Open Mic Part 8

Time to speed up the loading process! please bring Forward any previous discussions. 🙂2014 Sochi mascot



  1. 😎

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    February 10, 2014 at 8:10 pm (Edit)


    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.

    Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    February 11, 2014 at 9:43 am (Edit)

    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.

    • JAC, you said:

      “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.”

      This is not quite correct. By your logic, a state constitutional amendment denying women the right to vote in state elections would not pose a problem.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Your conclusion is in error and our example supports my claim.

        States had the authority to decide who could vote and who could not. Some states granted Women that “privilege” before the 19th Amendment.

        Eventually the PEOPLE spoke up and via Amendment passed the authority for that decision on Women Voting to the Federal Constitution.

        At that point the State Constitutions must conform with the Federal.

        Think about these key concepts as specified in the Federal Document:

        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” NOTE: Those rights not specified are “retained” by the people. This necessarily means that “the People” also retain the right/authority to delegate such power to the State regarding said “rights”.

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” NOTE: In order for a power to be prohibited to the States the same States would have had to forfeit said power. Either via the original ratification or later amendment. And given Republican theory, the PEOPLE were granting their permission via their State legislatures. I know that is a weak spot in practice but it is the governing concept, literally.

        So we get a similar picture, those rights not specified are retained by the people, and those powers not delegated are reserved to the States and the people.

        The issue of “defining” or “regulating” marriage was NEVER specified in the Constitution nor delegated in any other way to the Federal Govt. So a State Constitution which defines marriage should NOT be subject to Federal Constitutional review.

        The issue or task of DEFINING our Rights was also not delegated to the Fed Constitution or any of the three branches of govt. It is only via the people’s action that said “Rights” should be defined and then adjudicated or legislated. Because those rights not specified were retained by the people.

        The only thing that has allowed this type of legal challenge is the misapplication of the 14th Amendment. Which has been done on an “arbitrary” basis by the Courts, I might add. That and the Judicial viewpoint that the Federal is supposed to determine what are absolute civil rights.

        The proper role of the Federal is to protect our Rights. However, because we selected a Republican form of Govt, those Rights to be protected must be specified by the People and power to protect them delegated to the Federal Level.

        • Disagreed.

          Though probably to little if any effect, as most challenges to state same-sex marriage bans are being waged in state courts.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Disagreed? With what?

            Those State challenges were appropriate, such as Mass. But remember, when that happened States started amending their Constitutions to avoid the same problem. That is what has caused the increase in Federal Cases against the States. The most significant cases are those in Federal Court.

            • Most current challenges are in state court. Give it time…I’m sure it’ll work its way up through the system and before SCOTUS.

              And disagreed with your characterization of the system. A state constitutional amendment cannot supercede the federal constitution.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I never said a State amendment could supersede the Fed Const.

                What I said was that the Fed Const should be explicit for the Courts to find a State Constitution in violation of the Fed Const.

              • Well which is it!? “SHOULD BE” or “REQUIRES”

                I understand how you want the issue to be interpreted, but that doesn’t magically make it so. The 14th Amendment applies to the states:

                “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is my statement which you addressed.

        ““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.””

        I stand by “REQUIRES” in the context of the statement I made. And the example you used to challenge this was bad because the 19th amendment does exactly what I am saying is “required”. It “explicitly” removed the authority to discriminate against women voting from the States. And once again, it was the people who made this decision via the Amendment process. It was the people, via this process that decided that voting was a “right” for women as well as men. Just as the people later decided that the right to vote would be extended to “younger” people.

        I thought I stated that the real dispute is over “interpretation” of the 14th. Because that is the only place where the door is opened for Federal authority of State Constitutions regarding Gay Marriage, among other things.

        A “Federal Judge” ruled that “marriage is a civil right”. Tell me where the Federal Judge got the authority to make this determination? And why did Federal Judges not have the same authority regarding a woman’s “right” to vote?

  3. Plainly, Bringing forward:

    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. 🙂


    gmanfortruth says:

    February 10, 2014 at 10:22 pm (Edit)

    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!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      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?) 🙂

      So the national management committee could not abridge your freedom of speech, but the state could?

      The background of shouting – falsely – “fire” in a crowded theater:

      Sounds like you and your neighbors have quite a small “community” of mutual support going on. 🙂

      • So the national management committee could not abridge your freedom of speech, but the state could?

        NO, UGH. The NMC is for the purpose of protecting the Rights of the people. Much like the Bill of Rights, for lack of a better explanation. The #! purpose is to protect the Rights of the People. I think you get what I’m doing, quit messing with me, LOL 🙂

        Yes, good community! 🙂

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    February 10, 2014 at 8:05 pm (Edit)


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


    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.

    gmanfortruth says:

    February 10, 2014 at 10:12 pm (Edit)

    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?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Gman, I am afraid I am going to have to agree with JAC. Where an authority (power) is granted to the federal government in the Constitution then the People have been constrained from that authority (power). In a simple comparison, if I grant you the use of my lawnmower then I am constrained from using it until it is returned by you. So, the People would have to amend the Constitution to take back (reserve) the power previously granted.

      In your argument on money, the silver and gold you refer to isn’t coin – it is just a valuable item traded with others. Try walking into the grocery store or the electric company and using your Franklin Mint “coins” to pay for your groceries or electric usage. They won’t take it as it isn’t legal tender. The bank will not let you deposit those coins into your checking or savings account either.

      I am afraid you are trying to stretch the Constitution into your own meanings and it just isn’t going to work. The accepted understanding of the Constitution – likely all the way back to the time of it’s acceptance – stands against your interpretations.

      • Sorry my good friend, but today the examples are on my side. If Sole Authority is to the feds, how can the States lay taxes? However, I do also believe that the Founders had some common sense. Individuals aren’t going to lay and collect taxes, they are not going to raise an Army (although this is subject to much debate), the individual isn’t going to coin money. However, even this is being done, in the form of Bitcoin. There have been other local currencies in the Northeast as well (will have to look them up)

        The Constitution also calls for a postal service! Yet we have FedEx, UPS and other companies that provide the same services as the USPS. Where is the sole authority? Claiming Sole authority requires absolute evidence. There is none. The claim is false on it’s face and the proof is all around all of us! Notable parts:

        Section 8

        1: The Congress shall have Power
        Note, it establishes power to do things. It doesn’t say “absolute, sole” or any thing that takes away from the power of the people.

        6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; See, the People can’t counterfeit. No place does it say produce an alternate, which has already been done legally.

        7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; So why do we have FedEx if this is sole authority?

        Now this:

        2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Doesn’t the NDAA do this?

        7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. HOW many trillions are unaccounted for? I can guarantee 2 trillion and prove it.

        Section 10

        1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money
        The Constitution was written very clearly. Now it discusses the States!

        And the simplest of Statements:

        Section 1

        All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
        Note; The powers are Granted, BY the PEOPLE. Then it outlines the powers granted, many limitattions and never once discusses the individual “except in counterfeiting) 🙂

        I will continue as I find more stuff to bring up.

        Chilly morning, 5 degrees. Going down to minus 7 tonight. No snow for a few days, yippee! 🙂 Have doctors apt in morning, so I’ll be on when I return. I do enjoy our chats, makes the long winter days much more enjoyable and educational 🙂

        • Section 2

          1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
          Shouldn’t this apply to CCP’s?

        • Currently, 23 states and territories have modern militias. As of 2005, these militias had a force strength of approximately 14,000 individuals nationwide.[1] Most commonly known as State Defense Forces (SDFs) or state militias, these forces are distinct from the Reserves and the National Guard in that they serve no federal function. In times of both war and peace, SDFs remain solely under the control of their governors, allowing the governors to deploy them easily and readily in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

          These numbers have grown since 2010!

          • You guys are all over the place. It seems you’re arguing two different things. Could you restate you position?

            • JAC and Plainly claim the Constitution gives sole authority to the federal govt. I call that theory BS and have provided proof of such. The Constitution does NOT limit the people in any way, unless actually written. The claim that the Feds and Feds only can Tax, Coin money, raise armies etc, are not living up to reality. The proof is above. In addition, this started with the commerce clause, which I have posted it’s language and my proven opinion about such. 🙂

              How are you this fine day my friend? I believe we both await Spring and it’s quick arrival 🙂

              • Sorry. I’m going to have to agree with JAC and Plainly.

              • That’s fine Anita, as you wish. But if the Feds have the Sole authority to tax, how do you explain State and local taxes? If only the Govt can coin money, then how is it that our dollars are “Federal Bank Notes” which is not a government entity, but a private civilian entity? How can the internet provide the same services as the Post Office when it comes to regular mail? By simply applying good common sense, there are things that an individual is not going to do, like raise an army. But, the people have alternate currencies, which is not illegal, we have alternatives to the Post Office, all legal, ect. The sole authority theory cannot be real if these things exist 🙂

              • Soory, Federal Reserve Notes! This is too simple 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              It would do no good Anita. G insists on wandering outside the discussion to offer up apples to oranges comparisons. He knows damn well he’s being obstinate or obtuse maybe, but he doesn’t want to discuss the issue within the rational context of the subject. He knows damn well that email is nothing like a post office, but will use this absolute outrageous argument to “win” his point. He’d rather, or so it seems to me, be right than accurate.

              • I guess technically, only the US can open a US post office, mine would have to be called G-man’s post office. Which wouldn’t last long because the post office idea is outdated for the most part. Would G-mans post office be illegal? It would sure be stupid, that’s for sure. Going to bring up another subject and move on 🙂

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Bitcoin is no more “money” than ice cream is. It has NO value on it’s own, but is based on the value of the legal tender of the US that is used to purchase its tokens – which are used in digital trade of (for lack of a better word) goods. You can’t use those tokens in the general economy, no business will accept them.

          Lets look at your comment on taxes. Yes, the states set tax rates for their state, they do not set national tax rates, that is the SOLE authority of the feds. The rates are set in law by Congress (as granted in the Constitution). It is their SOLE authority to do so, neither the states nor the people decide what a citizen’s tax rate for national taxes will be – and can’t, they are constrained from doing so. Try to with the IRS and see how far you get.

          You’re playing word games G. So, lets do that some then:

          Art 1, Section 8:

          To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

          You – an individual – can not create your own federal court (a constraint)

          To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

          You – an individual – can not declare war on another nation lawfully, or do the other items listed (a constraint).

          To establish post offices and post roads;

          FedEx and UPS can not carry regular mail, only express mail and packages. They are businesses that are limited in scope. Neither can issue stamps either. They are not post offices. You – an individual – can not created your own post office that operates just as the USPS does (a constraint).

          I could go on, but I think there are enough examples given G.

          • The Judicial Branch can establish lower courts, common sense. But wait: We have courts that are not established by any governments! While they apply our current laws, and have qualified judges (I think), the parties agree to the faux judges decision as final, THE PEOPLE’s COURT! Uh OH! So establishing a court is not the Sole authority of the Feds, but yes, only the feds can establish a Federal court, but that’s just common sense, why would a person want to do such a thing? Come on , Man that’s lame!

            Declaring war, LOL, I can declare war anytime I want, but it means very little because I don’t control the military. Common sense my friend, still, how does this make it illegal for me to declare war? It don’t.

            Regular mail now travels via the internet everyday. Personal letters, advertisements, bills etc. Everything the USPS provides is provided outside of government, so NO, this doesn’t constrain the people at all. We the people have found legal ways around the USPS, where we no longer have to pay them for the services they provide 🙂 I get maybe one parcel of mail a month, all of my stuff is via the internet. 🙂

            Would you like to try again? 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G, stop the BS. You know you’re giving answers or examples outside the question. It really gets irritating and kills off reasonable and rational discussion. Further to, if you really believe what you are saying…..well, that saddens me.

              Those tv courts are only with the consent of the persons, where they agree to be bound by this proceeding. These courts have no authority to judge otherwise, so they are not courts as we are discussing here. Please stop this kind of nonsense.

              We are discussing whether people – as individuals – are constrained by the US Constitution.

              I am not even going to go further in answering this response of yours – it is ridiculous to do so. Your examples are not worth the effort to try and have a conversation on this further.

              • Plainly, Common sense needs to be applied to the Constitution and what is reasonable to expect an individual to actually undertake. The Federal Government is the only entity to establish lower Federal courts, but that’s obvious. No person can, or would want, to open a court and call it Federal, what possible purpose would that serve? None, because it has no legal jurisdiction. But that is simple common sense. I have been talking about JAC’s theory that the Constitution gives the Federal govt SOLE AUTHORITY on those powers granted to them in the Constitution. They do NOT maintain sole authority at all, the PEOPLE maintain all authority not specifically removed from them in the document (counterfeitting is a perfect example). The common sense stuff, like will a citizen raise an army, is silly. Governments raise armies, not individual people, that’s common sense. I think we are not on the same page as to what each is saying, or trying to say. Only the Government can make OFFICIAL US money, all other forms of currency are not Official US money, common sense, but alternative forms of money exists and does so legally. The people can’t make official US money, only the official US government can do that, common sense.

                Like I said about the Post Office. It has been basically destroyed by the free market. Everything they do, the people have found a better way to do it and cheaper too. Citizens can’t make US stamps, but who cares, don’t need them anymore.

                My understanding of JAC’s sole authority theory is that every power granted to the Federal Legislation automatically makes it illegal for the people to do on there own. That is what I’m challenging. I believe this began with a disagreement on the Commerce Clause. JAC claims it covers individual people, I say it covers the States (as in legislators).

                Fun stuff, if we can get on the same page, maybe this will help! 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I am not going to bother G, because you use such invalid and ridiculous arguments to – allegedly – prove your points.

                The Commerce Clause surely can apply to individuals – it does so all the time.

                Congress may properly regulate any items or objects which themselves move in interstate commerce. In Swift v. U.S. the Court determined that buyers of livestock for slaughterhouses were involved in a “constantly recurring course, the current thus existing is a current of commerce among the States, and the purchase of the cattle is a part and incident of such commerce.” Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 399 (1905). In other words, if the subject of federal regulation is something which has been placed in the stream of interstate commerce, the Commerce Clause will permit the regulation.


                This is my last attempt to have a coherent and common sens based conversation with you on this whole subject.

              • The 9 wizards in robes have spoken, so it be written, so it shall be true 🙄

              • Just for fun, those same wizards also made it illegal to grow your own wheat to feed your animals because it interferes with commerce at one time 😉

                JAC …….never mind

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “My understanding of JAC’s sole authority theory is that every power granted to the Federal Legislation automatically makes it illegal for the people to do on there own.”

              And as usual your understanding is based on an argument you created in your head. Reading COMPREHENSION is required to continue with reasoned argument.

              • That is the interpretation of your written words. Maybe your should just rephrase it to make it more comprehensible to all of us lower intelligent FUCKHEADS . 👿

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Dear “lower intelligent fuckhead”,

              I do not need to rephrase my statement. I is quite clear as originally written:

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

              Now would you like to try again??

              • Are you claiming, as I have perceived, that all of the enumerated powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8, give ONLY the Federal government the powers that is given within the section?

                Or, the Feds are the only entity, because it has the only authority, to do the things written in that section?

              • is the Federal government, and only the Federal government permitted to tax, because they and only them have the sole authority?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              “Are you claiming, as I have perceived, that all of the enumerated powers outlined in Article 1, Section 8, give ONLY the Federal government the powers that is given within the section?

              Or, the Feds are the only entity, because it has the only authority, to do the things written in that section?”


              Certain powers are exclusive and others are not. And you need to read the entire document to clarify some of those powers listed in Section 8.

              Your question was relative to people, not States. The Fed has the sole authority for certain Taxes. The States have authority for some of the same, “income tax” as well as different, “sales and property taxes”.

              The Fed has SOLE authority to Coin Money and to determine its value. What people choose to use as a medium for barter is not “money” in the sense of the law. And every time that line is crossed the Fed throws them in prison. Like the poor fellow who was minting those gold coins with a number stamped on them.

              If you want to accurately interpret the “common sense” Constitution then you need to apply the language and style of writing used when it was created. Same for all the amendments.

              • I have read the entire document hundreds of times, including twice again today. Where I seemed to have misinterpreted your claim is with your use of “sole authority”. They have sole authority on some things but not all things.

                Certain powers are exclusive and others are not. That is what I have been saying, the Constitution doesn’t give the ‘sole authority” to the feds, in all matters. So let’s try this, stop using the term “sole authority” because it don’t apply to the entire document. Fair enough?

          • Bitcoins are world wide my friend and they are accepted as payment by many city governments and convertible to most any currency. I don’t like it myself, but it exists and it’s legal. Any form of alternative currency, based on the dollar or not, is legal. Some are based on gold and silver, because they want to get away from the dying dollar 🙂

            • Bitcoin is a strange thing, Central Banks don’t like it and will likely find a way to destroy it. Bitcoins undermine the Elite Ruling Class, so I don’t expect it to last long. Those who control the money (ruling elite class) control the people and the governments!

            • plainlyspoken says:

              They are not a legal tender on their own in any nation G. They have no value on their own standing. The tokens – regardless of who accepts them – ARE NOT MONEY.

              But, you’ll continue to argue otherwise without the application of common sense, so I give up here too.

              • I have heard they’re so called value has dropped dramatically as of late. OK, they are not money, as you say. Many business’s, many local government’s and even foreign colleges accept them for payment of products and services. That’s not money……shall we come up with a proper name for it?

  5. RIP Shirley Temple Black! You entertained us all!

  6. plainlyspoken says:

    Today on my local morning news channel there was a story about the City Council for Colorado Springs getting ready (later today) to vote on municipal code banning possession of marijuana in any city owned or leased building. The code will establish a $100 fine for first offense and $500 for subsequent offenses. Legalization now leads to more law.

    The council will be taking up – at a later date – whether you can smoke pot on your front porch – needing to decide whether the porch is private property or if you are in public on your porch.

  7. plainlyspoken says:

    So now the IRS gets to rule on your business decisions on its workforce under the ACA.

    • Neither change is legal, period. Obama has no authority to change laws and make up new ones, he should be impeached, tried for everything including treason and imprisoned for the rest of his pathetic Marxist life. He is a Socialist PIG and I wouldn’t be surprised if he does wear lipstick 😆 👿

      • I just talked to my cousin, who is head of HR at a company of over 100 employees. Her words were simple and to the point: Quote: ” Fuck Obama and his illegal bullshit!” I concur totally!

    • Correct and the courts will vote to uphold.

    • No one is going to abide by this….totally out of this man’s authority……

      What say you Mathius?

      • First I’m hearing about it. Sure sounds out of his authority. I’m sure, if the link is correct, that a court challenge is already being mounted.

        And, just so you know, every time someone links to Breitbart, RedState, CNS, et cetera, DPM gets the hose again.

        ⁽ᵀʰᵉᶰ ᵃᵍᵃᶦᶰ, ᶦᵗ ᵐᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵃᶫᶫ ᵇᵉ ᵖᵉʳᶠᵉᶜᵗᶫʸ ᶫᵉᵍᵃᶫ⋅ ᴵ ʰᵃᵛᵉᶰ’ᵗ ʳᵉᵃᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᶫᵃʷ, ˢᵒ ᴵ ᵈᵒᶰ’ᵗ ᵏᶰᵒʷ ʷʰᵃᵗ ᶫᵃᵗᶦᵗᵘᵈᵉ ᶦᵗ ᵍᶦᵛᵉˢ ʰᶦᵐ ᵒʳ ᶰᵒᵗ⋅⁾

        • Oh, I know that DPM is not getting the hose…you do not believe in water boarding and high pressure hosing fell under that definition……UNLESS……you are utilizing a sand filled hose for educational purposes.

        • Actually seems perfectly legal to me…

      • So, who will go into the courts to challenge it. Don’t see anyone heading in that direction at this moment.

        Been thinking about FDR, and comparing him to Obama. FDR was allowed to get away with murder for a variety of reasons. The challenges were few and far between but, when he died, things were done to prevent another cowboy like him pulling the stuff again. For openers there was the term limitation amendment. I suspect Obama can get away with absolutely anything and unlike FDR, I do know why but when he leaves and is replaced by someone who does not have the same invulnerability factor things will be calmed down. At least I hope so.

  8. Hello sufa.

  9. Interesting comment from the World Federation and the international Olympic Committee Chairman ( I think that is who he was ) making the comment in a news conference that the world and the Olympics simply are not ready for mixed couple medal winners….it will be interesting to see how this plays out considering that in the couples dancing, the French and German competitors are hot and performed well…..We will see who wins the medals….That German couple, who has won several world events, is pretty damned good….and tool the short program top spot….we shall see how it plays out in the overall.

    • I’m still waiting for the GAY Olympics. Or transgenders demanding to compete in the women’s events!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        G, one’s sexual preferences have nothing to do with being on an Olympic team. How do you know there aren’t already competitors on the teams who are gay? Further what business is it of anyone anyway?

        • I don’t care really, LOL. But, if a man, decides he’s a woman (transgender) should that person be in competition with the men or the women? That’s coming someday, might as well think about it. In my fast thinking, a transgender born a male has male muscles and should compete with other males. Don’t worry, Liberals heads would explode with this thinking, LOL 🙄

  10. We are from the Government and are here to help………….


  11. A change of subjects, I thought it would be interesting to get input on a business idea. This business would provide home canning methods that people would pay for to get what they want home canned (meat, veggies, etc) Any thoughts. My thoughts is the government would squash the idea, but would anyone want such a service available?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Are you talking about selling “methods” or selling “canned goods”?

      • I’m speaking of providing the service where the customer brings their own food and the business provide the correct jars and cans the food. Much like a butcher would with a pig raised by anyone with the ability to do so.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          I personally don’t think it would fly. Not from a government edict but by no demand. Those people that grow their own food generally enjoy and take the time to prepare by freezing, canning or drying food enough to carry you through until the next round of fresh food comes in. A small limited co-op concept would work on a barter system, that the government does object to because they do not get their cut. G, you do things with venison, a neighbor does things with beef and you do for each other. My family used to grow and produce most of their food. At each picking time, we’d all get together and pick at whomevers farm was the producer. Within minutes the produce for preserving was being processed and then we’d divide up the spoils, so to speak. It stayed within the family or small group. What you have to worry about is the government and the folks in the big city, TAKING, because its unfair for you to have and they don’t. Test case during the depression when the government invoked the commerce clause against those that wanted to produce only for themselves and NOT sell. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the government forcing the farmer to sell his produce.

          • Demand would be a deciding factor in going from some side work to a business, that’s for sure. If I can make a couple grand a year, under the table, I would. If it became bigger, then I would know whether a business is feasible.

            Gotta love them Wizards in robes. Too bad that generation didn’t realize that the Feds no longer served them, but they served the Feds. Could have fixed this mess along time ago.

    • Why do you believe the idea would be squashed??

      Being a liberal New Yorker (Mathius – I will no longer tolerate any NJ jokes at my expense, especially not coming from you, a Los Angeleno currently residing upstate….) however, I personally do not see a market. Why would I want to can my food!? It tastes so much better when fresh! 🙂

      • The Government tends to protect the big monopolies, which would be the case here. The reasons they would use is immense. Heck, they’re shutting down farms for selling raw milk and cheese made from raw milk. They are also prosecuting for some silly crime about raw milk stuff. I’d have to go back and search if you’d like?

        I personally do not see a market. Why would I want to can my food!? It tastes so much better when fresh! 🙂

        Because most people buy canned veggies, such as green beans, corn etc. Granted FRESH is much better, but fresh is not what is really in the stores, it’s several days old in most cases. I will buy cabbage and lettuce from the store occasionally. It’s OK, but I get better from the local farm market when in season.

        • Nothing beats the local farm market, I’ll give you that. But ‘fresh’ (even several days old fresh) beats canned any day of the week. Heck, I’d prefer frozen veggies over canned!

          • I agree totally. So maybe the idea is just gonna stay an idea and go nowhere, LOL 🙂 I do wonder how many people use canned veggies from the store. I doubt that the price of the canned goods would be able to compete with store bought. Thanks 🙂

            • Here’s where I agree GMan. I think it was Richmond Spitfire who posted a link to canneries in her area. I thought long and hard about doing that with my empty buildings. But it never got past thinking about it. I like the idea.

              • I am still thinking about it. Put up a sign and advertise that I will prepare and pressure can any food desired, bring your food (allow to bring jars too) and charge by the jar, not the size of jar, because the time is not the different in processing. I wonder how that would work? What would you charge, per jar if they brought their own jars?

              • Oh heck, I don’t know G. I tried to pull up the article I read some time back. I’m thinking it’s a little more involved than what you think..if it was to take off you’d need some decent equipment and space. Most of the canneries I’ve read about are run by the LDS crowd. Here’s a link to what i found on a quick search. Awful lot of stainless steel equipment, plus you’d need water lines and sinks..bunch o stuff.

              • Good article! it is possible then. I actually have stainless steel countertops in my prep area and in my butcher area, aka, the barn 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                While I agree fresh is always better, when it comes to caned food home preserves are better than any commercial canned item.

                Now G, the problems I see are: 1) what business licensing would you have to comply with? 2. what health regulations would you have to open yourself up to as far as inspections and such. 3. Can you make it cost effective for those people or cheaper than commercially canned items (unless of course you can convince them it is worth it to have home preserved stuff.

              • Plainly, all very good questions. I haven’t delved into it that far and likely will not this year. But the opinions have been interesting 🙂

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Here’s a webpage you may want to check out too G.


          • THen I submit, kind sir…you know absolutely nothing about how to properly can food….it can taste as fresh 6 months later as if it were picked the same day…

            Besides…..(ahem) you used fresh food and New York in the same sentence….an oxymoron at best.

            A a huge sweeping of the hat good day to you, sir. How goes it up thar!!!!!

            • And a good day back at ya!

              And Colonel, if this liberal New York attorney knows anything, it is good food, wine and travel. No canned food tastes as good as fresh, end of story. Come out to NYC sometime with your best canned good and I’ll prove it to you!

          • Not necessarily true. A recent study showed that vegetables canned immediately after picking are often more nutritious than “fresh” store bought vegetables that are several days old. Also much of what is in the stores is picked green while canners often wait for the optimum time to pick and then process it within 24 hrs. I lived near a Del Monte cannery in IL and would watch the trucks leave the field straight for the cannery.

            Fresh ripe garden picked fruits and vegetables are always tastier than that in the store.

      • If he were selling canned goods, especially across state lines, I would expect the government to mess with him. Remember how hard they make it to sell milk or even lemonade?

    • The service is available……nationwide.

    • Some midwestern towns have community canning centers. The canning kitchens are well equipped with stoves, sinks and preparation benches as well as all the necessary pots, canners, pressure cookers, appliances, funnels, and other utensils. Much of the equipment is industrial grade. I would suspect that participants supply their own jars, lids, produce, and other consumables. I would also expect there to be fees for consumables such as hot water, gas, electricity, etc. These canning centers are social centers as well as work areas. I imaging much gossip is traded as well as recipes, methods etc. I am not sure the history of these centers but would not be surprised to hear the Amish are somehow involved.

      That said, I think you will find the younger generation too lazy to do their own canning.

      • That said, I am not sure I will plant a garden this year. If we do not get rain in bucketfuls between now and May, I will need to save water for my trees. They are already talking about raising rates.

        • Raising rates for water they can’t supply because of drought says a lot as to why the rates are high to begin with. Somebody got their hands in the cookie jar.

  12. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    To JAC’s post on endangered species article in the previous thread. I totally agree with the idea that if the agencies make the product valueless there will be no incentive to save it. Example the Myramar government stated that the teak in the country could only be exported as a finished product. No industry to do such a thing and the tree farms cut and burned the wood to grow something else. The ban on wood from the amazon made it valueless to the person who had it on their property. They still had to eat, so it was cut down, destroyed and something else was planted. Like the food products that are being displaced by the production of soy and sugar cane to produce ethanol. The farmer is paid a greater return with subsidies to produce those products than FOOD. The rain forest is disappearing faster than ever. Just look at the “conserved habitat” destroyed by the US ethanol mandates. Between 5-10 million acres. Many more unintended consequences of government. Or intended with the erradication of the buffalo.


    WARNING! Don’t watch if you do not want to see a dog killed. However, despite the dog owners stupidity, did the cop do the right thing?

  14. This is amazing!

    I have no idea what a jackanapes is either, LOL 🙂

  15. BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi!!

    “As Media Matters reports, Fox News cited reports of a stand-down order no fewer than 85 times during prime-time segments as of June 2013. As the new report — which the Republican majority of the [House Armed Services Committee] authored –makes very clear in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says, noting that the military was not positioned to respond to the attack.

    ::backs quickly away::

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Going to make the comparison myself with historical archive data, but one of the major causes of the crash in 1929 was those that had the money did not directly invest in the business itself. They invested in stocks and speculated. The potential return was more immediate and larger, that is unless it went down. Another reason is much of the money invested was borrowed. When it started down the investors could not make the margin and the spiral began. The same is occurring today. A massive amount of the money invested today is borrowed by the big investment houses from the FED at zero or negative interest rates and companies stocks are trading at many times their actual value is. It’s a Fed induced bubble waiting for the pin prick.


    What is a “quartermaster” ?

      • ” In land armies, especially U.S. units, a quartermaster is either an individual soldier or a unit who specializes in distributing supplies and provisions to troops. ”

        ” In the modern navy, a quartermaster is a petty officer who specializes in navigation. “

    • A thief.

      • There is no such thing as a poor quartermaster nor supply sgt…….

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Sir…are you subtly implying a poor quartermaster in the Army is somehow “Fragged”. Please note the sarcasm. Once had a ships head cook, who had coincidently ran the kitchen at the Tehachapi (sp) State prison in CA, not return from shore leave. His able bodied assistant took over and the crew was again happy. The former cook was beaten to within an inch of his life and unable to return. The perp’s were never found. Hah.

          • Halfway through chow on a field problem, ran out of food. S/Sgt Smith hopped in his jeep went back to the Company area, dragged the Mess Sgt. out of bed in the old wood barracks, threw him down the stairs, dragged him back up the stairs and threw him down again. Ate like kings after that.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A person who is expert “Master” at lagging quarters.

  17. SUFA, No matter what is said between one another, it’s a great thing that we can all enjoy exercising our RIGHT to free speech! We don’t and shouldn’t always be in agreement, because this site would suck if we did. I make no excuses, I’m not the brightest knife in the kitchen, but I have a ball here chatting with everyone. Believe me, I know I’m not always right, but I’m not always wrong either. I express my opinion, and some subjects bring out some passion within me, that is not likely to ever change 🙂

    Celebrate your freedom folks, everyday! One day, it may be gone!

  18. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    8 inches of snow so far in my yard in New Bern NC. No drifting, just straight snowfall. Not supposed to not let up until late tomorrow. Should be interesting. We finally got the snow that was predicted 2 weeks ago.

    • Good time to stay home and enjoy the moment!

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Doing just that. The only thing I miss though is not being able to use any one of the 6 fireplaces in the house. A nice crackling fire would be perfect. The flues would have to be re-lined and that was cost prohibitive on 60 ft chimneys.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I remember those early days here commenting on my opinion of the Obama administration and being skewered by the few lefties who were hanging out.

    My accusations that the Stimulus was aimed at “political paybacks” and that Obama had just brought much of the Clinton team along and thus we could expect much of the same old manipulations, lies and bullying tactics, that this Administration was “controlling everything from the White House”, “They DID NOT know how to Govern” and that Mr. Obama did NOT know how to “manage”. I also pointed out that the Affordable Care Act was not designed to, nor could it, reduce health care “costs.

    Well I am most of the way through a book titled “Confidence Men” by Ron Suskind. And all the points I made then, and restated as best I could, are included in the pages.

    One key thing I thought I would share. Remember how Obama and the Dems started vilifying the Insurance Companies for trying to undermine Health Care Reform?

    Well it turns out that they were among the FIRST to agree to pay ball IF the reform included STRONG COST REDUCTION measures. It was efforts of the care providers, Doctors, Hospitals, etc, that undermined these efforts. Yet when it all went south and POTUS decided to forge ahead with Pelosi to “get anything we can” they turned on the Insurance Companies. Even though the whole thing wound up being about Insurance and not reforming or controlling “costs”.

    As I have also said about these “progressive Democrats”….you cannot trust them. Sleep with the snakes and you will get bitten.

    I urge everyone to read this book. Not because it bashes on Obama. It also heaps tons of obnoxious praising as well. But because it will give you insight into how our Govt works. In particular, how even within a Political Party there are many players with differing views fighting to get “their ideas” made into policy. All believing they are doing good by the people, and all suffering the hubris of believing that “they” somehow know what that is.

    One major mistake by Obama……….He should have nominated Paul Volker to replace Bernanke when his term expired. Volker wanted the Big Banks to pay the price of their sins and for all future “derivative” markets to be made transparent, as in placed on an “Exchange”.

  20. The insanity continues :

    “According to Caden’s mother, Ms. Fraustro, Caden was waiting in line to be patted down on Friday, January 31st, when he realized that he had mistakenly left in his sweater pocket a toy plastic gun which he had played with the previous night…” a letter from Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead to the Director of Chicago Public Schools reads. “Caden alerted the security personnel to his predicament.”

    The fact that the school is patting down 11 year old children is shocking in itself and highlights how the “security” enhancements seen in airports and at transport hubs have made their way into every day American life. Perhaps school officials are simply emulating airport security, which is now engaged in frivolities such as confiscating miniature toy guns from ‘Toy Story’ Woody dolls.

    Let me say this clearly, most Left Wing Liberals are batshit mentally ill.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Insane….How times have changed. The last time I went through Gatwick I forgot that I had a mariners knife in my computer case. I realized it just as I got to the inpection. I handed it to the agent, fully expecting it not to be returned. She opened the blade, measured it against a ruler on the table, and handed it back. I tried reminding her that it opens two ways and the overall length is over 10 inches. I really didn’t want any hassle on the other end of the flight. But, got waved through. This was in a country that any joke in line about the IRA or any topic like that guaranteed an arrest.

      anyone see that Holder wants felons after release to get their voting rights returned. Says it’s unfair that 5.8 million people mostly minorities are disenfranchised.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        anyone see that Holder wants felons after release to get their voting rights returned. Says it’s unfair that 5.8 million people mostly minorities are disenfranchised.

        I am not saying I agree with Halder, but let me ask – under the accepted belief that once a criminal has served his/her sentence, their “debt to society” has been paid, so shouldn’t they have their voting rights restored? Note I narrowly defined the issue to voting, thereby showing that there are restrictions that can, and are, regularly placed on ex-felons (like firearm possession or sex offender registrations, etc).

    • More of the absurd:

      Security officials at London’s Heathrow Airport courageously confiscated a miniature toy gun from an unruly passenger, after he attempted to inconspicuously sneak it through in the holster of a Woody toy doll from the Disney Pixar movie Toy Story.

  21. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Off to watch “The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer” in memory of Shirley Temple Black.

  22. Considering how Obama has changed the ACA some 15 times now, what would keep a Republican President from taking office and delaying it until 2025? I’d bet the Democrats don’t think that far ahead, and I bet they whine like little girls when it happens. Just a thought 🙂

  23. You have to love the new mantra from the progressive movement…..” job lock ” is the new progressive term out there…..JOB LOCK…..meaning that you should NOT have to work in a job you do not like to have health care… should not have to work in a job to have food and shelter……just limit your hours and quit and live off the dole….that is now a family value……live off the back of others. And we wonder why there is a decline in American values….

    • We should all just go on the dole. 300 million strong. Money will fall from trees for us. 🙄

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning my Texican friend. Hope all is well. Wet warmer air on the way.

      Yesterday I saw clips of Pelosi and Schumer declare that the ACA is creating FREEDOM. And according to Chucky “Freedom is a good thing, isn’t it?”.

      So there you have ladies and gentlemen. The official distortion of the term FREEDOM. It will soon become mainstream as the media repeats it, and repeats it, and repeats it.

      Now Colonel, would it be a violation of your Honor to go on the dole with the deliberate purpose of destroying the system?? Or would that be a “revolutionary” thing to do??

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Now Colonel, would it be a violation of your Honor to go on the dole with the deliberate purpose of destroying the system?? Or would that be a “revolutionary” thing to do?

        While I am not the Colonel, or was even an officer *shudder* (just a lowly NCO) I would like to ask if would do us any good JAC, or would we be just handing the left exactly what they want – a “socialist” style nation?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Forcing or speeding up the collapse would make sense in my view, ONLY if a better replacement were available to deal with it.

          If it were to collapse today, what would step in? BF and I had an argument on this very point. I believe it would be the same thing as we have only worse. Because the POWER would fight like hell to keep the POWER.

          The collapse would have to be so devastating as to DESTROY the People’s confidence in the existing system but not push them into accepting the Fourth Reich as a solution.

          Now, it might be possible to wake people up to the bankruptcy of the Left agenda by simply causing a Fiscal Collapse.

          If the People suddenly realized that you cannot have over half the country supported by the remainder perhaps they would make a change.

          Thinking about it……….out loud here……………. maybe a faster collapse would be better. It would eliminate the “boiling frog” dilemma from the equation.

          This in essence is what I thought the Bank failures and the Tea Party response to TARP and Stimulus was. The financial crisis was large enough to wake up most people. But the POWER was able to quickly divide us into two camps to prevent meaningful change (Occupy vs. Tea Party). So maybe another SEVERE crash is needed to finish the job.

          That and some leadership which is articulate enough to show the two camps they share about 70% or more when it comes to the problems and the solutions.

          • The collapse would have to be so devastating as to DESTROY the People’s confidence in the existing system but not push them into accepting the Fourth Reich as a solution

            Let’s rephrase:

            The collapse would have to be so devastating as to DESTROY the People’s confidence in the existing system enough to push them into accepting the Fourth Reich as a solution.

            Would you like factual numbers that support the latter?

  24. Remember, SUFA, the worm will turn…..if the Repubs can get a majority in the Senate and IF they can gain the white house….Obama has set a pretty interesting precedent…..the Dems can no longer complain about ignoring the Constitution or changing laws……or “tweaking” a law through administrative action…….Obamacare can be delayed by another POTUS just as it is being delayed now.

    • Saw a long line of Rs on tv yesterday complaining about the latest delay for the employer mandate. They spoke the right words and gave the right threats (impeach) but will anything come of it this time?

      • No, nothing will come of it at all….they do not have the stroke…..nor the guts….Cruz is going to force a 60 vote issue on the debt ceiling….he knows he will lose but forcing the vote will show the public who votes.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Nothing to see here, just the usual political posturing by them. Move along folks, we wouldn’t want to notice – it just encourages them to expel more hot air.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      “..the Dems can no longer complain about ignoring the Constitution or changing laws……or “tweaking” a law through administrative action…”

      *gently shakes d13’s shoulder* Colonel, wake up. Wake up, you’re dreaming again.

      Of course they can complain, and they will. They will conveniently forget or explain that it isn’t the same as what Obama did.

      • Oh, sorry…guess I dozed off for a second……

      • Explain ? No, the left politicians will look at you with disdain and scream racism or some other word of condemnation that has nothing to do with the conversation- in their self righteous voices-they do not explain, anything they do is justified so they don’t have to explain.

    • Like I said above, after Obama, they will reign in some of this nonsense that has been going on like they did with FDR. As much as I’d like to see the GOP go tit for tat on them (with weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Dems and Media), it is much more important for the Constitution to shut this crap down. perhaps executive orders can be brought back to where they belong, like declaring April 23rd Bavarian pretzel day!

  25. plainlyspoken says:
  26. plainlyspoken says:

    The next in potential reality television shows?

    All kidding aside, is violence so bad on city metro buses in Boston that now they need to be monitored live with camera systems? We are slowing getting as bad as the UK when it comes to camera monitoring in public.

  27. plainlyspoken says:

    Atlanta residents ransacked neighborhood grocery stores in frantic preparation for their second major snowstorm of the year, waging fights over food items and leaving destruction and empty shelves in their wake, a stunning precursor to what will ensue once a major crisis impacts the U.S.

    Should this be true, then it just shows the stupidity of people and their ignorance at being prepared – even minimally – for emergencies that interfere with “normal” daily life.

  28. plainlyspoken says:

    I am curious as to the feelings you may have on this particular use of drones by journalists or media organizations?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      My thoughts extend to whether we’d see these types of drones being used to invade the privacy of a property owner? So I did some limited reading and ran across this on the web:

    • plainlyspoken says:
      • Just A Citizen says:

        Interesting article.

        Notice that the Fed Govt TOOK the air space that had traditionally been considered PRIVATE PROPERTY via regulations.

        And they did that WITHOUT PAYING the owners for the property taken.

        UNCONSTITUTIONAL act of Congress and the Executive and the Judicial branches of Govt.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Another thought on “air space”. One I have pondered before and have received no satisfactory answer.

        WHO owns the space between the Private air space??

        You see, even if all land is privately owned, when you project a vertical column upward from the surface of a sphere, the columns will diverge. Leaving space between each column, with this space increasing as you get farther from the surface.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Well, could we construe that specific airspace as being public? I’ve never really given a lot of thought to the airspace over my property before. Maybe it would be more a privacy issue to argue it. Even though I can’t “control” very much of the space, I still have an expectation of privacy over, as well as around and on, my property.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I think the issue of photographs and recording could indeed by handled by privacy LAWS.

            Air space can be cool if you have the money to BUY your view from the owner of the underlying real estate.

            Because as they say, if you don’t own the land you don’t own the view.

            I think the space between the space would have to be “commons”. Meaning public and NOT Govt.

            Perhaps the Govt should have to pay an EASEMENT FEE to ALL AMERICANS for the Navigational space they have TAKEN. A TAX CREDIT of around $2000 per year might do the job.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              They wouldn’t do that until after they TAXED us for that airspace first – to an amount that would do more than offset the tax credit offered.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Comprehensive Immigration REFORM.


  30. Just A Citizen says:
  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Good article on History for today. And of course a “warning” to those still asleep.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Good article. But the segment of our society that pushes so much in the direction of Marxism-Socialism has never lived under it, therefore they are unable to understand the horrors it would create. Instead that segment of our society prefers to put on blinders, not learn from history, and believe “we” can do it better anyway.

  32. Wendy Davis: Actually, I support banning abortion after 20 weeks with a few exceptions
    posted at 11:21 am on February 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

    Via Charles Cooke, who notes that between this and her newfound support for open carry, Davis would probably qualify as a tea-party candidate in a blue state like Connecticut.

    At the rate we’re going, she’s going to end up filibustering a pro-choice bill before November.

    Davis, a Fort Worth senator and the likely Democratic nominee for governor, told The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board that less than one-half of 1 percent of Texas abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those were in cases where fetal abnormalities were evident or there were grave risks to the health of the woman…

    But the Democrat said the state’s new abortion law didn’t give priority to women in those circumstances. The law allows for exceptions for fetal abnormalities and a threat to the woman’s life, but Davis said those didn’t go far enough.

    “My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was,” Davis said…

    Davis said she could have supported a bill that contained only a 20-week ban, but the law’s restrictions on clinics and doctors have greatly curtailed access to the procedure in parts of Texas.

    In other words … I don’t know what she’s saying. She’s saying, I guess, that she opposes no-questions-asked late-term abortion for the sake of convenience, but she wants women to be able to invoke the health exceptions essentially on their own say-so. The definition of abnormality or health risk would be subjective, not objective via legislative language — i.e. no questions asked. How many women in their third trimester who’ve resolved to abort would be deterred by a standard like that? All she’s doing with this parsing is trying to walk the line between signaling to casual Texas voters that she’s kinda sorta socially conservative while reassuring abortion warriors who follow this issue closely that her “ban” would have no teeth in practice. But that’s not her brand; the left loves her not because she’s willing to hide behind loopholes but because she’s a loud-and-proud filibusterin’ bulwark against the pro-life patriarchy. Says Jonah Goldberg, what exactly are people who “stand with Wendy” standing for at this point? Do they even know?

    Honestly, I think this has become the most interesting electoral experiment in American politics. Her candidacy is about two things: Her knighting as pro-choice royalty last year and her biography as the professional woman who’s worked her way up and is on the cusp of proving that women really can have it all if Texas will just go ahead and make her governor. Red-state political realities are forcing her to give back the first credential. All that’s left of Wendy 2014 is feminist passion play. Hence the experiment: How much enthusiasm can she sustain among liberals for a candidacy that’s now purely about identity politics? Having achieved left-wing celebrity status, can she lose that status or will they feel duty-bound, if only to save face, to excuse her heresies and go down with the ship? There must be plenty of liberal Davis fans in Connecticut who’ve noticed her nascent tea-partyism. Will they continue to pony up donations, telling themselves that it’s Good For Women and that she’ll revert to form once in office a la Obama and gay marriage? Or will they decide that it’s no fun cheering for a fighting liberal who’d rather hide and lose a close-ish election than fight and lose badly?

    Either way, this is why the scrutiny of her life story is more damaging to her than it is to most candidates. It’s not because there’s a double standard for women, as she recently and predictably implied. It’s because, once you take her bio away, there’s nothing left. Exit question: If Sandra Fluke were running in a red state, she’d be anti-contraception now, right?

    Funny what happens when dems. have to actually defend their stances.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I’d see a 20 week ban point as a move in the right direction.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        If you are going to “legislate” a ban of some kind then it should NOT be based on a time stamp.

        Because the DATE is not precisely known.

        So this is where Mathius’ proposal can come to the rescue.

        Base the yes/no decision on presence of brain activity or some definable and observable condition. If X exists then NO.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          While I understand your thought, I personally believe life begins at conception – so I need no definable or observable condition beyond that moment. There is no reason I should either.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I was going with your comment to ban at 20 weeks.

            If your belief is “conception” then the BAN should be 100%, no other conditions.

            The “REASON” we need a definable condition is the need for Clarity on a KEY MORAL issue. And to eliminate GAME playing of the law.

            If we allow games in the law then we should not have the law.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Ok, I get ya. I would be fine with a 100% ban, since it fits my beliefs. I would love to get the clarity on it, but I feel that will never happen. Too many believe there has to be some scientific measure wherein they can deny that life the right to life.

        • I’m sorry, what Mathius Proposal might this be?

          I have my own PERSONAL OPINIONS, but before the point of viability, I am against using my opinions as the basis for legislation. After the point of viability, I feel that I am on solid enough logical ground that a Mathius Policy could be used as grounds for legislation.

          After the point of viability – though I really hate the idea – I think women should have the right to prematurely induce labor / c-section, but not terminate. They are entitled to their bodily autonomy, and they want something out, they should have that right, but that doesn’t include the “right” to end the “life” of the creature where it is not medically necessary to do so. So, in lieu of abortion, the fetus is delivered and cared for as best as medical science is able, then given up for adoption.

          Prior to the point of viability is a hazy gray zone. I draw my personal line at the point at which an identifiable human brain can be discerned on an ultra-sound. I personally believe this is waaaay before the “real” cutoff, but I also believe it is worth it to be waaaaaay on the safe-side. This line is, I think, generally around the 5-week mark. But that’s my personal opinion and, again, is not a viable grounding for legislation.

          In all probability, the “correct” cutoff for an abortion would be anytime before the fetus graduates college, gets a job, and moves out of its parents’ house.


          Disclaimer time: I am not a doctor. Though I am fairly confident that no such circumstance exists, IF it is medically necessary to terminate rather than deliver a viable fetus in order to save the life of the pregnant woman, then termination would still be an option for the woman. To clarify, for example, an Intact D&E could be just as readily a delivery as an abortion from the perspective of the pregnant woman, so there is zero – none, zip, zilch – reason to terminate what would otherwise be a viable fetus simply because “she doesn’t want it.” “I don’t want it to live” is not a “right” of a pregnant woman. “I don’t want it inside me” is a right of the pregnant woman. I think the modern medical ethics debate seems to largely miss this nuance (see my article a while back).

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your proposal was to use brain function as the point of “human being” or “person” existence.

            Which happens to also make for an “identifiable” condition to set a LINE, IF and I say again, IF one is inclined to write a LAW defining such a LINE.

            Your argument is very interesting but raises a problem for those who wish “the thing removed” prior to about 25 weeks. That being the earliest that a “human life” could reasonably be sustained.

            While the argument that a woman should have prior right over the use of her body is worthy of evaluation, the fact that we are Human seems to dictate that this “right” cannot be held independently of those we are responsible for, in this case the unborn. It also does not mean that such a decision should be available to simply AVOID the consequences of our own actions, ie having sex.

            This is the reality of our Human Nature that seems lost on so many who are rabid Pro Choice. Their arguments about Owning our bodies, Right to decide, etc, etc, IGNORE the REALITY that Humans reproduce by the Woman carrying a child within her womb.

            The fact is also ignored by many on the Pro LIfe side when they give PRIMACY to the unborn over the already EXISTING HUMAN BEING who is the mother.

            Perhaps BF was onto something when he long ago suggested that the mother/unborn relationship is one of “guardianship”. We could then evaluate how a Guardian of a Born Human would be expected to behave and then apply that to an Unborn Human.

            Fiduciaries are not required to sacrifice their life on behalf of the Beneficiary, for example. They are expected to act in a “prudent” manner and on behalf of the Beneficiary.

            • The fact is also ignored by many on the Pro LIfe side when they give PRIMACY to the unborn over the already EXISTING HUMAN BEING who is the mother.

              Can I get a hallelujah!

            • Fiduciaries are not required to sacrifice their life on behalf of the Beneficiary, for example. They are expected to act in a “prudent” manner and on behalf of the Beneficiary.

              This hits close to my biggest qualm. Early labor frequently results in underdeveloped / mal-developed babies. That is, learning disabilities, health issues, and more.

              I firmly believe that medical science will march on and, eventually, this will be a non-issue, but today, if a woman were to evict a 25 week old fetus, even if said fetus survived, it would be unlikely to be as healthy or well-formed as it would otherwise be.

              Does this not constitute child endangerment?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                if a woman were to evict a 25 week old fetus, even if said fetus survived, it would be unlikely to be as healthy or well-formed as it would otherwise be.

                Does this not constitute child endangerment?

                No, it is not. Though the Nazi’s had a solution for what you infer here. Not that you are a Nazi by any stretch, but your inferred reasoning is just as horrendous.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Well, being the parent of a “child” who has such “not normal’ issues I would say NO.

                I simply have to work backwards in time based on his condition. At what point would I have decided that the person I know today was or was not “endangered”? Knowing what his life would be like would I be “justified morally” in “sparing him” this life?

                If you ask him if he would rather be alive or dead I guarantee you he says Alive. And he clearly understands what that means. Not perhaps in the deepest sense as you and I might, but he certainly does not want to be dead.

                So if delivering an infant increases its chances of having issues later vs. NOT LIVING, I guess I would say termination is far more “endangerment” than living with a handicap.

                Of course that decision should be the person afflicted. But that is a matter for discussion at some other time. 😉

              • Plainly/JAC,

                I think you’re misreading what I suggest. If fact, I think you both have it completely ass-backward.

                I’m not saying that a fetus should be aborted to “spare it” from a life of disabilities. I’m suggesting that (maybe) there’s an argument to be made that premature eviction is child endangerment. Not that the fetus should be aborted, but that the “right of eviction” of a pregnant woman over a late term fetus is tempered by the fact that exercising that right demonstrably negatively impacts the fetus child.

                That is, while there’s nothing “wrong” with a child having special needs, it seems cruel and morally wrong to willfully inflict them on a child when it is otherwise avoidable. Again, to be clear, I’m not suggesting avoiding the child (via termination) but rather the early delivery (specifically the lack of womb-time) which leads to the disabilities.

                Is this clearer?

                One more time, just so we’re 100%: I’m not saying that abortion should be used to prevent disabled/special needs children – this is not a claim I have EVER made. I am saying that, now that it’s viable, a fetus should probably have some rights against child endangerment and that, to the point, deprivation of developmentally necessary womb-time would seem to constitute child endangerment to me.

              • Mathius,


                I think you’re misreading what I suggest
                Happens to me all the time my friend 🙄 Something for you to think about, politically speaking ONLY, After 55 million aborted fetus’s since Roe V Wade, had the opposite decision outlawed abortion, Liberal Democrats would easily outnumber Conservative Republicans solely based on location of a majority of abortion clinics. Basically, Democrats who want all the power, have flushed their best chance down the toilets of abortion clinics. And yet, still don’t understand life .

                I only say this because I don’t see you as a true Leftie (much like Buck). Just a small fact that is rarely written about the demographics of abortion. I simply call it population control of blacks, Democrats call it choice 😉

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I would say it is an equality, not a primacy of one over the other when there is no danger to the mother or unborn. Which is where a 100% outright ban should exist

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    A case made AGAINST the theory of a swinging pendulum.

    Or, why Republicans are in deep doo doo.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      The truth – problem is that those on the left may know the truth, but that is far different from accepting the truth.

      • And what truth might that be?

        • plainlyspoken says:

          The ones where pushing big government to manage the life of the people instead of the people managing their own lives leads to ultimate disaster. The few supporting the many.

  34. Say it ain’t so, another democrat falls:

    These poor cities need a much better class of Politicians, the democrats are literally killing the folks who live there. When the hell are people gonna wake up? Or are they just “that damn stupid” that they can’t see the obvious?

    • I really enjoyed this paragraph:

      Aside from the two terms of President George W. Bush, the White House has been Democrat-controlled real estate for over 20 years.

      See what they did there? The last twenty years. Except for the two terms eight years Bush was President.

      Of the last “20 years,” Red Shirts 8, Blue Shirts 12.

      Yea, totally one-sidedly Democrat-controlled real estate.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I was hoping someone else was going to point that out. I thought it clever but ERRONEOUSLY stated. “For over 20 years” has no time period assigned, not even the “last” 20 years.

        • Especially if you (arbitrarily) go back another decade, you pick up Bush I and a Reagan double-header.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Yep, then go back an pick up Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and OMG Roosevelt.

            Given the point of the article, which was the entitlement culture, it seems the author should have started with FDR and focused on the “ideology” rather than the Party.

            If one does that you see that Reagan’s 8 years are the only “non Progressive” period since Hoover’s election. And even that 8 years (Reagan) is not what I would call a “reversal” of the New Deal mentality.

            Now if the Party is the focus, then Start with Bush I. Rode in on Reagan’s coattails and then lost to Clinton. Bush I marks the beginning of the descent of the Republican party, in my opinion. He returned the party to the Rockefeller wing. Bush II may represent its Epitaph because you couldn’t distinguish him from the Dems up to that point.

  35. Just A Citizen says:


    The reintroduction of the Wolf was supposed to address this problem:

    NOTE: For those watching who don’t understand wildlife biology in western states. The comment by the environmentalist that “no other specie” is killed due to “excess numbers” is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

    The hunting seasons are predicated on the estimated EXCESS number of each specie relative to target populations which are relative to estimated carrying capacity of the habitat.

    In fact, it is expected that up to HALF of the deer and elk population will DIE each year. Hunting simply captures a large part of that number for use by humans.

    Tag types are then set to “manage” the rations of female to male and female to young. These ratios are used to provide “trophy” class hunts for game where such hunts are desired, ie; deer, elk, antelope, sheep, goats.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Can’t wait to find out what the PRICE TAG was for these R’s to vote for increasing the Debt Limit. Especially those who had already voted No.

    Atta Boy to Ted Cruz for forcing the role call vote.

    Now if someone on the Tea side could put together the solid evidence to show the public and media that Failing to increase the debt limit does NOT trigger a default.

    This is a horrendous LIE.

    On the other hand, it is hypocritical of most R’s to vote FOR the Appropriations Bills knowing they will blow up the Debt then scream about raising the Debt Limit.

    Plenty of ammunition here for smart R’s who want to eliminate the Rhinos and then Embarrass the Democratic Leadership and the MSM.

  37. Just A Citizen says:


    This is what I call a twofer. Or “shooting doubles” for those non pheasant hunters.

  38. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here Mathius.

    Ok, I did misunderstand, but you have cleared the air. Giving a right to the child at that point. Gotcha and I withdraw my earlier comment.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Your restated position of much clearer. I apologize because I did misinterpret what you were saying. Or perhaps “jumping” to the conclusion that the only solution to “endangerment” would be “termination”.

      In the context which you now present it, I would agree. If we apply Guardianship standards then there is a limit on WHEN she can “evict” the person she does not want.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…… Another example of OBAMA LIES. This is OFFICIAL WHITEHOUSE stuff and it is nothing but PROPAGANDA. And the initial premise is a LIE.

  40. A short video that gives a great example of the contradiction many have by claiming to support Liberty and government. A good lesson in understanding the difference between authority and the State as well.

  41. For those who missed this before, what a powerful asschewing of an OREGON legislature. JAC, your neck of the woods I believe.

  42. Canine Weapon says:

  43. Where did BF go? He and a select few offered great insight into a number of different topics. Not to take away from what you guys discuss daily, but the conversation is not what it used to be…


    Some of FEMA requests when searching for vendors is almost absurd, if not totally absurd. I do follow these things and wonder what kind of event could possibly warrant such extreme actions (based on material requisitions and deployment needs). Based on their requests, the event would have to be over a very large area and very catastrophic. Living near some of the mobile home builders, their request could never be filled (150 units a week). The logistics and buildings are just not available. I just wonder who they think can do all this work? Where is the labor going to come from? I think I know that answer but will reserve for now.

    Just another piece of the puzzle that we may soon have an answer for.

%d bloggers like this: