds that state governments can force any secondary beneficiary of taxpayer dollars in the union, “vast swaths of the population” would end up paying union dues.

    “All doctors or nurses who care for Medicare patients would have to join a union by that logic,” Messenger said. “What unions are looking at is trying to attach themselves to any kind of government funding.”

    Harris v. Quinn could be a defining case in labor law, according to labor experts.

    Justin Wilson, managing director of labor watchdog Center for Union Facts, said that forcing healthcare workers to pay union dues has been a cash cow for public sector unions, which enjoy a larger membership than private unions. Michigan unions, for example, benefitted from a similar policy that was eliminated by GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and later rejected by voters in a 2012 ballot initiative.

    “Home healthcare workers have been ripe sources for Service Employees International Union, as they represent the largest pool of untapped resources,” Wilson said. “There’s real money on the line for the unions.”

    The case could extend beyond Illinois and home healthcare workers. Messenger is pushing the justices to overturn the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allowed governments to enforce compulsory union membership as a condition of employment.

    If he is successful, public employees across the country could withdraw from their unions in a manner akin to Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s labor reforms.

    “Compulsory unionism infringes on the First Amendment rights. The Illinois law and the unionization of providers shows what’s wrong with the Abood decision,” Messenger said. “It’s time to bring some measure of freedom to public employees.”

    Wilson said that the ambitious goals of Messenger and his allies could change the landscape of labor relations for years to come.

    “What we’ve recently seen is that public sector workers represent the future of the labor movement because it’s been relatively easy to unionize them,” he said. “It could have sweeping ramifications on the future by raising the question of whether compulsory membership is allowed.”

    • VH, it is insanity, it is also theft. When I was a Teamster, it always bothered me that people could opt out of Union representation but still had to pay the union, just not as much as active members. The only real difference between active and opt out, as the law stated, was the opt out’s couldn’t vote on the union contracts. I never liked putting everyone into one pay scale type contract, because not everyone is equal. Some people do deserve more pay than others. Because of the contract, that was mostly impossible. This is what Liberals call fair, fair my ass 👿

  24. There was something bothering me when we were discussion core principals and such and it revolved around my belief about the two political parties and the corruption they both engage in. I have realized that voting for anyone that belongs to either party would violate my principals and morals. I am of the opinion that both political parties engage in murder and theft, which are immoral, and I cannot support them via consent to govern to engage in such actions. For those who understand your principals and morals, you should think about this as we head into this upcoming election.

    • I see so much wrong with this post.

      You are making some convenient leaps here.
      I can just as easily say my morals are what drive me to vote
      Voters are not the problem
      There are more than two parties
      I am not pro murder or theft..don’t tell me I support them by voting.
      Not voting is not going to change a thing
      Your voice marriage? Many states ban it. Pot? legal in 2 states now
      Tell the Tea Party their efforts are useless
      Tell Rand and Ron they’re irrelevant
      Tell the religious right their concerns are irrelevant
      Apathy is dangerous

      Don’t vote. Don’t complain

      • Applause! Yea!

      • ” I am not pro murder or theft..don’t tell me I support them by voting ”

        Voting legitimizes government. Government is predicated upon coercion. Voters support coercion.

        ” Not voting is not going to change a thing ”

        Not voting is a vote against government. Who could representatives claim to represent if no one voted?

        ” Your voice marriage? ”

        Why does law coerce/regulate religious ceremonies/institutions, and/or romance?

        ” Pot? legal in 2 states now ”

        So now people have permission to commit what was once victimless crime. Why was it ever illegal in the first place? How many people have suffered by the hand of the state for smoking/selling pot?

        “Tell the Tea Party their efforts are useless”

        Their goal is to support government force.

        ” Tell Rand and Ron they’re irrelevant ”

        They are government officials supporting force.

        ” Tell the religious right their concerns are irrelevant ”

        Their concerns are equally as relevant as everyone elses.


        • Let’s start with government is here to stay. Your arguments are 200 years late. 😉

          • How much smaller is US/state government now, than what it was 200 years ago?

            Do you think continued participation/taxes/voting is NOT going to continue to enslave your progeny?

            You have to have some type of system for social order, a guideline, a standard, a set of rules. But how far do you go with it? How much government do you really need other than to support local infrastructure and police? Does it HAVE to be forced taxation?

            What else do you need a police force for, other than for protecting people from being violated?

            What else do you need a military for, other than protecting from outside invaders/attackers?

            • Actually, the police aren’t really there to protect. Their purpose is after the fact, when it’s to late, the violation has already occurred.

              But one thing is for sure, our current govt is no where near what it was intended to be, it’s about 1 million times bigger.

              • ” Actually, the police aren’t really there to protect. Their purpose is after the fact, when it’s to late, the violation has already occurred. ”


                But you are still going to need police for things like a brawl that breaks out at Joe’s Bar a couple of times a year, or similar such things, directing traffic, etc. It doesn’t have to punish people for victimless ‘crimes’, nor does it have to be solely relied upon for protection.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                It doesn’t have to punish people for victimless ‘crimes’

                A question to flesh out your view of ‘victimless’ crime – would that be any act the law says is illegal as long as it affects no one else? Example, drunk driving wherein the driver makes it to the destination without harming anyone, crashing, etc?

              • ” A question to flesh out your view of ‘victimless’ crime – would that be any act the law says is illegal as long as it affects no one else? Example, drunk driving wherein the driver makes it to the destination without harming anyone, crashing, etc? ”

                I would define a victimless crime as action that does no measurable harm to others, but is still prohibited by law.

                For example: doing certain drugs, or concealing a weapon without a permit.

                Driving drunk is a potential public safety hazard, and is debatable. But so is driving half blind or while talking on a cell phone, or being inexperienced. I guess the line would ultimately have to be drawn at where damages occur or someone is violated.

                Of course, it would be difficult to sit back and watch someone swerve all over the place and do nothing.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Actually more than 200 years. Governments have existed since the dawn of man (even if they didn’t realize it).

            You are a “government” yourself. Over your household, children, etc. A dictatorship most likely. You decide what is best for your “society” and always have once you left the “government” of your parents. So yes, government will always be here no matter what, but what government is/isn’t allowed to do is not going to be overly effected by the votes of the governed – even in your home should you allow voting on issues.

            So, cases can be made about voting from either side of the spectrum. For the record in my case, I didn’t bother with casting any votes in the last election above the level of the state. I wasn’t – IMO – going to accomplish a damn thing by voting at the national level.

            Yet, that still gives the the right to criticize all I want, since not voting at that level is my “vote of no confidence” in the national government.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          “Government is predicated upon coercion.” FALSE!

          Govt is the monopoly on the use of force or the monopoly on the use of “legal” force.

          Thus Govt is not predicated upon coercion, because the bounds of “legal” force determine whether said force is coercive or if it is “justified”.

          That in turn is predicated upon the moral and ethical Principles which are applied to the people and thus the Govt.

          Otherwise the Anarchist Catch 22 is that Govt is ALWAYS coercive force and since we will always have Govt we will always have coercive force, but because of this we should have no govt, which is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve.

          Therefore the Anarchist view is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve because it is inconsistent with REALITY.

          The only variation on this irrational argument is to manipulate the definition of Govt so that anything other than “coercive force” can be called NOT Govt. I call this the Black Flag strategy. 😉

          • How else does government get things done?

            Dress it up any way you like, …it is always an edict backed with some use of coercion via penalty and/or up to include violence.

            With the exception of defending against a threat, when is force justified?

            How are forced edicts required for social order?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I agree with JAC, there will always be government of some kind. It will never be any other way.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              There is ONE situation where Govt could disappear.

              And we DO NOT want to see that day come. Unless you are 100% sure you will be one of the few left.

      • When there are some honest people worth voting for, maybe I will. For now it’s a choice of shit or shit. Either way, the winner is shit. 😉

        • It isn’t the person. It is systemic.

        • Just ask Black Flag and Bottom Line if you don’t believe me 😆

        • Anita, Governments, when not controlled by the people, have murdered more of their own people than all of the deaths resulting from all of the wars in mankinds history. We no longer control our government. The current system needs eliminated, before they take that next step. With some needed changes, we can still have government, but they would be more like managers with no authority OVER the people. The world would be a better place if this occurred. 🙂 😉 😎

  25. plainlyspoken says:

    OK, got to do it – got to have fun with this article.

    Police Chief Accidentally Shoots Himself — Again

    Yes sirrreeee, that gun training makes you a safer gun handler. lolol.

  26. plainlyspoken says:

    Question to all:

    Do you believe a medical provider should be able to or required to ask you if you owns guns when you go to receive medical treatment? And why?

    • Depends on the circumstances — the medical provider should be able to inquire so long as there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

      • Which organ is your gun?

        • What legitimate reason would a medical professional have for inquiring about your personal property? …specifically, a firearm?

          It is not like firearms cause high cholesterol.

          • Off hand, someone who presents with severe depression or who is showing signs of dementia or mental instability.

            • That would only be a question only relevant for a shrink, not a physician, …and should not be in the interest of violating the right to defense. Why else would that question be relevant, unless there is some intent to confiscate?

              What I mean is this… if there was a question of safety, I would think it would be a matter for the shrink to discuss with the spouse/family/room-mates as a precautionary measure, to be remedied independent of said shrink.

              If it is about establishing grounds for confiscation, there are a LOT of people with depression or who is showing signs of dementia or mental instability. That is a potentially huge 2nd amendment slippery slope argument.

              Generally, people just take a pill. 🙂

          • Because the government wants to know who owns guns. There is no other logical reason.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        For me, they can inquire and I’ll tell them it is none of their business (not to mention I’d be finding a new doctor). The idea is worrisome in light of the information that will be accessible to law enforcement for reporting to the feds for placement in databases used for conducting national background checks when purchasing a firearm. For instance (as I wrote elsewhere in this thread) the DOJ has proposed a rule changing the definition to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments.

        That is a broad generalization in which you could be denied a firearm purchase. As I also said, I know someone who spent time in a mental hospital after a suicide attempt (both voluntary & involuntary) who would – seemingly – be banned from gun ownership just because they were.

        It seems to me that this is not the route to go and is being done so for more of the government’s feelings of gun ownership my people than any altruistic societal reason.

    • Not just no, but hell no. It’s none of their business what I own.

      • There is an enormous difference between mandating doctors ask all patients (which is not the case) and not prohibiting doctors from asking the question if they see fit.

        • Except for the fact that all medical records can now be accessed by the Government, thanks to the ACA 😉

        • I didn’t say prohibit them, however they can ask any question they want for what ever reasons they want, it’s still a private matter protected by law (or it’s supposed to be) that cannot be shared with anybody without permission. If someone is bad off mentally enough to think of that question, they should be treated as an in patient and monitored 24/7 until they get better, or have someone caring for them who can control access.

          With that said, I have heard of no illness, mental or not that ends in violence. There have been many comparisons that tie the drugs they are taking and the violent actions they commit. Nobody seems to care about that because Big Pharma is protected by the great government that have been “voted” into office. 😉

          I would like to say that I’m hoping that your and your family are happy and healthy. That will always be more important than anything we can disagree on here 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Interesting article on mental illness and violence and gun regulations, etc. It includes a pretty good balance of arguments from different view points.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        It is a good article. One of the most balanced I have read on any subject reported by the media in quite some time.

  27. Let me see if I have this straight……The Russians and the I.O.C decided that Sochi was a great place for the winter olympics……….

    The Russians have been fighting the Sochi area Muslims for over 200 years…..ummmmmm…oh, never mind.

    • Got to keep them terrible terrorists in the news Colonel, they need to justify their spying programs, and their upcoming body cavity searches. 🙄

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir.

      Plainly and I had a question for you the other day. It was WHO ordered the troops to back off in Tora Bora, allowing bin Laden to escape. And then WHY.

      If you haven’t followed the discussion I was explaining that I thought our initial action in Afghanistan was “justified” and done properly in that we used the Tribal Leaders to overthrow the Taliban and focused on getting to Al Queada. But then we backed off and changed the mission.

      Can you offer any “enlightenment” on the issue??

  28. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is the comment and question I asked the other day.

    “Buck the Wala

    A perfect example of the “interpretation” or “living document” theory which I rant against frequently.

    “Howard University’s Afro-American Studies Chair Russell Adams accused Thomas of racism against all blacks for falling in love with someone outside his race. “His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community,” Adams told The Washington Post. “Great justices have had community roots that served as a basis for understanding the Constitution. Clarence’s lack of a sense of community makes his nomination troubling.””

    What say you my lawyer friend??? Is “community roots” the Founder’s intended “BASIS” for understanding the Constitution?

    Note to SUFA general: I copied this statement from an article on Michelle Malkin’s site. The article was about the racist hypocrites on the left. So if you want to explore that issue you can visit her site.”

    • Just A Citizen says:


      There was another more technical question of some other legal aspect but I haven’t found it yet.

    • I would posit that “community roots” are certainly important, but what that really means is anyone’s guess. Having a sense of community can aid someone’s understanding of society and justice, which are good qualities for a judge to have. But that same sense of community can and will be different for everyone.

      This guy’s specific claims are definitely out there if you ask me — Justice Thomas’ marrying a white woman says nothing about his rejection of nor support for the black community. Nor do I see why community roots must be nor even should be about race.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Wow, we have reached accord on two straight days. Kind of….

        Although the question was not about informing “justice” but “interpretation” of the Constitution. I think his “criteria” is out to lunch, frankly speaking, when it comes to understanding the meaning of the Constitution.

        I agree it can influence administration of “justice” at a more local level, as in how a law is applied. But that is a different matter.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      lol….come on G, in all fairness the Democrats aren’t the only ones who try this stuff – remember Tricky Dick?

      • Richard Nixon could only dream of doing some of the stuff that the current occupant of 1600 has been doing these last few years. Remember, Nixon wanted to sic the IRS on people, Obama actually did it. Oh, sorry, there is absolutely no evidence that Obama ever did anything, knew anything, ordered anything, condoned anything. Whoops, sorry.

  29. plainlyspoken says:

    Another question:

    Should a state have the right to nullify any federal law from being enforceable within that state when the federal law is not tied directly to an authority granted the federal government in the US Constitution? Why?

    • No — supremacy clause.

      Let the state (or an affected individual) challenge the constitutionality of the act in question.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Hmm ok, so should the federal government be allowed to enact laws not directly tied to an authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?

        (Danged lawyer! 😉 )

      • Buck, so what your saying is if the feds overstep their Constitutional authority, it’s OK? Why should a State or individual have to challenge the Feds, let the feds prove themselves in court. The cost should be at the feet of the Feds, not the States or the people.

        With that said, I think that any Fed law that is deemed not within their powers be IGNORED. Then arrest any Fed agent for violating a person’s rights.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Then arrest any Fed agent for violating a person’s rights.

          G, that was in fact something that would happen to US Marshals at one point in our nation’s history. It was simply overcome by the federal courts taking authority over the state courts for the case – leading to dismissal and release of the US Marshal in question.

          • Yes, It’s come time to start putting the Feds back into the place where they belong. The Constitution is very specific on what duties the Congress and President have. It ends there. That is why there is a 10th Amendment, to further ensure the Feds don’t overstep their authority. The problem we face today is that the Feds are so far off the mark and outside their authority, some form of revolution needs to take place to fix this mess, before they decide to use them 1.6 billion bullets they bought 😉

              • plainlyspoken says:

                And it will be struck down as quickly as the Montana law allowing the producers of firearms to ignore federal gun laws if the weapons produced were only sold in Montana.

                Nice try Missouri, but the federal courts won’t let it fly.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G, the federal courts will simply get involved as they did with US Marshals. Agents will be free before the ink dries on the arrest reports. It isn’t the way to handle the problem, since the federal agents are acting within the scope and authority of the federal laws they are enforcing.

              Continually arresting them would just bring about battles between state and federal agents. “You arrest ours, we arrest yours” crap going on. And if you should want to ask on what charges, feds could pop state authorities for obstruction of justice just for starters.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          He did NOT say it was OK.

          He said the proper way to challenge the law/rule was to SUE in Federal Court on the grounds of Constitutionality.

          That is the Proper means of overturning Unconstitutional laws.

          The weakness is the Court itself, as we have seen with the benefit of time.

          So the remedy to the Court is to Change the Constitution to put the Court in a box along with Congress and the President.

          • Precisely JAC! Do you agree? Or are we tempting fate with 3 agreements in a row??

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I AGREE.

              I would like it changed but under the existing system that is the proper way to challenge it.

              Holy Crap Batman……….. 3 for 3

      • plainlyspoken says:

        And what if the Supremacy Clause was amended to pertain only to laws the federal government had the authority of the Constitution to legislate on?

        • Plainly, the Supremacy clause isn’t the problem, we failed to keep the Feds constrained to what they are permitted to do. Now that the Judicial branch is as corrupt as the other two branches, the courts are a waste of time and money.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I disagree Gman, the Supremacy Clause is a problem. It automatically makes any federal law (good or bad) supreme over state/county/local laws. I didn’t even think about that clause when I wrote my question.

            Thank you Buck for reminding me. 🙂

  30. Question, If Obama sign an EO or one of the agencies make a regulation change that violates a law (such as the HIPPAA Law), and a doctor violates the law but is within the EO or regulation, can the doctor be sued and held liable?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Not unless there is some negligence beyond what is authorized by the regulations.

      The Doctor could sue the agency writing the regulation as a preventative measure to avoid breaking the law, if the Doc thought it without authority.

      • Why couldn’t the doctor be sued? He broke a law. The President nor any govt agency other than Congress can change laws (unlike they seem to have been doing lately), therefore, the law is still the law. Maybe I’m not asking my question correctly.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          This goes to the centuries old concept of being “under the law” as opposed to being an “outlaw” or “outside the law”.

          Those acting within the law are protected from prosecution or retribution for doing what the law requires.

          A federal regulation is a “law” whether you like it or not.

          An EO is not a law and has no binding affect on anyone but a Federal Agency. So an EO directs an agency to do something which then writes and implements a Regulation.

          The Doctor is acting in accordance with the “regulation” this is ” under protection of the law”.

          The issue of violating another law, like HIPPA itself, is a dispute between either the Doc or the Patient, or both AGAINST the Fed Agency which passed the Regulation and the Administration who issued the EO.

          Outside groups might file suit prior to harm being shown if the issue is whether the EO violates established law on Arbitrary and Capricious standards.

          Buck ….. You will have to help on this….. that is whether that last part is correct. I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn over Christmas break. 🙂

          By the way, here is a good read on the whole “nullification” issue. It lists summaries of SCOTUS cases which have defined the Supremacy Clause. Note, those standards are pretty clear until the cases of the 80’s and 90’s. And of course the more recent “immigration law” cases where the DOJ sued Arizona over enforcement.

          • First, I know that Regulations are laws, thanks for that condescending information. Second, I’m talking about a regulation that Changes an existing law (which can’t be Constitutionally legal). Then based on the change, a doctor acts according to the illegal law change. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in this country that I know of.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              What change in a law is unconstitutional?

              The POTUS is within his power to direct the Secretary to Amend the Regulations where the Law passed by Congress allows flexibility.

              If there is reasonable cause for such changes the Secretary will follow Rule Making procedures.

              Then the change is lawful and constitutional.

              There is NOTHING being proposed that violates the Statute’s passed by Congress that I know about. HIPPA did not specify the standards for keeping and safeguarding medical information. It directed the Secretary to develop Regulations for that purpose.

              The HIPPA “rules” that everyone cries about being violated are the “regulations” established by the Secretary, NOT THE LAW passed by Congress.

              So the Secretary can change those Regulations at any time.

              Congress can weigh in during the Rule making process and slap down anything they don’ t like with threats of cutting off funding or some other control. Like passing another law prohibiting the change.

              Without any more specifics than you have provided my argument stands. The Doctor cannot be sued for breaking a law when he is following the Federal Regulations.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G, I don’t think JAC was being condescending my friend. He was being detailed in his information. He doesn’t know what you may know or not, give the benefit of the doubt good sir. 🙂

          • Not entirely certain but I believe you are correct.

            4 for 4!? How much coffee did you have today??

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I disagree JAC – you could sue the doctor, but I doubt it would go very far. If you could get a court to accept the lawsuit (and why not, they accept stupid and frivolous suits all the time) I doubt the doctor would be found at fault for following the regulation changes brought about by an EO.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I agree. I didn’t want to over complicate my answer with that so I just explained why the case would either be dismissed or found in favor of the Doctor.

          I did not, however, that the “under the law” protections does not extend to negligence or willful attempt to skirt or distort the laws for some other reason.


    It seems that to my understanding, Obama could sign an EO and order for Holder to write a new regulation that allows these types of things to happen. If that’s all it takes, we’re all fucked royally.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Any such EO or any such Regulation would be immediately struck down.

      There is established law on issuance of warrants for search and conduct of investigation.

      The judge issuing the WARRANT should have been included in the law suit. That may be where we should focus on increasing ACCOUNTABILITY.

      It might end those judges who love the Law and Order meme from issuing weak warrants.

      And this sounded like a very WEAK warrant.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I believe you you can’t take any action against the judge. Buck, correct me if I am wrong, but I think judges have unqualified immunity for their rulings?

        So good or bad decision by the judge and he/she is still free to continue on the bench and immune from being sued.

        Most you can do is vote him out next time he is up for retention.

        • I believe that is correct. Given these facts it may be possible to bring a civil suit though under Section 1983 – not sure. Perhaps JAC knows?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Gman, I doubt that would stand simply because it would “shock the conscience” of the courts and be struck down, using the 4th & 5th Amendments to the Constitution at the least.

      The court systems would see it as an invasion of their authority.

      Buck, what say you to this thought?

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Timely and related article on the state of the Peace Officer vs. Law Enforcement, or Any of Mayberry vs. The Terminator.

    NOTE: As with most Austrian/libertarian articles on this subject it deals with “protection” or in other words “security/prevention”. What is missing is the dealing with CRIMES once committed.

    Or the handling of Crimes by Private Entities while it is ongoing Is “shooting” a burglar allowed? Who stands trial for killing the burglar to assure the killing was “justified”?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Interesting article but I find problems with the concept that go beyond even what you noted. Training being the first of them. Having worked as a private (contract) security officer I found the training inadequate. But, what is to be expected when the profit margin is about 5% of the cost of providing the service.

      Next would be, what stops security providers from becoming Blackwater Corporations – which operated in manners even more violent than current law enforcement spoken of in the article?

      It would be a long debate/discussion on the idea.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    When fortunes are made from nothing but thin air, you can bet that there is collusion between Govt and private sector elites.


    How is this different than selling Mortgage Backed Securities???

  34. CARSON: A physician’s view on the sanctity of life
    The thought of abortion for convenience is repugnant
    Size: + / –
    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on redditShare on linkedinShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services

    By Ben S. Carson

    Tuesday, January 21, 2014

    Dr. Ben Carson. (Image from

    Enlarge Photo
    Dr. Ben Carson. (Image from more >


    Audio Clip: 01-22-14 12b Ben Carson with Andy Parks

    Story Topics

    Intensive-Care Unit

    Follow Us On
    Question of the Day
    Will it be safe for Americans to attend the Olympics in Sochi next month?





    Login to Vote

    View results

    Several years ago, I was consulted by a young woman who was 33 weeks pregnant and was on her way to Kansas get an abortion. I informed her of the multiple options available to her outside of abortion and she decided to go through with the pregnancy even though the child had hydrocephalus and required neurosurgical intervention after birth a few weeks later. She kept the baby and loves the beautiful child that has resulted.

    A couple of decades ago, I came into the pediatric Intensive Care Unit on morning rounds and was told about a four-year-old girl who had been hit by an ice cream truck, and was comatose and exhibiting little neurological function other than reactive pupils. I tested her pupillary reflexes and both pupils were fixed and dilated. The staff indicated to me that this is something that must have just occurred. I grabbed the bed and with some help, transported her quickly to the operating room for an emergency craniotomy. I was met along the way by a senior neurosurgeon who told me I was wasting my time and that at best, we would end up with someone in a vegetative state.

    Nevertheless, we completed the operation and a few days later, her pupils became reactive and she eventually left the hospital. I saw her a few years ago walking through the hospital with her own 4-year-old little girl. She was neurologically fully intact and told me she had become somewhat of a celebrity because of the experience I just related. What do these two stories have in common? They both involve precious lives that could easily have been discarded.

    My entire professional life has been devoted to saving and enhancing lives. Thus, the thought of abortion for the sake of convenience does not appeal to me. I have personally met several people who have told me that their mothers had considered abortion, but happily decided against it.

    Most of us instinctively want to protect helpless creatures and sometimes go to great lengths to do so. The television commercials about abused animals are very poignant and as a society, we sometimes delay or cancel large construction projects to protect an “endangered” insect, amphibian or fish. Yet many of us turn a blind eye to the wanton slaughter of millions of helpless human babies who are much more sophisticated than some of the other creatures, when nothing is at stake other than the convenience of one or both parents. I am not saying that we should abandon our efforts to save baby seals and a host of other animals. Rather I am saying shouldn’t we consider adding human fetuses and babies to the list?
    Illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

    Enlarge Photo
    Illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >

    Watching the human fetus develop is awe-inspiring. In less than three months from conception, the little hands and feet are quite recognizable and distinct facial features characterize cute, but very tiny human beings. From Day One, neurons of the brain are proliferating at a rate that will yield a staggering 100 billion neurons by birth. In a matter of nine months from conception, we have a living, breathing, eating, vocal human being who just two months later is socially interactive. Some people oppose having pregnant women view ultrasonic pictures of their developing babies because they do not want an emotional bond to develop. Careful unbiased contemplation however, might yield the conclusion that such bonding is essential to the survival of mankind. Successful farmers nourish and protect their growing crops and if conditions threaten their crops, they do what is necessary to protect them. Rather than attack the analogy, think about how much more precious a human life is than a stalk of corn.

    It is important to try to understand the emotional state of young women seeking an abortion. Instead of judging and condemning them, we need to provide compassion and support. They need to be provided with easy access to adoption services and information about assistance available to them if they decide to keep the baby. I have visited many warm, inviting facilities around the country that exist solely for the purpose of helping these young women.

    It is equally, if not more important, to reach these young women before they become pregnant. Forget about those politically correct people who say all lifestyles are equal and inform those young women about the true consequences of out-of-wedlock birth for those who are not financially independent. We need to make sure they understand that they can provide a much better life for themselves and their children when they plan ahead and value themselves appropriately.

    As a society, we cannot be afraid to discuss important social and moral issues. Our heritage as a nation is built on compassion, forgiveness and understanding. Courage is also vitally important because those who stand on godly principles and values will be attacked. Attempting to characterize love and compassion for human life as a “war on women” is deceitful and pathetic. We the people must stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by those with agendas that do not include regard for the sanctity of life.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    • Then we have Obama’s statement:

      “Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

      “where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.” Fulfill their dreams-wow-I wonder how many little girls dreams included killing their children.

    • plainlyspoken says:


      Like you I abhor the idea of abortion. Yet, I would never condemn a woman for getting an abortion (not saying you do either), but I will condemn a system that doesn’t do more to prevent the choice arising for a woman in the first place.

      To me, rightly or wrongly in others eyes, abortion availability is just one aspect of our society that cheapens the value of human life.

%d bloggers like this: