Sochi Olympics Begin

Last night was the first night of coverage of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. While I’m not a huge fan, I always hope foe the best when it comes to our American athletes. It’s always nice to see young people achieve their Olympic dreams.   Good Luck to our American athletes! sochi

Feel free to bring any subject forward for discussion.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. I’ve already claimed control of the tv for Friday night. I’ve always liked watching the opening ceremonies, well..except for whatever that mess was in London a couple years ago. I’ll be watching NBC for a couple weeks..hate doing that..but I do love some winter olympics!

    USA! USA!

    • It sure beats Duck Dynasty , BWAHAHAHA 🙂

    • plainlyspoken says:

      They are okay, there are a couple of the competitions I like – but I am more a fan of the summer Olympics.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      When you watch the Olympics do you view them on CBC or some US programming? While living near the Canadian border, I had access to their broadcasts and they showed both the US and Canadian teams. With that additional coverage they didn’t have time to get into all the weepy US stories about how much adversity an athlete was going through. It was just the sport pure and simple. One of the best programs was the ones the CBC did on the ’92 Barcelona Olympics. Whereas the next ones in ’96 Atlanta were awful. Had to watch them on a US station, no longer lived in the North Country.

  3. Nothing too shocking here, just our unconstrained Federal government interfering in another countries affairs. Strange how under Bush, the Repubs wanted war and the Dems were against it. Now, things are the other way around. They are all the same!

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/february/06/fstarstark-the-eu-tape-reveals-us-runs-ukraine-opposition.aspx

  4. ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

    Nicholas (after my Dad) Joseph Trynosky

    Born 2/7/2014 4AM

    21 inches

    7 pounds 8 ounces

    Mother and Dad doing fine but us grandparents really sweat these things out

  5. A winter poem from D13 a Texan.

    Crap, it’s cold.

    The end.

  6. http://eaglerising.com/4565/obama-spokesman-says-2-5-million-unemployed-good-thing/

    This was brought up earlier, but I would like to point out that the Administrations strange review of this flies in the face of what they stand for. Who is going to make up the lost tax revenue (which I’m sure they didn’t think about yet, because they were to busy LYING to the public to get that far)? It won’t be long before we hear about WHO they will want to steal more from.

    • I am always amazed at the reaction of the MSM and even Wall St. wrt. to the employment numbers. First time jobless claims go up 300K, new jobs created 150K and the unemployment rate goes down 0.1%. This is good?

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    EXAMPLE of how to take action against Tyranny without resorting to violent Revolution.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/targeting_the_irs.html

    Seems odd that none of the aggrieved have tried this approach yet. They all seem to be waiting for DOJ to issue its findings. That would be the findings that Obama commented on in his Super Bowl day interview as concluding there was “not a smidgen of corruption”.

    • Good article. Says a lot about the corruption at the IRS. It also exposes the corruption in politics as a whole (mainly Delaware, but we all know it’s all over). It don’t matter how many laws Obama breaks, his Democrat protectors will make sure nothing happens.

      On the subject, an E-Mail has come out that goes all the way up to Learner. No wonder she plead the 5th. Maybe if we could slow down the mentally ill from government service, these things would be less likely 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Your flawed reasoning is that NONE of them would be classified as having a “mental illness”.

        • Your FLAWED reasoning is based on what facts? NONE, because you cannot possibly know that.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Yes I can. I have had to deal in the world of mental illness along with the Psychs who evaluate it.

            Even Narcissism is not considered an “illness”. And neither is Autism Spectrum Disorder by the way.

            • Sweet, I had annual 3 day formal training courses in psychology to be qualified to do my military job. Very boring and seemed to last forever, got stuck with that course 12 times.

              Narcissism is not an illness, correct, but it is a part of the mental makeup of many people. As part of the course, narcissists were discussed because of the difficulty in teaching them. Many, not all, seem to believe they are experts at everything and it’s hard to get them to actually learn things. Training these types of people with automatic weapons in their hands was a huge challenge, those courses really helped with overcoming that challenge as well as others (like people who are simply scared to death of guns).

              I would love to learn more about Autism , it was not covered as it was not needed information. Plus, back then, autism was not very well known like it is now. I would appreciate some of your expertise on the matter and what experiences you have on the subject. There are many who believe different things about the causes of autism, none of which can be confirmed. Me, I hold an open mind on the subject, but I still have some suspicions.

              I don’t know if you had any experience in profiling of any kind, but it’s one part of the courses I found interesting.

              I was also a member of DMAT OH-6 for a few years while I lived in Ohio and worked at a hospital. As the Hospitals Safety officer for the hospitals mass decontamination team, psychology was also a subject of required training for that position, which allowed me a higher pay rate when doing DMAT duties. That is one reason why I moved to the country and far away from the city. 😉

  8. The Democrats don’t want total gun control much, do they?

    Mayor John Tkazyik, who serves in one of the largest cities in the Hudson Valley, wrote an op-ed for the local Poughkeepsie Journal in which he claims Michael Bloomberg’s gun control organization MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) “intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

    In his column, Tkazyik explains why he left the organization (or as he says in a nod to President Reagan, the organization left him), claiming the group had simply become “a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda.” He adds that MAIG was intent on “violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

    Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/02/former-maig-member-speaks-bloombergs-main-targets-law-abiding-citizens/#vb9DWDu10peweyMD.99

  9. Mathius™ says:

    ᶫᵘʳᵏᶦᶰᵍ⋅⋅

  10. I posted awhile back about a SWAT raid and how ridiculous it was. Here is a follow-up and the REASON for the SWAT style raid. One more reason why permits are total BULLSHIT!

    Do law-abiding gun owners deserve to be the target of Police violence and intimidation? The Ankeny Police Department is so sure the answer is “yes” that they act as if they are justified in the SWAT raid about which Bob Allen posted. If you have not read that post, please do so in order to understand the terrorism and lawlessness inflicted on a household for no reason.

    Randy Balko quotes a statement from the Ankeny PD:

    Ankeny police are defending the raid, saying they needed to use that approach to protect officers’ safety.

    Ankeny police Capt. Makai Echer said officers knew at least one person in the house had a permit to carry a firearm. She said the department isn’t currently investigating how officers handled the search, nor does the department have a written policy for executing warrants.

    Put aside the outrage that they don’t think an investigation is warranted, or that they have no written policy—preferring their officers to live in the land of do-as-you-please. Note the essence of Captain Echer’s justification of treating these people as if they were a possible terrorist nest in Fallujah:

    Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/applying-legal-gun-permit-cops-think-means-deserve-swat-raid/#MVEesBZX8myldGqU.99

    • Cop demoted for harassment gets his credit card stolen
      Asks his former colleagues to step in,
      Suspects are known drug users and stay in a home where another person had a legal handgun.
      Police knock and announce, rip down security cameras, then ram the door
      Narcotics found in the house, along with legal handgun

      Does that put a somewhat different picture to this? I’m on the fence about these SWAT teams. Given the powerful weapons on the streets these days, what a cop to do? The PERMIT allowed the cops to know ahead of time what was in the house. If I was a cop, I’d like to know that. So go ahead and tell me how they’re gonna come to my door and take me away next because I’m naive to the police state.

      • Did you see the video? Noone on the warrant had a violent past. They didn’t find anything pertaining to the warrant. Why rip down security camera’s? They were looking for stolen property, of which they found none. The ONLY reason for the SWAT invasion was because one person, not on the warrant, had a CCP. SWAT broke cameras, a door and door frame, because of a law abiding citizen, not because of the crimes they were investigating. If not for the CCP holder, no SWAT team.

        • I have to run out but real quick….

          Don’t leave out that there are known drug users with that gun. They may have approached the same way even if there was no legal gun at the house. What if they were all meth’d out of it and decided to blow the cops away? You have to consider the whole picture.

          • They can claim anything they want, this is my point. The Feds decide Elmer Fudd, wanted for murder, is in Anita’s house, so they get a warrant to go into Anita’s house and search for Mr. Fudd. Anita don’t even know of a Elmer Fudd, much less have him as a visitor. The Feds get their warrant. Why bother Anita? Maybe she pissed off a Liberal somewhere and she needs a lesson taught to her, and she has a CCP, which now makes her dangerous to the cops.

            Next few hours and WHAM! Anita’s door is smashed in and a dozen men in military clothing and automatic weapons rush in and scream “police, hands in the air”. They handcuff everyone, search the house and find nothing. For the next two hours, Anita is questioned very harshly about the whereabouts of Mr. Fudd. During the lengthy interview, an angry cop that can’t get the answer he wants smashes the 50 inch flat screen TV in the living room. Anita and everyone in the house are treated like dogs for several hours. Then, they leave.

            This Anita, is why this kind of stuff needs to stop.

            • OH, during the raid, they thought your son was armed and shot him.

            • Dramatic much? This is one of those times where its difficult to have a conversation with you. You totally blew off what I said and made up a scary story. What am I supposed to say now? You are biased against LEOs, which isn’t bad on its own, but there’s another side. A house with a bad drug rep and guns is going to get extra attention. Yes, I watched the video, Yeah, it looks suspect. But we weren’t there, We didn’t see everything. What we did see wasn’t terribly violent. No one was injured. Drugs were taken, A different warrant was settled. The lady and her son(?) were fine, just pissed they got busted with drugs and a stolen card in the house. I’m not totally excusing the cops either. But it’s rough out there. The bad guys have them out weaponed anymore. They have to fight fire with fire.

  11. This is a MUST watch video of testimony before a Congressional committee concerning the IRS scandal.

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/just-irs-osha-batf-heads-beast-together-attack-grassroots-political-activists/

    • This is about the e-mail that came out about the IRS scandal.
      http://godfatherpolitics.com/14277/email/

    • Buck, Mathius Any input on this ladies testimony? I found in to be a direct threat to all of us, and one that needs rectified ASAP, by any means necessary 👿

      • Mathius™ says:

        ::yawn::

        The “scandal” also targeted LIBERAL / OCCUPY groups too. Lest we forget.

        The reason that more conservative groups were selected and backlogged is because conservative groups who were registering outnumbered liberal groups several-to-one.

        Yet, in the end, despite the delay, if I recall correctly, only one group was actually rejected. And, oh wait, that was of a liberal group’s application.

        The flagged listed included (but wasn’t limited to) “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” “Israel,” “progressive,” “occupy,” or “9/12 Project.”

        The FBI probe was opened by ERIC HOLDER.

        —–

        Frankly, if you’re going open up a “social welfare” 401(c), and you’re going to do it in an election year, and you’re going to have a name like “Tea Party of Pennsyltucky,” you SHOULD throw up some flags for extra scrutiny in case you are, you know, political.

        —–

        Now, you might complain that this extra screening cost the groups long delays, and you’d be right.

        And you should also take that opportunity to remember that the Republicans specifically cut funding for the group responsible for this task, leading to the longer waits.

        • You didn’t watch the video, until you do, you are clueless! I just added new testimony which is much clearer as to the actions of the IRS, it’s from a lawyer.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          The “scandal” did not “target” other groups in the same way.

          And the number of “tea party” harassed was out of proportion to their proportion of total applications. Your comment that Progressive groups were equally targeted reveals that your source on this has been from the left wing media.

          I have gone through the 501(c)(3) process before. The questions and delays by the IRS were bull shit, off the charts, outside the norm and harassment in my view. Pure and simple.

          As I stated the first time this came up. The IRS procedure lacking obvious evidence for dismissal is to approve the applications and then monitor ACTUAL behavior.

          Oh, and all of these people were not granted the status in the end. That is why the investigations was launched.

          That and the couple of cases where OTHER agencies suddenly started harassing the same people.

          Your dismissing this because they had Tea Party in their name is a sad statement in itself. First they came for the very Rich, then the rich, then the guy next door, but what the hell. They were of dubious character. I never thought they would come for me.

    • More testimony on the IRS scandal. I will share my opinion later today on these testimonies because right now it would be full of F-Bombs 👿

      http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/02/phonies-attorney-cleta-mitchell-congress-doj-irs-investigation-shame-non-existent-video/

  12. Kentucky Police Set Up ‘Eating While Driving’ Checkpoints

    Operation RAID to target “distracted drivers”

    Instead of searching for actual criminals, Kentucky State Police will be on the lookout for people who eat while they drive as part of Operation RAID, which will include checkpoints targeting “distracted drivers,” despite the fact that eating while driving is not banned in Kentucky.

    Operation R.A.I.D. (Remove Aggressive, Impaired and Distracted drivers from Kentucky Roadways), which starts this month, will remain active for one year.

    “Law enforcement will be more visible and the number of check points will increase,” reports WBKO.

    “Not only just texting, but any distracting drivers. This includes eating and drinking. We are going to be out looking for those people. You’re going to see a major force when it comes time for St. Patrick’s Day weekend and holiday weekends,” said Trooper Biven of the Kentucky State Police.

    Although Kentucky has banned text messaging while driving, there is no state law that bans eating while driving, according to Distraction.gov. Police will be pulling people over and subjecting them to checkpoints over a supposed violation (eating while driving) that doesn’t exist.

    Reports concerning the program also made no mention whatsoever of the fact that such checkpoints are clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment.

    “Roving patrols and an increase in safety checkpoints” will characterize a “blanket campaign” that “may not work well in certain areas,” acknowledged Captain Nathan Kent, KSP Post One Commander.

    Despite claims to the contrary, this is also another example of how the main duty of an increasing number of police officers in America is not catching criminals or serving communities, but revenue generation.

    Back in November we highlighted how police in Knoxville, Tennessee are swapping patrol cars for big rigs in a bid to catch texters.

    Police response times are getting slower every year, but instead of concentrating on “protect and serve,” cops are increasingly being deployed by state and local governments simply to shake down the public for money.

    The cost of traffic tickets is also soaring as governments vampirically suck off the public in a desperate bid to replenish their bankrupt coffers. Speeding tickets raise some $6 billion dollars in the U.S. every single year.

    I think our 4th Amendment have been destroyed 👿

  13. If Obama has done nothing wrong, then why worry? Telling, very telling.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/07/dnc-again-defends-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/

  14. I don’t think the Russians are going to be doing any Olympics in the near future: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/proof-that-sochi-is-a-godforsaken-hellscape-right-now

  15. http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/2/7_All_Hell_Will_Break_Loose_%26_The_Dominos_Will_Start_Falling.html

    But the most worrying thing that I have seen in the past couple of weeks were the comments made by the central bank governor of India, who essentially said, ‘Look, the cooperation between the world’s central banks is now gone and it’s every man for himself.’

    Any opinions?

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    A study that finally discovers what most of us already knew.

    Now tell me again how violent video games have no affect on the moral judgments of the younger folks.

    Now add to that the abundance of electronic “toys” that allow adults to go through the day with little “interpersonal” contact.

    How are these “adults” going to overcome the deficit they start with?

  17. JAC,

    Question for you. I’ve been doing some reading on the various court rulings re same sex marriage. The Utah decision (I believe, it may have been a different state) found that laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but are discriminatory based on gender (and therefore subject to heightened scrutiny).

    I don’t believe we’ve been down this road before in our prior talks on the topic. Your thoughts?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Buck

      Could you provide me with a reference or two?

      I have seen some arguments on “orientation” but nothing in an actual case.

      Would like to see what they are saying before offering an opinion.

      My initial reaction is that doesn’t make any sense. So I’ll hold fire until I can read more.

      Hope your weekend is going well. A city of around 2 million pretty much shut down here. Just got back from the grocery store. Many shelves are sparse. Bread pretty much gone.

      Very interesting. Freezing rain due in tonight and tomorrow to lay over the top of this snow.

      • Don’t have the links at the moment, but you can google for the Utah decision.

        What doesn’t make sense to you?

        Unbelievable what’s been going on down south and out west from some snow! That said I am more than ready for this winter to end (though maybe in another few weeks so I can get some skiing in!)

  18. Hi Ya”ll , Just finished watching the testimony on the IRS issue. First, that dog and pony show will not likely result in anything, despite the testimony given. While I do credit those on the committee for at least listening and putting on a good show, it’s so easy to see how the two sides are really trying to be far apart, rather than dealing with the issue with everyone’s attention to the people’s issues. But so far, here are my conclusions:

    1. Several govt agencies definitely targeted and attacked conservative organizations, after they applied for their tax status.

    2. The committee itself conducted an investigation on one witness, based on reports that were fundamentally flawed, and most likely (haven’t checked yet, but somewhat remember) from Liberal watchdog groups. I would bet money on this one. The senior committee member Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, was crushed by the witness as to why their investigation was based on lack of real knowledge of the activities of her group True the Vote. Frankly, she laid an education on Cummings during his “race” baiting questions. Cummings just made my list of “Enemies of the People”.

    3. NOTHING will come of this! This is just the beginning of these kinds of activities by the Feds. It will get much worse, history is clear on this. They just need to bullshit the people long enough to close and lock the gate. This stuff should never happen in this country, ever. To bad we have a bunch of idiot Marxist loving slave wannabes that are too fucking dumb to get out of their own way.

    4. I believe the witnesses. We’re screwed if we don’t get control of the FEDS real damn fast. If we don’t, 3 to 5 years from now, if not sooner, we will seriously regret it.

  19. Olympics: As the Opening Ceremonies continue, I can’t help but to think how nice it is that all these people from all these countries can come together and compete without wanting to kill one another. To BAD Governments can’t work the same way 🙄

  20. Anita, Down here 🙂

    My made up example IS happening to other people. I’m sure we can agree that the militarization of the police is not an old thing, but fairly new. I can remember when SWAT was a new thing in law enforcement. As a kid, I thought they were cool. I also saw LOE’s as good people looking out for the people. While I still think most LEO’s are good people, the actions of a few (that have been posted here) have certainly changed much of that belief.

    From a young veteran killed (by mistake) in Arizona a year or two ago, the actions of police I New Orleans to the actions of the police chasing a teenager near Boston, it should be clear that there is a problem. Crime rates are actually DOWN over the last decade, not because of SWAT teams. The reasons I have read range from longer prison sentences and a lower use of crack to allowing law abiding citizens to be armed outside the house (which you already know how I feel about their ability to ALLOW that).

    The overall point is we now have police that look and act more like the NAZI Gestapo than police officers. More and more, they are being referred to as Jackboots, for the reasons that have been shown in many video’s here. The cop handcuffing the fireman at the scene of an accident is mindblowing and should never happen.

    The good news to this, is that it’s not everywhere. Most rural places don’t have or worry about Jackboots in most places. Now, we have to think about one of the Big Brother alphabet agencies knockin on the door because they don’t like to be talked about in a negative way. My little made up story is something I see them doing to suppress free speech and speech against the establishment. See my review of the testimony on the IRS scandal, that’s just the beginning.

    While I hope that Big Brother will not act in a manner that destroys our rights, their actions have certainly been the opposite of my hope. If you would like, I can bring up examples of almost each of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights and how they have been getting violated.

    PEACE 🙂 Stay warm too!

  21. plainlyspoken says:

    Wisconsin taxpayers could be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to help fund a White Privilege Conference next month in downtown Madison.

    Madison will pay $1,500 to co-sponsor the four-day event, which tries to attract teachers, university faculty, activists and high school and college students to “dismantle this system of white supremacy, white privilege and oppression.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/07/wisconsin-taxpayers-to-help-fund-white-privilege-conference/?intcmp=latestnews

    Someone, anyone, please explain to me what this would have to do with education? Isn’t this a case of inspiring racism against whites? Racism is wrong period, so I fail to understand how this ‘conference’ is appropriate at all.

    • I still say Liberalism is a mental disease. The conference is idiots teaching idiots to be idiots. Maybe they’ll have an Idiot Parade when their finished with all the brainwashing.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I did some looking and found that this conference is under the auspices of one of the education programs from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

    • Answer is a big YES. White privilege explains everything and allows one to bring together all “people of color” without having to revert to the tired old shibboleth of slavery . Only solution is that white people must discorporate voluntarily.

  22. plainlyspoken says:

    Uncertainty about whether any U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan next year jeopardizes the American drone program over Pakistan, forcing the Pentagon to explore other options to keep it alive.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/08/uncertainty-about-us-future-in-afghanistan-forcespentagon-to-explore-new/?intcmp=latestnews

    For whatever reason, shouldn’t our country’s leaders be more concerned with why we do this in the first place? This whole idea of using drones for attacks on anyone over a nation we are NOT at war with is wrong. Why not fly drones over Mexico and use them to kill drug cartel leaders, or over US States for the same purpose?

    Farther in the article an idiot Republican Congressman stated, “Let me be the first to say publicly, the president’s May 2013 policy changes for the U.S. targeted strikes are an utter and complete failure, and they leave Americans’ lives at risk

    If he means our personnel in Afghanistan, well get the hell out and problem solved. If he means generally – like here in the US – I say BS.

  23. The list of impeachable allegations against President Barack Hussein Obama has been growing nearly as fast as our national deficit. They range from perjury, to violating the US Constitution and federal laws, to illegally bypassing Congress to make law to aiding and abetting America’s enemies.

    I’ve had a number of people ask me why doesn’t Congress go ahead and impeach Obama and the answer is simple. The Republican controlled House could easily muster up the support to charge Obama with impeachment, but the Democrats control the Senate and they would never convict their savior.

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4677/list-impeachment-supporters-congress-steadily-growing/#DErTJQspcjvDGwv4.99

    Let me be clear in saying the Republicans would act in the same way. 👿

  24. A look at Autism:

    A recent study conducted by Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic revealed that the more vaccines that children receive containing the adjuvant aluminum, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems in the future.

    In 2013, in their paper, published by Springer Science+Business Media, titled Aluminum in the Central Nervous System: Toxicity in Humans and Animals, Vaccine Adjuvants, and Autoimmunity, they revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum.
    http://vactruth.com/2014/01/28/toxic-levels-of-aluminum/

    I have had a lot of curiosity about this subject, maybe this study may help answer some questions.

  25. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    News break….Immigration restrictions to be lifted on people who gave “limited” support to terrorist groups…..go figure on the mind of our leader. If Congress doesn’t act on this and block this new Obama directive to the INS, the whole bunch should be elected out of office at the earliest opportunity or be subject to a recall.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I also heard on Fox News this morning that some Republicans in Congress are now saying their plan for immigration reform will probably not go forward this year, that maybe next year would be better. Wonder why this is? Maybe getting it closer to election politics?

      My bet, the “reform” won’t happen. It’ll just be used as a point to pound on the Dems, then set aside after the next election in 2016.

    • News break, part two. The US State Dept has been flying in planeloads of Muslims from the Middle East for months. Muslim Brotherhood members visiting White House, giving arms to AQ in Syria, what is to be expected. Wish more people would wonder why.

    • This, my friend is the “beginning” of those six or seven (if we are lucky) million refugees we will be welcoming from Iraq and Afghanistan in a year or two. I am about as sure of this one as I am that God made little green apples, or should I say Allah?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Maybe it wouldn’t be happening had the US stayed out of both countries over the past 13 years or so?

      • How many Afghans came because of Russia trying to take over the heroin trade in Afghanistan? Iraq, last ten years? Is this because someone wants to expand Islam?

        • plainlyspoken says:

          No G, I doubt it’s because someone wants to expand Islam. It would seem to me it is just another case of America convincing people in those countries to help us and then leaving them high and dry for helping out. Again, we created the problem – now it’s time to start paying the piper.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Dale, et al.

      Here is a story that will put some “perspective” on the story of lifting immigration restrictions.

      Of course it is the Govt’s action to designate “terrorist groups” that is at the heart of the problem. But nobody is going to discuss that issue.

      http://news.msn.com/us/us-easing-immigration-rule-for-terrorist-support

      • Look at the source. So we trot out the one in 10,000 exception to the rule and pretend that the other 9,999 are just like him. Horseshit!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          I think there are far more than ONE.

          This has been an issue for many years, going back clear to Reagan and maybe before.

          Our Govt designates some group as “terrorist” based on their actions someplace else in the world, and not even dealing with the USA.

          Everyone remotely tied to that group then gets “posted” as “tied to terrorist groups”.

          I think the reaction to Obama’s order is OVERBLOWN at this point. Lets see what is ACTUALLY implemented.

          • I hope you are right but like Vietnam, the groundwork has to be laid. many of the folks who will flock here will have an unsavory past. This is just an early attempt to get by that little problem.

            • THis regime has named all of us terrorists, remember?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              SK

              I am not disagreeing with your greater point. That being that we will need to accept many refugees that WE created. Like Vietnam.

              And yes, some will have dark backgrounds. But there is dark and then there is DARK.

              I am withholding judgment until we can see the actual policy and its implementation rather than reacting based on my disgust over Obama himself.

              • my disgust over Obama himself 🙂

                That right there is funny 😆 I agree totally 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I agree with JAC. The broad brush painting is regularly done by the feds, except when it suits them otherwise. The nation can reach back farther than Vietnam in bring those to this country, or allowing them to come, farther back than Vietnam. The government scooped up many Nazis that they felt would be of use to the government at the end of WW2. I am not just speaking of the likes of Werner von Braun either.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

                So, as JAC said, I need to wait and see how this is implemented further.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Read the core article before posting. Anyway, does anyone remember the Abraham Lincoln Brigade from the Spanish Civil War. They fought against the Fascists and Franco.The Soviets were also in the opposition. In 1947 the group was given a “subversive” group designation by the US Attorney General. I was asked while getting my Security Clearances in the 70’s if I had ever been involved or know any one who was. These were US, Canadian and Latin American citizens who formed the Brigade and branded as subversives for over 30 years and if outside of the US were denied entry. Personal friends brother so designated who had escaped from Austria before the Nazi’s rolled in.

  26. Chris Martenson: Let me ask you this, then: How many people in Argentina actually still have money in Argentine banks in dollars? One of the features in 2001 was that people had money in dollars, in the banks. There was a banking holiday; a couple of weeks later, banks open up; Surprise, you have the same number in your account, only it’s pesos, not dollars. It was an effective theft, if I could use that term. Is anybody keeping money in the banks at this point, or how is that working?

    Fernando Aguirre: Well, first of all, I would like to clarify for people listening: Those banks that did that are the same banks that are found all over the world. They are not like strange South American, Argentinean banks – they are the same banks. If they are willing to steal from people in one place, don’t be surprised if they are willing to do it in other places as well.
    http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/84705/ferfal-heres-what-looks-when-your-countrys-economy-collapses

    Something to think about when giving your trust to banks.

  27. plainlyspoken says:

    Several House Republicans have introduced a proposal that would require food stamp recipients to show photo identification when making purchases — a move they say is necessary to prevent fraud in the program that aids 1 in 7 Americans.

    Does anyone think this is a bad idea? I don’t.

    Salmon said in a statement. “With over $750 million in SNAP card and food trafficking fraud each year, it is time Congress take action to address the rampant waste in this program.”

    This alone is sufficient reason to make this a requirement. I wonder if the detractors, when they start responding to this bill, will complain it “stigmatizes” those receiving benefits? If so, they should remember that some states require showing identification already.

    There is no federal requirement to show photo identification at the time of food purchases, though some states have the option to require a photograph of individuals using SNAP program’s Electronic Benefits Transfer system.

    If the taxpayers are going to be forced to continue funding these types of programs then there is no rational reasoning why taxpayers should demand every reasonable effort be made to reduce fraud in the system.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/08/gop-bill-would-require-food-stamp-recipients-show-photo-id

    • plainlyspoken says:

      dang it, copy editor is out again today! *sigh*

      In last paragraph, replace “should” with “shouldn’t.

    • Great idea! The democrats will whine like little girls about it. Just reading how the NAACP is having a anti-voting ID protest, but to partake, you must have a picture ID. Their own stupidity is on stage for everyone to see, will anyone notice?

      • How’s the weather out your way Plainly? Snow today, 2-4 inches, highs around 20 here.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Not bad really. No snow for several days now so roads are cleared up. Temps have run 20 degrees or better during the day and only 30% chance of snow today or tomorrow they say – but, the skies look clear right now. Haven’t minded the snow at all. The foot or so we accumulated in the last 2 weeks will be nice for the water table up here.

          I could let this go on for months and be just fine with it. 🙂

          • Cool, glad to here things are well. Not to bad here, really. The snow isn’t a problem as most are used to dealing with it, like your place. Most are tired of the cold, it’s been below our normal cold temps quite a lot this year, but we’ll survive. Looking forward to Spring and getting the garden going, cutting and splitting wood and then I can add, I hope, several more hunting options much further from home. It’s public hunting lands, but for the most part, with the exception of one day, few people hunt the almost 10K acres. I also put a sign on my blinds and stands allowing public use when not occupied. The older hunters are thankful and take advantage of it. 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Nice of you to help out the older hunters like that. 🙂

              • Helped 5 seniors in one day! I’m hoping to add about 5 new positions, mostly for bow hunting. Any of which will be a good spot on opening day of gun season. Living the dream means hunting whitetail bucks to me! 🙂

  28. plainlyspoken says:

    iVigilante groups in the troubled Mexican state of Michoacan have entered a stronghold of the Knights Templar drug cartel, occupying the main square.

    Hundreds of vigilantes, backed up by armoured vehicles and troops, arrived in Apatzingan on Saturday.

    They have also set up roadblocks around the city, in western Mexico.

    The cartel controls much of the drug trafficking in the area, carrying out killings and kidnappings and extorting money from local people.
    Continue reading the main story

    Vigilante leaders, who have joined the official security forces, and the army have been searching house by house for leaders of the Knights Templar.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-26103464

  29. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=4917217

    This is about SWAT using one’s home without permission. I can certainly see ASKING people to evacuate for their own safety if violence is expected. I’m OK with giving police permission to use my home to assist in stopping a dangerous criminal, if they request to do so, promising to fix or replace any damage, of course.

    I am not, however, going to ever agree that they can just take over one’s home for their purposes without permission. It is a total violation of one’s Constitutional Rights and should, 1. Never happen, 2. dealt with in courts with severe ramifications. I do mean severe too!

    What say Ya’ll folks?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Guess she should have locked the house up before leaving huh? It seems even those “certified” to carry guns don’t always show good judgement. 😉

      • Sadly, the cops being bad are becoming more and more common. The good thing is awareness is also more common as citizens are filming everything these days.

        As I said, I would allow the cops if asked. Good cops will do good police work, and I do still believe we have really good cops in our country. The one’s I have had interaction with around here are all good people with families and part of the community. The treat people with respect and don’t go all Jackbooted. We have a good Sheriff and the State troopers are all locals as well. Most of crime is minor stuff, which I’m sure keeps them grounded as far as treatment of the people.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    From my inbox this morning. I think someone may have posted this before but it seems a good thing to remember once in a while how things used to be. For you folks on the left who ridicule those of us longing for the good ol’ days. This is what we are talking about.

    TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE
    1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s!

    First, we survived being born to mothers
    Who smoked and/or drank while they were
    Pregnant.

    They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing,
    Tuna from a can and didn’t get tested for diabetes.

    Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints.

    We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles,
    Locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode
    Our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.

    As infants & children,
    We would ride in cars with no car seats,
    No booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes.

    Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm day
    Was always a special treat.

    We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.

    We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one actually died from this.

    We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon..
    We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar.
    And, we weren’t overweight.
    WHY?

    Because we were always outside playing…that’s why!

    We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
    As long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

    No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were O.K.

    We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps. And then ride them down the hill, only to find out We forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes
    a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

    We did not have Playstations, Nintendo’s and X-boxes.
    There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable,
    No video movies or DVD’s, no surround-sound or CD’s,
    No cell phones, No personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms. WE HAD FRIENDS
    And we went outside and found them!

    We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth
    And there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

    We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt,
    And the worms did not live in us Forever.

    We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
    Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and,
    Although we were told it would happen,
    We did not put out very many eyes.

    We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and
    Knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just
    Walked in and talked to them.

    Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment.
    Imagine that!!

    The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law
    Was unheard of.
    They actually sided with the law!

    These generations have produced some of the best
    Risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever.

    The past 50 years Have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

    If YOU are one of them?
    CONGRATULATIONS!
    You might want to share this with others
    who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the
    lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good .

    While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave and lucky their parents were.

    Kind of makes you want to run through the house
    with scissors, doesn’t it ?

    The quote of the month is by Jay Leno:
    “With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,
    mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms
    tearing up the country from one end to another,
    and with the threat of swine flu and terrorist attacks.
    Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?’

    • 😎

    • The only thing different for me was I’d better be within earshot at all times lest there be hell to pay. That hell was having to ‘stay in’ the next day. The HORROR of watching the other kids outside playing..it just sucked. 🙂 I’d give up lots of today’s luxuries to have those days back. First thing I want back is MOM!

    • I frequently get to interview young people for jobs. One of the questions I often ask is “What do you do for fun, any hobbies?” Now there is no right or wrong answer. What I am looking for is if they have activities beyond work that stretch there intellect and skills. Some answer exercise which is OK but most answer gaming. Its sad because I could answer with a long list of hobbies and things I have done over the years. We built and flew model airplanes when I was young, built and launched rockets, ala “October Sky”, did photography and dark room work, made wine, tapped trees and made syrup, did carpentry and furniture making, helped Dad design and build tools for his business, learned how to machine, weld, do electrical and plumbing, leather carving, auto repair, hunting and fishing, gardening and canning, make apple cider, and do genealogy. There has not been a single stage in my life that I have not had a hobby or outside interest that either added skills or knowledge.

      Gman, it should be time to start tapping trees in the great NE woods (freezing nights, warm days). Its a sweet hobby I recommend. We used to make about 4 gal of syrup every year in NJ. To this day my kids will not touch anything but pure maple syrup.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Bring on the memories. All of the above. When my brother and I got our drivers licenses we were informed that taking the cars to a mechanic was no longer an option. We had to do all the service work for the privilege of using the cars. We also could modify said cars. The VW became the 1st fully insured street legal dune buggy in Southern CA. 1967, cost $2,000 per year insurance, which we paid for, not the parents. It was a routine expectancy to be stopped by the CHP. Usually they were just curious and wanted to talk cars. Top speed over 120 MPH. Almost lost the engine on the first serious trip which was to “Death Valley”. Changed all the nuts and bolts to locking aircraft hardware.

  31. 5-minute video: US ‘leaders’ JOKE about OBVIOUS War Crimes, war lies, war murders: Arrest them

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/5-minute-video-us-leaders-joke-obvious-war-crimes-war-lies-war-murders-arrest.html

  32. Look out Bucky! Sparty came to town! SPARTY ON!

  33. You know who you are…

    My life is not your toy. I am not here to be a spectacle.

    I am not your fucking entertainment committee.

    Fuck you all.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Why are you posting this here??

    • BL, Do you want to talk?

      • Yes, but unless I talk to the right people, it will likely do very little good. At the very least, someone owes me a explanation.

        I am beyond tired of the bullshit games.

        Whoever is making the decision to deny me is fucking up.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          BL, who do you need to talk to and what are they denying you?

          • I dunno. They will not identify themselves. They will not clearly and concisely state their business. Nope, just bullshit games, taunting, stalking and such. I fucking hate them.

            I lack overall context and a clear definition of how and why. But I do see.

            • What is the difference between someone knocking on your door, mid-day, introducing themselves and stating their business, vs someone sneaking around your back yard bushes at night?

              A: You invite one into your living room and offer them tea. The other you grab the gun and take a defensive position.

  34. I brought this up once before but would like to add some comment and get some opinions.:

    It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.
    http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014302070047&nclick_check=1

    I have been doing some reading to come up with some article subjects while winter is in full force 🙂 One of the subjects I am considering is an article on the 14th Amendment and how it may be used to take down rogue politicians (I know, pipedream).

    Using the language in Amendment 14, I would attack any Mayor running for Fed office by supporting MAIG and their Un-Constitutional ideology.

    First, anyone interested in this subject? Second, opinions on the MAIG issue?

  35. Funny bumper sticker: “Of course you don’t se an Obama sticker, I’m driving to work” BWAHAHAHA!

  36. Good article on the militarization of our police: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=15289

    According to a video from “TheLipTV,” “Over the last decade we have seen over 5,000 people killed by police in the United States,” when “4,489 solders have been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war. Since 9-11, you are 29 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than you are by a terrorist.”

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    I searched the Utah decision and could NOT find any reference to the splitting of sexual orientation vs. gender in the decision. I did not find the actual decision in total but all the links discussed the usual 14th amendment and due process issues.

    Which I think are stretched beyond reason by the court, but that is not the issue you asked me about.

    • Hmmm…thought it was the Utah decision, but maybe it was another state. Did a quick google search and came up with the following link which provides the basics of why this is gender discrimination…

      http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-marriage-bans-and-sex-discrimination/

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Very interesting argument. Except it does not fit anything historically considered as gender based discrimination. But one that I think further proves that those “scholars” with legal backgrounds can construct almost any argument they wish to construct based on their greater view point.

        Answer looking for justification.

        The flaw in the logic is that gender discrimination means that one gender is NOT discriminated against. Banning gay marriage discriminates against BOTH equally. Thus there is no “gender discrimination”.

        Of course I don’t agree with either premise, that being moderate or “heightened” judicial scrutiny. Marriage in this case is NOT a Federal matter and it is not dealt with in the Constitution. The legal precedence exists for States deciding Who can get a State License.

        If a State wishes to prohibit Gay Marriage that is up to the State.

        If the PEOPLE want this changed then we need to amend the Constitution. Stop this constant effort to turn the document into something it is not, stop constructing convoluted legal arguments that are not founded on historical reality.

        • I disagree; don’t think the argument is all that convoluted. Plain and simple it is gender discrimination. I, as a man (and solely because I am a man) cannot do what any woman can do – marry a man. I believe this is the correct legal argument.

          This is not a case of treating both equally because no matter how you slice it, a man cannot do what a woman can, and a woman cannot do what a man can.

          This is what triggers heightened scrutiny and it is the job of the govt to demonstrate this unequal treatment is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling govt interest.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Bull Shit………. you cannot marry a man and she cannot marry a woman. Neither of you are being denied anything that the other is allowed to do.

            There is no GENDER discrimination.

            Twisted logic is not logic.

            The scrutiny is equally Bull Shit. The Govt has to demonstrate? To who?? The JUDGE???

            Who the hell made the Judge the arbiter of what the PEOPLE want or are allowed to do within the Constitution?? Their job is to deal with the Constitution, not some convoluted argument to justify forcing social changes on Society at large.

            • What bullshit!? You said it yourself:

              I cannot marry a man, but a woman can.

              A woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can.

              The sole difference here is gender.

              • Neither gender can marry the same gender. No discrimination.

              • I agree with JAC, it is NOT a Federal matter. It is and has always been a State matter, with good cause, it’s not within the powers of Congress to deal with it. I’ll add more below.

              • Depends on where you place the emphasis — sure you can say neither gender can marry the same gender, but you can also very easily (and quite correctly) say that no man can do what a woman can do, and no woman can do what a man can do.

                All I’m saying is that there is a very interesting (and not necessarily wrong) argument that this does, in fact, constitute gender discrimination and therefore triggers heightened scrutiny. At the end of the day I could care less, because I truly believe that same-sex marriage bans cannot even survive a rational basis test (the lowest standard of scrutiny).

  38. Is it me or are the olympics becoming no longer a test of athletic ability and challenge and are becoming wussified. Or perhaps, I am just getting old.

    But, I was just watching ski jumping and they no longer ski on snow ( except for the landing ) and they no longer have to keep a ski on their own track. I noticed that the tracks appear to be teflon coated, built with high edges that keep the skis straight. No longer is there an athletic challenge of having to keep your skis straight. I remember watching the Olympics when a skier would cross his skis and fall on the jump or not get good lift because he could not keep skis straight.

    I was watching the women play ice hockey and there is no boarding or fore-checking or back checking. No hitting at all. Nothing. I wonder if the men are going to be the same. What is hockey without hitting and defensive checking?

    I was watching the luge running and they have slowed it down to where the speed cannot get over 85 mph…no longer can a luge contestant push the envelope for that extra speed taking a risk……

    I understand safety but I do not understand it to the point that there is no risk….and no chance of taking a risk. Boring.

    Thank god that the Olympics lost on the Biathelon….where they ski and carry weapons and shoot targets…..they were talking about making it paint balls…….but they lost on that one…they have limited the shooting to .22 cal. however……

    I guess I am too old fashioned but it looks to me that everything is becoming wussified….I want to see risk….teeth, hair, and eyeballs flying…..not powder puff sports.

    Okay…I am done ranting now….back to tea and crumpets with the little pinky out to fit in.

  39. @ Buck………you said ” This is what triggers heightened scrutiny and it is the job of the govt to demonstrate this unequal treatment is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling govt interest.”

    Boy, do I have a huge problem with this statement. This is very, very scary to me.

    Also…JAC says.. ” Banning gay marriage discriminates against BOTH equally. Thus there is no “gender discrimination”.

    Buck say… ” I cannot marry a man, but a woman can. A woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. The sole difference here is gender. ”

    Why are you both not correct?

    • The traditional definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. As long as a member of one sex is free to marry a member of the other sex, there is no discrimination, certainly not any gender based discrimination. To change the definition of marriage to include same sex unions is a perturbation. It is equivalent to changing the rules of a football game in the middle of game. I repeat, there is no discrimination in this definition.

      If you want same sex relationships to be legal then coin a new term for them and, justify why society should alter centuries of tradition to grant privileged legal status to these unions. Do not go about it by changing the definitions of the language or by changing the meaning of previously written laws. Do it explicitly, properly, and openly not by some back door lawyer mambo-jumbo..

      • T-Ray, doing it your way would end the progressives demands of “do it our way or else” and it wouldn’t help in continuing in their moral decay push 😉

        • T Ray…Wasn’t the argument is why is the Fed gov’t getting involved in something that should be a state issue? What really bothers me is the statement rendered by Buck,,,,and I read as a very cavalier statement,….. ” This is what triggers heightened scrutiny and it is the job of the govt to demonstrate this unequal treatment is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling govt interest. ”

          I would ask the question as to why this issue is a compelling government interest? It has nothing to do with national security and it has nothing to do with economic policy. If the IRS is a compelling government interest….simply change the rules in the tax code. They do it all the time. But it is a STATE issue and I can see no reason why it falls under any national scrutiny.

          Tradition is very important and I think that tradition is more compelling than governmental rules but we have allowed the Federal government to usurp and invade our lives and that is our fault….however, if a State, for example, wishes to not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions…..it is the business of that State not the Federal government. Let’s take a state that has state income tax ( I cannot use Texas because Texas does not have income taxes )….if that State chooses not to recognize these “unions” or “marriages” and wishes to not provide tax relief….it is not an IRS issue nor is it a “compelling government interest”…

          Is this not where the argument is?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            But it is a STATE issue and I can see no reason why it falls under any national scrutiny.

            Here is the big issue, State’s Rights. Marriage has never been a federal issue, except that the federal courts choose to interfere in the business of the State when there is no constitutional issue. The federal government has the right to decided over portions of the country under primary federal jurisdiction (such as D.C. for instance).

            While I could care less whether gay marriage occurs, I do care that the federal government overreaches its authority to intervene in the matters rightly belonging to the States.

            Now, before the 14th Amendment is trotted out to give complaint that there is an equal protection requirement, I say – yes, there is, but I see no violation there as that simply means that the existing laws are equally applied to all. If gay marriage is NOT law in a specific state, then how can it be unequally enforced on an individual? Since that removes the 14th Amendment from consideration, then the 10th Amendment comes into play since there is no, and has never been any, federal authority in the Constitution to regulate marriage.

            • Try applying health insurance as you are applying gay marriage to government encroachment. Niether of which is a Constitutionally designated area of authority. But, here we are 😉

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Yeah, but then there will be an argument that the ACA is okay because of the – much abused – Commerce Clause.

              • However, the clause is clear it’s only Among the States, not the People. Clear language that has been perverted for evil desires 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      We cannot both be right because this is an issue of LEGAL status.

      Buck and his left wing legal friends are trying to construct an argument to JUSTIFY using a higher standard for JUDICIAL REVIEW, thus FORCING the FEDERAL COURTS to overturn ALL State laws banning Gay Marriage.

      There are many other flaws in the argument for Federal jurisdiction, but this effort I find even more egregious because it represents a distortion of “language”. It is so typical of the legal profession in my opinion. It is “gamesmanship” designed to overcome hundreds of years of precedent. It would not even be allowed if the “legal profession” had not “created” all the loopholes by playing similar games in the past.

      Gender Discrimination is a “class” type violation. The issue here is “marriage” not marriage to the “same sex”. That is the threshold for “class” and thus “gender” discrimination.

      That and discrimination against one group favors another. So if SEX is the factor then ALL WOMEN are discriminated against in favor of ALL MEN. But the distinction in this case is not SEX but WHO they wish to marry. It is the same sex and the other sex gets no advantage, because the ban is applied to BOTH SEXES equally.

      I would love to hear how those suffragettes of the early 20th century would react to the comparison of gay marriage to Women’s Right to Vote as Gender Discrimination.

      • Fair enough…… and given the context of “using a higher standard for JUDICIAL REVIEW, thus FORCING the FEDERAL COURTS to overturn ALL State laws banning Gay Marriage…..Then I fall on your side….within this argument.

        However, and since the good Buckster has not answered…..i fail to see where this even falls under the compelling government interest. Where is the beef.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Good afternoon Sir.

          I think you have the “compelling Govt interest” argument reversed.

          This is the standard the Court uses to decide if a Govt action, in this case banning gay marriage, is “justified”.

          What gives it this authority?

          Nothing. They ASSUMED it to themselves.

          In this case the Court declares “marriage” a Civil Right. But who gave them the authority to decide what is a Civil Right and what is not? Nobody. They ASSUMED it to themselves.

          So the proper flow is like this.

          Marriage is a Right, and a Govt license is a Privilege.

          Since all citizens are to be treated equally………. I don’t agree with the 14th interpretation, but this is their argument.

          Therefore the Govt must show a compelling interest to discriminate any group of citizens in denying this right/privilege to them.

          This then creates the California situation where the JUDGE gets to decide what is “compelling” and what is not.

          This is why I detest this “legal view”. It places OUR RIGHTs at the discretion of first the Govt and then some Judge who may or may not agree.

          If a Right has been protected by proclamation or has been “reserved” then NO GOVT and NO stinking JUDGE has the authority to overturn that RIGHT, FOR ANY REASON.

          So WHO decides what is a Right? WE THE PEOPLE.

          And that is what happened in these States. The PEOPLE decided what the definition of marriage should be, via a legal referendum. The hypocrisy of the left is evident here as well. They argue that “marriage” is defined by LAW and Lawyers who write the law. But when LAW does not define it the way they want then they claim Jurisdictional Primacy OVER the people.

          Now I need to rest before I work myself into a Lawyer Hanging Frenzy 😉 .

        • Sorry, very very busy day today.

          Not sure I’m following your question/problem with respect to heightened scrutiny. Do you believe the government should be able to do whatever it chooses? The rationale behind heightened scrutiny is that where the government does something that discriminates against a certain class of people, the government must demonstrate that that ‘something’ is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest.

          As for why the gov’t is involved in this whole marriage thing at all, we’ve been through this in the past — and I believe both you and JAC had agreed with this at one time or another (correct me if I’m mistaken) — once the government placed itself in the marriage business, the government must treat everyone in an equal manner. To T-Ray’s point about calling it something else, the ONLY solution is for the government to get out of the marriage license altogether so that ‘marriage’ is a religiously-defined term and confers no special rights/privileges absent a civil certificate which any two consenting adults can obtain, with or without the religious ‘marriage’.

          Something to that effect — I’m not really thinking about what I’m typing since I have a pile of work I still need to get to this afternoon….sigh….

  40. @ Mathius………You asked for evidence or examples of changing law as a result of EO’s enacted by the POTUS or other democratic or progressive agendas where rules were written to change law and by passing Congress. You refused to yield to the fact that Obamacare, aka ACA, is law and therefore, through a series of Presidential directives and EO’s, is not a usurping of power from Congress, if I remember your stance correctly.

    I offer the recent example of the rule changing of immigration policy, which is law enacted by Congress, where political asylum has been relaxed to include the admission of immigrants with terrorist contacts or that have provided “limited support” of terrorist movement and/or organizations.

    Point One – The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 is a complex and often confusing collection of laws that does everything from setting forth qualifications for naturalization to regulating foreign students to managing temporary workers to authorizing humanitarian protections such as asylum and refugee admissions. The INA also contains quotas or limits on the number of legal immigrants who may come to the country each year, numbers which were last adjusted in 1990.

    An Act, initiated by Congress. This is law.

    Point Two – against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, the 1965 amendments to the INA eliminated biases in the law that favored European immigrants over all others. Following the refugee crises brought on by the Vietnam War, Congress enacted refugee and asylum provisions in 1980 that brought the United States into compliance with international standards of refugee protection. In 1986, driven by increased unauthorized immigration and few means to control it, Congress created a trade-off—legalization of approximately three million unauthorized immigrants in exchange for requiring all workers to establish their eligibility for employment in the United States.

    Everything pertained here, shows where Congress initiated and changed the Law. Congress did this as it should be a congressional issue.

    Point Three – By 1996, when unauthorized immigration was still not in check, many in Congress blamed the more generous provisions of the INA for the problem. As a result, lawmakers, led by then-House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), enacted a harsh new immigration removal scheme that eliminated or restricted many forms of relief, required mandatory detention and removal for many immigration violations, and authorized extensive or permanent bars on admission following a deportation. In subsequent years, the severity of these measures and the hardships experienced by many unauthorized immigrants who had fled civil wars and violence in Central America, Haiti, and the former Soviet Union led Congress to pass some small legalization programs, but nothing on the scale of the 1986 law.

    Again, everything points to Congress changing and making the reforms.

    Fast forward to recent time…..a rule, by passing Congress was just enacted. The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups. The change would apply to people the U.S. government does not consider a threat but could nevertheless be tied to terror groups, and therefore barred from entry. A Department of Homeland Security official said these individuals have been “adversely affected by the broad terrorism bars of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”

    Now, where would this power come from if not through an EO or Presidential memorandum or the approval of the POTUS? This is a blatant example of by passing Congress to change a LAW that was enacted by Congress.

    In view of a published report by the Washington Times, that a 2009 fraud assessment found at least 70 percent of asylum applications had signs of fraud. In addition, the Boston bombers, nine of the 9/11 bombers or airplane drivers, the New York Trade Center bombers, and the Washington bomber were all granted political asylum to get into the United States. This, to me, seems to be of national security. I view this rule making, and by passing of Congress, a disgrace and usurping the powers of Congress.

    Agree or no?

  41. . I view this rule making, and by passing of Congress, a disgrace and usurping the powers of Congress.

    D13, the Messiah has spoken. Congress is powerless, BECAUSE, of the two party system we have shoved up our asses every election. The Federal government reminds me of a computer, old but working, and rife with viruses. Slow, doing things it shouldn’t be, and in need of replacement. 🙂

  42. plainlyspoken says:

    An American citizen who is a member of Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

    The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he’s a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn’t completed.

    Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama’s new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

    I ask, yet again, why this should even be considered? AQ is a terrorist organization, which makes it a law enforcement matter. Using drones to kill him in a foreign country (one that refuses allowing the use of military action on its soil), whether operated by the CIA or the US military is wrong.

    It would be nothing more than just another case of government sanctioned assassination.

    I know, you hawks out there will be fine with it and maybe even applaud it should it happen.

  43. Buck, Question to you Sir. Why is gay marriage a Federal Issue in your mind?

  44. plainlyspoken says:
    • Times are changing….and the demographics with it. I do not think the term is Republican vs Democrat other than the demographics are changing and Hispanics vote primarily democrat…..because they are part of the get something for nothing crowd that is becoming pervasive in the world.

      Republicans in Texas are changing and they have changed with the exception of the Tea Party group…..conservatives will not let Texas go. They are and will recruit appropriately….but one thing that Rand Paul does not even mention…..even in strong democratic areas…..it still went Republican. We have plenty of Republican Hispanics that are very astute to economics. However, it will be interesting to see what the Gubernatorial race turns up….some people are saying that it will be extremely close…..I do not share that theory.

  45. Notice how the GOP is talking about Repeal and replace the ACA? Note the term replace and you can see how both parties are on the same side.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      It has to be “replaced” with something.

      Because you cannot simply repeal it given what has been done so far.

      Now if you want NO Federal action on Health Insurance you would still NEED NEW legislation because there are laws prior to ACA that governed insurance.

      • Before ACA, the States mostly regulated health insurance. Some problems existed with people getting dropped when they became ill, or those with pre-existing conditions couldn’t get insurance. For the record, Ohio fixed this when a new law took affect in 2010. Get the Feds completely OUT of the this business. They have ZERO constitutional authority to begin with. We could end it today and a vast majority of people will be much happier. Saying that it just can’t be ended is Statist bullshit.

        • I’m not yelling either 😆 YET!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          How do you address the claim that Health Insurance is Interstate Commerce.

          Let me first point out that your prior argument that this only refers to trade between States and not individuals within different States is NOT TRUE. The interstate commerce of the founding period was ALSO between individuals, not between Govt Soveriegns.

          The issue at the time was taxes levied by States on goods from other States in hopes of protecting businesses within their State. But the trade in question was between PEOPLE.

          • How do you address the claim that Health Insurance is Interstate Commerce.

            Simple, I cannot buy health insurance from another State insurance agency. I laughed ant many of the Lefty claims about, :” what if you travel and get in a bad accident”. So what? the health care provider is not obligating to accept any payment from health insurance companies they do not have agreement with. But of course they’ll take the money offered. But I don’t travel to Virginia and buy H.I. for when I’m visiting.

            The words of the Constitution are quite clear, it meant the States, not the people. Where it meant the people, it stated so. Remember, the Constitution was to establish and LIMIT the Federal govt. Your reading things into the document that do not exist.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Gman

              You are absolutely WRONG on your argument about Interstate Commerce.

              “Among the several States”. Trade was between PEOPLE who resided in different states.

              The STATES did not conduct trade.

              • “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

                Sorry JAC, these are clearly GROUPS, not individuals.

                1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

                Notice the semi colon at the end of #1. The commerce clause was about taxes and tariffs that States may try to extract from other states. It was to protect the people from unequal govt taxes between the States.

          • JAC…are you of the opinion that the health care bought through state exchanges is interstate commerce? Try to get a doctor from another state accept your insurance. You might be surprised.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              I do not believe that Health Insurance is COMMERCE. So whether it is sold across state lines is irrelevant. It was not supposed to be subject to Federal jurisdiction.

              Insurance on freight was considered part of Commerce because it was linked to the shipment of goods crossing state lines.

              But I do not think Life or Health Insurance is the same and thus would not have been considered “Commerce”.

              After all, it is insurance on people and not on “commodities”.

              The State Exchanges are not Interstate Commerce, however they were established under the authority of the Commerce Clause. Wrongly in my opinion.

  46. LOL, What do those who want government ask vs. those who don’t. A great line of questions, plus it’s nice to see a young person with a clue:

  47. Just A Citizen says:
  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    Not the Govt but the elite within the party structures.

    • I agree, how far do you think they would go to kill a CoS?

      • I know that I would never have all the delegates in one building. Use technology to keep each group in their own State at an undisclosed location.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I disagree with this one. There is great advantage to be gained by meeting others and discussing these issues in person, face to face.

          Think of the differences among the Founders and how they came together in the end. That could not happen via electronic communications. To easy to just say NO and hang up.

          • Have it both ways, begin with in State meetings that can be seen by all the other states, at or near the end of the process, have the final meetings as one group. Example, have the last 5 or so meetings scheduled at one place (a really big conference). Prior to that, save money and use technology to allow for even those with little money to be a part of the process. All classes of people should be in each delegation.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        It will be a battle of the Academic Elite and “EXPERTS” for public attention.

        I do not think there will be any efforts to use Govt power to stop the convention. The Elite within the Parties can, and will, attempt to stack the deck within the State Delegate structure.

        Remember, a Convention requires “delegates”. This is where State Party level politics will come to bear. And it could kill the chances of actual success.

        It is possible that Congress will try to delay by dragging on setting the time and place or by designating a “convention” rather than “State legislative” adoption.

        I think the biggest barrier will be the States themselves. Prof. Natelson has done a good job of outlining how the States need to draft the resolutions to restrict the number of topics, ie amendments to be considered.

        If the States get to broad or can’t agree on specific topics first, it will be easier for the elite to derail it with Fear.

        The Balanced Budget Amendment was a GOOD example of how to do this. A specific amendment topic that could not be construed as ambiguous.

        • Very fair assessment. My thinking is that this current movement will NOT end in any meetings, but will be shut down before it gets to actually occurring. But, it may be the best, last attempt at getting control back to the people.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            WE only have TWO means of getting Govt back in the cage, that is PEACEFUL.

            One is elected officials, ie Congress.

            Second is the Amendment Conventions.

            I don’t expect it to succeed right now either. But not because outside forces will undermine it. But because it is not Ripe. There are so many issues and the States are very diverse on these many issues. It will be impossible to get the traction needed.

            UNLESS, the issue selected has broad support among the people and can garner support from Dem or Rep or Indep, or Libertarians among the many state legislatures.

            Such as some form of Balanced Budget Amendment or a limited Amendment restricting Interstate Commerce powers.

            We the People are to divided on most issues to be able to use the Convention to fix the problems. First we would have to agree, as a majority, that certain Federal Powers were in excess. But the LEFT believes the States should be servants or Administrative Offices of the Federal Govt. Hard to remedy Federal overreach when about 40% of the voters believe this.

            • Your last paragraph say’s it all. We know who the enemy of freedom is. Govt has killed over 250 million of their own people in the 20th Century, not including all that have been killed in Government caused wars. The facts are undeniable. Those who support governments, support murder. We can change this with a better plan for the future, but first………..

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Those who support governments, support murder

                A big broad brush don’t you think? After all, you support governments – local/county/state right? I think it better that you define what government – or governmental level you speak of my friend. 🙂

                Further, there would be no problem in my mind with a national government properly constrained and restricted in both scope and size.

              • Plainly, Thank You, I stand corrected, so let me rephrase. Those who support Central Governments, support murder. The facts on this are undeniable.

                Further, there would be no problem in my mind with a national government properly constrained and restricted in both scope and size.

                I thought about this and disagree. Not because I don’t think we need a central form of management, but because NO government has ever remained constrained and restricted in the history of humans, where the initials intentions of said government were to be so. Power, all power, should always remain in the hands of the people, not a select few of psychopaths and sociopaths. You and I could easily sit down a design a central form of management that keeps the power with the people. What say you my friend? 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                but because NO government has ever remained constrained and restricted in the history of humans, where the initials intentions of said government were to be so.

                Do you consider your local, county, and/or state government with this statement as well? Personally I think the founders wrote the Constitution to constrain it, yet with the difference in the US then versus now they couldn’t have foreseen the potential weaknesses in the Constitution. However, as JAC pointed out in the Article V post below, they did plan for ways to control and constrain government, we just haven’t made full use of the avenues open to the people.

                There is, in a country as large and diverse in beliefs as ours, a need for some form of a national government. Again, properly constrained that is.

              • I’m mostly speaking of Central government, although it’s not unheard of at lower levels. I see what your saying, but any central government in the future that has authority over the people will abuse it at some point, that is historical fact. I would prefer a national management team, that have specific responsibilities but no power over the people.

  49. Like I have said, you vote for murder when you vote in Federal elections. http://clashdaily.com/2014/02/chilling-legal-memo-obama-doj-justifies-assassination-us-citizens/

    It don’t matter which side wins, govt = murderers!

  50. As a trucker stops at a red light, a blonde catches up. She jumps out of her car, runs up to his truck, and knocks on the door. The trucker lowers the window, and she says “Hi, my name is Heather and you’re losing some of your load.”
    The trucker ignores her and proceeds down the street. When the truck stops for another red light, the girl catches up again. She jumps out of her car, runs up and knocks on the door. Again, the trucker lowers the window. As if they’ve never spoken, the blonde says brightly, “Hi my name is Heather, and you are losing some of your load!”
    Shaking his head, the trucker ignores her again and continues down the street. At the third red light, the same thing happens again. All out of breath, the blonde gets out of her car, runs up, knocks on the truck door. The trucker lowers the window. Again she says “Hi, my name is Heather, and you are losing some of your load!”
    When the light turns green the trucker revs up and races to the next light. When he stops this time, he hurriedly gets out of the truck, and runs back to the blonde’s car. He knocks on her window, and as she lowers it, he says “Hi, my name is Kevin, it’s Winter in Michigan and I’m driving the SALT TRUCK!”

    Hmmm, Heather? or Anita?

  51. http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/02/thieves-forced-pay-attorney-costs-police-dont-get-get-away-theft/

    Cops learning that theft is really wrong, yet, no one is actually charged for theft. Cops are above the law!

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    gman

    Re you comment on the R’s proposal to replace the ACA with their own plan. Here is a summary of some of the R ideas.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/winning-alternative-obamacare_778872.html

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    Proof that God has had enough???

    BAGHDAD — A group of Sunni militants attending a suicide bombing training class at a camp north of Baghdad were killed on Monday when their commander unwittingly conducted a demonstration with a belt that was packed with explosives, army and police officials said.

    The militants belonged to a group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, which is fighting the Shiite-dominated army of the Iraqi government, mostly in Anbar Province. But they are also linked to bomb attacks elsewhere and other fighting that has thrown Iraq deeper into sectarian violence.

    Twenty-two ISIS members were killed, and 15 were wounded, in the explosion at the camp, which is in a farming area in the northeastern province of Samara, according to the police and army officials. Stores of other explosive devices and heavy weapons were also kept there, the officials said.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      gee, I am heartbroken that these dangerous criminals won’t be around to threaten national security.

      Do you get the double sarcasm here?

  54. As of now, it’s up to 50 Mayors who have left MAIG. Anyone who stays should never hold office again, ever!

  55. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here G.

    I’m mostly speaking of Central government, although it’s not unheard of at lower levels. I see what your saying, but any central government in the future that has authority over the people will abuse it at some point, that is historical fact. I would prefer a national management team, that have specific responsibilities but no power over the people.

    Yes, any level of government will abuse the people if it gets the chance to, simple because people operate the government (elected and bureaucrats). It is then the electorate that must step in and – lawfully – constrain the excesses and stop the abuse.

    Now, explain how a national management team would pull together a cohesive military? I doubt they could since the States could say no – not gonna send troops (as an example). How are you going to constrain a national management team? With rules (laws) and policies (regulations)? Who is going to enforce the constraints on this team?

    I think it is necessary to have a national government if you are going to have a ‘nation’. Otherwise we have 50 States, plus territories & possessions each going their own way in areas of national interest.

    • Sweet! I agree totally with Para 1. To explain, lets begin here: https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/after-the-fall-part-two/

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I don’t have the time to evaluate and respond right now – but I will. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Some initial comments:

        Section 1. The National Security Management Committee will consist of one elected member from each state.

        So, elected – just like the Congress. This is just a single entity branch of the current Legislative Branch.

        B. vote to activate the National Security Forces in the event of invasion or imminent invasion by a foreign army.

        Pretty much what Congress should be doing before we fight a war – even a defensive war.

        C. Revert to a part time militia

        So a part time army. Will you need all males to be members – like say Israel? Training? Can we keep a cohesive fighting force available if we need it?

        J. Right to Abolish any Form of Local or State Government that Infringes on the Rights of the People

        I found this one especially interesting. You’re giving this committee the power to abolish a state or local government? How could you possibly do that when this national management team has no authority or power to enforce such an order? What happen to the rights of the people in their own city/county/state to decide their rule? I truly think you best reconsider this one.

        Section 2. No Laws Shall be Passed that Infringe on the Rights of the People.

        So yelling ‘fire’ in a theater will be okay because you can’t make laws infringing a person’s right? Plus, are you yet again usurping the authority of the State with this ‘constitution’ by denying the State to self governance? BTW, who is going to adjudicate the cases that come up to see if they violate this ‘constitution’ (I see no outline for a court system) and if they do, who is going to – again – enforce the order(s) of the decision maker?

        That should be enough to get you started. 🙂

        • Dang Plainly, LOL. Now I have to go back and reread it. But remember, it’s just ideas brought up for discussion, not absolutes. When I write these articles it’s to discuss the possibilities, and fix what may be wrong, which could be a lot, because I write these over a day or two.

          For starters, it’s about what the Federal Govt can/can’t do. It doesn’t restrict local governments from making common sense laws, like the yelling fire thing. (actually, I never understood that yelling fire in a movie theater law. I think it’s about something bad that happened, but, when one is in a dark theater with no smoke or visible fire, why would anyone be dumb enough to panic?) 🙂

          I a good mood my friend, Pops had trouble navigating the driveway so I called my neighbor and its free of the snowy problems. My farmer neighbor and I help each other out all the time. Several hours later, another neighbor, a Mexican immigrant with 6 kids came down with his rather young boys (3) with snow shovels in hand. We give them eggs all the time, no charge! Good Day today! 🙂 Hopefully, yours was as well! Tell the Family I wish all of you the best!

  56. JAC, down here. Please show a place in the Constitution that constrains the people!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      Where “authority” is granted solely to the Fed Govt then it is REMOVED from the people. Thus it is a “constraint” on the people.

      Such as COINING MONEY, the POWER TO TAX, the POWER TO RAISE AN ARMY AND NAVY, etc, etc.

      You need to stop trying to read the Constitution using modern English and Dictionaries. That is the same thing the LEFT does because it allows them to create law from thin air.

      • JAC, Your reading just like the Lefties my friend. We have companies that sell company made silver and gold coins daily. While they don’t say official money, they can be used as such. Only governments need to tax, and boy have they abused that power. The people are the militia, no need to raise an army. All your babbling about are managerial things, that and average person would not do or need to do. So, once again, where does it say “the people can’t” or some such statement.

        LOL, had to go back and remind myself of the subject we were chatting about, the Commerce clause I believe. My claim is that it pertains to 3 groups, Nations, States and Tribes. Your belief is it also includes individuals. However since the document is solely for the purpose of establishing and limiting the federal government, where is it you figure that this clause pertains to regular people? Or is this similar to how the Left Wing reads it and makes up things because it sounds good?

        The Framers were very specific in their language usage. It is the Peoples responsibility to handle their business between on another, as outlined very clearly in the Preamble. The government deals with other governments, of other Nations, of the several States and of the Tribes. NOWHERE does it say the people are prohibited anything, because the document is not about the people. What would cause the Framers to think an individual would Tax. And for the record, The Feds aren’t the only ones who can tax in this country, in case you have missed that. By your logic, the States, Counties, Cities etc can’t tax either. So your logic of SOLE authority is flushed my friend. Armies? Each State has them, under State control. Navy, many States and police forces use boats and ships for law enforcement. I already covered the money issue (and Utah allows silver and gold to be used as money (legal tender). Sole authority, really?

  57. What are the wealthy saying?

    Embry: “What I’m looking at now is this whole world economic situation. The powers that be would have you believe that we are in a nascent recovery and it’s going to gain strength. I believe there will be no recovery of any magnitude in the world economy for the simple reason that there is far too much debt….
    Embry: “What I’m looking at now is this whole world economic situation. The powers that be would have you believe that we are in a nascent recovery and it’s going to gain strength. I believe there will be no recovery of any magnitude in the world economy for the simple reason that there is far too much debt….

    “One of the most important tenets of Austrian economics, of which I am a true believer, is that it takes more and more credit creation to generate a real increase in GDP as you get deeper into an economic cycle, and we are extremely deep into this cycle.

    The amount of credit creation that is required to get growth at this point, it can’t even be supported. We can’t even support the debt load that we have now, let alone massive new quantities of debt. So the idea that we are going to have a self-sustaining recovery is just fantasy.

    I think the Western world, particularly in Japan, is long since past the point of no return. And China, from all of the financial numbers I look at, may be approaching the point of no return as well. It is taking more and more credit creation to grow their economy, and clearly they are starting to have major credit problems.

    So I’m very comfortable with the idea that there are only two possible outcomes: A 1930s-style Great Depression, or the path of least resistance, which is where you just keep printing money so that nothing caves in, and that most assuredly will lead to hyperinflation.

    Most people who just look at micro-economic numbers can’t conceive of this happening. They say, ‘The demand in the economy is weak, and therefore we can’t have hyperinflation.’ But hyperfinfation is strictly a currency event — you print enough money, you destroy your own currency, and the value of the things denominated in that currency goes to the moon — and I think that’s where we are headed.

    I want to discuss the jobs number that was released on Friday. The jobs release is always an outright lie from the US government. If you look at the jobs number from Friday and break it down to the true number, the US had the biggest number of jobs lost in January since 2009. Well, 2009 was in the depths of the depression, coming out of the financial collapse. So the idea that there is any sustainable recovery in the Untied States is preposterous.”

    Embry added: Investors in the gold and silver space have gone through hell for well over two years. The silver price topped out almost three years ago and then collapsed over 60%. Gold has also been hammered for almost 2 1/2 years.

    Now it looks like the bottom is solidly in and these attacks by the paper players are starting to be repelled. We still see the flash crashes, where these guys dump an enormous amount of contracts in a minute or two, but they are no longer having any lasting impact. The price just comes back and establishes a new short-term high. This is very positive action.

    I am also encouraged by the strength that has appeared in the gold and silver space. I am invested extremely heavily in this space and a number of my holdings have experienced high double-digit gains so far this year. I am not excited yet because I think many of these are going to go up 5 to 10 times in price, and that’s going to happen in the wake of much higher gold and silver prices.

    There are so many paper claims on gold and silver that when this Ponzi scheme is finally revealed for what it is, I think the move is going to be historic. When people finally realize they have been conned with all these paper products, it will be the very time they need their physical gold and silver. So this is building into a crescendo and I would expect this to be an interesting year for those who have suffered in the gold and silver space for the past 2 1/2 years.”

    Eric King: “John Ing was telling KWN that we are nowhere near the level of chaos that he expects. I was just curious about your thoughts on John’s comments.”

    Embry: “I read John Ing’s interview and I totally agree with him. Quite clearly the powers that be still have the public hoodwinked with the constant misinformation and propaganda that spews out of the mainstream media. None of that is true. It’s all lies. And when the reality of what is really happening intrudes on the fantasy, that’s when the real chaos will begin.

    I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet in terms of the what the ultimate chaos will be. So John Ing is absolutely correct when he warns that the worst is yet to come. I can assure you the coming chaos will terrify most people. People were frightened in 2008, but they will be even more terrified when the sh*t hits the fan this time.”

    http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/2/10_Embry_-_People_Will_Be_Terrified_When_The_Sh_t_Hits_The_Fan.html

  58. I could not have kept a straight face, but this guy did, pure work of art! http://patriotoutdoornews.com/9024/video-amazing-resident-mocks-city-council-gun-control-faces-council-meeting

  59. plainlyspoken says:

    arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! so far I HATE my anatomy & physiology biology class! 😥

  60. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck

    The CONSTITUTION is NOT THE GOVT. Whether Federal or State, the document is the supreme law within which Government must operate.

    To rule a State Constitutional provision as Un-constitutional per the Fed Document requires proving that the Fed Document remove the authority for that issue from the States and vested it in the Federal Govt.

    Marriage of any kind was NOT such an issue.

    The FEDERAL judges have NO AUTHORITY to rule on the Federal Constitutionality of the State Constitutions defining Marriage.

    Even the stricter judicial approach is moot, as it applies to Govt actions and an amendment to a Constitution is NOT A GOVT ACTION.

    • You are assuming of course that the Federal Courts acknowledge a limitation on their power. When a lower Federal Court rules on a state matter and it is appealed to a higher FEDERAL court ……well, you see what I am getting at. One must assume that the judges are in fact honorable in their actions and are willing to be bound by the law. I don;’t see a lot of this going around anymore.

  61. Just A Citizen says:

    Here is a great example of the Libertarian Free Market argument presented as an end all solution, while ignoring a critical missing truth. That is that NOT ALL SPECIES have commercial value. And others yet may have value but it is lower than the competing values which cause it to be endangered.

    Now with that said, many of those listed could certainly be monetized by those who want the specie saved. This would increase habitat and numbers on private lands without having to use Govt force.

    http://mises.org/daily/6660/Endangered-Species-Private-Property-and-the-American-Bison

  62. I moved some things to the new thread 🙂

%d bloggers like this: