Open Mic Part 17

th30094TSFTime to speed things up and move ahead.



  1. Gmanfortruth says:

    Feel free to bring any subject forward 😎

  2. Brought forward….

    JAC… Texas closely. It appears that we have successfully forced a runoff position for RINOS. Cornyn is no longer a shoe in, it appears. It also appears that we have successfully forced the Lt Governor position into a runoff. These are republicans that have been labeled establishment and bent on compromising and being intimidated by Democrats.

    Planned Parenthood really screwed up down here as well. Texas has become a real focal point in politics and the pounding that Cruz has gotten has appeared so far to have rallied conservatives. They are turning out in record numbers for early voting and are voting in the Republican primary.

    In the past, I have always voted in the Democratic primary because I supported most of the Repubs. I always voted for the best Democrat…..this year, because we have become pissed at the establishment Republicans……we are trying to dislodge the Republicans that have abandoned Texas. Cornyn is one of those and so is Dewhurst. So, this year, I went to the Republican primary as Cornyn and Dewhurst both have lost my support.

    Two years ago, we (moderate conservatives), and that includes my 3,500 strong veterans group, have started a grass roots campaign for local level positions and have succeeded so far in getting more conservative ( not right wing extremists ) into lower level positions and it is paying off already.

    I think we have a great shot at getting Cornyn out and another Cruz like person in his place. Cruz scares people because is independent and that is what we like. Independence!!! and not following lock step or compromising. Cruz gets bashed by Democrats and RINOS because he represents independence.

    AS to Wendy Davis……well…..early polls show that she is behind by 15 percent….I suspect that the gap will close a little but I see a Abbott victory by over ten points. At least we hope so……

    Also, there have been less than 200 applications state wide for State ID’s for voting. We are strongly enforcing the photo ID here and that is also having an effect. It is amazing that just enforcing the laws as they are written…..without “selective enforcement “….what happens.

    It is interesting here.

    • I know I love to hear it. Georgia is another State which has benefitted by tossing out establishment GOPers. We even, to my surprise, got a good deal on Nathan Deal, our Gov. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir. I hope all is well in the Republic this fine Friday morning.

      One has to love a State where someone like Ted Cruz is considered a “moderate” Republican.

      It occurred to me this morning, while thinking about the Democrats theory of converting Texas, that the Progressive/Left Wingers have a very serious “God Complex”.

      How else can you account for their drive to make the world in THEIR IMAGE??

      Spousal Unit Leader was visiting with a co worker the other day who also comes from the Rocky Mtn region but now lives in Oregon. She asked him where he is going to live when he retires this coming year.

      He said Montana. He agrees with us that Oregon is a beautiful State as well and outside the big cities is a great place to hang in the out of doors. But it is the people and the attitude that he misses. Folks are certainly friendly enough in Oregon. In fact more so in many ways than Montanans or Idahoans.

      But the difference is that people in Oregon are always in your business. They seem to think it is their place, a right, to tell others how they should live. And if possible force the outcome.

      In Montana, the people will pretty much leave you alone. They will lend a helping hand if you need it, and break bread with you if invited. But they simply do not have this desire to control other people’s lives.

      This person is an upper manager in the Federal Govt. And much of his perspective is from his dealings with the public in public life. I thought the comparison was accurate. A bit of a revelation.

      I would say the same holds for most of the “Intermountain” or ” Rocky Mtn” States. With the exception of those bastions of Progressivism, like Missoula.

      I commend you and your group on their efforts. I certainly hope Texas can maintain its identify. If for no other reason than to watch the Progressives curl up in pain and cry like babies after the elections.

      Next on their target list, by the way. Is REDISTRICTING. They have convinced themselves that this is the GREAT CHEAT by the Conservatives/Republicans. Just as the R’s have convinced themselves that D’s steal elections by voter fraud. The D’s are hell bent on redrawing the lines to forever eliminate their competition.

      Give your wife a big hug for me.


  3. And, I just heard this on the news…..

    [dis-fawr-ee-uh, -fohr-] Show IPA
    noun Pathology .
    a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting.

    The Washington mayor saying that “gender dysphoria” is legitimate and should, therefore, be covered by insurance up to and including sex change operations.


  4. Russians moving on Ukraine….Russian troops reportedly have taken over a military airbase in the Ukraine and armed troops taking a civilian airport…as we speak.

    • What about them parking in Cuba? Should I worry?

      • No worries for now….Anita……you should be more worried about the Defense budget cutbacks.

        • “you should be more worried about the Defense budget cutbacks.”

          Why, Colonel? We’re armed to the tooth. Everybody else is still catching up. How about we take a break for a few years and maybe learn a lesson or two about our unbeatable military (since it’s now 1-2 in its last three actual engagements). Besides, the technology seems to be doing all the fighting anyway. Doesn’t seem like we need boots on the ground anymore. At least bring those serving in the last of the fiascos (Afghanistan) home so they can adopt to life without a job while the 1% continues to reap the rewards of hypercapitalism. Unless, of course, we’re willing to admit the military is serving as a temporary employment agency …

  5. Not as serious as what the Colonel is bringing forth but an interesting view of where things are logically headed.

    As a young man I remember one of those unanswerable questions. “What happens when the unstoppable force strikes the immovable object?” Well maybe there is no answer in real science but in politics…..submitted for your approval.

    • Stephen….you gotta love that one article on the Muslim owned barbershops refusing to cut women’s hair because they believe in Sharia Law and that says they cannot touch another female except their wives….so ladies….go away.

      Meanwhile, Christians are forced to service gays against their religious beliefs……….hmmmm….double standard here and the left…… silent.

      By the way, Ms. Brewer….you caved to the almighty dollar….you can be bought.

  6. Lurch at State stuck his nose in again a dire warning was issued. “This is not Rocky 4”. That’s one for the history books if there are history books.

    Every now and then I am reminded of things I have forgotten. That Freshman ROTC course taught by Captain Murphy, the mustang B-17 door gunner who took his commission after Korea. He was big on Mahan and control of the seas and spent an awful long time in a one credit course talking about the Russians and their search for a warm water port.

    Yesterday good old loonie Mike Savage did an excellent piece on the Ukraine, The Crimea and the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It is pretty obvious that part of our meddling in internal Ukrainian Affairs has been to tilt them to us and give the Russians nightmares over their access to a warm water port. What I did not know or totally forgot was that traditionally, the Crimea is part of Russia and was transferred, by Stalin, for reasons unknown to the Ukraine. I guess they want it back.

    It is quite possible that the United States government is merely stupid and is blundering all over the world in its attempt to be “relevant” yet, this toppling of governments and tweaking of noses must stop. The Ukrainian government was a legally elected, democratic government (something we are supposed to encourage) which we helped bring down. All this, after the fact, BS about “missing billions” is just that, BS. Lord knows how many missing hundreds of billions there are in DC. The people who toppled the government in Kiev are thugs and Savage portrays them as neo-fascists of which the Ukraine has more than a few.

    • I personally am in the ‘wait and see’ mode. I am waiting to see what happens out of curiosity only. I don’t believe we should be in it at all, despite the Obama Administration’s bumbling around about it.

      As far as the Ukrainian people go, I wouldn’t call them fascists for not liking their ‘democratically’ elected Government. I would tend more to call them ‘Patriots’. They are simply revolting against the policies and repression of the Government as far as I have SEEN. If something else is going on behind the scenes I haven’t seen it.

      I would like to see what would happen if The American People were to rise up against THEIR Government and their policies like that. We all know what would happen then, don’t we? ;-).

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Wizards in Black Robes. Your RIGHTS are subject to whatever “magic” they can conjure up. I think I am going to move JUDGES and maybe Lawyers as a whole to the top of my “skin em and hang em on a fence” list.

    • “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the school officials’ concerns of racial violence outweighed students’ freedom of expression rights.” So let me get this straight. Their concern for Latino’s right to celebrate a MEXICAN holiday out weigh the white students 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS!?!?!?!? WHAT BULLDOOKEY!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Worse, my Georgian friend, is that they openly declared that the THREAT of violence is justification for the Govt to take away your Rights. The Constitution be damned, let alone any concept of your “inalienable rights”.

        Now I wonder if a bunch of us crazy white middle class types started threatening violence in some public place for all “minority” groups wearing their stupid stuff, would be justified reason to force said “minority” groups to take their stuff and stuff it in a closet, or some other dark place.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Isn’t there some discrimination going on here against those wearers of the American flag shirt? Mathius, why aren’t you defending these kids being discriminated against by the school?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Schools have traditionally been given a lot of latitude in dealing with issues such as this in deference to the higher priority of safety. I don’t see this as discrimination (feel free to make your case though), but rather as a curtailing of the First Amendment right of expression.

          The million dollar question is: is it justified?

          You’re not allowed to shout fire in a crowed theater, of course. And the reason why is because it presents a clear and present danger. Given that this school has a history of racial “incidents” on this date and that, if memory serves, the kids wanted to wear flag paraphernalia as an antagonistic gesture, I could see a valid case that permitting this attire on that date would create a dangerous atmosphere. Given this, I would consider the one-day ban as a reasonable precaution.

          That said, I don’t know all the details here – this just my off-the-cuff since you asked.

          • “You’re not allowed to shout fire in a crowed theater, of course. And the reason why is because it presents a clear and present danger. ”

            Utterly false. It has absolutely nothing to do with CPD.

            It is a matter of property rights.

            You are there as a guest of the theater owner, and it is HIS RIGHT to determine your attendance or not. If you are disruptive, it is his right to remove you.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Hmmmmm, so if any violence breaks out at the school because of the prohibition or because of the displays of Mexico’s national flag etc., then canceling future celebrations of Cinco de Mayo would be justified? Or to prohibit Mexican-Americans from national emblem displays would be justified?

            And, for the record there shouldn’t even be a celebration of Cinco de Mayo at all in our schools. It isn’t a US national historical moment, it’s a foreign nations – so leave it to a teaching moment in World History class.

    • Come on JAC – you know full well you can’t go by the 9th Cir. They’re crazy out there (something in the water??)

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I have lived under the thumb of the 9th circuit my entire life.

        Probably has something to do with my disdain for the profession.

        • That’s your choice then…though does give a bit more insight into your beliefs on the matter!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am probably overstating their impact to some degree, but not totally.

            I was DIRECTLY affected by their “interpretations” and ludicrous legal reasoning. Even when SCOTUS slapped them down, they continued making the same type of decisions.

            My view on the SCOTUS and its Constitutional rulings is also informed by my readings on history and application of some basic logic.

            As was discussed during ratification, the “tyranny of the court” would pose the greatest danger in the long run. This has proven to be true.

  8. Now that the Arizona bill has been vetoed by Jan Brewer it may quiet down for a week or two. lol.

    Seriously though the mistake the Arizona legislators made was that they passed the bill, instead of passing a bill that would have prohibited business owners from being sued for refusing service to anyone for any reason. That would have effectively dealt with their fears of having their religious beliefs trampled upon without all the noise.

    • Always a mistake to bring Religion into it. I agree.

    • I don’t agree.

      The problem is that, essentially, they’re trying to reinstate Jim Crow-style laws that let business owners discriminate against black gay people with impunity. That’s the heart of the matter. But the courts have already ruled against this, so such a bill is dead the second it passes.

      Bringing religion into it was actually a pretty clever move (and they almost got away with it, too!). By couching it in the 1st Amendment – something that wasn’t a viable option for the original Jim Crow laws – they are at least giving the bill (had it passed) a chance of being upheld.

      A for effort
      A for ingenuity
      F for bigotry

      • The problem would never have cropped up if the Gay couple had just gone elsewhere for their ‘wedding’ photos. Why should the Christian photographer have to take their pics? They did not approve of the Gay lifestyle, so why should they have to support it? And why is it Racist or discriminatory?

        • The problem would never have cropped up if the Gay couple had just gone elsewhere for their ‘wedding’ photos.

          Let’s try this in another context, shall we?

          ::hops in the way-back machine::

          1960’s, somewhere in the deep South:
          The problem would never have cropped up if the negros had just gone to a different lunch counter for their food. Why should a white person have to serve them?

          why is it Racist or discriminatory?

          You tell me.

          • You want disgusting photos of your gay wedding. So you go to a CHRISTIAN Photographer to get them. They politely decline, citing religious grounds (i.e. you’re gay and I don’t approve of the Gay lifestyle). Pissed off, the Gay couple decides to ‘punish’ you by suing you, instead of just going to another photographer who DOES do Gay weddings.

            Gat ain’t like Black Mathius. You are BORN Black. You ain’t BORN GAY! Gay isn’t ethnic, and it ain’t cultural, and it sure as hell ain’t no color.

            • You are BORN Black. You ain’t BORN GAY!

              Says you.

              Are you saying people “choose” to be gay?

              Are you suggesting it’s a mental illness?

              Can you clarify this assertion?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes it is a mental illness.

                Yes, most are born with it.

                We need to separate the curious dalliances from those who identify. The former are not necessarily born with the mental illness. They may have other issues that drive them to be easily influenced or lacking inhibition.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Let’s say I agree with you (I don’t) that it’s a mental illness. And, further, we agree that “most” are born with it.

                If it is also incurable and untreatable and harms no one, then how is it that it’s ok to discriminate against them for it?

                I compared it to making black people use a different lunch counter. Why is that not ok, but this is?

            • You want disgusting photos of your gay wedding.

              I found this interesting.. what’s so disgusting about photos of a gay wedding?

              Are you assuming that gay weddings will be decked out in leather gimp suits and involve a massive orgy?

              • The mere sight of a ‘gay’ wedding would be disgusting to me. And yes Mathius, I am saying exactly that they choose to be gay. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Nor Eve and Stephanie. The choice to be Gay is because of the sin introduced into the world.

                But let me stop there because I’m starting to preach and I’m sure you don’t want to hear it.

          • Discrimination is a human right.
            Suppression of discrimination is evil.

            • Well I don’t think I would go that far BF. But discrimination isn’t always a bad thing.
              For instance, I discriminate against trash! Of ANY color!
              Also against food which tastes bad.
              Against Cats. Don’t like them.
              Against Wives. My own included.

              I’ve got more but I’ll stop there. 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Good point.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I understand how you feel and it is perfectly consistent within your framework.

              That said, while morally permissible to do so, how do you feel about people who choose to refuse service to individuals due to their sexual-orientation. How would you respond to such an incident were you to personally witness it?

              • It is their right to do so.

                It is my right to choose whom I engage in trade.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes, but that doesn’t answer the question.

                We’ve established your stance on the morality of discrimination.

                What I’m asking is how you feel about people who exercise that right in this manner.

                Not “is it morally permissible” to discriminate against homosexuals, but rather: are you an a**hole for doing so? Would you personally opt to deny such a company your patronage? Et cetera.

              • Me personally? That depends on what service I offered. Food? No Photography where I would be required to attend their wedding to take the pics? Most definitely YES.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Who are the grades for, my thinking or the vetoed law?

        • For the vetoed law (and those who tried to pass it).

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Just curious, the law was a stupid way to go about it, yet courts have ruled against business owners for exercising their beliefs. So where is the balance that doesn’t interfere with either sides rights?

            • The courts have ruled that business fall into a gray area between public and private.

              Certain restrictions, such as not permitting discrimination, are permitted.

              the law was a stupid way to go about it

              Perhaps, but I don’t think there was a better way to go about it. The legal system in contemporary America is pretty clear that they do not condone or permit discrimination against homosexuals. Attempts to enshrine the “right to discriminate” are all destine to fail. They’ve already lost the war, they just haven’t realized it yet.

              So the law might have been a stupid way to go.. but it was still their best shot. Any other effort would have failed as well.

              • Just A Citizen says:



                Tyranny of the Courts.

                The irrational theories of the left, rationalized in any twisted way they can.

                We have the Right to discriminate in our private lives and in our organizations which are privately operated, yet somehow this Right vanishes when we walk into our stores and shops.

                Some magic line exists there on the street where you cannot see it. This magic line ELIMINATES the RIGHT you had just before you crossed over it.

                This is the LOGIC of the tyrant.

      • Gonna keep dropping this one in. Solution, all bakers and photographers should be Muslim and sue based on their religious freedoms.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You have obviously formed your opinion of the law by simply accepting the left wing’s media blitz.

        I suggest you dig a little deeper.

        For example, did you know there are no laws in Arizona making it illegal to deny service to anyone for any reason you please?

        • From my reading there is already a religious restoration act.

          I noted with the story of the Bakery-they did not refuse service to anyone for their basic products-they simply refused to make a cake that was specifically for a gay wedding. I don’t think they should be forced to make a wedding cake. If I ran a bakery and someone from the KKK came in and wanted me to make a cake that had something I disagreed with on it. I would say NO and I should be able to say no. If I was a photographer should I have to accept all jobs offered-do I not have the right to say turn down a job for nudist camp or a job where I felt in danger or simply uncomfortable for whatever reason,

          • Mathius™ says:

            The different is that someone made a choice to join the Klan. People do not choose to be gay.

            • So you argue it is an infliction of biology?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I do believe that all humans are genetically predisposed to land somewhere on the spectrum between 100% homosexual and 100% heterosexual as a matter of innate nature.

                I believe that our culture has so vilified homosexuality (how many times have you heard someone called a “faggot”? Was it ever meant as a positive?) that people are pushed away from the homosexual end of the spectrum leading to a lot of unhealthy self-denial and repression amongst people who would otherwise be attracted to members of the same sex.

                This is so ingrained in our culture that when I walk side by side with another man and our casually swinging hands touch, it causes a moment of embarrassment as if we did something wrong. (and remember, I’m a liberal from LA who is staunchly against the idea that there is anything wrong with homosexuality). Yet, it is driven into us so firmly that that’s the automatic reaction. “No homo.”

                The people who buck this trend are (generally) people who can either get past the societal hangups or are so far toward the homosexual end of the spectrum that such hangups were never going to be sufficient to stop them anyway.

                I would hesitate to call it an “infliction” of biology, because that makes it sound like a negative whereas it is actually a neutral. More like hair color than mental illness.

                I do not believe that people “choose” to be gay (in general – I’m sure there are exceptions where someone does it out of desperation/rebellion/etc). I do not believe that, in modern America where homosexuality is so vilified, so many people would willingly make a “choice” to subject themselves to so much hate and oppression.

                And I do not believe that it is right to discriminate against someone for something they did not choose and which doe not hurt you. I think that is every bit as wrong as refusing a black man a seat at your lunch counter. I see almost no difference.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                And if anyone disagrees with that belief you will be compelled by force of law to accept them without further complaint. It is no more an act of biology than being heterosexual is. It is a choice and because I don’t like your choice I will be forced to.

                There really are no “rights” an individual has under the belief that someone elses’ rights override your own.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Also, when you enter a business I do not believe you have any right to be served. There is an expectation you will be served, but it is not a right, maybe a privilege – and said privilege can be refused you at the business’s discretion. You weren’t forced to enter that business – go elsewhere.

  9. plainlyspoken says:

    D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray on Thursday announced that the city will recognize gender dysphoria as a medical condition, forcing insurance companies to cover treatments such as gender-reassignment surgery for transgender people.

    Read more:

    What another crock this is (I find out from the article that Colorado compels this as well). How is “gender dysphoria ” a medical condition? Especially when (as the article states):

    The American Psychiatric Association last year replaced the term “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria” in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

    In a statement explaining the change to its official listing of diagnoses, the association said the purpose was to make clear that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder.” The critical element of the diagnosis, the statement said, is “clinically significant distress” and that the association sought a diagnosis that would not stigmatize all transgender people but would ensure access to medical care and insurance coverage to those who suffered from the condition.

    The medical insurance coverage should extend to nothing more than the cost of therapy – it is not a biological issue!

    Hell, I can’t even get insurance to pay any part of the cost to get a needed hearing aid! It is this kind of crap that really pisses me off at the Lefties in this world.

    • The American Psychiatric Association has issues as does the American Psychologist Association. A very telling remark from my Psych 101 Prof, Ed Battista on our first day of class, “You are all here because you have problems and want to understand them”. First, a stunned silence then slow but rising laughter until we were all breaking up. Truer words were never spoken in any other course I ever took in college.

  10. Darn, that is a good opener, Gman.

    Such ignorance as Dyer presents is epidemic. So many have opinions upon subjects they know nothing about.

  11. It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

    I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

    They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

    Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation

    This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so.

    the fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth…

    I trust… that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

    The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

    If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.

    … I have little hope that the torrent of consolidation can be withstood….

    I see… with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.

    From the letters of Jefferson following the usurpation of the real Constitution (the Articles) after Philadelphia.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Who are THEY? Well here is one part of the answer.

    Please notice WHO the R’s are that are trying to down play this. Also please note that despite the attempt to portray this as only a Republican problem, Wall Street is historically one of the largest contributors to DNC as well, and Obama in particular.

  13. Just A Citizen says:


    Reference Nuremburg: “I was only following orders”.

    “The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue.

    “It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

    When pressed, Richards said that in her view life began for her three children when she delivered them.

    She explained that the purpose of her organization is not to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries,” but to provide options for pregnant women.”

    • Mathius™ says:

      They’re not concerned with when “life” begins, but rather when that “life” has the “right to life.

      I think they were asking her the wrong questions.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Bullllllllllllll Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhit.

        Sorry my friend, but you had that coming to ya.

        Of course they don’t want to discuss When it begins. Because that is an admission that a person is being killed. Their entire argument is predicated on that not being true.

        Go back to your original arguments, taken straight from the left wing talking book, that a fetus is actually a “parasite” that it is not a human but “just a clump of cells” etc, etc.

        She answered honestly that she does NOT consider it a “life” until it is born. In other words, you are not a person until you are born.

        This dictates the answer to When is protection allowed. Because we do not allow protection except for Persons.

  14. Just A Citizen says:


    RE your comment to me regarding Gay mental illness:

    “Let’s say I agree with you (I don’t) that it’s a mental illness. And, further, we agree that “most” are born with it.

    If it is also incurable and untreatable and harms no one, then how is it that it’s ok to discriminate against them for it? IT IS OK TO DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT RIGHT AND SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO SO. OTHERWISE, YOU FORCING ME TO SERVE WHO YOU WANT ALLOWS ME TO FORCE YOU TO SERVCE WHO I WANT.

    I compared it to making black people use a different lunch counter. Why is that not ok, but this is?” THEY ARE IN FACT THE SAME. THOSE KIDS WERE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO SIT AT THE COUNTER. THE OWNER WAS WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO NOT SERVCE THEM.

    Now lets deal with the reality that caused this AZ law in the first place. Two cases, one involving REQUIRING the making of a cake and the other REQUIRING a photographer to photograph a wedding.

    While we think of these as services, they are also artistic art forms. They are different in the over the counter business in that both require the purveyor to BECOME PART OF the event in question. To “participate” if you will because the purpose is driving the demand for the creation. FORCING someone to CREATE something is a direct assault on their Liberty.

    But since you support this, I guess we can use the Govt gun to FORCE doctors to take care of EVERYONE. And while we are at it, we can FORCE them to accept what we are willing to pay. I hope the Doc likes my Rhode Island Reds.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I compared it to making black people use a different lunch counter. Why is that not ok, but this is?” THEY ARE IN FACT THE SAME. THOSE KIDS WERE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO SIT AT THE COUNTER. THE OWNER WAS WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO NOT SERVCE THEM.

      I see.. ok, so you’re in the Black Flag camp on this one: They have the “moral right” to refuse.

      Fine, let’s go with that.

      What I’d like to know is this: how do you feel about someone who refuses such service on these grounds? Are they are jerk? Would you personally deny them your patronage? Just because they have the “right” to doesn’t mean they should, does it?

      I have the “right” to follow you around all day shouting obscenities at you, do I not? But you would feel very negatively about me were I to exercise this right, no?

      • Exercising a right ALWAYS exists in a conflict. It ALWAYS “pisses off” the other party.
        That is why it is a RIGHT.

        I do not have to exercise something that you agree with. You wanting to be on my property and I accept it – where is the conflict?

        It is when I say “No, go away” – exercising my right of exclusion. You want something that you do not get. Other way, you force your want over me and I do not get what I want.

        RIGHTS exist to decide conflict. One party’s desire is in conflict to another and RIGHTS is a way to arbitrate this conflict non-violently.

        • Mathius™ says:

          And yet that still doesn’t answer the question..

          • OF course it does.
            It absolutely is irrelevant about “how you feel”. One party “wins” and the other does not. Period.

            You can accept the exercise of RIGHTS knowing that when you apply that same RIGHT it will be to your favor as well -OR- you refuse such right knowing when you wish to use it, it will be refused as well.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I’m not asking if you think we should deny people their “right to discrimination.”

              I’m asking how you – Black Flag – feel about a person who does hit. Is he a good person? Is he someone you would be proud to call a friend. Is his a business you would continue to use? Would you boycott or protest? Would you write a stern letter? Do you think it’s just peachy?

              Not “is he within his rights to do so,” but what does his decision to do so say about him as a person.

              • My answer is:

                “Who cares?”

                If you are mentally a child, then being denied your “want” may lead to a temper tantrum.
                If you are mentally an adult, you accept the resolution of the conflict and move on.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I care because I am interested and it speaks to your character.

                I get that you accept their decision. That’s not the question.

              • It is the answer, Mathius.

                Either act an adult or act a child. That is the measure of character.

      • Just A Citizen says:





        Just because they have the “right” to doesn’t mean they should, does it? CORRECT. BUT THAT IS UP TO THEM TO DECIDE, NOT YOU.

        I have the “right” to follow you around all day shouting obscenities at you, do I not? NO. YOUR ACTIONS ARE A FORM OF COERCION, THUS USE OF FORCE AGAINST ME. THERE ARE SOME SENSIBILITIES THAT GO WITH YOUR RIGHTS.

        But you would feel very negatively about me were I to exercise this right, no? YES, AND I MIGHT BUST YOUR NOSE IF YOU GOT TO CLOSE.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        “Moral Right”?? Not necessarily.

        A RIGHT does not necessarily carry the weight or purpose of a “MORAL” principle.

        Not all people accept this theory or “moral rights”. If morality is fluid and Rights are not, then they can be different.

        But if morals are not consistent with Rights then you have serious conflict and eventual harm to civilization.

        Hence, using force to make people do business with others. The RIGHT to judge and discriminate (right of association) is overridden by a Moral standard that justifies FORCE.

        Now that FORCE is introduced as a solution it can be justified for any other human interaction.

  15. Canine Weapon says:
  16. Gmanfortruth says:

    Mathius, Something to ponder. I recently read that some Democrats want to make homosexuals a “protected class” under Federal anti-discrimination law. Let me bebin by saying the homosexuals will NEVER be a protected class under the federal law, EVER. There is a very clear reason that we all know about, care to take a stab at the reason?

    Secondly, Where in the Constitution does it say that one’s right to the free exercise of religion ends when they open a business? I bring this up because you mentioned that a couple judge’s ruled in favor of homosexuals in some lawsuits about refusal to provide a service (for pay). By agreeing with this ruling, you also agree with Fascism. You don’t want me to really continue, do you? 🙂

  17. Gmanfortruth says:

    (Top Conservative News) The State of Connecticut says that all citizens must register rifles and high capacity magazines, or be charged will a felony. As many as 100,000 people could face heavily armed police smashing down their doors and be charged with a felony.

    The legislature of CT says that a registration is needed so they can know where the guns are. Yet at the same time, they are sending threatening letters to gun owners. So they already have records of who has purchased certain guns. The fact is, that the CT legislature fully intends to confiscate hundreds of thousands of firearms anyway. The registration process will simply make it easier to confiscate, because you acknowledge that you still own a firearm that the state already suspects that you own.

    CT State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance says that state police would comply with an order from the state to conduct door to door gun confiscations.

    Experts claim that as many as 350,000 people are in violation of the law, and over 100,000 of those people could face felony charges. That means over 3.6% of the entire adult population of Connecticut has been transformed into a felon by the new registration law. Roughly one in twenty Connecticut homes could have their doors smashed in by heavily armed law enforcement seeking to confiscate firearms.

    CT State Police Spokesman Lt. Vance can be reached at at (860) 685-8290.

    How do the police know who has guns, that would violate the law, to begin with? And WTF do they need to know where the guns are? Hitler would be so proud! 🙄

  18. Gmanfortruth says:
  19. Gmanfortruth says:
  20. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I was wanting to comment on a post from “unreconstructedrebel” in open mic #16.

    It should not be astonishing that the such a large percentage of democrats and liberals do not know that the earth revolves around the sun. That is because they truly believe the our solar system revolves around them and their fearless leader Obama. Not the sun. Please note the sarcasm.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      It’s sad that someone thought to ask the question. Then again, it’s the Lefties we’re talking about here.

  21. Gmanfortruth says:

    I wonder how Sissy Pants figures we don’t know that the US and the UN and NATO aren’t all in this monetarily. Rino McCain was just there talking to the Neo-Nazi’s about the support, I believe in December. What a serious LIE this country is being told. To bad the MSM is so stuck up Obama’s backside, because facts will never be made public.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      I assume that Obama and McCain know that Sevastopol in the Crimea is a home port of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Leased until 2042. Probably not. In all due concience we do have a lot of arrogance to bemoan the presence of a small Russian naval vessel coming to Havana when we have bases in 130 countries. We intimidate nations with huge naval forces off shore that can obliderate their country if they do not do as we wish.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Obama and McCain are ERC members, and are both idiots and traitors.

      • Isn’t it funny. You forgot to mention Gitmo. I remember learning that our lease there was up in ’99. Haven’t heard much since. Important to remember Crimea was part of Russia till the fifties and the maps I posted earlier show the ethnicity. I don’t know about you guys but I think it is getting close to impeachment time. Lived through the late ’50’s and ’60’s do not want to play Brinksmanship with these duds at the helm. Big BOOM!!!!

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Didn’t realize we had a “lease” I thought we just refused to vacate the facility and dared the Cubans to make us leave. Guantanamo was the area where the USN practiced their live fire exercises when doing ship qualifications after refits. Intimidation factor. Where did that get us….nowhere.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          On Gitmo:

          1903 lease documents and their provisions

          The lease agreement for Guantanamo Bay was executed in two parts; the first,[1] a “framework agreement”, was signed in February with the following provisions:

          a promise to lease, for the time required, specified areas of Guantanamo Bay, with Cuba to acquire and include any privately held interior lots, and two parcels of land and adjacent waters in Bahia Honda;
          the right to use the areas as naval stations, and for no other purpose, with a non-exclusive easement to adjacent waters;
          jurisdiction belongs to the US, and “recognizes the continuance of ultimate sovereignty”[a] of Cuba.

          The second,[2] was signed in July 1903 with the following provisions:

          the annual lease payment of USD$2,000 in U.S. gold coin, as long as the US occupies and uses the areas
          US to build fences,
          only for military use
          a duty-free zone, but not a port of entry for weapons or other goods
          Cuban rights of access to the Bay
          ratification to be within seven months.

          (yes, I know it is wiki, but I have read it elsewhere years and years ago.)

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            While a contractor working on overhauls of destroyers at BIW the Navy wanted me to accompany one of the ships to finalize the sea trial qualifications on all the comm systems and air control systems and assist in the training of the new crew. The AFL-CIO objected to me going because I did not have enough seniority yet. The Captain of the ship almost had me recalled to active duty and then I would have just gotten my old navy pay. Needless to say the union won out and they sent the shop steward who was the highest paid and never worked on any of the equipment during the whole refit. Made total sense, right?

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Wow, several people on this list I did not know about. Jim Fregosi for one. And “Ralph” the other handyman. She sure made me laugh in the day.

    • Maria Von Trapp!!! 😦 How do you solve a problem like Maria? Sound of Music. My favorite movie ever!!

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Have you ever been to the Trapp Family Lodge in Stowe, Vermont. Beautiful location and great spot for a vacation.

        • No but a trip to that area is on my bucket list. I’ve read some and seen some pictures of the lodge. I’d love to see it.

          • Dale A. Albrecht says:

            Used to live just on the other side of Smugglers Notch for about 15 years. Visited the lodge many times. Fall is the best time for the foliage and the air has less humidity in it. Great mountain and valley views and meadows to lay about in. You’ll understand why they picked the spot. Not quite up to the Austrian Alps but very nice.

  23. Gmanfortruth says:

    And the winner of RACIST of the month goes too:

    A Liberal Black Man, go figure. 🙄

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Experience the “Black” life in Bed’Sty. In my work history to gain access to an IBM field office there, you had to call from a phone booth that was visible to security to prove your identity and reason to gain entry. In the mean time you were exposed to all sorts of harassment by the locals. Have things changed there?

      • Definitely! What were the years? Since Guilliani, things are not so wild and woolly anywhere in the city.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Early 80’s

          • Fun time back then. Worked in Crown Heights ’83 to ’85 not too far from Bed Stuy.Couple of really scary things happened as I did building surveys for NYC Housing. Things turned around in the early ’90’s when Rudy became Mayor. The Community Policing thing worked well as did my Dad’s old concept that if you have a law, you should enforce it. Bed Stuy has one of the largest collections of brownstones in any neighborhood in the City. The gentrifiers are hard at work. Brooklyn has become the most desirable of the Boros. I always liked it and the bride came from there. Her neighborhood turned ethnically in the mid eighties so, even though a 90 percent white area went 90 percent black, mostly West Indian, it survived physically because of the massive attitude change among residents and the Police. .

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              The last time I was close to the area was while attending a lady friends, son’s graduation from the US Maritime Academy. We visited the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens. This was in ’95. I was offered a job with the FAA when I left active duty at JFK but opted for a position in Bath ME. A little nicer location.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Forced segregation is never good and niether is forced desegregation. Animals generally do herd with their own kind. They mix when not in competition and mutually benefit each other. Other than that you’re food or looked at as the next meal..

  24. Gmanfortruth says:
  25. plainlyspoken says:

    It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine and of international laws.”

    Of course it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

    • Oh MY!

      The US and Britain Have a Treaty with Ukraine Pledging to Come to Their Aid if Their Territorial Integrity is Violated

      It was signed by Clinton and John Major in 1994. The reason we signed this treaty was to give the Ukraine a guarantee that we wouldn’t let Russia invade them — and we had to do that because we were asking them to give up their nuclear weapons.

      They did give up their nukes. The one thing that could have guaranteed their freedom from Russia. And we in turn promised to help protect them.

      And here we are.

      I call it a “treaty” so you understand what I’m talking about, but I don’t know if it’s actually a treaty. It is called the “Budapest Memorandum,” and I don’t know if it was ever submitted to Congress.

      he U.S. and Britain have both made crisis phone calls to President Putin to urge him not to intervene in Ukraine’s Crimea, with the White House warning him it would be a ‘grave mistake’.

      NATO also asked Russia not to take action that could escalate tension. However Moscow responded by telling the organization to ‘refrain’ from provocative statements on Ukraine and respect its ‘non-bloc’ status.

      Sir Tony Brenton, who served as British Ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said that war could be an option ‘if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding.’
      It promises to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

      Today Kiev has demanded the agreement is activated after insisting their borders had been violated.

      In response Mr Brenton said in a BBC radio interview: ‘If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia’.
      Ukraine accused Russia of a ‘military invasion and occupation’, saying Russian troops have taken up positions around a coast guard base and two airports on its strategic Crimea peninsula.

      And maybe this is why they are claiming that Ukraine hasn’t been invaded at all: Why, the thousands of Russian troops coming into the Ukraine in APCs and military planes don’t represent an invasion that would trigger our treaty obligations. No no no, foolish boy. It’s not an invasion — it’s an “uncontested arrival” of troops, according to Obama.

      • This is why you have to recognize “spheres of influence”.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          “Uncontested arrival”? It’s like the words of a “man made disaster” to rename terrorism.
          I have an old political cartoon from the early ’70’s. Russia at the time were pushing to get access through the Bosporus for the Black Sea Fleet into the Med. The cartoon shows Nixon standing over two admirals, one Russian and one US, who were sitting in a bath tub named “Mediteranean” with all their little toy boats floating around them. The caption read “And let me remind you that we were here first” That was a Nixon quote at the time.
          How many times in very recent history gave we used the same excuse to invade sovereign nations. We’re doing it to protect civilians or or interests.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        This may be just another example of the push towards one world government. OR, a prime example of why politicians should never be trusted.

        • This is how Europe tumbled into catastrophe in 1914. Stupid alliances designed to thwart other nations who had the same aspirations that they did. Never thought they would have to back up the dumb things they signed and if they did, it would be a short fast war with few casualties.

          Being old I guess I get to be a little wise. I do not see a particular difference between Russia exercising its right to protect its bases on the Black Sea from the US deciding it just had to invade Panama. In the scheme of things either both things are right or both are wrong.

          I find it interesting that I am about 180degrees from where I started on these things some 45 years ago but I guess Vietnam did have an effect. The Powell/Weinberger doctrine was correct and we have slipped into what early 20th century historians would have called “adventurism”.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          How is this possibly a push towards a one-world government?

          Russia has always wanted regular access to warm water ports that goes back at least to Peter the Great. Why is this any different?

          • plainlyspoken says:
            • I do not agree with the conclusion that Russia no longer seeks a warm water port.
              The author only looks at the military consequences – but the reason the Russians wanted (and still want the port) is for trade.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I do not agree with the conclusion either. I used it to show the long term quest for warm water ports only.

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                And ideally one that can not be choked off, like in the Bosporus, Baltic etc.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            I wasn’t referring to the current Russian actions, but the 1994 agreement to disarm Ukraine with a promise to protect. And even that was a bit of a joke 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Well then I guess the Ukrainians are going to be sorely upset at both the US & Britain when they come to release we won’t attack Russians and push them out of the country in the way the US pushed Iraq out of Kuwait under G.H.W. Bush huh?

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, I believe you are correct. Is this the beginning of the Ukrainian terrorist groups? 😆 After all, Obama said Al Qeida is finished 🙂

      • Gmanfortruth says:
      • March 01, 2014
        Is US Obligated To Go To War To Defend Ukraine? (Spoiler: No)

        In light of Russia’s military moves in Crimea, there was quite a bit of talk about the sol called “Budapest Memo”. This memo was signed in 1994 by the UK, Russia, the US and Ukraine as part of the deal the removed the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union from the territory of the newly independent Ukraine (aside, I bet they wish they had kept them now).

        So does this memo obligate us to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine? Nope.

        Here’s the memo:

        1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

        2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

        3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

        4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

        5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

        6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

        The relevant portions of the memo are points 1 & 6. All signatories to the agreement are “to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. Should something happen (like the Russians ignoring point 1) that upsets this agreement, we are obligated to “consult” with the rest of the parties covered by the agreement.

        I’m sure the Russians will be happy to abide by point 6 and “consult” about how they have fragrantly violated point 1 and then head off to a nice lunch somewhere in Geneva, Vienna or wherever they agree to laugh at us, I mean consult with us.

        Bottom line…the Russians are going to get Crimea and if they want the rest of Ukraine because no one cares enough about it to start World War III over it.

        Putin is going to continue to what he’s been doing for years…reconstitute as much of the old Soviet empire as he can out of the bits that weren’t smart or quick enough to join NATO at the first chance they had. No US President is going to stop this and no amount of tough talk or financial sanctions is going to stop Putin.

        The only real question left is what happens when he runs out of non-NATO bits to gobble up and turns to places like the Baltic states which are NATO members? That’s when things get…sporty.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Well, lets just hope America doesn’t come up with an updated domino theory to push the country towards another war. While I would mostly agree Putin may want to “restore” the territory Soviet Russia controlled, I am not sure he’s willing to push it to the point of war.

  26. Gmanfortruth says:
  27. Gmanfortruth says:

    Black mob violence is a problem for our country as well, just look it up on You Tube. The big shame is that those who are leaders in the black communities rarely speak on the subject, and when they do, it’s usually to lay the blame somewhere except on the feet of the black mobs themselves.

    This problem will not go away, but it will get worse. What are the best methods for fixing this problem? The cops can’t stop it, the people can’t stop it, at least so far. What tools should be brought to bear to combat this ugly problem within our society?

  28. Gmanfortruth says:

    The importance of what’s happening in Connecticut and how its citizens are responding cannot be understated. What we have here is a government that has directly violated the Second Amendment of the United States of America by legislating forced gun registration with the penalty of confiscation of said firearms and felony imprisonment for those who refuse to comply.

    They have now threatened all Connecticut residents with arrest if they refuse to turn over their firearms.

    In coming days and weeks, unless Mike Vanderboegh’s warnings are heeded, we will begin to see police-state raids of homes belonging to anyone suspected of owning an unregistered firearm or accessory.

    Keep in mind that this legislation has not yet made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, so Connecticut state officials intend to confiscate guns through the use of force and without a judiciary review of the Constitutionality of the laws they passed.

    There will be those in Connecticut who surrender their firearms. But a growing sentiment across the United States suggests that there will be those who will simply refuse to submit to the will of the state.

    If Connecticut goes through with this and sends heavily armed police personnel to the doors of Constitutional Law-abiding citizens it is not out of the question to suggest that we will see bloodshed and violence when these gun confiscations begin.

    The people have had enough and many Americans are preparing to stand their ground.

    I see this as a Beta test for future legislation in violation of the 2nd Amendment. No matter the end result, the law abiding people will be derided by the Left and the MSM. I stand with the people, not the Nazi Liberal Anti-American Pigs!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I don’t know that it can be blatantly claimed this is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. While I do not support the idea at all, registration of possessed firearms doesn’t prohibit the “right to keep and bear arms” of people.

      Courts have upheld laws on gun control for decades on end. Background checks, carry restrictions, registration, felons possessing firearms , etc. Some are readily supported even by 2nd Amendment proponents (like felons possessing firearms).

      So, unless you are for complete and unrestricted access to firearms by all then calling a registration law a 2nd Amendment violation doesn’t make sense.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Good Morning Plainly, I think the article speaks well of the situation in Connecticut. A law was passed (registration of certain firearms) shortly after the Sandy Hook shootings. I’m sure you can see this a kneejerk and solves no future issues, because registration, like permits, only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals. This law, however, has seeming made lots of good people into felons, literally overnight. But what is even more disturbing, is how does the police know where to go to confiscate the guns that they have magically outlawed? Is this, or is it not, proof that registration, and possibly background checks, can lead to eventual confiscation?

        Here’s my main issue. At any time, the government can effectively outlaw all gun ownership, give a time frame for turning said weapons in, then confiscate through violent actions, LONG before the 9 Wizards in Robes make a declaration on the law. Even then, who says the Government will abide by the Wizards decision?

        Our rights under the Bill of Rights are under constant attack by governments, all of them. the lower level one’s can be fixed, the middle one’s take much more effort, but at what price? My position is quite simple, I will not give up any of my property or FREEDOM at the whim of some rogue politicians, regardless of the level of government they are employed. I will not be kind and wait for some Wizard in a Robe decide Constitutional or not, I can read, I know what rights that those same rogue politicians are hired to PROTECT.

        In the Connecticut issue, I hope the police use great restraint, and wait for a Constitutional ruling before using SWAT teams against citizens. But if they choose to play police state, then they may get far more than they expect. People should stand up against even the smallest amount of tyranny, it may begin again in the same part of the country as it did once before. With all branches of the federal government corrupt, what else, should people do?

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Hope you and your family are healthy and warm this fine March 1st 🙂

          Question, has registration been ruled on by the SCOTUS? I do not recall any such decisions.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I do not know. It would require research. But lets say no for discussions sake. No cases would mean to most that any battle in the courts systems over registration have been settled and didn’t rise to a level of a Constitutional violation reviewable by the Supremes.

            Or it simply means if it did get brought to the Supremes they declined to hear the case.

            • Gmanfortruth says:

              It took quite a long time for the issue of the 2nd to reach the Scotus to begin with, but I would think that if the Liberals would have wanted registration in a big way, they would have already done it in many States. They haven’t. As far as the Feds, they have no power to do so, as far as I can tell.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Any law can be perverted for a use other than it’s initial use. So, yes I guess it could be used the way you speculate on.

          The other thought I have – why must one wait for the Supreme’s to rule on it’s constitutionality before being enforced? Has there been the filing of ANY case in the state or federal system over this law as of yet?

          Remember, the court systems are not set up to be proactive in determining the laws enacted, but reactive after a case has been brought forth.

          As to how the state knows who ha guns of the type banned by the law – I submit that ALL gun purchases by a licensed dealer are documented and reported to the government, whether registration is a requirement or not. I am quite sure the State of Colorado & the feds know which guns I have bought through dealers.

          • When violence is used to solve non-violent problems, it makes the original problem worse and more intractable.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            You make good points. Correct on the court issue, but that can also be abused to the extent of accomplishing an agenda, like confiscation and destruction before the courts are given a chance to make a ruling (not that the government will abide by the ruling anyway). That should be all of our concerns.

            If the states knew who owned the guns via background check and related paperwork (which they claim that they do not), then the Conn. law would not be needed, would it? OR, the new law is designed with confiscation to begin with.

      • The second amendment is not the premise. Natural unalienable rights are.

        If you were on a distant planet where the government and second amendment did not apply, and an alien creature attacked you, you have every right to use whatever means available to stop it. …by order of universal natural law.

        It is the same on Earth as everywhere. It is reality. It trumps any paper or person arguing otherwise.

        The Second Amendment recognizes this, and seeks to protect citizens exercising such right by means of a piece of parchment with ink on it.

        It obviously did not work.

        Now what?

        Argue about paper some more?

        Registration has no legitimate purpose. It does not protect the right to bear arms. It is a frame of reference and legal precedent set in place in the interest of justification for restrictions and infringements.

        Knowing which gun was used to blow someone’s head off does not deter it. Deterrence is a joke of an argument and excuse to regulate.

        It’s counter-intuitive bullshit.


        • Lemme put this another way…

          It starts with nature. We are creatures that have a built in mechanism called “self preservation.” We are not unlike all intelligent lifeforms which have the same basic nature of self defense.

          It simply is. Attack anyone who argues with you and they will prove you right.(not that I am suggesting it other than for hypothetical consideration)

          The law of the land is in accordance with said law of nature. It even goes so far as to define it in the context of standing armies made up of the people.

          As soon as you deviate from measures to maintain an armed populace, you create conflict, in law and nature. This is how it is counter-intuitive.

          The justification for registration is to be able to find and thus punish those who violate. The other reason is to keep guns out of the hands of those who violate. Law is only nominally effective in reaching it’s goal in either case.

          As soon as you choose to frame the argument around restrictions, …there goes the slippery slope. A precedence is set, and you have just lost a trade off between an ill-effective method and your freedom to exercise your rights.

          Is it worth it?

          No. You are better off having gun handy to blow their head off should they try to assault you. The government cannot fulfill it’s promise of protecting you in any direct fashion anyway. The cops are always just minutes away when seconds count.

          It can regulate your guns, but will not protect you.

          Years later it moves to take guns from otherwise lawful gun owners.

          What did the law do in the interest of maintaining an armed populace, should the need ever arise?

          What did the law do to restrict gun ownership?

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I understand and don’t necessarily disagree with your thoughts. Yet, in the discussion I was responding to Gman’s comment that the Conn law was a violation of the 2nd because they are forcing registration.

            • Yeah, I know. I wasn’t trying to be so argumentative either.

              You triggered a thought. I had to run with it.

      • I don’t want to get into any long discussion here but I can tell you from personal experience that registration is the camel’s nose under the tent. In NY City we had registration of long arms circa 1967. Since that time entire categories have been outright banned by the city council and it has been left to the NYPD to determine which rifles/shotguns may or may not be allowed under stringent and obtuse criteria. At the moment, this moment, registrations dating back 40 some years are being combed and people owning tubular magazine rifles (.22’s included) and 100 year old Winchesters are being told they must divest them or have them confiscated. Anything, bolt, pump or lever is outlawed if it can house an internal or detachable magazine holding more than five rounds. Semi-autos of all types including my friends National Match M-1 Garand were outright banned 20 years ago.

        By the way, being young and dumb at the time I thought the initial license and registration of each weapon was “reasonable” . Ain’t no such animal with these people.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          I never said that registration was a good thing, just that registration laws can’t be called a 2nd Amendment violation on its face.

  29. plainlyspoken says:

    The other day you said I should show you that Progressives/Left/Dems weren’t Nazi’s (in essence). At the time I didn’t bother because I didn’t have time to. Today I offer the following link for the 25 points of Hitler’s National Socialist Party and ask you read them, then tell me how many are Progressive agenda points and how many are agendas points that can be attributed to the Right, last to neither side. I definitely could make a case against both parties probably. So are BOTH established (Right & Left) nothing but Nazi’s in America?

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      I am giggling as I write this question 🙂 Do you really want to use NAZI propaganda to prove that Fascism is not what is going on? I haven’t started yet, because I have seen lots of Nazi propaganda say one thing only to mean something different 😉

      • plainlyspoken says:

        If you want to use the tag then we have to look at Nazi’s and their policies and programs. This is a starting point for you to prove your point that all Progressives are Nazi’s.

        We have to base the discussions on something other than just unsupported name tags because you strong dislike a political philosophy. Unless you have some other Nazi’s in mind?

        And the fact that propaganda says one thing only to mean something else isn’t the point under discussion. Any information can be called propaganda from ANY person, group, organization. So lets stick to the topic of the comparison.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Ok, I read it. It fits the current narrative by the Liberals very closely, with a few differences, but those were due to different times. As things are today, this one statement between 24 and 25 says it all: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD . Then #25 caps it off with: 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

          This is todays Democrats, to a tee. Would you like to go point by point? 🙂

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Just listed by number 1 – 25 as to if the point fits the “goals” of Liberals, Conservatives, or Both. Then I’ll agree or disagree with your beliefs and state why.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Oh, if there are sub points you want to point out in any one, just use 25a, 25b etc., for them.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Fair enough. I will use N/A for those that don’t fit either.

                1. This is just an old way of saying “greater good”.
                2. N/A That was due to the economic times then. Not sure it can be used today.
                3. This sounds like Agenda 21 and your typical Enviro-nut. The demand went un-noticed, so they chose to take it by force.
                4. I don’t think that applies to anyone except maybe Muslim’s in some strange way.
                5. We have similar laws. I don’t see immigration as a close issue to either party.
                6. We have similar laws of citizenship to hold public office (part 1) however, they failed here as well, Hitler was born in Austria and not Germany (sound familiar?) in Part 2, that’s the dems in a nutshell with their constant attacks of Republicans and Conservatives. This is CLEARLY a Liberal calling.
                7. Definitely the Liberal shtick, except for the end about immigrants.
                8. If the Mexican’s immigrants were conservative, the Liberals would most definitely want them gone, Let’s not fool ourselves on this one.
                9. Yep, that’s the Liberal’s
                10. Ditto
                11. Ditto
                13. Ditto,
                14. Ditto, but in a different form, through Unions 🙂
                15. That would be nice to the old people. But N/A
                16. Definitely Liberal BS against the free market
                17. Agenda 21 anyone.
                18. That’s me! Nevermind anyone else, LOL
                19. Yep, they want to change laws via treaty etc.
                20. Definitely on the education issue.
                21. Happening today, called the ACA
                22. Yep, and admitted by Obama. His actions clearly show this one.
                23. yep, the MSM falls right in line with this as do recent FCC ideas 😉
                24. They did not live by this decree, at all. Just the opposite in fact, much like today’s Liberal’s
                25. ABSOLUTELY today’s Liberal’s
                Ok, that’s a quicky look, point by point. I count 18 out of 25. That’s is quite close enough to me considering the difference in time 🙂

            • plainlyspoken says:

              oops, left out “Neither” as a choice too.

  30. Shout out to my buddy Charlie… 😉

    ‘I could see this one from Alaska’

    ..and just because I know how you like Mark Levin:

    Palin 2016 🙂

  31. Gmanfortruth says:

    Plainly, Another example of rights being violated only to threaten a court proceeding to correct the infraction. When our own police don’t know the Fricken law, why the hell should people have any faith in what they are doing? It should not take a law suit to fix these problems, but that is how governments are abusing the system so that they can implement the Police state and play tough guy. Shameful. We can do better!

    • Gmanfortruth says:
    • plainlyspoken says:

      When our own police don’t know the Fricken law

      They generally know the law, so is it more that a) they abuse their authority, b) they act under the guidance of their senior leaders, or c) they are truly ignorant?

      Plus remember for every screw-up by the cops there are untold numbers of interactions that are “good” but aren’t generally noted by anyone.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        There are very good cops out there. That wasn’t my point. My point is how the govt is abusing the system to violate the rights of people, and seemingly with no punishment. The bad cops are giving the good cops a bad name.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          The “why” is the question that needs to be answered and dealt with – and the part of the “why” I think that would be most serious is because their is unrestrained and controlled government in action here. It is the policies of the elected and bureaucratic leadership that is to blame for the excesses we see occurring (outside of the pure abuse of power by street cops).

          In that thinking then we must compel courts to weigh in and do their job in restraining the leadership.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            OK, Now, what if the courts are equally corrupt? Which I believe they are at this point in time.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              The advocate and work towards putting judges on the bench that will stop that corruption. I don’t know about PA, but here in Colorado (and in California as well) all judges at the state level come up for retention votes (even state supreme court justices). So find the bad ones, expose them by making public the facts and get them replaced.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                If you don’t have retention votes then expose them anyway and let public outcry push them from the bench either through abdication/retirement or by political will.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Possible at a local level, beyond that you have to beat the 2 party monopoly, good luck with that! Judicial activism is already too embedded, any other ideas?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I disagree. While the judges may initially get appointed to the bench, the law states when they are up for retention – regardless of the party in charge.

                The argument that the parties control can be used at all levels, which by your thought then means all is lost – there isn’t a damn thing that can be done to change any situation.

                That definitely will not work G. If you don’t get your deer with the shot do you give up deer hunting? No, you keep trying.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Federal judges are appointed, Federal govt is corrupt to the core. How many generations do you think it will take for “activism” to work? Please, we both agree that it won’t be fixed through activism, because eventually, that will be shut down as well, it’s just a matter of time, because they are trying everyday!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I wasn’t speaking to the federal court system, just the state and local. Change will only come from there. The federal system either gets changed from below or it implodes when the States no longer defer in general to federal authority.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                I think we may see a day when the only courts are Federal courts, wouldn’t that be a bummer!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I don’t

  32. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here G. I have copied the document with my comments (in italics) for everyone to see what we are comparing. I gave a point to each category (Liberal, Conservative, Neither) for each instance they were a whole or part of the answer (both earned each _ Liberal, Conservative – a point). By my count that is: Liberals – 16, Conservatives – 14, Neither – 12. So, based on this comparison one isn’t Nazi anymore than the other is.

    1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples. –Both.

    2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

    Neither. Not applicable as the USA isn’t under a restrictive treaty that has the force of law to strip people of their rights.

    3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population. – Neither.

    4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

    Conservative. The conservatives are for restricting immigration to the US to “preserve” (my opinion) the nation for only citizen Americans.

    5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

    Conservatives. Restricted entry, work permits required, registration required, etc.

    6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

    Neither. Public office isn’t restricted to citizens only in the US. The heads of offices might, but there are workers in public agencies who are not necessarily citizens, but have work permits allowing them to be employed.

    We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

    Neither. We don’t have appointment of positions in Congress outside the procedures set forth in the Constitution.

    7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

    Liberals. The old common good argument, yet the one aspect the Liberals wouldn’t agree with is expulsion of aliens.

    8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately. – Conservatives somewhat.

    9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. – Both.

    10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

    Both. Conservative – “must work” and Liberal with the second sentence.

    Therefore we demand:

    11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

    Conservatives – no welfare.

    12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. – Neither.

    13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts. – Liberal to a degree.

    14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. Liberal to a degree.

    15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. – Liberal.

    16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

    Both to degrees.

    17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

    Liberal with a touch of Conservative (when using eminent domain).

    18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. – Both.

    19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

    Neither – not applicable since we weren’t founded as a nation based on Roman law.

    20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

    Both for the most part.

    21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

    Liberal for the most part.

    22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.


    23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand: – Both.

    (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens. – Neither.

    (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language. – Neither.

    (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich. – Neither.

    Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

    Liberal (first sentence), Conservative (against the NEA for an example).

    24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.


    The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

    Conservative (first sentence), then Neither.


    25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. – Liberal.

    The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states. – Both.

    The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.


    • plainlyspoken says:

      Off to do the kitchen chores, back in a bit. 🙂

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      You and I will just have to disagree on some things, which is cool. I bet the Germans and Austrians of the 1930’s would have loved to have had this discussion. I tried to look at each one as to what it led too, not what was really written. I think you are off on the immigration issue between today’s parties though, I don’t think either party is necessarily against immigration, the issue is amnesty for 11 million immigrants who are here in violation of law. We are a land of immigrants, hence, the Nazi ideas weren’t pertinent to today’s America.

      I’m sure we can find differences in todays Liberal’s and the Nazi’s, but I feel the core beliefs are close enough to give them the moniker. They love to call conservatives racists and homophobes and all kinds of derogatory names, now, they get one. They don’t have to like it, I didn’t give it to them for that reason. I say it because they deserve it, plain and simple. They would make the perfect Nazi’s had the National Socialist party began 10 years ago. Just my opinion. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I would just say on the immigration issue – “secure the borders”. That isn’t to let people in, but to keep the unwanted out. Conservatives strongly believe in restricted immigration and monitoring of any non-citizen.

        I tried to answer the points based on what I see of the modern behavior I thought those points would equate to in our time now, not when it was written.

        While the behaviors of the Left certainly are, mmmmm – lets call it unrestrained in their vehemence, that doesn’t make them Nazi’s. Certainly they, like the Right, have their agenda. My point is one is really no better than the other on these points.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          I have always said their on the same team in DC 😉 But, like what you presented, it’s all propaganda that was made to sound great, only to turn out far different than presented. Obamacare comes to mind as doing exactly the same thing. Imagine that? 🙄

    • Think I have some severe disagreements with you on these.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Wonderful, Where would you like me to give examples?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        OK. The point wasn’t to get agreement or disagreement. G calls Liberals Nazis and this exercise was to take their points and see where they fit in that context somewhat.

        Feel free to argue any of my thoughts you disagree with.

  33. Just a thought…

    The right to defense is not necessarily restricted to the ownership of firearms. It can include other weapons as well, …or none at all.

    Consider this…

    Instead of trying to restrict people from exercising rights, why not implement community efforts to actively restrict people from violating others?

    If you have ever been to an area with a high crime rate, you will notice such things as mantraps and bulletproof glass service windows with drawers, drive through only service at restaurants, etc, …

    If you are so scared of the possibility that someone will go to your local mall and shoot people, …petition the local mall security to install metal detectors and mantraps at the entrance. …to create a controlled environment.

    It is a private establishment with private owners who have a right to demand such in exchange for entry. No one gets shot inside the mall. No one’s right to defense was threatened. The whole legal issue is bypassed and nullified.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      You just advocated a total Police state!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        No, he advocated for private property rights to do as they felt warranted on their property. No government action involved.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Except it will never occur without government intervention. The costs would prevent any business from doing such a thing, not to mention it would never work as intended. Who would shop in a place where prices are 10X other places?

          • Not necessarily…

            As I mentioned, high crime areas, …they have used this method for many years with good results. The liquor store with a man-trap and a cage for the clerk, doesn’t get robbed.

            It has to have some kind of economic feasibility in order for it to be so prevalent in high crime areas.

            • Gmanfortruth says:

              That’s different, it has no effect on law abiding citizens. The cage for clerks could have been solved with less gun control laws years in advance, as most of the high crime areas are located where these laws exist 😉

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Sure, if you the business owner want to let your employee’s be armed while YOU carry the liability for anything that happens from their actions or inaction.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                The business owners should have that right, shouldn’t they?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I am not saying they shouldn’t, but with that right comes responsibility & liability. You don’t get a free pass just because the right exists.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                Correct, any reason for stating the obvious?

        • Exactly, Plainly.

          Ultimately, I am an anarchist. So whenever everyone else is trying to decide the best way for law to deal with these issues, I am trying to think if how to deal with them exclusive of law.

          ” You had better obey that sticker on the door, because if you think you are going to get away with shooting people, we’ll hunt you down and eventually bring you to justice…”

          …doesn’t really work.

          ” You can’t have guns because blah blah blah blah blah…”

          …doesn’t really work out either.

          ” There is no way in hell you are getting a gun in here to kill people. Thus anyone here is safe from being shot.”


          • Gmanfortruth says:

            ” There is no way in hell you are getting a gun in here to kill people. Thus anyone here is safe from being shot.”

            Until the day when it don’t. That day always happens, evil never quits. 😉

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Nothing is 100% guaranteed G, you know that. If guns had never been invented it would be some other weapon or your bare hands. Tossing something aside because it can’t be a “never happens” solution is ridiculous.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                True, I just think the personal security is an individual responsibility, that should NEVER be delegated, by choice or edict.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                OK, but your right doesn’t override my right to control my property as I see fit, Therefore if you want access to my property then it is by my rules, you have a choice to go with that or not as you will.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                I’m cool with that my friend!

      • Not really.

        It gives people/communities/establishments the freedom to decide, and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

        I am a gun owner. If I go to the mall which requires me to disarm upon entry. Then I can decide to enter knowing I am safe from attack via a firearm, as well as a security staff to assist me should I get jumped by gangsters.

        ..OR… I could decide that I do not want to disarm, and take my chances shopping at another establishment.

        No one violated my right to bear arms in such circumstances, but DID manage to assist those who would want absolute assurance they will not get shot in a mall.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Question? Do you really think people will want to go through a TSA screening just to go shopping? Because that’s exactly where it will end up. Even Russia and China don’t do this kinda thing. North Korea? Maybe. But I don’t live there.

          • I wouldn’t want to personally. I would opt to go to the one without the hassle.

            Like other communities that get hit with ‘shooters’, Littleton Colorado reacted with a lot of anti-gun sentiment for the actions of a few.

            For such a place, under such circumstances, …it could work out.

            I am only trying to find the win/win between safety and rights.

            • Gmanfortruth says:

              I have a safe, simple answer that will soon save people a fortune in travel expenses 🙂 Online shopping, which is what my side business is directly involved with. Keep talking my friend, we need naked body scanners and body cavity searches at every Walmart in the US 😆

              • It is not like I am offering anything new here. It is an already popular free market solution in gas stations, banks and fast food place everywhere.

                I am only offering a reminder that it is a very practical fix for those communities who are concerned. There is no reason why they cannot incorporate the same idea into a mall or theater.

                If you have a town/city with a community that is very anti-gun, then perhaps you can live in some level of harmony as to tolerate them installing extra security measures in one of the eight malls/theater/liquor stores, etc..

                The problem was kind of solved years ago.

              • Gmanfortruth says:

                It’s all good Bottom Line 🙂 Interestingly enough, crime has gone down and down over the years, yet, the militarization of the police has grown by 1000000 fold. The free market did what was needed, because government couldn’t! Now, to figure out this police issue?

              • Indeed.

                If every time government started regulating something, enough people established their own underground free market solution style network, we would eventually replace the whole system with a peaceful anarchy.

                …just a thought

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Try getting into the museums on the National Mall without a TSA type check.

  34. Gmanfortruth says:

    This is neat stuff. I could never understand how people can discount visitors from another planet.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      It’s simple, arrogance. lol

      I have no idea if we are alone in the vast universe (and never will I suppose), but humans have the uncanny ability to believe we are the best and only superior life form in the universe.

      • There is a ton of evidence to suggest that SOMETHING with a level of technological advancement equal or greater to our own, was on the Earth thousands of years ago.

        How did it get there? Who or what put it there?

        What’s with the geometry and astrological alignments?

        How did Sumerians know about Pluto?

        Why do all blue eyed people supposedly have the same ancestor?

        I could go on and on…

        • There is a very common belief that ancient people were stupid.

          This leads to a complementary belief that since they were stupid, their discoveries had to be external – “something else” did this.

          But if you remove the initial premise – and say “Maybe they were not stupid” then the “ancient mysteries” – while still being profound, do not fall into requiring extra-terrestrials at all.

          Why do we believe our discoveries are self-made, yet not the ancients?

          • There is a distinct difference between being stupid and not being technologically advanced. Granted, earlier civilizations were all about enginuity and did the very best with the tools and means available.

            They had things like a plum bob or level for architecture. They couldn’t build a truck or racecar. Two thousand years ago, one might march eighteen miles with a rock or log teetering on his back.

            They could measure something and say …this is not 77 cubits. But their accuracy was only so good.

            One might heal with the plants. But the rush to a ‘hospital’ 216 miles away may prove to be difficult without modern expedient transportation.

            What we didn’t have is technology that could account for all the sophisticated tools required to build such monuments. It’s not like we can’t find a trace of them living well though. Their writings tell us that they at least had the basic creature comforts.

            • That’s not true. Again you discount them.

              It has, for example, been shown how they built the pyramids by piling sand against the sides to create ramps – easy as pie when you have time, which they did.

              There is no mysterious creatures necessary for ancient men to perform their works – they are, or more, ingenious then us. True, we have technology but that doesn’t make their use of their materials any less apparent.

              • Calculations: back in 800BC men knew the circumference of the Earth by calculation within a small margin of error (assumed it was a circle, not oblong). Had it been a circle, they’d pretty much would have nailed it….

            • It has been shown how the Chinese built great cities by sliding their multi-ton rocks on ice.
              So on and so on….

              It seems because we are not as ingenious, and rely on technology to solve our problems, we seem to be unable to imagine how ancient man, relying on ingenuity, could have done it.

      • Yes, and Americans are the best of the best!

      • We probably are the most superior as we have nuclear weapons.

        It is incredibly unlikely that any other life form, if in any civilization, has nukes. We are most probably extremely unique in our galaxy in this matter.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Maybe you are giving us way too much credit! Is it not possible that some form of intelligent life is not thousands of year more advanced? Maybe hundreds of thousands of years? Always an interesting subject, that maybe one day will become fact, rather than fiction.

          • I’m fairly certain that was a criticism G. 🙂

          • ” Is it not possible that some form of intelligent life is not thousands of year more advanced?”

            Sure – but what do they have? They almost certainly do not have elements higher then lead on the Periodic table.

            No gold, silver, uranium, etc.

            Almost all of our high technology is due to these heavier elements – they may be more “advanced” culturally, but tech-wise? Hard to imagine.

            You can do a lot with wood. You will have serious issues trying space flight without titanium, gold and silver.

        • You did not watch enough “Star Trek.”

          • You did not study enough physics.

            To create these heavy elements requires a chain of supernova’s. We had such a chain – 7 stellar parents that in a series went off.

            This particular event is so rare, it probably only occurred once in our galaxy – right where we are.

            • Mea Culpa on the Physics. I too wonder about the possibility of other life in the universe. I would say that I am usually 50-50 on it for some of the same reasons you say but then again, I keep hearing Carl Sagan’s voice saying “there are billllions and billllions of stars”.

              • Yes, billions and billions but 99.99% so violent around them, even the elements cannot hold on to electrons.

                We are rare methinks – probably not alone, though – but probably the most feared in the galaxy, if the others knew what we have.

          • On top of that, no alien civilization exists much closer to the center of the galaxy then we are.

            The cosmic rays from that center are so intense that it blasts complex molecules to smithereens.

            So any aliens will be around the outer rings – like us – and, like us, will be around young stars – it takes a lot of billions of years to create a solar system. Again, maybe they have even a million years on us, but given the small set of stars necessary to make planets, and the incredibly unlikelihood those stars produced higher elements, it is very unlikely they are space faring.

            Again, where are they? Space is silent, except for us. So far, only our species is blasting radio waves into the galaxy – we hear nothing else.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Wrote a little short story back in the 60’s. This was during the Mohole project of drilling through the earths crust. The scientists on the ship were astonished when the broke through and found space and the astronomers inside the earth were looking through their telescope and congratulating themselves for discovering a new star. The light shining through the hole just drilled through the crust.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      One thing we can count on is that UFO sightings will most likely be blamed on drones now! The weather balloon thingy just wasn’t working to well 😆

  35. Your tax dollars at work:

  36. Missing my sister terribly today..but that’s not the point. My brother in law made a music video of her and put this song to it. It’s about being a man. And he’s a great man. Here’s to you Rex and Jay:

  37. Gmanfortruth says:
    • He doesn’t have a Daddy! Says it all!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Picked up something at the antique show yesterday that I think will make you a little jealous.

        “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War”, in 4 volumes of about 750 pages each.

        Published from 1884 to 1887 by The Century Company. The books are a compilation of the same articles and stories published in The Century magazine called The Century War Series.

        The volumes are a collection of stories and papers from politicians, soldiers and officers on both sides of the war.

        I passed up an 8 volume set published around 1904 that was the “Complete Works of Thomas Jefferson”. It included anything that had been found that Jefferson wrote or created on paper. Including some “advertisements” in a Virginia paper.

        The guy was asking over $2,000 for the complete set. Which was a “numbered” set by the way. He had just purchased it from a Professor’s estate in New York. Still had the dust jackets on each volume.

        Anyhow, thought I would share.

        • I am at the point where there is absolutely no place left to put books in this house other than the basement or attic. I envy your ability to still have some place to put them. I unfortunately am unable to “throw out” a book, I can donate it or give it away but throwing away a book must be a Mortal Sin in some religion or other. I did, back in 1968, make an exception for Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. Hated the damn thing, never knew what the hell he was talking about. Passed the final by literally memorizing the Cliff notes.

          • I am the same way with books, though I will also trade them.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I never said I had a place for them. Only that I acquired them.

            At this moment they lie on the floor in front of my book shelves. Right next to two other stacks of books.

            I need a much bigger house………. 🙂

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Have a set of 5 volumes “The Life of George Washington” by John Marshall 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. compiled under the inspection of “The Honourable Bushrod Washington” from Original Papers bequethed to him by his deceased relative, and now in the possession of the author…..anyone interested?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Leather bound, I assume!


            Published or copyright dates??

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Leather bound, “Sponsors edition” specially prepared for Alton Grant M.D. the condition is excellent. There is no copywrite date for this biography due to when it was originally written, but The Citizens’ Guild of Washington’s Boyhood Home Fredericksburg, VA put this edition together in 1926

  38. Gmanfortruth says:

    Unable to get a clear answer from Vance, Ashley reminded Vance, “You’re the servant, we’re the master.”

    Vance replied: “I’m the master, ma’am. I’m the master.”

    This is apparently only a small problem for many. It’s just the beginning, so remember to lick the boots of your masters wearing a badge. 👿

  39. plainlyspoken says:

    America Under Surveillance grows………

    Michigan Township To Put Cameras ‘In Every Neighborhood’ (

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      As long as people go along with it, it will continue to grow. Wait till someone gets an expensive J-walking ticket that was recorded on one of these, LOL. With crime going down for the most part, why are the police becoming increasing militarized and all the illegal and legal spying??

      • Better yet, wait until all the kids with BB guns start shooting out all the cameras at night! 🙂

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          When I lived in the UK during 2001, cameras were sprouting up like mushrooms after a summer shower. Every corner, parking area, out in the countryside, just anywhere. The Shires governments were really complaining because all revenue from fines derived from these cameras, from arrests or just being mailed the fine for the infraction without trial, the Home Office retained it all. The people were complaining due to the constant survellience. The people had been destroying the cameras almost as fast as they’d go up. However, the UK government decided to share the revenue with the cash strapped cities and towns and then you really saw them blossom and towns watching the cameras against any vandalism. So basically there were watchers watching the watchers (cameras).

      • Perhaps the cameras have nothing to do with crime.

        Stats show that cameras neither improve the ability to solve crime nor deter crime, yet they continue to be installed.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          Its all about control! Or the sense of control. I hate control, don’t you?

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          To me that makes sense from all our debates here. The camera may see you commit a crime, let’s discount traffic violations where they just mail the ticket, but actual crime where it takes feet on the street to identify, find, arrest and go through the AG mill, and trial….what’s the probability of that really occuring and therefore deterring crime. I’d say the criminal will almost always bet they’ll not get caught. Plainly always says, resources, priorities, time and politics drive the legal system. Oh before I forget limited space in the prison system.

          I’ll give an example of a country, Italy, with strict gun control laws. A person could only own and have a shotgun in his posession, usually rural. Everything else was illegal. Maybe at a gun club other weapons were found but they never left the premises. On Sunday’s or any other special Saints day or family celebration a squad of uzi carrying mafia guys would be posted in my village at every entrance to the church square and at the doors when the local Don was in attendance. The criminals didn’t care one bit about the law. They were the law locally, everything else was Rome’s laws but the law abiding people were caught undefended between both parties.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Agreed, cameras will not. So they are for some other reason(s), yet it is easier to get the people to buy the crime deterrent argument.

  40. Happy Birthday to my oldest Son! He turned 25 today.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Unintended consequences of blindly supporting the opposition. Libya now an out of control mess, As awful as Assad is he was deemed a truly progressive leader by our State department, Hillary Clinton. The opposition will be worse if they succeed. Iraq is a true mess. Retribution by the Taliban will be vicious in Afghanistan when we leave. We should have just targeted Bin Ladin and within sniper scope but denied fire by the government. To me it is so amazing how Kerry who got a national reputation by being anti war is such a hawk now. The fact that McCain after being a POW for years and still suffering from injuries, from a war that divided America almost as much as the civil war, except the no shooting each other, is such a hawk and wants troops sent in at every instance. By the way this goes at both political parties. They both are really amateurs.

  41. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    I used to have a book that was about the crash and the depression. The author really tried to be objective. He posted his innate bias in the forward and said he would try and overcome it. He stated that he was a diehard democrat and anything they did was good, and everything the Republicans did was evil. He really did try to be objective though. One of the chief causes (of several) for the crash was that people with MONEY invested in the stock market and gambled for much higher returns, quicker, than if they invested directly in their own businesses. A huge amount of the money was leveraged so when the crack started it crashed. He went on to say that the depression went on and on due to the incessant tinkering the government kept doing and the people with money never reinvested due to the policies of the Roosevelt administration. Nothing stabilized. Many of the policies were written to eliminate competition because Roosevelt thought that was part of the problem. Does any of this sound familiar today. Our true unemployement rate is the worst since the depression, the stock market is booming and the free money from the Fed, but is not a reflection of the real business health of America. Nobody in their right mind knows what our leader is going to usurp next by an EO. Real Estate is in fact worse off now than 3 years ago. Some pockets OK but overall NO. The true impact of the ACA will be devestating. That’s why Obama keeps EO’ing and delaying until after the elections, except those that had individual poicies. Inconsequential numbers in his and Sebelius’s words. When Obama states that the budget submitted will be the last of the bare bones budgets then what was the rest of the spending???? As the Fed tapers its printing presses and bond purchases the government will have fewer buyers and they will force mandatory bond buys in retirement accounts. The government due to its unsatiable appetite to spend they need the money from somewhere……sorry I just felt like typing.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Business should create the jobs, NOT the government. The fact that Obama excoriates Congress for inaction he should look towards his own and government policies, but he will never do that due to his ego of being infallible and alway right and being a narcissist.

    • Maybe so Dale, but you’re right.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      The Nazi’s have evolved. I would not take much of what is written about Ukraine as credible at this point, far too much misinformation in the media. Try to be concerned with the Nazi’s here at home. 😉

      • From what I have read G, they haven’t evolved that much. But I am more concerned about here at home. I don’t believe we should be involved with ANY Country, Ukraine included.


    (Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.)

    The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s. Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture.”
    The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

    I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous..

    I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
    I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.

    His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

    Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies,dishonesty, deceit, mendacity,subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

    I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that Mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that.

    I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

    And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.

    He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

    His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
    I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

    Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

    I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

    As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.
    He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic,contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

    Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

    Please resend to all your address book. America has to wake up before it is too late

  43. @ Charlie….I was not even talking about the amount of troops or where they are stationed. I was not talking about interventions. I was talking about funding and it appears that no one on here understands defense funding, how it is done, what is allocated, where it is allocated, and the long term effects of the allocations. You are mired in the thought that the military defense budget is about weapons systems and payouts to the one percent. Perhaps you should ask someone familiar with budgets and allocations. You champion labor unions and contracts….will you champion the military and their contracts ( no, not contracts with suppliers….contracts with its personnel ) You are a champion of minimum wage and the downtrodden but you do not champion the very same thing when it comes to the military that have already served and the military currently serving and those that are at poverty or below the ” SO CALLED ” poverty line. You always want the people, the workers, remembered but you neglect the military because it does not serve your cause and you do not view that as a worthy employment. So , I ask you again, tale the time to look at defense budget allocations…….the real allocations and the goddamned pie charts that the Government puts out. That is smoke filled coffee house bullshit….the pie charts and numbers that the government puts out. Why don’t you champion the plights of the 85% of the military that is on food stamps? Why don’t you champion the 100% of the military that is losing their “lifetime, contracted” health benefits. They accepted lower wages for longer term benefits and they backed it up by putting their life on the line. You offer platitudes about Indians and field workers and slaves of the past….and you ridicule the future. You are champion the masses of those on welfare, food stamps, government housing and are conspicuously silent for the average military family that settles for much less. And now, you have military families being charged for their housing, their utilities, and the elimination of their commissaries….while the lazy get subsidies for their housing, utilities, and food and the military, is ” disqualified for housing and utility subsidies”. You champion minimum wage yet are silent on the loss of COLA’s for both retirement and active duty while the so called “defined” minorities are given increases in their subsidies. The lazy and freeloaders are given everything and you say this is good and retribution yet you are silent on the fact that a lazy assed, person that lives off of unemployment, food stamps, housing, etc can get their benefits in less than one week……but you are silent on the military disabled that have to wait 15 months to get “EARNED” disability and have to then pay a tax on the prosthetics they receive. You do not see, or refuse to see, where a signed contract with the US government is denied or taken away and there is no legal way to sue the Federal Government to get them back.

    I have a suggestion… the Federal Register on a weekly basis and you will see where these things are now included in a defense budget for allocation. You will see where rule changes to existing contracts are terminated without recompense. You will see the hypocrisy of the Federal Government

    Now. that said and I feel a little better….how in the hell are ya, Captain Cannoli…..have missed you.

    Special Note to the Washington Post………you got it right on your article concerning Obama and his foreign policy. He IS in a fantasy world.

    Special Note to China…….you want Taiwan…..go ahead and get it. It is ready for your takeover. The US will do nothing.

    Special Note to Putin….we know the real reason for your intervention in the Crimea and Ukraine and it has nothing to do with a warm water port at all or trade, although that is a profitable benefit. You do not have to have unmarked troops anymore….you know, the mysterious gunmen…..Europe will do nothing, NATO will do nothing….because you now control 10 of 11 pipelines that supply Europe with oil and natural gas…you will simply turn the spigot off…..and you have nothing to worry about from the defanged and toothless US except for John ” fucking ” Kerry coming over to “taunt you a second time”. So, do not stop there…I know where you want to go next.

    Special Note to Syria… have full reign to gas your people now, no one will stop you and we all know that you have not turned your weapons in….as was required by the “Russian” negotiations. You have been propped up by the Russian Government and now it is time for payback.

    Special Note to Al Qaeda… have nothing to fear any longer and you have fooled me in how fast you have taken over three central African countries in addition to the 6 states that I predicted two years ago….way to go….keep going. no one is around to stop you.

    Special Note to Iran…..want Iraq…go ahead and take it. No one will stop you. The Russians have supplied you well and we all know that those unmarked troops that are there….are not yours.

    Special KUDOS to Putin and his mastery of chess. Everyone knows, or should know, that the way to economic success is hegemony and you learned well. You have manufactured a global chess board where you hold all queens….and you have used them well. You learned very well from your lesson in Afghanistan. Patience has its rewards and your brilliant use of the Olympics and the world stage to move 40,000 troops, unnoticed by western media was a cool move. Always create a diversion……


    • Well said Colonel. I agree with every point. Is it too late to fix? Never mind. I already know the answer I guess.

    • First, Iran does not want Iraq.
      Iran has no interest in Empire – been there, done that – and hasn’t sought an Empire since Darius was defeated by Alexander. To believe they would suddenly change 1,000 years of anti-Empire is unsupportable.

      They want a stable Iraq -whatever that means to them- but no less a want then the US wants a stable Mexico.

      Al Qaeda is a myth. There is no centralized force and the term is applied haphazardly to any who resist US hegemony. Don’t want ” Al Qaeda”, don’t impose and invade a country.

      The US has no business in the Ukraine. Ukraine is the heartland and ancient roots of Russia. No less then the US would go -literally- ballistic over Virginia being invaded so will the Russians.

      Taiwan is China. The world agrees – except of the US and a couple of its sycophants. Most Taiwanese think themselves Chinese. China will not invade as long as Taiwan remains Chinese – the “One China, two systems” theory. China, equally, has no desires beyond China – they have massive internal problems already as demonstrated by the recent attack of a militant independence movement in China itself.

    • Whereas I sympathize with the human plight of US veterans, I equally say, “Hope the People learn their lesson”

      People who join the military demonstrate that their lives are worthless. They are ready to die for politicians – a worthless class of people – so have indirectly stated “we are nothing but corpses for you to walk on”.

      It is equally unsurprising that the politicians treat them that way – they have ALWAYS treated them that way since the beginning – Revolutionary soldiers were discarded by the politicians, Civil War soldiers were discarded, WW1 soldiers were discarded.

      Only WW2 soldiers were given something – because there was too damn many of them and their revolt would have been massively disruptive. But since then …. same historical story over and over again.

      You’d think the lesson would have sunk in by now.

  44. plainlyspoken says:


    What is it you think the USA/NATO should be doing in response to Putin, Syria, China, etc.?

%d bloggers like this: