Like voting matters…

We seem to be past the Bundy Ranch standoff.  So glad it didn’t go to far.  Think the son was roughed up in violation of his rights, but that’s for another day.  Letterman is retiring & his replacement has been named.  Personally I think Jon Stewart would have been the perfect choice.  So I voted (at MSN) saying no, he’s not the right fit.  Thought it funny the winner is who is Colbert!  And with that, open mic..
 
<p class=”regularresulttext”> Enable JavaScript to see this poll. </p>

Is Stephen Colbert the right choice to replace David Letterman?

  1. Yes; he will do a good job.

    30 %

    Yes; he will do a good job.
    78,211 votes
  2. No; he is not the right fit.

    25 %

    No; he is not the right fit.
    63,769 votes
  3. I’m not sure yet.

    14 %

    I’m not sure yet.
    36,430 votes
  4. Who is Stephen Colbert?

    31 %

    Who is Stephen Colbert?
    78,890 votes
Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    😎

  2. Black Flag® says:

    Forgot
    “Who the f0k cares?”

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Eric King: “When you say 2014 will be the year of reckoning for the United States, how bad will it get here, in your opinion?”

    Dr. Roberts: “It could get very bad, particularly as American prestige has taken such hard hits — not just in Ukraine, but also with the announcement by the retiring prosecuting attorney of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He announced that his prosecutions of Goldman Sachs and other mega-banks had been squelched by the political people at the top of the SEC because ‘they were more focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service than on bringing cases.’….

    “In other words, he said the top people at the SEC were protecting the banks from the SEC prosecutors in order to get big positions in the banks when they left the government service. Well, this shows total corruption (laughter ensues) of all the regulatory agencies. I’m sure it’s like that in every regulatory agency.

    So this is a tremendous blow to a government that bases its credibility on claims that it’s against corruption, it’s for democracy, human rights, justice, etc., when you have the prosecuting attorney saying they don’t let us bring cases against criminals because they are counting on being paid off. The implications of this are tremendous.

    Of course the other bad hit has come from all of the really reckless propaganda that has come out of Washington about Ukraine. First they said, ‘Russia had invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.’ Well, the whole world found out rather quickly that was just another lie.

    Then they said the Russians were ‘massing troops on the Ukrainian border,’ and they showed these photographs of all these Russians massed on the Ukraine border. It turns out these were photographs taken from last year’s military maneuvers and that the military maneuvers included units of the Ukrainian Army because at the time Ukraine and Russia were hand-in-hand. So there were caught in that lie.

    … And the Russians, under the threat of sanctions, have said, ‘We’re tired of this bullying. We’re just removing ourselves from the system. We’re not going to play with them anymore.’ (Laughter ensues) So there you have a major blow to the petrodollar

    … So, yes, this is likely to be a year of tremendous problems for Washington. The only people who can bail Washington out are the Russians and Chinese. If Washington survives all the crises that it has created for itself, it will simply be due to the mercy of the Russians and the Chinese, who refuse to exploit the advantages that Washington has so foolishly given them.

    Now can a government that stupid deal with the kinds of crises or potential crises that we’ve outlined in this interview? I don’t think it can.”
    http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2014/4/12_Paul_Craig_Roberts_-_Why_This_Collapse_Will_Be_So_Horrific.html

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    It seems the Obama administration is really starting to push Agenda 21. This is 3 attempted land grabs by the BLM in the 1ast few weeks, one in Nevada, New Mexico and Texas :
    http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/04/11/not-just-nevada-blm-land-grabbing-90000-deeded-acres-in-texas-too/

  5. I know this story isn’t new but I feel that all these stories should be brought together to make a point.

    It is the first time I’m heard this “In the winter of 2010 – 2011, the Golden State experienced one of its wettest winters in history – a “once every half-century” season of rain and snow as it was reported. In the spring and summer of 2011 Central Valley farmers sought to capture and store excess run-off water, but the EPA swopped in and forbade it. Thus more of California’s precious and rare natural resource – water – went to waste.”

    JAC you said they had destroyed the timber industry-you have any information on that you want to add?

    The Other Story From Rural Western America: Federal Agencies Choking Off The Farming Industry
    Austin Hill | Apr 13, 2014

    Good news: the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published research indicating that there are lots of un-filled jobs and career opportunities in the farming industry. Bad news: the Obama Administration has been cannibalizing the nation’s farmers for the bigger part of the last six years.

    First the good news. According to a report at CNBC.Com, the USDA has uncovered some eye-opening statistics about the world of agribusiness. The average age of a farmer in the U.S. is 58, and has been on the rise for the last thirty years. There are now six times more farmers 65 years of age and older than there are farmers 34 years of age and younger.

    The USDA fears that the farming industry may be left without adequate workers and expertise within a few short years. But the data also suggest something very positive: there is an entire industry here in the U.S., and a very necessary and essential industry at that, that is full of work and career opportunity for those who are interested and willing to pursue it.

    But while the USDA is putting out the good word about job opportunities in farming, other federal government agencies have been undermining and harassing farmers for the past six years. Consider as an example the plight of farms in Central California’s San Joaquin Valley.

    The Golden State’s “Central Valley” is a vast, expansive territory that stretches from the northern tip of Los Angeles County , through the center of the state and up to and beyond the state’s capitol city of Sacramento . If today you were to travel north or south through this region, on either “Interstate 5” or state route “99,” you’d see the influence of bad politics in Washington, and expressions of outrage that Central Californians feel toward their federal government.

    Despite the fertile soil of the region, it nonetheless would essentially be a desert if it weren’t adequately irrigated. This means that in order for it to remain a top agricultural producer year after year, it needs a lot of water – and this is where Washington has damaged Central California.

    Much of the water that would normally be available to these California farmers has been denied them, because of actions taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In issuing what is known as a “biological opinion” back in 2008 (yes, the problem began shortly before President George W Bush left office), this government agency utilized the power of the Endangered Species Act to shut-off water supplies to farmers in order to help save the “delta smelt” – a small fish that the bureaucrats believe is endangered because of too much fresh water in rivers and streams.

    With this effort to “save” the delta smelt, tens of billions of gallons of fresh water from the California mountain regions have been diverted away from the valley farmers, and redirected into the Pacific Ocean, all at the hands of Washington bureaucrats. It is a classic and tragic case of radical, out of control environmentalism, and real people and families are having their livelihoods damaged because of it.

    California’s water crisis is not “news.” Reports of this looming disaster began to develop in early 2009, and even as far back as September of that year the Wall Street Journal noted that Washington was engaging in a “green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers.” Perhaps most interestingly, Congress has the authority to intervene and override the policies and “opinions” of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but it has refused to take up the matter.

    Fast-forward to January of this year. California Governor Jerry Brown declares a “state of emergency,” announcing that the state is experiencing its lowest level of precipitation in its 163 year history.

    A month later, President Barack Obama visited Central California for the first time (truly enlightened elites generally don’t make a “stop” in California’s Central Valley, they merely “fly over” it while traveling between the more sophisticated regions of Los Angeles and San Francisco). While in Fresno, the President announced $100 million in livestock-disaster aid, $60 million to support food banks and another $13 million for funding water conservation projects and helping rural communities that could soon run out of drinking water.

    Did the President offer to lift the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy of sending fresh water in to the ocean on behalf of the “endangered” delta smelt? Not at all. He did however use the trip as a photo-op to promote his $1 billion “climate resilience” project that he claims will save us from global warming someday.

    Natural disasters are often unpredictable, but California’s current drought conditions were made worse with regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. In the winter of 2010 – 2011, the Golden State experienced one of its wettest winters in history – a “once every half-century” season of rain and snow as it was reported. In the spring and summer of 2011 Central Valley farmers sought to capture and store excess run-off water, but the EPA swopped in and forbade it. Thus more of California’s precious and rare natural resource – water – went to waste.

    Does America want a government that secures the liberties and interests of its citizens? Or have we grown numb, if not slightly confortable, with a government that places the interests of bureaucrats and alleged “endangered species” over entire industries, families, and populations?

    We chose the insanity and destructiveness of our current government. We can choose more wisely next time, if only we will.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/austinhill/2014/04/13/the-other-story-from-rural-western-america-federal-agencies-choking-off-the-farming-industry-n1823938/page/full

    • If you could find a copy, you would probably enjoy it though I suspect it would give you nightmares. As Rod Serling might say, “File under….where we are headed”.

      http://hadleyblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/crossing-bridge.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Here is a short summary of the “impacts” of the spotted owl.

      http://www.wfpa.org/news-and-resources/blog/delving-into-the-impact-of-the-spotted-owl/

      It goes much deeper, however.

      The Clinton Administration, namely Al Gore, used this to complete something called the Columbia Basin Assessment. This supposed environmental report was used to modify all the National Forest Plans and direct other actions reducing road, timber harvest and grazing on National Forest Lands within the Columbia River system.

      Which includes much of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and part of Montana.

      This was added to the listing of Salmon on the Endangered Specie List.

      So the impact to the timber industry spread to the “Intermountain States” where in Montana and Northern Idaho harvest from Federal Lands was cut from over 1.2 billion per year to around 200 million. And most of that was pulp and firewood.

      When I moved to Idaho in 1978 there were over 11 sawmills and plywood plants between Salmon, Idaho and Missoula, Montana. Today there are NONE.

      I think there may be less than 6 sawmills left in Idaho where there used to be close to 100. The timber industry was the second largest employer in the State of Idaho in the mid 90’s. Ten years later it had shrunk to the point that few even recognized it.

      Timber sales now offered on national forests for “improvement” projects go unsold because there are no “buyers” for the timber. The infrastructure of an entire industry is GONE.

      The same story holds for western Montana, although more private timber land has allowed a few more mills to keep operating.

      The Salmon listing was also used to go after grazing on Federal Lands. Most of the cows are now gone or greatly reduced in number. As I explained the other day, the Dams on the Columbia decimated the Salmon, but the timber and livestock industries paid the price for “recovery”.

      Meanwhile the US taxpayers contribute millions each year via taxes and surcharges on electricity to maintain Fish Hatcheries throughout the Columbia system in order to maintain the Salmon and Steelhead populations. Because if they did not, they would disappear due to the mortality caused by the Dams.

      Now for the sake of truth, grazing and timber harvest have and can have negative affects on fish habitat. Both were contributing factors to fish decline in “certain” drainages. But compared to the Dams and Hydroelectric system they are miniscule.

      The USFWS and US Marine Fisheries Service have had a “boiling frogs” approach to implementing the ESA over the decades. They realized that if they pushed the power of the law to the full extent, as desired by the environmentalists, that the American People would rise up and KILL the law.

      The second in charge of the US Fish and Wildlife Service stated this to me in plain English when I challenged him to go after the cities dumping affluent and other heavy metals in the river system. At the time I was participating as a member of Senator Kempthorne’s Salmon Recovery Committee.

      Now let me share a great irony in the Salmon debates. The “outfitters” and other “recreation” groups were siding with the greenies on the Salmon recovery. They wanted more fish and believed this would get them more fish. They also didn’t want to see cows when hiking in the woods. We tried to explain to them that once the timber industry and cattlemen were gone, they would be next.

      They just laughed at us and kept up their lobbying support.

      In the past few years the float boating on the Salmon river has been reduced and traffic signs placed on the river directing where rafts and drift boats may travel. The outfitters and recreationists were ticked off but to no avail. You see there was nobody left to form a coalition with to fight the stupid regulations anymore. They were on their own. They LOST easily.

      • This may be a stupid question but as far as I know we aren’t short of wood-so where are we getting our wood from?

        • We use a lot of plywood, which Georgia Pacific has forests here in state for their production. So it makes sense, we currently get ours from Brazil..

          http://www.worldwidewood.com/report/ply-ven01/brazil.htm

          Also remember years ago, bought a large amount from Russia. Very high grade wood, much heavier than what we normally used.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Canada!

          When the timber supply started dropping the price went up and up. Canada started shipping more. Last time I checked, before the housing bubble burst Canada’s share of US softwood supply was close to 50%.

          When the timber industry looked for help from the Home builders the builders told them to pound sand. They wouldn’t do anything to cut off the suppy of cheaper Canadian lumber.

          We are not short of wood, we are short of good quality wood. We are also not short because New Home Construction is on its back. If you take a trip to Lowe’s or Home Depot you will also find a lot of “chop and glue” or “fake” wood products. Sawdust and resin, Chips and resin/glue, laminated stuff from lower quality small trees, etc.

          • So basically, we are losing jobs, ruining people’s lives and supporting the economy of Brazil and Canada instead of our own.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              YES!

              AND…………..we are exporting our environmental impacts to those willing to use their resources because we do not in the name of environmental protection.

    • There are two saw mills near me that have closed in the last decade. The reasons for the closures are a combination of lack of access to forestry lands for logging and state labor laws that make running businesses in CA unprofitable. Logging and milling are dangerous work, so the workman’s compensation rates for these occupations are exceedingly high especially in CA. One of the mills had their own private forests. They frequently won awards for the quality of forestry management they practiced which far exceeded the management practices of the BLM and Dept. of Ag. They still do some logging up the hill but now the logs are trucked all the way down to the central valley and then north to mills in other counties. The long route is because N-S roads in the foothills are rare and too twisty and hilly for the big loads. In a state full of trees and rocks, we have to import lumber and aggregate to meet the demand because the enviros have shut off the local resources. With the closing go the jobs and income.

      What they said about water here is true. It’s a farce for the president to come here and offer welfare in exchange for water. The decline of the delta smelt is due in no small part to more predatory fish moving up the delta and consuming this food source in a natural way. Another cause is the large pumps in the delta that suck in water for the cement river that runs uphill to supply water to LA. Shasta Dam at the north end of the Sacramento Valley supplies water all the way to LA.

      Locally we are seeing a push to eliminate the low water fees paid by small farmers to irrigate their orchards and crops. Residential water rates have increased sharply while small farm rates and ag rates have remained relatively level. The reason is that several years ago the water district opted to treat all the water rather than have a dual delivery system for ditch water and potable water. The compromise was to continue billing ag water at ditch water rates. (A note of history, water delivery systems were first built to support mining and then to support ag.) After that decision, the large developers moved in and started building massive subdivisions. These subdivisions all contain about 1/2 an acre of lawn per house. This lawn needs water but it is at the higher residential rates. So this ever increasing population of home owners vote for directors that promise to raise the rates of ag users so their rates can be reduced. The developers love this because driving ag out of the county means more water for homes and large lawns.

      I am on a small farm ag rate because I have over 50 fruit trees. I do pay the residential rate for a base amount of water even it I do not use it. After that I get the ag rate for irrigating my trees and garden. I do not water my lawn or anything that does not produce food unlike the people in the developments that have green lawns and backyard ponds, pools, and jungles. If I lose the ag rate, the trees become fire wood.

      Yesterday, the local Opel club drove from Auburn to Sonora in the foothills. It is fun taking our 40+ year old cars through the twists and turns amongst the lush green (for now) hills. We cross the New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River) south of Angels Camp. I have never seen this lake that low. There were islands in the middle that I have never seen. The water shortage is serious but manageable this year unfortunately for the central valley farmers. If we have another dry year next year, it will be a disaster.

      So yes there is a war on ag in this state despite it being a pillar of the state’s economy. Jerry Brown continues to push for his train to no where and his massive tunnels under the delta, but no money for increased storage and no attempt to stop the Feds from flushing what water we do have down the delta toilet.

  6. http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm

    US forest lands have declined since the white man landed on these shores. The low point was about 1900. Since then forestry land has increased. I lived for a couple of years in MA. I remember walking through the woods, thick forest with mature trees, and seeing 4′ wide stone walls that ran in very nice straight lines attesting to the fact that this forest was once farmland. I also lived in NJ for 12 years. I remember seeing photos of the NJ hills ca 1900. They were barren. Now they are lush forests. In the latter part of the 1800’s much of the hardwood forest was cut down to make coke for the iron furnaces and to supply firewood for the railroads. The use of coal and oil for these purposes allowed the forests to recover naturally.

    Note in the above link that the western forests have not declined as much as the earlier eastern and southern forests did. This suggests that we are using these lands in a much more sustainable fashion. Another point for the greenies to consider is that new trees sequester more carbon than mature trees. So cutting and replanting will actually reduce the greenhouse gases they are so concerned about as long as the wood does not go for fuel. By closing off the forests as we have done, we encourage massive fires which just generate more CO2. If the greenies were smart they would support sustainable forestry harvesting.

    On our trip do Sonora yesterday, we ended at our parts supplier for a backyard BBQ. From his patio, we could see land that was burned in the big Rim Fire last year. The DC10 bombers flew right over his house at low levels on their bomb runs. They are logging burned timber off of private lands but the Feds still have not given permission to salvage the timber on federal land. Soon it will not be fit for salvage. What a waste of resources. To make up for the wood not salvaged, live forests will need to be harvested. It’s a no brainer.

    • All the timber flattened by Mount St. Helens was allowed to rot on site. Reason given was that it would allow the “scientists” to study “recovery”. Had they saved a quarter for their study it would have been enough but the truth is they hate you, themselves and humanity, not necessarily in that order.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        Not all the wood was left to rot.

        Much of the private land was salvaged. Sawyers would go through a chain saw a week because of the abrasive dust clogging up filters and getting inside where it shouldn’t have.

        At the same time, a lot of the trees were not suitable for salvage given the effect the blast had on them.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      So what Asian areas are the Navy planning on entering that are not within range of the weapons systems already available. There is not much need to get close. Is the administration planning on reviving the insulting gunboat china policy that lasted 100 years. With our navy patrolling sovereign nations waterways????

      • Just a total amateur here but always seemed to me since McNamara’s FTX fiasco (the F-111) that trying to get one platform to do too many things never works out well. The old adage “we can do one thing really well or several things badly” is always valid. Here is the wonderful sea going Coast Guard cutter in the recent past was so poorly designed as to be dangerous because of a twisting hull in high seas.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/us/09ship.html?pagewanted=all

        This thing does not sound much better. The job, (not running up and down the Mekong) was to provide support. I remember stories of the DD’s and DE’s off Omaha Beach both British and American coming within 1,000 yards of shore to provide direct fire support. So obviously there is a historic capability. This particular CF exists because they wanted to crew it on the cheap, keep the shipyards going in the time of tight budgets and provide employment opportunities for former (some) O-6’s and above. The Air Force has the F-35 fiasco to deal with (never liked fast movers providing close air support) and the Army has basically yelled No Mas! for the Future Combat Systems program.

        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/littoral-failure-navy-hedges-bets-on-high-tech-littoral-combats/ .

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          How true…..The USAF and other services are in a real bind with the F-35. I looked through all of the issues with the coast guard ships. One thing I noticed was the lack of bouyancy in the bows and to wide a stern. They are designed like some of the sailboat racers. They have a tendancy to break at the mast step area in to rough a seas. The coast guard said with the straight step at the bridge that will be a weak area. But G/D and Northrop know better, right?

  7. plainlyspoken says:

    Hello my friends,

    Just a short note to let you know I am back in the hospital battling this pancreatitis. Unfortunately it looks like another procedure will have to be performed – this time on the pancreas itself and I will likely be in here at least a week. So I’ll be out of touch for a while.

    So miss me while I am on this “vacation”. 🙂

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Well SUFA I am off to fix up our next home so we can get moved next month.

    So I will be gone for the next two weeks. Don’t have to much fun without me.

    Anyone going to be around Coeur d’Alene, Idaho the next couple weeks feel free to drop in. I have extra paint brushes.

    Until then, keep the wind at yer backs, yer powder dry and may the sun shine upon your path.

    JAC

    • Sedgewick says:

      A ‘right to have a mom and dad’ is a straw-man argument, as it is based upon a secondary subsequent issue. It does not address the root premise.

      The root premise is the dynamic between equal protection of the right to freedom of religion and expression under the law, verses religion, …more specifically, Leviticus 18 and 20.

      Even the distinction between marriage and civil unions is law respecting the establishment of a religion. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Pick one, local, state by state or federal level. Under the right pressure, a legal precedence can to be set.

      If equal protection under law wins, so does gay marriage.

      If Leviticus wins, founding principles lose.

      If principles of law are compromised, theocracy and religious oppression wins.

      Law says gay wins. Law serves a minority.

      So, …Take law out of marriage.

      • Sedgewick says:

        When you really consider the legal implications with regard to the interwoven nature of the foundations of laws in the USA, this argument has the potential to cause many other things to be affected.

        Between the first and tenth amendments, the role of the supreme court, the effects on taxes and whatever other regulatory practices, it has a potential to rock the entire legal system.

        Anything developed from a false or incomplete premise will also be false or incomplete. And what is law if words have no meaning?

        “CONGRESS shall not…”? “Not prohibited by it…”?

        This state/county protects rights to religious freedom, but that one doesn’t?

        Christian states/counties, Jewish states/counties, Muslim states/counties, Pagan states/counties, gay states/counties?

        Does law need Leviticus?

        What ARE ‘American’ values?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Why can’t people just live as they chose, as long as it don’t impeded how others live? Why do we need so many laws? If people would just respect others as they would expect themselves to be respected, most of our problems would not exist and many laws would be unnecessary.

          • Sedgewick says:

            Exactly!

            Law makes it messy. Tolerance makes it easy.

            I mean, …can you imagine the implications of setting a legal precedence on behalf of a religion?

            How do you ‘prove’ a religion in court?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Agreed, government should stay OUT of the peoples business, unless they are specifically asked for their assistance . There are some things that govt does that is good, but mostly they suck. Our current problem is “Regulation without representation”. That needs squashed as it’s being abused now!

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” There are some things that govt does that is good, but mostly they suck. ”

                “they” is “The People”. 😉

                What exactly are those few things that it does well? (I am being rhetorical)

                I will posit that most/many of the things on your ideal list are things which are mutually beneficial among all the governed, things like roadways, fresh water and sewage/drainage systems, local police, management offices, etc.

                What does that require of it’s citizens?

                Spying on them? Telling them how to live? Theft?

                How long does it take to vote fusion centers out of existence?

                What did the law say you can do with your body today?

                Did the family on government food benefits invite you to dinner?

            • I see that you are firmly stuck in “freedom from Religion” rather than “Freedom of Religion”.

              • Sedgewick says:

                I am not firmly stuck on anything, only questioning the validity of the ability of law to properly manage both, and freedom in general.

                Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM another religion.

                Why did the pilgrims move to Plymouth?

                If you believe in the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, but do not believe in Leviticus 18-20, there is no reason why you should have to comply, unless, of course, your laws do not protect freedom from/of religion.

                If your individual belief system does NOT label you as an abomination, forced compliance of the values of another religion that DOES label you as an abomination, is a violation of your right to freedom FROM that religion, as well as a violation OF the right to practice NOT being an abomination.

                It isn’t semantics. It is about freedom, whether it be “of” or “from”.

              • I can think and believe whatever the hell I want to. In addition, I can use the belief and knowledge system man has developed (and refined) over the last six thousand or so years to guide my behavior. Hip, with it, new ideas are not always good (eugenics, phrenology, prohibition). Change for the sake of change is rarely good. Because an idea comes from religion it is not necessarily a bad idea. No more than if it came from Socrates or Plato.

                Part of the sweeping societal shift over the past 100 years is a rejection of “old” ideas in favor of new ones. Despite Black Flag’s recurring complaint about the body count of religion throughout the entire history of man, the two great isms of the 20th Century, Fascism and Communism, new, improved better “ideas” made the old fashioned religious wars look like cheap gang fights. So, scoff, laugh if you want, talk about Spaghetti Monsters in the sky but a society that is in free for all, free fall mode historically does not fare well.

              • Socialism (and its birth child, Communism) IS A RELIGION.

                It is not founded on reason but on faith.

      • Well your first mistake is to claim that religion is the basis of my argument-it is not.

        • Sedgewick says:

          What argument?

          And if not religion, what reason is there to deny someone such a legal “contract” ?

          • I’m not denying them a legal contract-I am arguing that they do not have the right to demand that their union is legally the exact same as a marriage between a man and a woman. I am arguing that the LGBT has an agenda and gay marriage and laws to make gender identity neutral and gender it self neutral is all apart of that agenda. And that the only strawman argument is that these issues are separate when they are not.

            • Sedgewick says:

              ” I’m not denying them a legal contract ”

              What is “marriage”?

              ” I am arguing that they do not have the right to demand that their union is legally the exact same as a marriage between a man and a woman. ”

              …based on …?

              • As it relates to the government and laws–It’s a contract but contracts don’t have to be exactly the same to be a contract..

                Based on the biological rights of parents,based on the rights of children, based on the fact that gender isn’t exactly the same.

              • Sedgewick says:

                As it relates to the government and laws–It’s a contract but contracts don’t have to be exactly the same to be a contract.

                What requires it to be different in the eyes of the law?

                ” Based on the biological rights of parents, …”

                What exactly are “biological rights”?

                ” …based on the rights of children, ”

                What exactly are rights of children?

                What is the difference between child rights and adult rights?

                ” …based on the fact that gender isn’t exactly the same.”

                How does that require a different contract?

              • Reread the article. 🙂 Your answers are there.
                But I have a question for you-Why do you insist that religion is the only possible reason people can disagree with gay marriage? Do you also believe that religion is the only reason one could be against abortion or for charity? Are all arguments for or against something off the table if people of faith happen to agree?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              This is only a problem because of GOVT involvement in the process. Take away any govt entitlements and this is not an issue. The marriage license should be renamed a “Civil Union license”. Everyone can get one for togetherness and enjoy (or get screwed) whatever the govt has made laws about.

              Vowing to be together in HOLY Matrimony (aka marriage) is a religious celebration and should be totally absent any govt involvement. If I remember correctly, the marriage license was part of an incest issue and hence the blood test to ensure sister isn’t marrying brother. Our laws are mainly based on Christian beliefs. That is indisputable.

            • I took one Business Law course in my life and the teacher was a lawyer handling mostly business matters and contracts. He made a very big point that contracts were illegal and unenforceable if they were contrary to either the law or public policy.

              For example, I make a contract with you wherein I will pay you $ 500,000 for not marrying my beloved daughter. You accept the money and elope with her. I cannot bring an action to enforce the contract because, it was “contrary to public policy”. You win, I lose. Now in the discussions we have been having about marriage as a contract, seems that public policy for a very long time has said one man and one woman. Currently our new found discovery of yet another “civil right” seems to have trumped it.

            • V, read this. It is amazing what the mind can dredge up from 50 years ago. Screw the religious argument, let’s go with the Public Policy argument. I am, surprised that this has never been brought up before in our discussions or for that matter in other discussions on radio or TV. I think that there are very good, sound reasons to oppose both gay marriage and gay adoption.

              While my friends on the other side keep blabbering about religion and it (or its feeble remnants) being the only thing standing in the way of true nirvana and equality, basic contract law is an issue that has been ignored. That, is the debate we should be having and I think is in keeping with your comments today.

              Enjoy!

              http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

              • I’ll read this again when I get home-ran out of time-but from a quick look see I’m not sure of your point-in any discussion of gay “marriage” laws would have to be changed .The only other point I noticed was about writing a contract that went against what society thinks is acceptable -I’m thinking people would argue that what our society thinks is acceptable is debatable.

                So could you explain a little more about why you think this is a good argument.

              • V, what you are doing now is ignoring the law and playing into the hands of the new Nazi’s. Society does have a say on what is acceptable otherwise there is NO society. The acceptability of an idea, as I have expressed to Sedge below is what prevents total chaos. Someone who wants to change the norm, which even I think can be done from time to time, is responsible for explaining the benefits of the new norm. The ball is, as it should be, in their court.

                We here all agree on a great many things, even Buck, Charlie and Matt. If education changes, there should be proof that the new system works better. I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing that shows how the institution of marriage is improved or society is improved by calling something that cannot be, in the true sense of the word marriage by the name marriage. Ditto for gay adoption. The canard, ” it is better for a child to be in a loving household than in a foster home or institution”, is so much sanctimonious baloney. . Really? Especially when that child reaches adolescence. Already hearing anecdotal evidence (have my doubts whether real evidence would be tolerated) about how screwed up these kids are.

                Everybody has to get their head out of the sand on this one. The Eich controversy, for anybody awake says it all. This is the road down which we are headed. I was admonished on Facebook the other day by a good friend for referring to the new Nazi’s as Nazis. He said, I was being extreme. I am not the one driving people out of their livelihood because they don’t agree with me. Hey folks, be as libertarian as you want but understand, and understand it clearly that like Pastor Neimoller, “there will be no one left to speak for me when the time comes”.

            • V.H.

              Often you make my headshake.

              Correct. Marriage IS a contract between two people. Why YOU believe – a third party who has no vested interest in such a contract – has a say is beyond me.

              Then you say this:
              “LGBT has an agenda and gay marriage and laws to make gender identity neutral and gender it self neutral is all apart of that agenda. ”

              ABSOLUTELY!
              And it has nothing to do with “love” or “marriage” or anything. It has to do with feeding at the pigsty of government loot.

              • He He HE-paybacks a b#@ch isn’t it 🙂

                Take note that I said as far as it relates to the government and laws it’s a contract. So like it or not the government is already the third party when it comes to these types of contracts. And I didn’t bring love into it-I brought in ones biological rights to their children and gender .

              • Actually I didn’t bring these things into the definition of marriage they were already there.The LGBT are the ones who want to outlaw these things and who have tied gay “marriage” to these issues.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    The BLM actions throughout the country are making the news, most recently with shots almost being fired in Bunkerville Nevada. Much of this over land that has been used for over a Century by generations of farming families.

    Last week I posted some links to older articles that put Harry Reid, his son and the head of the BLM right in the middle of everything. The next day, an abrupt end came to the stand off at Bunkerville. Coincidence? I’ll leave that to your imagination. But there is still more to the story that may involve Reid and other Senators where ranchers are under attack by the BLM.

    This is the first in what I think will be several links to come on the subject: http://usawatchdog.com/blm-selling-out-america-fabian-calvo/

    Just think about the title to this thread and apply it to what has happened recently, then ask yourself if’s it’s ever going to work the way you think?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      Watched a fun movie the other night…”Tremor’s 3 Return to Perfection” The creatures have returned and the Gman character returns to eradicate the threat. Anyway the Feds and an environmental scientist and the BLM interfer and threaten the town with eviction from the valley if they do NOT stop trying to kill this endangered species…..sound familiar

  10. C-sections as a status symbol-who knew-seems like a much more dangerous way to go.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/375637/forced-c-sections-obsession-birth-control-wesley-j-smith

    • Very interesting. Yet, the same folks who think a traditional vaginal birth is “disgusting” and “primitive” would have you sent to prison if you fail to breast feed your child and opt for formula instead.

      Having had four new grandchildren over the past three years I am fascinated by the “new” thinking about childbirth and child reasoning that I have not had to deal with in over thirty years.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Good article on Who really owns all the “Federal” land that they claim to own. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014

    I believe this subject to be incredibly important. For the reasons of private property ownership (which seems to be at the whim of the EPA and other Government agencies) to who really controls these vast territories the Feds claim to own (I believe it belongs to the States, UNLESS the State legislature as authorized something different).

    I certainly would be against any sale of so called Federal land to any foreign nation, ever. Private sales to citizens is different. Should we allow the feds to destroy cattle ranchers livelihood so that a Chinese company can construct a solar farm and collect the profits? Not just NO, but HELL NO!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      It’s not over yet, just a matter of time, when they strike again.

      http://visiontoamerica.com/17265/federal-government-promises-more-legal-action-against-nevada-ranchers/

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Right on Judy, but they have to change tactics, threats of violence failed. We just saw what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, taking on the corrupt, out of control Federal Government! 🙂

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          I read earlier, in another article, but, can’t find now, that the BLM owns the land that Bundy’s cattle grazed on, & has since the 1840’s. So, basically, the article kept saying that Bundy owes over a million dollars in back pay for his cattle to continue to graze. Correct me if I’m wrong, but, didn’t the BLM come after the 1840’s? If I find that article, I will be sure to post it. Damn, irritates me that I can’t find it now, but, I’ll keep looking for it.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            There is a question on ownership! Bundy was paying the BLM for services, to help manage the land for grazing. When the BLM changed, he fired them. I’m totally on his side. I don’t believe they own the land, the State of Nevada does.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              It seems that the Feds are moving in a Command Center and prison buses. More to come as I hear!

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Oh, I’m on his side as well, no question there. If I’m not mistaken, that article also said, that the BLM owns about 90% of land mass in Nevada. Still can’t find that article.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’ve read it, but they can’t own it, read my link to Sedgwick! 😀 Now I’m hearing that California has ILLEGAL road block/check points for those headed East into Nevada. This may be the beginning of the next Revolution.

              • According to statistics from 2012, the US federal government claims ownership of 81% of Nevada’s land.
                http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

                So, nice guess and close enough for hand grenades, Judy!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Notice it’s a claim! By the Constitution, they can only OWN land less than ten square miles for there use.

                17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

                It is specific, “NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE. By Constitution law, the State owns that land and the Feds may MANAGE it under state agreement, but I stick with the state still OWNS the land, per the Constitution! Just my silly opinion 😀

              • gmanfortruth says:
  12. “Science” strikes again!

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16880957-big-pharma-backed-scientists-announce-new-childhood-attention-disorder

    Fans of Mycroft Holmes (Sherlock’s smarter brother, should be concerned). As an aside, am I the only one who thinks that we are going backward at a ridiculously fast pace in all disciplines? the new dark ages are fast upon us!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You are definitely not alone SK. IMHO, these issues are caused by big Pharma to begin with, vaccinations. They have already admitted to adding cancer virus’s to them in the past, what we should demand is to know whats in the vaccines, as in additives such a squaline. I have personal experience in this area, and for the record, the additives can screw people up physically as well as mentally. I feel it’s on purpose. I also feel that they help increase the problems with PTSD! I know several folks who should not have PTSD, they never saw anything violent!

      • The almost ex-shrink in me would have you re-think the PTSD thing. In ’71, I went headfirst off a motorcycle at 60MPH on the West Side Highway in Manhattan. Not a week goes by when I do not relive that sensation. Everybody who has ever had a life threatening experience of any form probably has PTSD. It is how you deal with it that matters. Medication can only, like alcohol, mask symptoms. This is something that must be talked out either with people who have been there also or with a really good therapist who has an IMAGINATION.

        Best books I have ever read on PTSD and would recommend them to sufferers or to the loved ones of those who suffer. “Achilles in Vietnam” and “Odysseus in America”. by John Shea, MD. He in addition to being a shrink is a classically trained guy and when he started treating Vietnam Vets at the VA in the ’70’s realized that their symptoms and comments matched the ancient Greek stories in the Iliad and Odyssey. Trauma of war does not change, just the warriors do.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m Positive PTSD is a problem with any veteran who had life threatening events (or even civilians, like your experience). But, I also believe and have seen it, that vaccines seem to amplify the symptoms in people who really do suffer. But how does one have PTSD from serving on a AF base hundreds of miles from any violence and never even experienced anything that might cause PTSD?

          I feel terrible for people who suffer from it because of military service. I also know many who suffer hypersymptoms (new word 🙂 ) when it should not be an issue. Just my opinion of course, I only know what I went through and what I talked with others about.

          • In modern psychology, we have thrown out all that was old. There is hysteria and mass hysteria too. Today you never hear about it.

            I hope that this analogy does not upset anyone. My experience with kids, my own and others I have met in Scouting, shows me where kids go when they start obsessing. Be it night frights or snakes, bees, the dark, dogs, cats, the water, whatever, when a kid starts concentrating on one thing and builds up fears they overwhelm him. Adults can do the same thing. Think about parents afraid to let their kids out of their sight yet there are just as few child abductions as there were 60 years ago. Think of people afraid to drive on highways, people who check the stove 25 times before they walk out of the house. These are all obsessions. They WILL get the better of you.

            So, we are not terribly far from, I’m in the Air Force, Joe Blow was in the Air Force, Joe Blow got tasked to drive a truck to Basara, Joe got blown up, I may get tasked to do something similar, I may get blown up and BINGO, PTSD! Just keep running this stupid scenario through your head long enough and you too can be a victim.

            Friend of my son was a platoon leader in Afghanistan, this kid is a Vietnamese refugee who struggled long and hard to get into the Army, get his commission and pay back the US. His RTO had his brains blown out all over his face. Since he got back, he is a wreck. Van refuses to accept the fact that what happened to him was a life changing experience . He has been self medicating with booze for the past four years that we know of. refuses to seek help, thinks he should be strong enough so that this should not have affected him.

            Worst part is based on what happened vs. what might have happened, the end result is the same. takes a good therapist to talk you down. Remember my Dad talking about 1st Infantry Division vets on his air base in England after the war ended. The army, on purpose or by pure dumb luck, kept these guys together with other combat vets for months before they came home. People talked each other down. Dad, the bartender/psychologist mentioned this when he started seeing the Vietnam vets come home one at a time and be discharged almost immediately.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I agree! It took me some time to “come down” after Desert Storm. I remember those days well, not very pleasant, but now far behind me. Maybe I’m crazy, but I have no fear of anything, including death. Most would say I’m nuts, but I feel rather calm in “in charge” of my emotions! 🙂

              • That is perfectly normal. A reasonable man, when confronted with imminent death runs all the possibilities through his mind. The fact that he survives does a lot to assuage the fear that he may have. Don’t want to be trite but, ” been there, done that,” is relevant to the experience. Each person though is different an infinite number of variables are involved. Watching my Dad die peacefully helped me a lot. I don’t think I so much fear death as I will miss life. I really enjoy life, sunsets, sunrises, the moon, the stars. The Sea, the grand kids, the annoying kids and all the neat stuff I have accumulated that brings me pleasure but will go to the four winds when I am gone.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Sedgewick, I’m totally in the corner that the Federal Government no longer represents the people. They represent special interests groups and the wealthy, mostly for the own greed. Yes, they are the people, but the monopoly on the so called fair elections are owned by those same special interests and wealthy, the TWO political parties are the main problem that has destroyed the free election process. Those you vote for in the federal elections are chosen for you, left or right don’t matter, they work for the same people.

    This government was taught a valuable lesson Saturday in Nevada. The people are tired of their bullshit and ain’t standing down any longer. The confrontation was terribly close to a gunfight, that at the time, the Feds were out numbered and refused to follow their “orders”. WE the people need to do much more of telling the Feds NO! Until we get the Feds removed completely, and I mean completely (the elected ones) and take our government from the corruption that has taken over, we will continue to be the victims of their corruption.

    More to come! 😀

    • gmanfortruth says:

      At the Bundy Ranch Showdown, the federal government learned a couple of things: first, that Americans aren’t giving up their guns because they know that they are the last line against a tyrannical government; second, that your average American law enforcement agent will not fire upon a group of fellow Americans without a far better reason than a bunch of cows and some baloney about an endangered tortoise; third, that many folks still understand that government gets its authority from the people, not vice versa.

      I imagine the top circles of the Obama Administration are livid about how things turned out. Officials know they can’t be seen as being awash in a river of American blood, triply so in an election year.

      Then there’s Sen. Harry Reid’s connection to the business in Clark County. Some news outlets either didn’t get it or they tried to bury it, but the Chinese solar energy firm Reid’s son represented wasn’t planning on building just in Laughlin, but in Clark County, where the County Commission voted to sell public lands for pennies on the dollar. The deal is reportedly off the table, and both Reid and his son are trying to distance themselves from any possible connection to the Bundy Ranch Showdown, but is it really a coincidence that the BLM decided to pull out within a day or so of Reid’s possible connection being revealed?

      For the Democrats and the top officials in Washington, Bundy Ranch has to be as embarrassing as when President Obama tried to mobilize the globe to go to war in Syria over nerve gas and he couldn’t muster support from more than a few extremists from both parties.

      The ordinary citizens of this country learned something from Bundy’s revolution, too; primarily the real reason the Second Amendment remains important and the government wants to restrict or eliminate it, but also the equally important lesson that we still have the power, if only we are courageous enough to use it.

      Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15169/rancher-wins-fight-blm-now/#P81T4Weej9fYWIbC.99

      • Sedgewick says:

        To be honest, I haven’t been paying much attention other than posts here at SUFA. But it is good that people are standing up for their rights.

        Who wants another Waco or Ruby Ridge type ‘incident’? I don’t think anyone does. I also think Obama is wise enough to want to not provoke such a thing, as it could ignite a bigger mess.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have zero faith in the MSM. Here’s an example of why:

      The MSM is completely controlled by Washington, they are nothing more than puppets and any journalist with integrity that stands for what journalism used to stand for, meaning holding our politicians accountable and informing the general public of the truth, is forced out and/or gagged.
      http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2014/04/sharyl-attkisson-on-white-house.html#.U0wvlpUU_IV

    • Gman,

      There is no such thing as “the People”.
      There is only you, and I and Sed, and all of us INDIVIDUALLY.

      Group-think – believing that a mass of like minded people actually represent -in of itself- a solid identity is a great fiction.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        There was a time that you confused the hell out of me, but now I get what you say. You are correct. I, like you, don’t think we need “government” to live peacefully. Respecting yourself enough to respect others the same way is a very peaceful ideology, yes?

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Another problem with the politicians, they are thieves. Those who support them are equally thieves as well 😀

    http://www.atr.org/obama-has-proposed-442-tax-hikes-taking-office

  15. Sedgewick says:

    ” But I have a question for you-Why do you insist that religion is the only possible reason people can disagree with gay marriage? ”

    I don’t. I DO posit that it is the most popular, …and that is because I have been very observant and given it a lot of thought.

    Why does it matter? If legal marriage is a contract involving civil benefits with regard to taxes, insurance and other such things, how is sexual practice relevant? Why must the distinction of sexual practice be made between them?

    Arguing child rights is arguing something for the adoption agencies to deal with. It is a secondary subsequent issue.

    ” Do you also believe that religion is the only reason one could be against abortion or for charity?”

    No. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to kill babies, irrespective of religious doctrine. I also like the idea of charity because it creates a stronger, better bonded community, as well as works to prevent poverty related problems.

    ” Are all arguments for or against something off the table if people of faith happen to agree? ”

    …More like what to agree on and whether or not it is mutually beneficial, as well as how it relates to legal principle foundations.

    Is it really about people of faith agreeing?

    Does agreement alter rights to self determination and religious freedom, or somehow justify the violation of the rights of others?

    Suggesting someone alter their sexual practices or sacrifice civil liberties in accordance with law, and based on religious values being agreed upon by many, is no different than a cult getting enough followers to influence law to require all men have at least two wives and be able to show ‘proof of sex’ with their tax claims.

    Would you feel violated if a polygamist cult legally forced your husband on another woman OR cost you tens of thousands in tax breaks?

    So, why should carpet munchers or polygamists have to comply with similar such demands?

    • Actually, I think you did posit it-several times. But any more discussion will have to wait til tomorrow-my brain has gone to bed-the body will follow soon-5 comes early

  16. gmanfortruth says:

    More from KING OBAMA. Regulation with representation is treason, Obama should be arrested, charged, convicted and hanged! http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/13/Obama-s-Gov-t-Bans-All-Junk-Food-in-Schools

    • gmanfortruth says:
    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      The food items that are allowed are the same foods that we had in the vending machines 45 years ago in high school. With over 4000 kids in the 3 year senior high, waiting in line in the cafeteria was senseless. No time. Much less the two vending machines emptied in about 10 minutes. No candy, soda or junk food. Almost everyone brought lunch from home. As a senior you could leave campus at lunch, but the cars remained locked in the parking lot until end of school. You needed to leave early a pass was required, the janitor would unlock the gate and you could leave. There was minimal on street parking so the solution was to walk and ride your bike. Everyone was pretty healthy. Rarely did I get a car to waste sitting all day. Low man on the totem pole.

  17. Very interesting confrontation a little while ago…..with Senator Reid and this Nevada rancher thing. It was pointed out that a Chinese firm had purchased some land contingent to his land for the purposes of a Solar farm that was going to be underwritten by the Federal Govt and that Reid’s son is directly involved with this firm. Not only that, this same firm purchased land that was significantly below the appraised value.

    Senator Reid’s only comment was that he had no knowledge of the event.

    • oops….meant to say contiguous.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This all came to light on Friday afternoon and was then relayed to the powers that be on Saturday. It was the #1 news story on the internet Saturday. It ended Saturday, coincidence? Not likely. I’m hearing that their going to SWAT the Bundy ranch soon. Biggest mistake the government could possibly make, it WILL empower the people even more. Bloodshed may be coming, time will tell.

      • SWAT them for what?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          That’s a great question! If Bundy was breaking a law, he could have been arrested by now without any of the BS the BLM pulled. There is much more to this story and the legalities that will get resolved someday, maybe. Our justice system is as corrupted as the Federal govt.

          It’s snowing here today, LOL 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            To add. If the government had a legal claim to grazing fees, then why is there no lien on Bundy’s property and/or his financial assets been seized? That is the normal means of collecting money owed to the Feds.

            Why would the BLM send in basically paramilitary police, dogs, helicopters and snipers over a dispute about a turtle?

            I think I can answer both. Because the Feds have no legal standing to the fees and it’s way bigger than a turtle (Chines solar farm).

  18. D13’s prediction:

    Under the GUISE of Russian population, the Ukraine will fall. So will Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, and Slovakia. It will be said that the were invited in. Russia already controls key passes, railroads, and entry points now in Ukraine.

    Just watch….and it will be done within 2 years as fast as possible before a regime change in the US.

    Just my prediction…..nothing more.

    • Interesting, you and I are at odds on this one Colonel. I think they want neutral border states. Despite the bleating of the press over the other goings on in the Eastern Ukraine, the “mobs” taking over the buildings are mobs not Russian soldiers without unit patches. The Crimea should never have been given up in the first place.

      Kalininigrad is what i would be watching. A little piece of what used to be Germany, now a Russian City and Naval base separated from the mother country by White Russia, Poland and Lithuania. This is the one to watch. If dipshit in chief ever got his act together and wanted to make a move on Russia, this is the move to make. Of course WW III would follow but he did say he wanted fundamental change, didn’t he?

      • Hi Stephen…..As I told BF…..I think that ethnic Russians will have a greater role than believed….time will tell. As to the mobs…of course they are just that………we used to do that all the time. CIA sponsored mobs and then get invited it…..

        Also, as I told BF……I do not know why I think what I do….I put absolutely no stock in news stories….I am watching the strategic moves. There are Russian troops and IFV in the Ukraine now….and they control key approaches…..

      • ALso as to neutral borders……which border is neutral….not Belarus nor Lithuania for sure…Latvia onle partially so……Moldova is just about all ethnic Russian…..

    • Rarely, I disagree.

      Russia, I believe, already has its hands full of a highly stirred up, but not mixed, culture war.

      Adding more to the flames will hurt, not help Russia (which is why I believe Gorbachev let them go in the first place)

      • Hey, BF….I agree that they have their hands full…..but I think that ethnic Russians will be the ace…….don’t know why I think that.,…just do.

        • Actually I hope the Russians are smart enough to not encourage and actively discourage this. Otherwise what you may see happening is forcible deportation of ethnic Russians from these countries.

          If I remember correctly, Stalin was big on moving the ethnic groups around to dilute nationalism. I know for a fact that after WW 2 those Sudetenland Germans were kicked the hell out of Czechoslovakia to solve the problem once and for all. I have a friend, ethnic Italian, who was born in a DP camp in Italy. Her family had been from the Dalmatian coast of Yugoslavia and was forced out after the war.

          • I do not know, Stephen…..the backbone of NATO is the USA. The backbone of the UN is the USA…our money and our blood. Putin is an old school KGB Colonel that thought the breakup of the USSR was wrong and has vowed, many times, to restore it.

            Now, how this ACTUALLY plays out….I do not know but, until October, I am still in the intelligence loop and I know that the so called “mobs” are not really mobs..they are plants and now they are showing up in other of the “satellite” republics. I also know that Russian troops are in the Ukraine (eastern) and control a lot of things…like utilities and power sub stations and passes. I still feel that there will be a Russian movement based upon protecting Russian ethnic enclaves as their justification.

            The way to beat it…….shut off he petro dollars going to Russia and Europe buy oil and gas elsewhere AND tell the environmentalist to go screw themselves and develop their own shale resources…..other wise Putin has money to fund his own brand of hegemony.

            Now, were I in charge of our warship in international waters and a Russian jet buzzes me again…..it gets a missile up its tailpipe. Hell, right this very minute, we have Russian warships in the Gulf cruising around oil rigs outside our three mile zone. They are telling us…we can do this also.

            • Also, I left out what I meant to say……about NATO and the UN. Without the American support, and I do not believe we should, there is nothing to stop the Russian expansion. Obama was wrong to not put our latest missile technology in eastern Europe….Putin has seized upon this. So, if we are not going to play chess……leave the table and take out toys home. Other wise play chess to WIN not to stalemate.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Must see video! I don’t believe in the Climate change stuff, but I sure this guys plan of Holistic Planned grazing!

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is my neighbor that my land borders to the South, and where I spend lots of time deer hunting. Behind his land and mine is 10K acres of timber land owned by a lumber company and managed as public hunting grounds. http://www.blackanguscalf.com/

  21. Sedgewick says:

    @ Stephen K. Trynosky

    ” Now in the discussions we have been having about marriage as a contract, seems that public policy for a very long time has said one man and one woman. ”

    Why has it been that way for so long? What is the legal basis?

    ” Currently our new found discovery of yet another “civil right” seems to have trumped it. ”

    What other civic right?

    ” I think that there are very good, sound reasons to oppose both gay marriage and gay adoption. ”

    How is child adoption a reason to prohibit gay marriage or polygamy? What about those who do not want to adopt children?

    How do lesbians or polygamists having sex in their home violate you or your family?

    ” …basic contract law is an issue that has been ignored. That, is the debate we should be having and I think is in keeping with your comments today. ”

    If you call it a civic right to a contract, then the same rules apply to all equally, and you can call it or include whatever you want to. If you make a legal distinction between civil union and marriage, you are creating separate and competing civic rights as well as arguably respecting an establishment of religion. What is the difference between civil union and marriage?

    If you call marriage a natural biological function between man and woman to join as companions to reproduce, then you are basing it on reproduction and applying to anyone who reproduces. Does this mean you can have more than one wife if you get them pregnant? Can a woman have more than one husband? Family marriages? Isn’t that polygamy? How do ‘child rights’ fit in?

    If you call marriage a union under a god, you are defining it as a religious institution. If you do so by law, you are respecting establishment of religion.

    What is marriage?

    ” While my friends on the other side keep blabbering about religion and it (or its feeble remnants) being the only thing standing in the way of true nirvana and equality, ”

    You have not demonstrated direct reason as to how or why gay people and polygamists should not share equal treatment and protections under the law or how they violate others.

    My claim that religious doctrine is the basis for altering or prohibiting polygamy and same sex marriage has not yet been sufficiently disputed.

    • Since my argument is the history of Public Policy which would or should preclude gay marriage contracts, it is the responsibility of those wanting to change the public policy (NOT THE COURTS) to argue why the policy should be changed. Religion is off the table. Common sense is on.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” Since my argument is the history of Public Policy which would or should preclude gay marriage contracts ”

        Why? On what basis are you arguing this? What are the principle aspects of this Public Policy?

        “…it is the responsibility of those wanting to change the public policy (NOT THE COURTS) to argue why the policy should be changed. ”

        Who do they go to for said change in policy? Is their right to freedom of religion and expression, and to a redress of grievances protected by US law or state laws? …or is it a right to not have congress interfere, or whenever the SCOTUS feels like bothering with it? How does that work exactly?

        ” Religion is off the table. Common sense is on ”

        So you posit there is no legitimacy in arguing religion as a reason to alter or prohibit gay marriage and/or polygamy?

        What is your common sense based argument? …because that’s the way it’s always been?

        • How about, “it is bad for society” and confusing to small impressionable children?

          Like I said, before, for several thousand years there was no question on the matter. You tell me why? The courts apparently think that this lack of mention of right to homosexual marriage is a mere oversight. So, without voting, without a plebiscite, it is just fine and dandy to discover this new right. I will remind you that the courts have been wrong before and not just on the Dred Scott decision.

          • Here is some follow up about courts. Somewhat relevant too.

            http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/homosexuals.html

          • Sedgewick says:

            ” How about, “it is bad for society” and confusing to small impressionable children? ”

            Hide the dikes! Ban them from Disneyland! Stuff them back into the closet where they belong! What about polygamists? Should they have to wear labeled (she’s my sister and the other is my wife) shirts in public on account of small children?

            ” Like I said, before, for several thousand years there was no question on the matter. You tell me why?”

            Seriously? Should I pull up references to norms of homosexuality and polygamy of ancient societies? …or should we conveniently only use Sodom and Gomorrah as examples?

            Slavery was widely accepted for thousands of years too? Does that make it right, or for a better society?

            “The courts apparently think that this lack of mention of right to homosexual marriage is a mere oversight.”

            What are the principles of their position?

            ” So, without voting, without a plebiscite, it is just fine and dandy to discover this new right. I will remind you that the courts have been wrong before and not just on the Dred Scott decision. ”

            How is the right to freedom of/from religion and expression(or any right) a “new” right?

            Is it okay to violate individual rights if enough people find it to be acceptable?

            • Sedgewick says:

              @ SKT

              ” V, what you are doing now is ignoring the law and playing into the hands of the new Nazi’s.”

              Nazis, as I understand, generally do not argue in favor of rights. More typical of a Nazi would be to use Christians as a scapegoat and to provoke hysterical and/or bigoted behavior and attitudes, to eventually become violent and intolerable by society and subsequently beheaded.

              ” Society does have a say on what is acceptable otherwise there is NO society.”

              …Just ask the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany.

              The acceptability of an idea, as I have expressed to Sedge below is what prevents total chaos.

              …like ‘coloreds’ drinking from different water fountains?

              Someone who wants to change the norm, which even I think can be done from time to time, is responsible for explaining the benefits of the new norm.

              …or how the old norm fails to protect rights. …or is normalcy more important than rights? Are rights abnormal?

              We here all agree on a great many things, even Buck, Charlie and Matt. If education changes, there should be proof that the new system works better.

              What is ‘better’, and according to whom or what standards and/or principles?

              ” I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing that shows how the institution of marriage is improved or society is improved by calling something that cannot be, in the true sense of the word marriage by the name marriage.”

              What IS marriage? …based on what?

              ” Ditto for gay adoption. The canard, ” it is better for a child to be in a loving household than in a foster home or institution”, is so much sanctimonious baloney. . Really? Especially when that child reaches adolescence. Already hearing anecdotal evidence (have my doubts whether real evidence would be tolerated) about how screwed up these kids are.

              That’s interesting you should mention that. Because I have an extended family member whom I watched grow up and discover he is gay during his adolescence. As I understand, there was a lack of acceptance from his very Christian parents as well as socially.

              He had a difficult time with this as it really destroyed his ego and sense of self worth. He turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape and started acting out and getting into trouble.

              Was he better off growing up in an intolerant environment?

              ” Everybody has to get their head out of the sand on this one. ”

              I don’t disagree.

              “The Eich controversy, for anybody awake says it all. This is the road down which we are headed. I was admonished on Facebook the other day by a good friend for referring to the new Nazi’s as Nazis. He said, I was being extreme. I am not the one driving people out of their livelihood because they don’t agree with me. ”

              He ‘resigned’ because he was interfering with the company’s client relationships. It was about his position on gay marriage. Until he interfered, his personal opinions were not an issue.

              ” Hey folks, be as libertarian as you want but understand, and understand it clearly that like Pastor Neimoller, “there will be no one left to speak for me when the time comes ”

              How do you equate Libertarianism with Nazi style Socialism?

          • By George, I think I’ve got it.

            • Sedgewick says:

              V, SKT,

              For whatever it is worth, I am not necessarily arguing against you so much as I am playing devil’s advocate. My personal values are not dissimilar to yours. I am not exactly pro-gay, but rather trying to analyze from an objective perspective.

              I am merely raising questions concerning the principles at work and exposing the inadequacy of law. To me, it is a question of freedom.

              Over the last few months(years?), I have watched this issue be discussed in various mediums. The anti-gay ‘side’ consistently draws from any argument it can to deem homosexuality as ‘wrong’, then uses it as a justification to reject equal protection of rights and general acceptance in society. …all the while, avoiding admitting that it is primarily a religious values based argument and because it is a weak legal position.

              Gay is ‘weird’ and creeps people out and differs from popular values. But what is there to fear? Why not let go and let god handle it?

              What happens if gay folks and polygamists get a clearly defined equal protection of their right to be ‘married’ in all 50 states? There will be a small minority living amongst us who freely live a different lifestyle. They already do so anyway(and have for a long time). The difference is civic benefits and money/tax/insurance matters.

              So what? How does it prevent you or anyone from living your life?

              What is it that causes people to want to control others? Fear that your ideal society will lose to the other ‘side’? What does that suggest?

              • Is freedom one way or am I allowed to be free also? The rights could be granted with civil unions. To me, calling it marriage is redefining the term & meaning. Why do I have to accept that? A baker was ruined by a judge for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Cake rights for gay’s trump my freedom of speech in this new world? Not me out there spewing hateful comments, me sitting in my store quietly refusing to say something I do not agree with in public. The courts forcing me to say something I disagree with and make it public.

                And this for the less that ten percent that are gay. It’s already being included in classrooms so the schools can teach my kids any sex is OK & normal. Ignore the bible & your parents. And isn’t this exactly how the soviet union predicted the US would fall? By casting off it’s moral values & embracing debauchery.

              • Good post LOI. 😉

              • Sedgewick says:

                ” Is freedom one way or am I allowed to be free also? ”

                That’s the whole point of this…to question freedom and equality as it relates to protection of the law.. And as you can see, the discussion digresses into whether or not gay people are ‘wrong’.

                ” The rights could be granted with civil unions. To me, calling it marriage is redefining the term & meaning. ”

                What IS marriage? Based on what?

                How does a polygamist marriage take away from what you and your spouse have together? Does it make your marriage less valid or worthy?

                ” Why do I have to accept that? ”

                ” A baker was ruined by a judge for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Cake rights for gay’s trump my freedom of speech in this new world? Not me out there spewing hateful comments, me sitting in my store quietly refusing to say something I do not agree with in public. The courts forcing me to say something I disagree with and make it public.”

                I agree that the baker was wronged. There is no such thing as gay rights. It is a nonsense made-up term. Gay is irrelevant. They have EQUAL rights, not legal rights or special rights. …just the same rights that we all have.

                …which is the whole crutch of this ‘issue’.

                ” And this for the less that ten percent that are gay. ”

                From 1960 – 2011, black people make up around 11-12% of the population. Up until the 1960’s, blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying or having sex. Did it devalue the sanctity of marriage by allowing white girls to be with what was once thought of as lesser-than?

                ” It’s already being included in classrooms so the schools can teach my kids any sex is OK & normal. ”

                What is to stop the parents from withdrawing their children from such lessons? I am not sure I completely agree, but I do see the reasoning. Have you ever heard of Jane Elliot and her “Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes” experiment?

                There is a learned/indoctrinated attitude in the USA that different or imperfect is bad or undeserving of equal rights and respect. This is counter-intuitive of ‘national values’ that suggests you can live free and equal as an individual, to do whatever it is that make you happy. If that were true, you would not have such social anomalies like prejudice against fat people or nerds or whatever others.

                ” Ignore the bible & your parents. And isn’t this exactly how the soviet union predicted the US would fall? By casting off it’s moral values & embracing debauchery.”

                The reality is that there are tens of millions of people in the USA(and elsewhere) being indoctrinated to be scared bigots as a matter of divine instruction. They are grouping up and influencing laws, pushing their values onto others.

                You cannot reason with them, or comfort their irrational fears without fierce resistance. They are set in their ways and nothing you can say will compete with the fear and hype from their preachers.

                This is a problem.

                Believe what you like, express and celebrate it. You are free to do so. But do not use it to violate others.

              • Sedgewick says:

                Jane Elliot – ” Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes ”

              • Good Day Sedgewick,

                What you’re doing is trying to get us to accept a DIFFERENT definition of marriage than what has been accepted for thousands of years. You know exactly what the accepted definition is, so trying to get us to accept a different definition will be a hard sell. VH has pointed out that there is a bigger agenda for the LGBT crowd, that being to accept their agenda as though it’s been the norm forever. You know that’s what the pushback is all about. They want to be accepted as normal, when their very complaint proves that they also realize they are not normal. I can agree with civil unions, open up the benefits that go with marriage and everything should sort out fine. But don’t force anyone to accept them as normal. Or…. you can give up the rights the govt has given you for being married, that would make us more equal, if that’s what you’re after.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    @ Black Flag,

    Hows the elbow coming along? I hope all is well with you and your family these days. Spring is finally here! 🙂 Slowing getting things done, healing from having my right great toe joint fused and a metal plate put in three weeks ago. Getting better everyday, I can walk, can’t run at all (I carry everywhere, LOL).

    Peace! 😀

  23. gmanfortruth says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think it’s important to stop the disdain for alternative news media. They made this possible by doing what the government run MSM won’t, telling the truth and showing the video’s of the feds illegal activity. Stop watching the MSM until they stop coddling the government.

  24. gmanfortruth says:
  25. gmanfortruth says:

    @Sedgewick,

    I have followed your line of thinking, but I think the line itself is missing the whole point of the current LGBT movement and DEMANDS that they be allowed to be married. I tried to show how taking vows during a religious ceremony to become united in Holy matrimony was what most folks call marriage. Most religions (if not all, I don’t know) have a belief that homosexuality is anti-God and against their religion. So be it.

    But one should ask, why are they demanding to be included in the religious part of it? Bet they won’t pull this crap in a Muslim country! Here’s my quick view looking at it differently than the Faux Civil Rights issue. It’s about the constant attack on religion itself. All Christians know and feel that Christianity is under attack at almost every turn. Hence, the demand to be “married” as in the Christian term is being attacked at it’s core. It’s just another small part of the Elite Ruling Class’s actions to keep the people divided so they can continue to pillage and plunder us little folks because we are too busy talking about stupid shit instead of talking about reversing government corruption. The whole issue could have been resolved by the States changing the license and some laws to include all unions into one name, Civil Unions. That isn’t what was wanted, because that would not allow the controversy to fester, thus causing more division.

    If a Church of any religion conducted gay weddings 20 years ago, this also would not be an issue, but that wasn’t the case. So, in short, this is an attack on Christianity more than a Civil Rights argument. 🙂

    • By, Jove, well put!

    • Absolutely one must peel away the rhetoric to understand “why do they want this”?

      First, do not make the error that ‘every gay couple’ wants the same thing from the recognition of “marriage”.

      Absolutely, there is a group that want the government loot that married hetro’s get. But really, one should be arguing against government largess, rather than the wants of such a group. If there was no government loot to be had, there would be no demand for it either – by any group.

      There is another group who really don’t care about the loot – they want acceptance. Why is this acceptance withheld? Now you must investigate the motives of those that wish to deny such acceptance.

      Why would another group, who receive no benefit nor detriment from such a union of others, vehemently oppose it?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Mostly agree. I could care less about the subject, hence my post. The only reason it’s a subject, in my opinion, is Government helped make it one to continue to keep the people from understanding their corruption and tyranny (plus all the other crap that makes them suck). If people would wake up, it would end in days, but too many people are distracted by all the BS propaganda on TV. The Feds need to go the way of the dinosaurs, extinct!

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/04/carpoolers-threatened-vehicle-confiscation-prop-taxi-cab-companies/

    It seems that local governments are going the way of the Feds, but it seems that it’s mainly in Democrat controlled areas, figures 😆

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    For those who take to Twitter, #ArrestHarryReid Paste it everywhere!

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Great video about the BLM and what they can do: http://politichicks.tv/column/bureau-land/

  30. “What you’re doing is trying to get us to accept a DIFFERENT definition of marriage than what has been accepted for thousands of years. ”

    NO.

    The point is YOUR definition – no matter how long it has been accepted – is SELF-SERVING.

    No more then declaring “enslaving blacks is ok, but not whites” – held by most of the western world for hundreds of years – by your declaration MUST BE RIGHT, because of its continuation for those hundreds of years!

    The point Sed is trying to make is that just because YOU held this “idea” in your head for so long does not make YOUR idea “right” (nor wrong, for that matter).

    ALL IDEAS MUST BE TESTED ALL THE TIME, because without such testing, you may have seized an idea, tested under reasoned ethics and morals, to be utterly ugly.

    • Sedgewick says:

      They don’t get it. They’re not going to.

      • But as a principle, we must continue to profess the right, no matter how deaf others may be to it.

        • Why is everybody making an issue of this definition and that definition. I do not get that part of it. Marriage, the definition thereof, is what is in the heart, is it not?

      • Sedgewick,

        Maybe we do get it, but don’t agree. I don’t think there are only two sides to this argument. One of my concerns is the legal aspects. Consider “hate crimes”. We have this “knock out” game being played across the country, mostly black on white violence, maybe gang related. One incident of a white on black attack was charged as a hate crime. But it seems impossible for blacks to be racist, no matter what the crime or situation? It’s one thing to want everyone to be treated equally, but when laws are written that give special status to one group, then equality was just thrown out the window in the name of equality. You agreed the baker was mistreated by the law. How many more will suffer the same fate in the years to come?

        (true story) A friend was eating in a nice restaurant a few months back with his nine yr. old son. At the table next to him was a lesbian couple. They loudly talked about their relationship at length, using language he did not want his young son to hear. He asked them to lower their voices and they insulted him as a homophobe. Guess he was lucky to escape a law suit….

        • Sedgewick says:

          ” Maybe we do get it, but don’t agree ”

          Step back and look at the overall argument here. I am demonstrating failure of law/paper to regulate the real world. That is why my answer is to take law out of marriage and be tolerant of others who do not harm or harass you or otherwise take away from your rights.

          But I can’t get you guys/gals past the definition of marriage because the argument gets side-tracked with why gay is wrong. The conversation shifts into justification to regulate romance and deny equal protection.

          I think I have laid out a general outline of my argument pretty well. Legal marriage is a contract. If you call it something else and/or deny equal protection on religious grounds, you are calling into question founding principles of religious freedom and states rights issues. It reveals conflict within law.

          “Consider “hate crimes”. We have this “knock out” game being played across the country, mostly black on white violence, maybe gang related. One incident of a white on black attack was charged as a hate crime. But it seems impossible for blacks to be racist, no matter what the crime or situation? It’s one thing to want everyone to be treated equally, but when laws are written that give special status to one group, then equality was just thrown out the window in the name of equality. You agreed the baker was mistreated by the law. How many more will suffer the same fate in the years to come? ”

          Hate crimes and gay rights fall into the same category that I like to call “bullshit”. Rights are equal and universal.

          The right to deny service is valid. If you don’t want to bake a gay cake, you should not be forced to do so. That is ridiculous. A right to a service/cake based on sexual practice is about as legitimate as a right to enslave medical professionals because you are poor.

          Whether you knock someone out because you hate them, or knock them out in order to steal their wallet, you are still knocking them out, you are still violating them.

    • The slavery analogy is bogus. Slavery is and was an equal opportunity job. Casting about and saying “western” is a very lopsided way of looking at a problem that stretches back to the dawn of human history. And, we are talking thousands, not hundreds of years.

      Your last sentence, “all ideas must be tested”, interests me. Surprisingly, I agree with it completely which is why I oppose the concept to begin with finding, in my case, that the “stretch” required to make an impossibility possible is in fact very ugly and the results (bake us a cake, photograph our wedding, don’t dare disagree) bring us closer and closer to Orwell’s dystopian state where truth is whatever you are told it is, behavior is regulated and meanings, culture, morals change on whims.

      Neimoller’s warning does not seem to resonate with you libertarian folk. You either fall for the foolishness that somehow these things improve human freedom or feel that they have no negative impact on you. I beg, respectfully, to disagree. As long as I can I will be there to speak for you, but I suspect it won’t be much longer. Too much a “hate” crime I think. .

      • “The slavery analogy is bogus.”

        Nonsense.
        It is an intellectual argument of equivalence – that an “idea” that holds for hundreds of years is declared “right” merely by its longevity, which is the root of the argument you and VH and Anita present.

        Your claim that it was an idea even more longly held supports my position even more.

        It is not a declaration that force applied upon those that chose to -or not- participate in any event is right or wrong. DISCRIMINATION IS A RIGHT.

        The argument is not that at all! Nice Red Herring, though.

        The argument is whether it is a marriage or not. You are kicking the dirt trying to hide the argument here.

        Human freedom is magnified when people are free. You confuse the right of the person to NOT participate to enforce your opinion that the others have NO RIGHT to marry.

        • Sometimes one just has to say, No way Jose!

          The argument was considered nonsense thirty years ago. The touchy feeley culture has decided it has merit. It makes people feel better, it makes other people feel that they are better because they support it rather than laugh at it. Still others see it as a crusade, part of the new, non-God religion along with environmentalism.

          Like I said above, this is heading towards a place where you do not want to be.

          • “The argument was considered nonsense thirty years ago. ”

            Bullshit.
            The argument is valid.

            You make up the nonsense that “traditions matter”, not me. Too bad the excuse is NONSENSE.

            Your appeal to God is worthless. God needs not your support.

            You believe human freedom is heading to a place where you don’t want.
            That is sad.

            • See how you enjoy your freedom from free speech, from religion, from thinking for yourself because it is sure as hell headed your way.

              • But your claim makes no sense.

                You believe demeaning the choices of others leads to more freedom.
                How do you hold this?

              • No, I had freedom, I am losing it. Unlike you, I am not an anarchist.

                I have no problem with other peoples freedom until I see it encroaching on mine. As a wise old Irish cop once told me back in the ’60’s, “Your freedom ends where mine begins”. Mr Eich’s Freedom, the photographer’s freedom and the baker’s freedom have all been encroached in the name of freedom? Yet you think that’s good. Some anarchist!

                Burke said it best, “Toleration is good for all or it is good for none”. A while back, after the Stonewall riots in NYC somebody finally woke up and realized that perhaps the law was pretty harsh when it came to homosexuals. Good people of good conscience led the way to change those laws much the same as they did for Civil Rights. What they never asked for, never suspected would happen is that their efforts would be perverted beyond belief. So, good people who thought the cops should not arrest or bait homosexuals worked so that homosexuals would have the right to go about their lives free of fear. Which, they pretty much have. And, then the fun began. Not satisfied with just being left alone, they had to demand an impossibility equality.

                Bill O’Reilly makes an excellent point regarding civil unions. Anyone should be allowed to establish one. Elderly brothers and sisters living together for example. Unrelated people of either sex living together for economic reasons. All the benefits of being a couple, legalwise yet they are not married.

                What I do not like about the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere is the veiled assumption that I or VH or anyone who agrees with us is somehow a bigot because we feel that marriage can only be between a man and woman. If there is a right we are denying to someone, it is the right to be stupid.

  31. Sedgewick says:

  32. gmanfortruth says:
  33. Sedgewick says:

    ” But as a principle, we must continue to profess the right, no matter how deaf others may be to it. ”

    Alright….

    There is a lock tight argument here in the dynamic between the right to freedom from religion, religion, and how it applies to law. What is it?

    Freedom of and/or from religion is a natural inalienable right. You have a right to a mind of your own. You have an individual right to decide what to believe. You have the right to freely express yourself and practice your beliefs. …so long as you do not violate the rights of others.

    Freedom from religion basically means freedom from being coerced into practicing another religion.

    Restricting someone from contracts and related benefits or advantages, denying equal treatment under the law, or otherwise altering the process or parameters based on religious doctrine, is denying equality by violating the right to freedom from religion.

    But what is marriage?

    If you include religion or base the definition upon religion, it does not belong in law as it is forced and therefore a violation of the right of others to freedom from religion. That is exactly what is happening in the USA by denying same sex and polygamist marriages.

    This is supposed to be protected as a matter of law, tradition, and national values. This is not supposed to happen in the USA. Yet it does.

    This brings up the legitimacy of law to be able to protect said rights to freedom of/from religion, and brings the first amendment, the tenth amendment, state constitutions and laws, the role of state supreme courts as well as SCOTUS into play.

    But it starts by defining marriage. What is marriage?

    To say it is between a man and a woman requires a premise in which to arrive at this conclusion. Why/How is it one man and one woman? …According to what reasoning?

    Either it is a natural thing, a religious institution as ordained and/or approved by a god, ..or a legal contract, or simple agreement.

    If it is a legal contract, then it is equal to all. If it is a natural behavioral thing, then it must also include recognition of a long history of homosexuality and polygamy as well as monogamy, adultery, etc. If it is a religious institution, then it has no place in law.

    Pick one, or define it by another meaning so that we can proceed to dissect the application of the the first amendment, the tenth amendment, state constitutions and laws, the role of state supreme courts and SCOTUS.

    …which is where it gets messy as hell. I am not a lawyer, but I can see where contradictions and inconsistencies, failures of law begin to be revealed.

    If ‘alternative marriages’ are ‘allowed’ as a matter of freedom from religion, and if it is not uniform among the states, and according to the first amendment language of specifying CONGRESS (as referring to US Congress) fails to protect the right to freedom from religion in the states, then I dare say there is an argument to change the first amendment on the grounds that it needs to be prohibited to the states as per tenth amendment.

    If you argue states rights, then you argue in favor of laws made to respect the establishment of religion, thus compromising founding principles and furthermore opening the door for state theocracy.

    تينيسي ?

    Where is the backstop to prevent such a mess? I am not a lawyer, so I am getting out of my area of expertise, …but it sure makes for an interesting conversation.

    • You certainly make it difficult to get to anywhere on the subject when you first want a (re)definition for marriage, then you claim freedom ‘from’ religion as a right. We can all be right if we get to set the rules of the game first. I have many reasons for being opposed, but I suppose I’ll accept being called a bigot, since you have framed it where I can’t win.

      Am I a bigot because I don’t see homosexuality as natural? I mean, men and women have different parts for a reason.

      Am I a bigot because I think a child has a right to a mother and a father. Isn’t it precedent in courts that a child has a right to be with both parents, Truth be told, I am a single mom, but my kids fathers have been directly involved in their lives.

      Am I a bigot because I have answered my kids questions about where babies come from, then as they grow, and see same sex people together, I have to come up with alternate definitions of where babies come from. That’s putting an awful lot on young minds.

      Am I a bigot because I don’t want my children coming home from middle school (mine are high school and married now) telling me that it is an everyday occurrence to see same sex kids making out in the hallways? And on that…we straight people used to get detention for making out in the hallways, now the teachers are too PC to approach the same problem with same sex students. This is also a good argument for the ‘born with it’ crowd. I find it hard to believe that that number of kids were born with it.

      Am I a bigot for thinking this is only a small step in a larger agenda? The first thing that comes to mind is the right of children..depending on how they wake up today,,being able to use whichever restroom they desire.

      These and many more.

      Hello, my name is Anita, and I’m a bigot.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Anita, you are not a bigot at all. You believe in the natural order of nature. I have argued this point before, but it will never matter to the LGBT movement. They will only accept their views, not any others. As far as I can tell, Gay people have zero impact on my life, so I don’t give a wit what they do. But, I also believe in much the same way as you. What I won’t do is force what I believe on others, as long as others are not affecting me. I draw a line when the LGBT calls for ending someone’s livelihood over their personal beliefs, with all respect, screw the LGBT at that point.

        What you believe doesn’t make you a bigot. Pushing your beliefs by force of government just may qualify. I still know many older folks who refer Blacks in two different ways (the same can be said about anyone, but these cat’s are old, LOL). They claim there are blacks, which they see as good people of color and then there are niggers, who are the welfare worthless criminal types who should all be rounded up and put in jail, nobody should get a free ride. Then they’ll add , and the white trash just like them can join ’em.. I stopped debating them awhile ago, but I also know they don’t ask government to push their views. While they may be considered bigots by some, others see it the other way. The glass half full/half empty syndrome.

        Now, take the argument of “he who makes the rules wins” and apply it to how the Bundy family had their world turned upside down by those who changed the rules (under Clinton). It all ends this way because a small group of people chose to force their views on others via government force. Want to stop it all? It starts with removing the power of the governments and leaving certain management jobs, like maintaining roads. When the government is toothless, these issues will not exist. 🙂

      • Well, I guess in the new Orwellian world we have allowed to be created, we all are. Our problem is that we are too damn tolerant. Think of all those nice people in Germany between the wars. They were very tolerant. They allowed these little nut jobs wearing uniforms to stand up and spout off about anything. part of the reason was their newly discovered freedom from guys like the Kaiser. They even let Communists spout off. Eventually something happened. There was the failed Putch which came with a big prison sentence and they suspended most of it!

        Rather than being at hard labor, uncle Adolph was allowed to spend his time writing his screed. When he was released, the tolerant Germans, busy with their lives, thought it must really have been no big deal because they let the guy out early. So they resumed ignoring him. Little by little, his following grew. Now they were making up stories about other people, how those other people were ruining everybody’s life. Tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

        This nonsense is repeated over and over again in human history. People are too busy to pay attention, they are tolerant even of the intolerant and eventually they wind up…..on the wrong side of history. So, welcome to the wrong side of history club.

        • Sedgewick says:

          You are making a comparison between tolerance of gays and polygamists, and tolerance of antisemitic Nazi socialists. Are you calling polygamists Nazis?

          Are you afraid ten percent of the population is going to take over, turn the US into a dictatorship and torture people? Pink Nazi uniforms?

          *scratches head*

          I know you don’t approve of polygamy and homosexuality. What I don’t understand is why you feel there is a need to control their sex lives.

          Why do you want to interfere with their legal contracts?

          • I do not want to control anything other than continuing the historic, western definition of marriage and for good measure, husband and wife. That is all. Anything else you throw in is nothing other than calling me (by implication) names. People who call other people names are damned close to being Nazi’s in their behavior. So, if you don’t want to associate with Nazi’s, try a little tolerance to other peoples non violent views. You are perfectly free to come after me, full bore, the day I advocate rounding anybody up and throwing them in concentration camps or gulags. Right now, I feel I am headed in that direction myself with you and Flag sitting on the sidelines going….tsk!…tsk!

            Until it finally sinks in, ” Toleration is good for all or it’s good for none”.

            • But is it NEVER “That is all. ”

              Stephen, the moment you quality another man’s freedom – “…I do not want to control anything other than continuing the historic, western definition of marriage and for good measure, husband and wife….” to fit YOUR OWN DEMAND, you have given everyone else the RIGHT TO QUALIFY YOUR FREEDOM TO THEIR DEMAND.

              This simple law of the Universe – RECIPROCITY – has always eluded you.

              You believe you can force upon others without them applying force upon you. You are an advocate of “Freedom for me, but not for you” – without realizing that it never applies.

              Once you advocate for the loss of freedom of another person, you have instantly advocated for the loss of your freedom.

              A free man absolutely defends the freedom of other men, even if that free man does not agree with how another man uses his freedom. THAT IS HOW YOU KNOW HE IS A FREE MAN.

              I do not agree with many choices other men freely make.

              I do not participate in “gay lifestyle” no more than I participate in the promiscuous lifestyle of hetro’s either. I do not believe that “open sexual relations”, or having sex with 15 different women a month promotes a strong social order. BUT I DO NOT ADVOCATE LAWS against such things.

              Indeed, by the nature of such actions, they are self-mitigating. Humans naturally act toward a higher social order – and naturally move away from that which diminishes social order.

              The consequences of free choice will eventually come around and bite people. THAT IS FREEDOM IN ACTION. You get the benefits AND the determent right upon your own head. If consequences are applied naturally, those actions which truly benefit society will rise, all by itself, to the top – and those which do not will, naturally, sink to the bottom.

              It is when people want to a law to ban something that causes the major problems.

              Law is violence. The use of violence is applied so to gain a benefit that otherwise would not be offered by free men or to mitigate the consequences of an action that free men would not agree to have mitigated.

              Thus only violence can distort the outcome that free men would not naturally supply.

              • You know, the law was always pretty clear on the topic. It was not something new. We are never going to agree on this. What you consider to be clear and evident, I do not. I see mischief here, can smell and taste it. The knives have come out on the other side and if you would spend a little time reading the comments directed at and to Brian Eich by the people trying to shut down his opinion, you too might have a chill run up your spine.

              • Again, you appeal to the motives of people you do not know.

                You make up stories about such motives as if you really know what they are – and then demean these people based on your own fairy tale. You equally apply other motives upon those who -like you- live in the fairy tale of their own design to be BETTER motives – yet, you know nothing about either group to make such a claim.

                So you have two fairy tales in your head, applying negative stories to those that wish to be free, and positive stories to those that wish to condemn this freedom.

                From this utterly self-created fantasy, you pretend it is enough to apply REAL VIOLENCE AND FORCE upon others.

                Sorry, that is bat-shit crazy.

    • Freedom of Religion
      or
      Freedom of Speech?

      Many years ago a gay friend started attending church ( I did not at that time). She asked if I thought she was going to hell for her sin. I said no, but yes I did think it was a sin. Not long ago, Phil Robinson ignited a firestorm for saying he thought homosexuality was a sin, just as it says in the bible. Obama want’s to force faith based hospitals to provide abortion drugs, even though it violates their religious beliefs.

      There is always someone demanding the government to step in and force someone to behave as they think is right. When is forcing ever right? Only when the government does the forcing? But isn’t that what this nation was founded against?

      So when the pro-choice/women’s reproductive rights groups win their battle, no one will be allowed to oppose any abortion?

      And when the gay movement forces silence on all who think it’s a sin or just don’t want it forced on themselves or their children in public or in the classroom, then what? Supposedly 60% of men have affairs, so why is it allowed to call adultery a sin? And most of us engage in sex, but it’s illegal in public. Why? We all have sex & think it’s good, but not in public? Beasteality?

      And why allow any hate speech, like calling a thief a thief?

      • Exactly LOI

        There is just “Freedom”. No adjectives, no followup nouns.

        Once one starts slicing up freedom, one automatically starts discarding other freedoms.

  34. One does not have to be religious to enter into marriage-there are two basic restrictions on marriage under governmental law, well in most states anyway-the number of people involved and the gender of the people involved-there is no part of the law that states one must be religious to enter into this type of union-so it is a simple contract-as it relates to governmental law-it is not discrimination because the law is the same for everyone.

    So what you are really arguing is that we cannot pass a law which makes a distinction between male and female or the number of people who can be involved.

    • Sedgewick says:

      ” One does not have to be religious to enter into marriage-there are two basic restrictions on marriage under governmental law, well in most states anyway-the number of people involved and the gender of the people involved-there is no part of the law that states one must be religious to enter into this type of union-so it is a simple contract-as it relates to governmental law-it is not discrimination because the law is the same for everyone. ”

      …everyone except polygamists and gay people.

      ” So what you are really arguing is that we cannot pass a law which makes a distinction between male and female or the number of people who can be involved. ”

      A law which makes a distinction between male and female shouldn’t be a problem. The problem is when it violates rights or gives unfair advantage/disadvantage.

      You still have to have supporting reasoning to said law. And you would also have the potential issue of gender discrimination if you are not careful.

      If you want to use it to alter marriage licenses, you still have to explain why.

      Make whatever kind of law you like, but there is always someone that will challenge it. If the reasoning isn’t solid or is in some way unequal, it will only stand for so long before overturned.

    • Sedgewick says:

      Here is something else to consider that I previously mentioned but did not elaborate on…

      If you make the distinction between civil unions and marriage, basing your definition of marriage on religion and civil unions according to legal contracts/naturally occurring alternative sex, you are still making a law respecting a religion, as opposed to not making the distinction and treating it as legal contract, therefore equally protected by law.

      By making the distinction, you are separating religious rights and sex rights, thus legitimizing homosexuality and/or polygamy as privy to special rights, as well as allowing for special religious rights.

      As soon as you do so, you lay groundwork for separate and opposing groups competing for dominance. Later down the road it becomes things like court rulings to keep tax benefits equal between them, or battles over insurance laws or adoption laws, etc, etc.

      Rights are equal and universal.

      • You have raised some excellent points on this issue!

        The means around this problem is removing marriage from the law entirely — meaning that there is absolutely no government recognition of any marriage; marriage is a religious ceremony which depends on the requirements of the religion in question. Having a marriage denotes no special treatment under the law – no tax benefits, visiting rights, etc.

        The government will only respect a civil union, which can be granted to any two consenting adults – whether or not they are already considered married under a religion.

        But seeing as that will never happen, the only proper solution is to end the discrimination and allow two consenting adults, regardless of gender, enter into a marriage and get the same recognition and privileges any other married couple already obtains from the government.

        • Mark it on a calender – Buck actually making sense (though still appeals to “civil union” – wholly unnecessary, given his argument).

          And Buck continues his lucid dialogue, that is, government will not resolve this – government lives and breaths upon the discourse of its people – the more discourse, the more power it claims.

          • Now why did you have to go and blow a moment of agreement with that remark about ‘civil union’ being wholly unnecessary!? I could care less what moniker is actually used – the term is just being thrown out there as a replacement to ‘marriage’ which would be entirely left to the religious sphere.

            Did I make your nose bleed?

            • There was a light drip, enough to notice…..

              Marriage is not a religious issue.

              It has been co-opted by religion no less than government co-opted from religion. It matters not which institution seized it, the seizure is a demand to control men – whether religion or government – and used to prohibit some people from exercising their natural right.

              • We’re not in disagreement here — but if religion wants to take the term ‘marriage’, let them have it.

                I completely agree with your point that if I want to call what I have ‘marriage’ who are you or anyone else (religion, government, etc.) to tell me I can’t use that term.

                But practically speaking the whole reason gay marriage is an issue is because of the word ‘marriage’ — even those on this site that are completely opposed to the idea of gay marriage for the most part agree that if two people of the same gender wish to live together that is fine, if they want all the benefits of a ‘marriage’ that is fine too, but god forbid they use the term ‘marriage’. My solution merely cedes the term in its entirety — no one gets to use ‘marriage’ for civil purposes.

              • “We’re not in disagreement here — but if religion wants to take the term ‘marriage’, let them have it.”

                I cannot agree. Allowing another group of men in funny hats determine the rights of free men is no better than any other group of men in funny hats determining the rights of free men.

                Nothing changes.

                I completely agree with your point that if I want to call what I have ‘marriage’ who are you or anyone else (religion, government, etc.) to tell me I can’t use that term.

                “My solution merely cedes the term in its entirety — no one gets to use ‘marriage’ for civil purposes.”

                My solution is the opposite – anyone and everyone gets to use the term as they see fit.

                …..

                This really highlights the different mindset of a free man vs a Statist.

                A free man’s solution is to open up choices and let the individual define what he is or what he is not.

                A Statist solution is to close up the choice and prohibit its use by anyone.

              • Regardless you would be able to refer to yourself as ‘married’, but the form you complete would use the term ‘civil union’ or whatever other term people come up with. In the end who cares!? The entire point is that no two consenting adults should be denied the same rights, privileges and respect as any other two consenting adults.

              • Buck

                To a point, I don’t give a shit about what you call it. You can pretend to believe you can define it any way you want, it is utterly and absolutely irrelevant to me.

                I am not denied any of my rights, nor claim “privileges” that I do not earn. I am in no need of anyone’s “respect” (other than my wife’s) and couldn’t care less about what anyone else thinks about it.

              • And that is the gist of my point with respect to the term ‘marriage’.

            • I mean consider, Buck.

              If a Jew and non-Jew “married”, it was claimed as “illegitimate” by Jewish religion.
              Christians did the same – you had to marry a “Catholic” if you were Catholic so to achieve “legitimacy” in the eyes of Catholics.

              The use of religion is to control who mates with who so to enforce some mind-lock upon the People – to enforce the legitimacy of the Religions to dictate upon others.

              Religion is a means to control men, no different from evil law of government. There is little difference between them in their means and their demand… a creation of a ruling class and a creation of human cattle to feed the rulers.

              • My folks were married in ’42. Dad was not Catholic. The stickler was that he had to promise the kids would be raised Catholic. Mom and he also had to forgo the traditional church wedding since it would not be allowed. They were married in the back of the church. It was a sanctioned. legal marriage and they were bound to each other for life. .

                The requirement that the kids be raised Catholic still stands but you can have a formal church wedding now.

              • …and this was a “good thing”????

                A bunch of crazy yahoo’s determining whether your parents relationship was “legitimate”?

                Forcing them to force upon you a (arguably repugnant) set of beliefs into your head so that their union would be seen as “right”???

                You do not see this circumstance as utterly bat-shit crazy?

              • I will tell you how I married.

                My wife, raised Catholic, was as distorted as you are.

                When I explained that I – and only I – determined who would be my wife, and that she – and only she – determined who would be her husband … and not some strange foolish men in funny hats … she was as confused as you are.

                But after many thoughtful discussions, she realized the real truth in what I said.

                We decided to celebrate our union, and proclaim our union publicly to our friends and family.

                I rented a yacht, invited our closest loved ones, had a wonderful person as our M/C, and proceeded to marry one another by public declaration. It was an absolutely beautiful wedding that none of our guests had ever experienced before – and indirectly, caused many of them to re-think their own marriages sanctity and where that sanctity actually derived.

                We were then married. 18 years later, we still are.

        • Sedgewick says:

          ” You have raised some excellent points on this issue! ”

          Why, thank you, counselor.

          I’m not sure how much reading along you’ve done, but this is actually a continuation of what started a couple of threads ago. Since we have a legal expert in the house, …

          The argument comes down to what you, Gman and I have presented. That is to either make it all civil unions, or take government out of sex/romance.

          I argue taking law out of sex/romance entirely, because if you recognize various partnerships as a matter of contract law, it brings into question things like prostitution.

          If making all civil unions is resisted, citing religious freedom to calling it marriage or making the distinction, the legal premises brings deeper arguments into question regarding the constitution and states rights, role of the courts, etc.

          What I am wondering is if there is a means of using this to expose a conflict between states rights and the first amendment, (or rather the inadequacy thereof the 1st) as a catalyst to provoke a constitutional convention, whereby the people could further exert their rights with regard to other amendments like the second and fourth, by demanding more extensive and clear specification to limit government.

          • Sed,

            Such a thing will never work.

            You are wanting to use the very weapon of evil – government law – to provide you a means to exercise your freedom – freedom which is specifically attacked by government law.

            It is akin to claiming that it is better you cut off your own good arm then to have Buck cut it off for you.

            How about choosing not to cut off your arm?

            • Sedgewick says:

              ” Such a thing will never work. ”

              Maybe not. But ya never know. The problem I think, is the argument in favor of alternative marriages/unions is too strong and therefor does not allow the opposition proper legal grounds.

              As previously mentioned, the law favors the minority over the majority. So, ..if the majority CAN make an argument for freedom OF religion, citing the law cannot deny it, or whatever, you may be able to draw an argument for correcting a potential constitutional conflict.

              …but I am not a legal expert.

              ” You are wanting to use the very weapon of evil – government law – to provide you a means to exercise your freedom – freedom which is specifically attacked by government law. ”

              Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of using the very weapon of evil – government law combined with religion of the majority – to provide a means to wreak havoc within said government law.

              It was just an idea.

              Does that qualify as domestic terrorism if government law IS the weapon? 😉

              • Sed,

                I do like your thinking, no doubt.

                However, 10,000 years of men trying to use evil to undermine evil has always, with no contrary example, merely expanded evil.

                There is this path that free men seem to take – the “Lord of the Rings” parable. That if only a free man in command of the power could use that power to destroy that power. But as the parable tells, all that happens is that free man becomes engrossed in power and becomes the evil himself.

                In Tolkien’s story, there was but one man who was immune to this – Tom Bombadil.

                “Tom first appears when Merry and Pippin are trapped by Old Man Willow, and Frodo and Sam cry for help. Tom commands Old Man Willow to release them, singing him to sleep, and shelters the hobbits in his house for two nights. Here it is seen that the One Ring has no power over Bombadil; he can see Frodo when the Ring makes him invisible to others, and can wear it himself with no effect. He even tosses the Ring in the air and makes it disappear, but then produces it from his other hand and returns it to Frodo. While this seems to demonstrate that he has unique and mysterious power over the Ring, the idea of giving him the Ring for safekeeping is rejected in Book Two’s second chapter, “The Council of Elrond”. Gandalf says, rather, that “the Ring has no power over him…” and believes that Tom would not find the Ring to be very important and so might simply misplace it.”

                A man who wants not such power is the man who such power should be vested – but such a man would ignore it and see it as irrelevant, hence, likely pass it back to those who would use such power for evil.

                The answer is to not -ever- vest that evil power in anyone.

          • While I largely agree with your analysis (with respect to 1st Amendment issues), it just ain’t going to happen.

            Better in my opinion to have government just get out of ‘marriage’ entirely – refuse to respect any person’s marriage and only recognize a ‘civil marriage’ using whatever term the government decides to use…clearly the ‘right’ answer would be to still use the term marriage if that is what someone wants their union to be referred to as…

            • Sedgewick says:

              Consider this…

              By starting with the words ” CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…”, the first amendment is specifically addressing powers of the US Congress, thereby limiting the protection of the freedom of/from religion to congressional neutrality.

              Otherwise, as per the 10th amendment, it is up to the states to decide to/not to protect the right to religious freedom and expression.

              If there is a state constitution with the right wording, a loophole if you will, which would enable a conflict between relevant legal principles, it can prompt a state supreme court ruling and subsequent grounds for a later SCOTUS ruling as applicable to other/all states.

              IF you could trigger a 1st and 10th amendment conflict among/between states, theoretically, you have grounds for re-wording the first amendment to ‘limit to the states’ the power to make a law that respects the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof.

              This requires a constitutional convention if I am not mistaken.

              IF you can get that far, and while you’re at it… you can ad a few thousand more things to the bill of rights that the government cannot do.

              So, …pick a state with a loophole and a lot of religious anti-gay lobby groups, and push the gay marriage/polygamy thing HARD.

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    It’s Official: America is an Oligarchy and NOT a Democracy
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/oligarchy.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

  36. gmanfortruth says:
  37. Boy, oh boy……Texas has Eric Holder in a snit today. No more dual language ballots….they are to be printed in English.

    Also, it is NOT discrimination to require a specific language to be spoken as a condition of employment. Texas employers are requiring, as a condition of employment, that “fluency in Engilsh” is paramount. Duplicity takes time and time is money. Demonstration of fluent English is not being done in 70% of the workplace and that is expanding.

    Also, a Texas court has thrown out the argument that not reading and writing English is not an excuse for not knowing the law. According to the court, “the laws are written English, therefore, it is the responsibility of each individual to be able to read and comprehend the laws”.

  38. Anita…consider this……it is ok for you to believe the way you do. The real bigots are the ones that claim others are…so do not let it bother you. It is ok to want to be the best and not be one of the masses. It is ok to be rich. It is ok to like or dislike anyone you wish. If you choose to not associate with alternative lifestyles….it is ok. You are not a bigot. You have to quit accepting labels thrown about. It is ok to not be politically correct. Be yourself and those that think it is wrong……..are the true bigots.

    D13 has spoken.

    • Spoken like a true gentlemen but will you bust us out of the re-education camp when they come for us?

      Different take on the same topic. I was catching up on my unread “Army & Air Force Times” last night. All dutifully delivered to my doorstep by my sons, the Majors. The services have been told so many times that they are the engines for social change that they really seem to believe it. Because they led on integration, people are a bit surprised that the sexual harassment thing is such a big issue. All the fine young men were supposed to neuter themselves I guess. After removing all offensive material from the walls (and desk drawers) in the Air Force, we still have incidents between young men and young women who work and live in close quarters. A new study actually shows that in a combat environment, incidents of inappropriate sexual behavior actually go up! The powers are shocked to find this out.

      On the gay front. In the last six months or so, there has not been a single issue where we have not celebrated gay pride or a gay wedding or done a marvelous spread on opening up benefits and club memberships to same sex partners. Saw a great piece on the female general getting “married” to her female partner and the photo of sailor, down on his knees after a deployment proposing to his sweetheart who looked like one of the Village People was just touching beyond words (sorry for the sarcasm).

      Now, here is where it gets interesting. In every single instance, the same sex partner was referred to as a wife or husband. The female general had a wife. The male Air Force Captain had a husband. The young male sailor was soon to have a husband.

      There is another word you know. It is spouse. Unlike domestic partner, spouse has a very real, longstanding meaning. Apparently though, it is not good enough. As I have said before, I am a guy who likes words and is very concerned over their meaning. The “lobby” obviously prefers the traditional “husband” and “wife” to spouse and insists on certain wrong and inappropriate usage. Does anyone need more proof that there are some people with very loose screws out there who have a serious problem with reality?

    • After seventy percent of black voters supported California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they were called homophobes, bigots and ingrates. The black community’s support of Proposition 8 was characterized as a “betrayal” of those who claimed a right to their loyalty — the liberal establishment.

      One hundred and fifty years after slavery, a new generation now claims ownership of the thoughts and behavior of Americans of African descent. These ersatz masters believe they deserve absolute fealty. Slave owners usually think themselves beneficent, but those who thirst for freedom have a different perspective.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/the_new_liberal_racism.html

    • Sedgewick says:
  39. For anyone who wonders why I consider Obama, Bush III and IV (on steroids), perhaps you’ll take a look-see at what Mike Taibbi had to say about how each President handled the banking industry screwing of America. The question put to Tabbi was: “Who was tougher on corporate America, President Obama or President Bush?”

    Oh, Bush, hands down. And this is an important point to make, because if you go back to the early 2000s, think about all these high-profile cases: Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen. All of these companies were swept up by the Bush Justice Department. And what’s interesting about this is that you can see a progression. If you go back to the savings and loan crisis in the late ’80s, which was an enormous fraud problem, but it paled in comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, we put about 800 people in jail during—in the aftermath of that crisis. You fast-forward 10 or 15 years to the accounting scandals, like Enron and Adelphia and Tyco, we went after the heads of some of those companies. It wasn’t as vigorous as the S&L prosecutions, but we at least did it. At least George Bush recognized the symbolic importance of showing ordinary Americans that justice is blind, right?

    Fast-forward again to the next big crisis, and how many people have we got—have we actually put in jail? Zero. And this was a crisis that was much huger in scope than the S&L crisis or the accounting crisis. I mean, it wiped out 40 percent of the world’s wealth, and nobody went to jail, so that we’re now in a place where we don’t even recognize the importance of keeping up appearances when it comes to making things look equal.

  40. While back we were having this argument about generosity, right vs. left. Here’s the latest. Just wonder how much he gave to Rev. Wright.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/obama-gave-03-income-church?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=n-obama-church

  41. Ummmm,…….to those of you whom believe that the issue in Ukraine is just armed mobs……if you know anything about equipment…..look at the equipment closely…very closely. The equipment that is being used by the “mobs” is very sophisticated AND only carried by………elite forces. This equipment is not available to even normal troops. ONLY special forces units.

  42. canineweapon says:

    Just another picture of me..

    http://imgur.com/gallery/6Ud6ubC

    Guess which one I am.

  43. gmanfortruth says:

    Regulation without representation. More Govt bullshit. I just wonder how long it will take for people to choke on it.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/15/Obama-s-Government-Makes-New-Rules-on-Grains-Breweries-Rebel

    • It sounds like a good time to start dumping wort on the FDA’s steps. I would include the Whitehouse driveway as well.

  44. Nice … it (the revolujtion) won’ta be long’a now …

    http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014

    • More idiocy pretending your wallet makes mine bigger or smaller.

      All this nonsense does is incite a class war, whose outcome changes nothing.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        No worries Flag, those on the left that babble the loudest don’t have the testicles to start any kind of Revolution. If one does start, it will be because of the actions of government, not because of loud mouthed liberals crying of the wage gap.

  45. gmanfortruth says:

    I may write an article if no one has one ready. This will be part of the subject matter:

    “These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Wednesday.

    Fitton said the IRS emails show the Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scanda

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/lerner-emails-plotted-prosecuting-conservatives/#tCTIGUKKHpLEWkcc.99

    • When you write it-how about looking into why there isn’t an independent counsel or whatever it’s called. IF the republicans are serious about these investigations-I don’t understand why this isn’t happening.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        There already is an investigation going on by a lawyer who happens to be an Obama donor. Black female lawyer on the job. What a joke. The problem is that the Liberals have the DoJ in their pocket. As long as this is the case, this government will continue to be lawless.

        But great idea! For the record, the republicans are part of the problem in DC, not the solution, with a few exceptions of course (both sides have a few that are really representing). I can’t write tonight, maybe in morning. Our government is totally OUT OF CONTROL

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    In most states, if a trespass or use of land occurs regularly for at least 5 years without the “owner” of the land taking legal action, prescriptive rights come into play. Because Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees to the BLM in 1993, but continued to use the land for over 20 years, it is possible he now has prescriptive rights to the land. That might explain why the BLM has not taken this issue to court and never bothered to file a lien against the cattle.
    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#xPbrrAUWUzE6R8uA.99

    This is a very possible defense against the BLM, and a very big lawsuit if true. People need fired for mishandling this issue!

  47. gmanfortruth says:
  48. gmanfortruth says:
  49. gmanfortruth says:

    😀 Anyone? “PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA” – when you rearrange the letters: “AN ARAB BACKED IMPOSTER” 😆

  50. There used to be something called freedom of association. The gay juggernaut, that 10% that Sedge says has no real power, does not think so.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/06/local/la-me-ln-boy-scouts-judges-20140206

%d bloggers like this: