Hide & Seek?

With about 4-1/2 months remaining before early voting begins in the the 2014 elections, three sets of Obamacare-related campaigns are in full gear. The first is seen in electoral contests around the country. The second is a campaign of disinformation and no information being conducted by the Obama administration and its Department of Health and Human Services. The third is a concerted establishment press effort to give cover to Democratic Party candidates no matter what position they take on Obamacare, and to minimize the exposure the administration’s deliberate acts of non-transparency receive.

All three campaigns came together in a Monday morning Associated Press report by Bill Barrow and Josh “Lapdog” Lederman. The two reporters avoided any mention of the fact that the administration has decided to “halt” monthly Obamacare enrollment reporting, while giving cover to Democratic Senate candidates around the country who haven’t yet figured out how much distance to put between themselves, Obamacare, and President Barack Obama himself

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Do ya think those on the Left will conclude they are doing this because, A: Obamacare is a disaster , B : Obama is an absolute failure as a Predident, C: Zliberal policies are nothing short of destructive to all aspects of life it’s involved with. ? Nah, they couldn’t possibly grip reality. 🙂

  2. Interesting…..a Senate Bill on VA care that is 2 1/2 pages, 27 lines long is being held up because Reid says they need more time to read it……..but the 3,000 page, 60,000 line ACA had to be acted on immediately.

  3. Didn’t someone on SUFA a few weeks back suggest that education just needed more money to improve?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627858/Mark-Zuckerbergs-100million-gift-Newark-public-schools-spent-students-arent-getting-better-education.html

  4. Oy vey! Wonder what political ideology she’s talking about.

    http://news.yahoo.com/santa-barbara-shooter-terrorist-172000229–politics.html

  5. Columbia University in New York City is spending a $5.7 million grant from the National Science Foundation to produce projects that show several conjectural scenarios that promoters of global-warming science swear will happen soon if the developed world doesn’t mend its evil ways.

    One of the taxpayer-funded creations is a large series of fictitious voicemails in which people complain and gasp for breath, reports Campus Reform.

    For example, in one of the pretend voicemails, set in 2065, a man tells his mother that he is really worried about dying from either rising temperatures or a huge tsunami.

    “If the tsunami doesn’t get us, the heat might,” the man says. “I’m just calling to say I love you and I miss you and it might be the last time you hear my voice. Bye.”

    In another fake voicemail, a woman struggles frantically for breath because she is “out of CO2 credits,” according to Campus Reform.

    In still another voicemail, a man who says he is 70 laments that glaciers “are just gone now.”

    Other predictions the taxpayer-funded voicemails make are that hurricanes will be exceedingly common by 2020 and that most current coastlines will “have disappeared” by 2059.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/27/columbia-university-is-spending-millions-of-tax-dollars-on-fake-climate-change-death-voicemails/#ixzz32wWxdyuT

  6. Ok..then explain this to me.

    I thought that the ACA was supposed to supply insurance to everyone…but now there are 40 millions that are still not going to be insured.

    I thought that the uninsured were going to be able to get insurance and only 12% of those signed up….did not have previous insurance. All the others are from insurance policies that Obamacare outlawed.

    In order to make sure that employers provided something, Obamacare (aka ACA) imposes penalties on employers that do not have it.

    Now, you have employers that have said….ok….it is cheaper for us to drop our coverage and let people get their own insurance ( supposedy cheaper) through the exchanges…however, the premiums and deductibles are through the roof…….sooooooo

    you have employers that have said…..ok, it is still cheaper for us to just give the employees money and let them purchase whatever they want through Obamacare….so employers have been giving employees cash money through thrift plans so that they can pay for exchange insurance at no cost to the employee….in other words, doing the right thing, even supporting Obamacare….paying for health insurance and letting the employee pick and choose….NOW…..the administration decides that is not cricket and instructs the IRS to disqualify payments through thrift plans….they say, this does not qualify and therefore is taxable to the employee, as income,,,,and not a deductible to the company for health expense…..

    In other words, the company still paid for health insurance, gave the cash to the employee to purchase said insurance…which supports the exchanges and the IRS says….no way…you cannot do that. So the IRS and the Administration is killing their own health care plan…..I don’t get it.

  7. I don’t know what to say except-As a society we are going to regret this!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/did-christians-get-gay-marriage-right.html

    • Sedgewick says:

      Excellent article. It notes some good points.

      ” As a society we are going to regret this! ”

      No.

      Take theocracy out of it, …then what?

      …People that want to build a life together and raise babies, do. If they want to make it a legal thing, they sign a prenuptial agreement. If they want to make it a religious thing, they have a ceremony in a church or synagogue or temple, or wherever.

      There has always been some level deviation from heterosexual monogamy in most cultures. People do what they do. In place that ‘allow’ alternatives, socially, things will continue much like it has for a long time. The gay or polygamist ‘couple’ already in your town/village will simply have an equal grip on whatever civil benefits concerning taxes, insurance, etc, etc..

      ‘Alternative marriages vs Christian norms’ are just one example in a larger picture. How many groups with social labels organize to implement ‘their way’ into law, or fight to have an equal share?

      Law is a big part of what prevents the equal share.

      Not everyone has the same values or idealism, thus representative government cannot represent everything for everyone simultaneously. When it tries, and because it is predicated upon coercion and violence, it creates conflict. Beyond what is universally beneficial, law cannot apply itself with any real efficiency or benefit to the people.

      Organize to support your ’cause’ through community efforts and fundraising, publicity, or whatever, …but the second a law is signed to force it onto someone else, rights have been devalued and set to be violated.

      How many victimless crimes are there?

      How many systems are in place to push us to categorize ourselves and struggle with our neighbors over a position of legal or economic dominance?

      • Yes we will-there is a political arm of the gay movement it’s called LGBT lobby and we as a Country are giving into all their demands-whether they are actual rights or just
        demands for things which they want- that are not rights. We all have limitations put upon us by nature and they for some reason believe that they don’t have to acknowledge these limitations. That getting their desires met are more important than a child’s right to parents,rights to privacy, etc. You want to talk about rights and laws-we’re losing them consistantly based on the demands of the LGBT. Because we continue on with passing laws that demand we respect their wants not just their rights. We support the making and selling of children as if they are a product to be produced simply because selfish adults WANT a child. And those true, real rights can be met without redefining marriage. We need an institution that is committed to the raising of children and that promotes a life time commitment between two loving biological people to raise them. What we don’t need done to Marriage is what was outlined in the above article. Notice the guy supposedly doesn’t buy into either opinion but then says “So, if I had to predict, I’d go with a gradual realization of the conservative nightmare—only it won’t be a nightmare, and plenty of straight people will thank us for it. Maybe gays will preserve marriage precisely by redefining, expanding, and reforming it—and maybe then it can be palatable to progressives, as one of a multitude of options.” If people want a multitude of options, fine, feel free-it is your right-Just don’t act like these options are marriage-call them what they are-something different.

        So I will repeat we will regret doing this. Took theology out of it-turned up with the exact same conclusion.

        • “…and we as a Country are giving into all their demands-whether they are actual rights or just demands for things which they want- that are not rights.”

          Can you provide a list of the demands they are making and how each one (i) is not a right, (ii) has any impact on you and (iii) why the demand in question should not be granted?

          • they have a ‘right’ to use whichever restroom they want, depending on how they feel that day.

            Still foggy headed, I’m sure V will give more.

            • Seriously we are supposed to just ignore that our population is overwhelmingly heterosexual. But we should ignore that fact and put our boys and girls together in situations where privacy is warranted because a very small percentage wants their “Rights” and to hell with everyone else’s rights. Well if they win the gender makes no difference argument-get ready to accept that guy who claims he’s a woman sitting in the girls areas with his dick and boobs hanging out claiming we all Have to accept him.

              • The mental picture tho’…..I’m still in fragile state of mind V! lol!

              • “..in situations where privacy is warranted…” — care to explain? Why is privacy warranted in a public restroom? If private stalls, what does it matter that there is a guy sitting in the stall next to you?

              • Because he’s probably a creeper with a phone and who knows what else! People like that turn into people like the Santa Barbara creep!

              • Have you ever noticed Buck that all those stalls are actually inside a big room. Why is that? Why don’t they just have stalls lined up in the hallway?
                And we’re not talking about just bathroom stalls-we’re talking about showers, dressing areas-areas where woman and girls have a right to expect privacy from men. if it’s no big deal why should men that identify as woman object to using the men’s facilities?

                And why do I never hear arguments that woman who identify as men should use the men’s room? Have I missed them?

              • I have absolutely no problem with women who identify as men using the men’s room. Not an issue to me in the slightest.

                I think it was Mathius that had made the argument not too long ago just to abolish men’s room vs. women’s room altogether….maybe he’ll weigh in on this….

                And to Anita who says “He’s probably a creeper…” Why do you say this?

              • Because if you can’t accept what gender you were born as, then there is some sort of scrambled brain action going on. Buck, your daughter is 7. You and she are at Disney on Ice. She needs to use the restroom. First of all, you’re not going to just let her go from the auditorium to the restroom by herself, why? As you wait outside the restroom for her, Mr. Tranny walks in. You’re gonna tell me you’re not at the very least, skeptical? I don’t believe that for a second.

              • “Because if you can’t accept what gender you were born as, then there is some sort of scrambled brain action going on.” Not exactly how I would phrase it, but seems that you agree then with the general proposition that one can legitimately identify as the other gender. Why then should they be forced to go through life as their biological gender if they legitimately identify as the other?

                Can’t answer your hypo as I’ve never been in that situation. I would like to think that I wouldn’t automatically judge and assume the person is really just a “creeper” going in to prey on my daughter.

              • Buck. I’m the biggest tomby you will ever meet. Not once have I ever considered becoming a boy. I hate dresses, dance class, hair bows, cheerleading, monthly cramps..all of it. So.no. I don’t think anyone with their head screwed on right can legitimately identify as the other gender.

                I still think you’re full of ..it. You will be skeptical of all people around your daughter. Notice I said skeptical, not paranoid.

              • The fact that you are comparing being a tomboy to being transgendered shows you have no understanding of the issue. Sorry to be blunt, but the two just can’t be compared.

              • Why not? Please explain your understanding of the issue.

              • Being a tomboy has to do with your own likes and dislikes.

                Being transgendered has to do with your entire identity.

                Apples and oranges.

              • There is a fine line there, so it’s not apples and oranges. I can say my identity IS female/tomboy. Doesn’t mean I need to switch. We’re getting off the point though, which is the ‘rights ‘ of the lgbt.

              • Why should their rights be any different than your own?

                Still not quite certain why you have an issue with a transgendered individual using the ‘woman’s’ restroom. Or are you just assuming that ‘he’ is really there just to spy or harass you??

          • Been there, done that-pointed out the biggest ones in my above response. But to clarify one of them-you do not have a right to children that you did not produce. Hell your rights to your own children are limited. So adopting children is a privilege not a right. Buying children should be outlawed, it certainly shouldn’t be a right. But, Look at our society all proud and happy that two men are gonna become dads-no one looks at the horrible things that are being promoted to allow these two men to become fathers-so this becomes a social norm and social norms effect us all in so many ways. So no, it shouldn’t be allowed as Identical to heterosexual marriages that produce biological children because it promotes evil. It’s that friggin simple. Unions-have at it-get the state to acknowledge them-good for you-argue for whatever you want but do not claim it is a Right and do not use the false excuse that you can’t get equal rights unless your union is acknowledged as identical to a marriage that can actually produce children because it isn’t and your argument proves that your plan is not to obtain equal rights but to obtain privileges that you don’t have a right too. Use these Unions as a gateway to force acceptance of gender neutrality based on discrimination is the plan. Unfortunately it is the children who are being hurt-and the adults are selfish jerks.

            But I’m curious Buck-what is your opinion of the points made in the article?

            • “So no, it shouldn’t be allowed as Identical to heterosexual marriages that produce biological children because it promotes evil.”

              Am I correct to be reading your post as being against adoption by a gay couple? If so, why? How is this “evil”?

              • I am against adoption by gay couples unless there are special circumstances. I’m also against single people adopting too unless there are special circumstances. What I think promotes evil is the way in which people come about getting children . Gay couples simply cannot give a child a mother and a father-and I think it is societies responsibility to give children who are left without parents the best possible situation-not base adoption on being “fair” to gay people. And the most obvious best situation for children is a two parent home with a mother and father. You can argue this point if you wish but in a society where the vast majority is heterosexual this is the most natural situation for children to live in.

                Now lets talk surrogacy-the gay mans way to become fathers-now that promotes evil-what is your opinion about it and how it is being promoted as a new acceptable social norm?

              • What “special circumstances” would you permit a heterosexual couple to adopt? What about a homosexual couple?

                Why are you against adoption — what do you think should happen to these children?

                Moving on to surrogacy, how is this ‘evil’?

              • Sorry — I meant what special circumstances would you permit a single person to adopt versus a homosexual couple?

              • If we’re gonna discuss this Buck-could we actually discuss it 🙂 Look a little deeper Buck. Actually address my points. Do you disagree that a mother and father is the best situation for children? Why do you support gay adoption? Is it because you think it is the best thing for the child, it doesn’t make any difference, or because you think it’s the nice, “fair ” thing to do?

                As far as your questions-not against adoption. Special circumstances means situations that tie a specific child to specific people. In other words exceptions to the general rules because the child has a relationship with specific people who want to adopt the child.

                I found your other questions confusing???

                Why is surrogacy evil, seriously, why isn’t it evil is a better question? Why are you asking this question-what do you know about surrogacy that makes you support it or support gays who do it?

              • And again 🙂 The original article-opinions on the points made would be appreciated.

              • I’m trying to understand your position as to why these things are ‘evil’. I don’t find them necessarily evil or good – they just are.

                Is a mother/father the best situation — not necessarily. If something were to happen to me and the Mrs., I would much prefer my daughter end up with a loving homosexual couple than an abusive or neglectful heterosexual couple. I support gay adoption because if a couple – any couple – wishes to raise a child that is going to typically be a better outcome than having that child remain in foster care because you don’t believe a homosexual couple is ‘good’ for that child.

                Whether or not a couple should be allowed to adopt should depend on the best interests of that child; however, I don’t believe a blanket argument can nor should be made that the best interests of the child are to be raised by a heterosexual as opposed to homosexual couple. The sexuality of the parents shouldn’t come into play.

                Now, care to explain further your argument that homosexual adoption and surrogacy is ‘evil’?

              • ‘Is a mother/father the best situation — not necessarily. If something were to happen to me and the Mrs., I would much prefer my daughter end up with a loving homosexual couple than an abusive or neglectful heterosexual couple.’

                The above in my opinion doesn’t answer the question-sexuality doesn’t determine whether or not a couple will be abusive . The question Buck-is the best situation for children living with both a mother and a father? Their sexuality comes into this discussion because the child will be without one or the other. So before we talk about children not being adopted lets look at what type of household is best for children as a general rule.

              • Again, I strongly believe the best interests of the child is to be in a loving home, regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

                Please provide some evidence as to why the couple’s sexuality should come into play here, especially in the form of a blanket rule of heterosexual OK, homosexual NOT OK.

              • Children can be in a loving family in both situations Buck-so there must be a best situation-so choose-which is best? Answer the question Are mothers and fathers that unimportant in a child’s life? Can two woman replace a father in a child’s life. Can two men replace a mother?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                One note about gay marriage…..there won’t be any abortions to worry about 🙂

        • Good job V. But here’s where Sedgewick is going to disregard everything you just posted and start feeding us more theory. No offense Sed. 😉

      • This whole issue of “victimless crime” needs to be revisited. For openers, drugs, “victimless”, really? IO know it is simplistic, but alcoholism is not victimless, not to the wife, not to the children and certainly not to anyone who meets the alcoholic behind the wheel on the highway.

        There is no mechanism short of total drug legalization, putting it on the shelves of the candy store right next to the Wrigley’s Spearmint that will end dealing. Drugs will always be banned for minors and legal “pot shops” will always be more expensive than the street corner. We control alcohol and still have bootleggers (and reality TV shows about them.) We control gambling, have casino’s, para mutual betting, lotteries and still have organized crime involvement. We have banking regulations and still have loan sharks.

        The do-your-own thing mentality is nothing but a recipe for societal disaster. Being for a small government is still accepting government. Bob Heinlein was never a fan of big government nor controls but recognized the need for some. he described himself as an anarchist more than once, a rational anarchist!

        • Do your own thing mentality-I always just love it when the progressives note that marriage is ending in divorce more and more, although I’ve read that the percentage is a whole lot less than 50 %-they use it as a reason for changing marriage- they don’t seem cognizant of the fact that their other bad idea-sexual freedom or better named sex without responsibility is what damaged marriage in the first place.

          • Statistics tend to ignore folks who divorce multiple times. If I have been married four times like Charlie was then how should my three divorces be counted statistically? This, by the way is a lot more common than people realize. While it is a stretch if one of Charlies ex-wives also married four times and divorced three times that is TWO people with SIX divorces.

  8. What’s there to complain about? The government gets a copy of all our financial records, our health record, our phone calls and now want GPSs in our cars. They could even be watching me type this through the video camera on my monitor. When you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare, they broadcast the fact worldwide. They want to know how many guns you have; if you buy ammo here in CA, you have to leave a thumb print. He// they might even know how many hairs are on my head! The MSM is in the bag (newsspeak). What part of 1984 has not yet been implemented? Or are we way past that? Drones over my head. Kids can’t build a dam in the back 40 lest it become a wetland and therefore be EPA regulated. My electric bill is going up because of carbon taxes. Water? What water? Should I line my cowboy hat with tin foil? Does it work better on the inside or outside? Mrs. T-Ray needs new wheel chair so I will pay the ObamaCare tax. If I buy a new wheel chair van is that taxed as well?

    Come on Col. your worried they do not know what they are doing? How could they have accomplished so much if they are so dumb?

    Never attribute to stupidity what can be explained by greed, avarice, and lust for all encompassing power.

    • Sorry, I’m paying bills tonight. The one that has me ticked is $763 for 1 hr of speech therapy that accomplished nothing.

    • NO sir……I am not worried at all that they do not know what they are doing….they know exactly what they are doing. They are destroying our health care…not making it better, they are destroying the middle class by raising their taxes over 20%, counting everything….they are killing corporate benefit programs to the middle class….the affluent, under Obama, have become more affluent than under Bush….which I should say thank you…

      Everyone is yelling about the Koch brothers and the new list that just came out on donors has the Koch bros at number 58…..the Obama administration has raked in more bribery money and donations than Bush one and Two combined.

      No sir….they are not dumb….never said they were….what gets me is how people sit back and do nothing….they just take it….

    • gmanfortruth says:

      T-Ray, welcome to Conspiracy Theory Land 🙂 A few things I don’t mention much…..One World Government (with a global currency of course), some new ones that I haven’t mentioned yet…..the depopulation of 281 million Americans (they have the bullets to do it too), this of course will all begin with the collapse of the dollar, which can happen anyday now, because it will be on purpose.

      Aside form that, D13, what can be done to change the “just take it ” mentality? Or just wait till the Feds screw up bad enough to start the next Revolution?

      • gmanfortruth says:
      • Remember, I do not really go into conspiracy theories too much…I watch results.

        I do not share your collapse of the dollar yet because there is nothing to take its place. Not even a global currency which will not pass the legislatures of several powerful countries…

        I think the best thing to do is get involved locally and do what Texas is attempting to do…get the right people in the right places but you must start locally…..it takes time but you have to recruit the right people.

        I really think that the best thing to do is let Obama continue to self destruct. Nobody pays attention to him any longer…especially the world. He is perceived as weak and indecisive and I think that the progressive party has almost run its course….Pelosi, Reid, Boxer…..

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Agree on the Progressives having run it’s course. That experiment failed miserably. When they have to LIE about everything they do, it’s obvious that it’s not good for the people. Yet, there are those that continue to cling to this ideology.

          I’m not against local politics at all. It’s Federal elections I think are a waste of time. Far too many people complain about how bad Congress is then turn around and vote for the incumbent. Hence, the Federal government will remain corrupt and likely get worse, regardless of elections.

          On a good note, Our local HoR member, local sheriff and the sheriff in the next county up North are holding a Conceal Carry Seminar to discuss the law and also talk about the Castle law and Stand Your ground law. My father was adamant in wanting to go, so I made reservations for both of us. That will happen on June 14th. I know my local sheriff (in good ways) and think he does a good job. The encroachment of the federal government will be a topic that I will bring up (concerning the castle law). I think I will have a short prepared statement for our HoR member to take back and pass it on to Feinstein and all the rest of the gun grabbers, more on that later. I may also record it if allowed, and post the transcript of pertinent statements. Should be a fun 2 hours 🙂

          • But remember…..down ballto races eventually affect the Federal level…..No one thought Cruz stood a chance,,,,and now we have more Cruz like people heading to Washington.

  9. Ok…….Texas has taken the lead….I hope the other States are watching……incumbents took a beating. Dewhurst lost, Hall lost, Duel lost……all were RINOS and got clobbered. All were conservative….grass roots local movements….

    Dewhurst loses to Patrick…….( Remember Dewhurst ran against Cruz and got beat ) Texas wants a fighter not a compromise….Dewhurst was an incumbent compromise minded person…a tax raising Republican that does not believe in border control……he got beat and by a margin of 65/35…..

    Paxton wins by 64/36 margin over Branch…Branch was a liberal Republican that did not support independent Texas ways…..got pitched out….

    But what is more to my liking were the down ballot races……massive conservative, independent minded people winning in judge races, precinct and sheriff races….the grass roots movement that we have been nurturing for the last 6 years is taking root…..

    AND…the interesting thing about it….the grass roots movement garnered 36% of the Hispanic AND black vote….

    @ BUCK…….I see that New York is trying to fight Texas with Texas ways…..offering tax free havens to corporations to come there……but to get them…you have to go all the way….eliminate Corporate income taxes and personal income taxes….then you will compete. Good try tho…

    • That’s fine, but us airheads up here in Michigan will vote John Conyers in again. He had fraudulent signature gatherers working on his campaign. County Clerk said he would absolutely NOT be allowed on the ballot…until he found a judge that overruled the clerk!
      Worse than that he gerrymandered his way right into my district. 😮

      • We’re right with you Anita. Despite the drought killing thousands of fruit and nut trees, we are more full of them than ever before. Moonbeam is shoe in for another 4 years.

      • Yes….gerrymandering is a way of life….it is here as well….the party in power always redraws district lines…that is the only way Wendy Davis got in….but it is to no avail…she will not win. It is tough but it can be done….but enough like minded people have to get together and decide enough is enough.

        We watch changing demographics just like everybody else……and we recruit from the demographic. Actually, most Hispanics are pretty conservative, you just have to know how to appeal to them. The Texas Republican Party has been very successful in recruiting down ballot races. That is where you are going to have to start.

        AND THEN..hope no one catches the fever……if they do….burn ’em.

        • Colonel, a question if you would. What position do your ethnically Mexican citizens (born here or legal immigrants) have on illegals and amnesty?

          My experience in the NY area is legal immigrants, mostly Dominican that I have dealt with are against amnesty. They feel that it will hurt them economically since there will be a surplus of unskilled or semi-skilled labor.

          Anybody else who has any experience with these folks, is free to chime in.

          • Clearly against amnesty and clearly against open borders. They understand the reason some are wanting to come here for their families but what is hurting them, and they know this, is the fact that since 2005, in Texas alone, there has been over 7,000 arrests of known felons that are here illegally….guilty of rape, murder, extortion, and kidnapping….and our Federal system lets them out of jail without deportation…and even if they are deported, they come back into the United States over a porous border.

            This means that profiling takes place and all Hispanics are profiled, even the ones that are here legally or have been here for life. The Hispanic friends that I have understand the profiling and even profile their own. Any Hispanic with a tattoo is automatically considered a gang member and, according to my Hispanic friends, over 90 percent are. Teardrops, crosses, lightening bolts are all gang bangers that have killed.

            Actually, the best intelligence comes from legal Hispanics.

            So, the average legal Hispanic is against amnesty, open borders, and free healthcare, and give away items because the average legal Hispanic works his ass off. That is the perception here.

            • I really wish the hell we could get the word out on this. I know what the media is all about and their agenda but it seems that it is something we should harp on, over and over again. How often have we all been tarred and feathered because we oppose amnesty and illegal immigration and are made out to be against ALL immigration.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I live in a very conservative area, but, just across the border in Ohio, it’s a Democrat stronghold that will never change. I might add, that it’s also a crime infested hellhole (Youngstown and Warren).

  10. gmanfortruth says:
    • Well, I will speak first…..even though the first three victims were stabbed to death and the others shot actually has nothing to do with anything. The fact this, according to the accounts that I have read and heard, individual was clearly sick….mentally ill. He apparently said and wrote things for years that indicated this lad had a screw loose…..and no one did anything. Some therapy sessions….but not much else. Had he not had access to firearms….he simply would have hacked and stabbed more people.

      However, I do think that there should be some data base that can be checked on for mentally ill persons…..clinically mentally ill. However, I do not know how to accomplish this without giving up some liberties that I am not sure I want to give up.

      I do not share the same philosophy that Mathius does, although, his argument carries credence in this case. But is this particular case, is it an isolated incident. I do not like the subjective decision of a counselor to be able to trigger a police raid. I do not like the subjective approach that police have the “reasonable suspicion” theory on mental illness.

      I am a huge member of the NRA and I want some sort of check to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill…I just do not know how to approach it without an encroachment of rights and the slippery slope it entails…..but I do not want people to confuse the issue of weapons checks with the fact that the NRA is against them. It is not….it is against the usurping of the second amendment they are against but the NRA supports background checks including the mentally ill…..how do we get there?

      • There was a time when people were nuts enough to lock up. That went out the window with pharma and people wanting to close down the nut houses. Funny, the conservatives wanted to save money by shutting them down, the libs wanted to guarantee the rights of crazy people. Nonetheless, when you were considered crazy enough to institutionalize as a danger to yourself or others, there were state laws (I’m familiar with NY) that required the State Police to check to make sure you did not have a firearm. Seems that there ought to be some kind of standard where a shrink has to go before a judge and state his/her case on having the person put on a watch list. Not going to the institution but definitely on the no-go list for firearms purchase. As in any other adversarial case, the accused should have the right to have his own expert or in the event he is prohibited to have at a later date a motion made to lift the ban with supporting professionals.

        This is not terribly different from 50, 60, 70 years ago. Since the background check questionnaire asks about addiction to narcotics, perhaps there should be a list of legal. prescribed narcotics added. I know this will raise howls of protest (mostly from the drug companies) but let the prescribing physician go on record that these drugs will not cause mind altering or mood altering issues. These commercials on TV which tell me that “thoughts of suicide” are possible side effects say it all. a little anal leakage we can all deal with but “thoughts of suicide”?

        • Good points.

        • http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/05/why-we-shouldnt-depend-on-mental-health-professionals-to-detect-mass-killers-elliot-rodgers-slipping-under-the-radar-is-hardly-rare/

          Looks like even when shrinks are involved, they don’t prevent crazy people from committing violence. Hmmm, if I were crazy & intended to go on a killing spree, do I tell my doctor or lie? Do I want to be locked up for the rest of my life or go out in a blaze of something, like those video games? Crazy doesn’t mean stupid. If you have ill intent, nothing will keep you from deceiving others until it’s too late.

          • Useless POSs. It is pretty clear from the article that these guys should have been on the FBI no-go list for a background check. I have a friend whose last name, Lynch, is very common and very traditional. His two boys have Irish first names. This guy has trouble getting the kids, even when they were little, aboard an airplane because of the watch list for old IRA terrorists.

            Like I said above it is not like this is some new government intrusion into our lives. Provisions were in place fifty plus years ago in NY State to require the State Police to investigate whether people deemed harmful to themselves or others had firearms. The American Psychological Association which is about as radical as you can get has spent the last fifty year undermining any diagnosis which might label someone as abnormal.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Yes, The Left Wing dinosaur media will always do this. That’s why they are becoming extinct 🙂

      • I was reading some of the comments attached to this article. They mention that we rewrote the constitution to eliminate slavery so why can’t it be done to eliminate guns. Would the slaves have been slaves if they had had guns?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          That’s what it would take, an amendment. That’s what abortion would take as well. Term limits? yep, amendment. The likelihood of any of these happening in our lifetime, zero 🙂
          Slaves, nothing would have changed, blacks have guns today and are still slaves.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Having had some time to rethink the issue of the mentally ill and gun subject, I have decided that the issue isn’t about the mentally ill at all, at least by the Left who want gun control every time a tragedy happens involving a sick person who kills many others. I’m looking at this a slightly different way, then I’ll address the real issue, mental illness.

    Each time a tragedy happens, the gun grabbers all cry for gun control (up to and including the complete ban of all guns). If these people were to be taken seriously, why don’t they want to suspend ALL of the Constitutionally guaranteed Rights written in the Amendments? Why should we accept the gun control BS if they wont also include voting, speech, the 4th and 5th Amendment rights and even the 3rd Amendment? That’s because they don’t care about the tragedy itself, only their pathetic little agenda.

    Now, mental illness is a medical problem, often successfully treated with medications. Some forms of mental illness go away in time, some don’t. The debate should be, how do we keep these people from harming others? Answer: We Can’t. We can only hope to get lucky and discover their evil plans before they carry out their horrible acts. The weapon is only the tool, a knife was used in the recent tragedy, but their is no call for keeping knives away from the crazies. That BMW helped in the attack as well, no call to deny cars from the crazies. The Mental Health profession isn’t exactly a perfect science, one that can’t have a high level of accuracy (if any at all) in determining who will be violent and who won’t. Then of course, you have patients who stop taking their meds, become violent and go off the cliff, no one can predict that.

    Now some about the mentally ill. Should their Rights be suspended while being treated for those mental illnesses known to have violent ending (or meds that can lead to violence)? If not, why not? When I say Rights, I mean all of them, not just the 2nd Amendment (I have a logical reason).

    • Sorry, as I said before, there is nothing new here. We used to lock folks up who were perceived as a danger,. Then the Psychologists did a 180 and told us everyone was treatable. By any chance remember when they used to think child molesters were treatable in the 80’s?. Boy was that one ever wrong yet some of them still push the lie became they want it to be true.

      Lincoln said it best, “The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact”. Let the shrink go before the judge, let there be a panel if necessary and always let there be an appeal. The problem with the meds is that some go off them. Well the converse of that as we see in the military hospitals is that some go ON them. “possible side effects include suicidal thoughts” is not a good thing and anybody with an IQ over 40 should pick up on that.

  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. In reading the Federal Register…….HR 2847 goes into effect July 1st.

    Watch out BUCK……

    • Note: It has been delayed several times………bets on delayed again?

    • Will likely be delayed again…though not sure why I should be watching out….

      • Do you not supply investment or legal tax advice?

        • Investment advice, no; tax advice, yes.

          Now…what specific provision do you feel I should be worried about? I have some time today (as of now, at least) so I can take a closer look at that provision.

          • The section FATCA…..Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act……the reporting requirements and the IRS penalties involved….and the fact that there are several off shore accounts that are not going to cooperate with the IRS at all. ( Meaning no reporting )…it will involve pension funds, IRA’s, hedge funds, trusts, tax deferred annuities…these types of things. Some of the penalties are as high as 30% on specific issues.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I have read where it’s dal ayes till after elections. Not at computer to find link

            • FATCA is a huge annoyance, I’ll give you that.

            • @ Buck….the main issue is the penalties that are being threatened by the IRS if non compliance takes place…..which I believe it will take place. Some investment opportunities will dry up and some places may opt out of continuing American accounts..this could, in effect, create a flight of captial.

              • @ Buck….my gurus are “annoyed” but all think it will be delayed again…..too many politicians are involved. It makes good press but in actuality…..some more of that “selective enforcement” that you champion. 🙂

              • Some investment opportunities MAY dry up for American investment but this won’t be an issue for most. Very doubtful it will create a flight of capital. Don’t forget, more and more countries are signing agreements with the US regarding foreign reporting.

                But I do agree with your gurus…odds are that it will be delayed again.

              • Yes..some countries are signing up….but most of the biggies are reluctant. However, I really do feel that it will be delayed again….at least this portion of it. As you know, there are some legal, very creative ways…..to manage this.

              • What is interesting, is whether this 3.8 surcharge will find its way to foreign investments.

              • Re the 3.8 surcharge — are you really asking this?? 🙂

  14. Did anyone happen to catch the commencement speech at West Point? If so, did you note the response?

    • You mean the one where he kept punching at strawmen? Where he told them they weren’t the solution? Where only six of them gave applause? Where the audience wan’t buying an of it? Not one of them is proud to serve this CIC.

      • Montel went on a pretty good rant. He said Obama could have taken that opportunity to apologize for the VA mess and and prove to them that they would be taken care of should the need arise. Instead he told them they weren’t the solution.

          • Gimme a break. Obama words and actions are two different things. He stirred up the Middle East advocating for the Muslim Brotherhood. Then started the airstrikes in Libya, that took out Kadafi, which then led to Benghazi, where he stranded his own people. Then he drew his line in Syria, which is where Putin had to come in and look like a peacemaker. If he wants to look all peaceful, then he better quit stirring up the hornet’s nest. Those cadets are less than thrilled to serve under him. What else would explain his poor reception at West Point.

          • West Point cadets were at the speech because they are forced to be at the speech. Obama is the CIC, even though he is considered weak and ineffective. The respect to the office of the President is warranted regardless of how you feel. The article posted is incorrect on a couple of points. First of all, no one questions the authority of the POTUS to decide and implement foreign policy. Secondly, there was no rousing applause anywhere ( I watched the entire thing ). There was a smattering here and there on some specific points.

            For example, there is not one military person to my knowledge that disagrees with the following analysis:

            “He drew one other distinction. On the one hand, there are “core interests”—direct threats to America and its allies—that we would absolutely defend with military force, “unilaterally if necessary.” On the other hand, there are crises that may “stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction” but don’t threaten our core interests. In those cases, “the threshold for military action must be higher”; and if force is used, “we should not go it alone,” for the practical reason that “collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes.”

            This is a great statement by the author but too bad Obama’s actions do not live up to this analysis. They simply do not and the cadets at West Point know this. The Joint Chiefs know this.

            I know of no military officer that wants to go to war and I am old school and a warrior and do not like nor do I wish or want for war,

            The article posted goes on to say:

            “The president’s main point was to emphasize that not every problem has a military solution; that the proper measure of strength and leadership is not merely the eagerness to deploy military power; that, in fact, America’s costliest mistakes have stemmed not from restraint but from rushing to armed adventures “without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, The president’s main point was to emphasize that not every problem has a military solution; that the proper measure of strength and leadership is not merely the eagerness to deploy military power; that, in fact, America’s costliest mistakes have stemmed not from restraint but from rushing to armed adventures “without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.”

            There is only one true statement in this analysis and that is…” without leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.”….and he, Obama, is guilty of this as well but the statement is true.

            In short, his time and that of the West Point cadets….could have been better spent.

          • “NOTE: Offered without comment.” (so noted, which does not mean I won’t comment)

            “On second reading, much of Obama’s speech seems like a subtweet directed at John McCain.”

            Hmm, fair enough & I can even agree. But this is a reporter trying to explain to us what Obama’s words meant. I kinda think reading the actual words or listening to them is where we should be on forming opinions. What I heard, where he’s telling them they will be fighting climate change, he scored negative points. Who thinks that is what they spent these last several years preparing themselves to fight?

            And while I can agree with the author that many on the right bang that drum, I cannot agree with his spin on Obama’s foreign policy. Based on results, not intentions, where are we better off now than before in those countries where he has been active? Egypt? Libya? Syria? China, Korea, Russia, Israel, the Vatican….

    • I heard a big round of applause when he mentioned they may be the first class in over a decade that does not have to go off to war.

      • Yes…..they MAY be…not Will be…however, that is not going to be true. This graduating class will have plenty of officers in war situations. One must define war. If you are shot at…..you are at war. No lack of declaration will change that.

        Sending armed troops to Nigeria….is war…..why else would you send armed troops into a known conflict.

  15. A very interesting piece on the shooting and well worth the read.

    http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

    • Great article SK! Thanks for sharing. Most of his commenter’ s were pretty negative. Guy must have pretty thick skin.

      “Like they always do, the media have descended to explain away the madness. And like a Rorschach Test, each outlet had its own pet cause primed and ready to be read into the situation.

      Gun control advocates used the event as an opportunity to campaign for stricter gun control, despite the fact that Rodger bought his guns legally and easily passed the background checks.
      Mental health advocates used it as an opportunity to urge better mental health care, despite the fact that Rodger had had a small army of therapists and social workers working with him for practically his entire life.
      Feminists used it as an opportunity to promote awareness for violence against women, despite the fact that Rodger killed indiscriminately and the majority of the victims turned out to be men.
      Social justice advocates used it as an opportunity to rail against white male entitlement, despite the fact that Rodger was mixed race and a significant number of school shooters have also been minorities (Two examples: Seung-Hui Cho and Kimveer Gill).

      All of these issues are legitimate and deserve conversation. But they are not the singular cause. They’re not the point. “

  16. Totally off the wall idea I’ve been thinking of since the Sandy Hook shootings. When one of these clowns plans and executes an atrocity like we have seen in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Santa Barbara, Virginia Tech or elsewhere, I can’t help thinking they are seeking notoriety more than making a “statement” . They’re gonna be somebody! What if, we pass an ordinance that because of what they have done, their body becomes forfeit. Not to belabor the point but you can fight psychological fire (theirs) with fire. Instead of allowing the family to claim the body, just literally discard it, publicly at the local dump. Let the rats, seagulls, whatever feast on it. Not that this is supposed to send some kind of warning rather that it shows the total contempt a civilized society has for their random act of violence. There are those who oppose the death penalty and indeed the long, dragged out painful process of implementing it removes most of the psychological deterrent value (if any) it may have. This act, disposing of the body as if it were a piece of trash may just have a deterrent value. It is the ultimate “dis” or disrespect and negates, even in the mind of an insane person, any possible “respect” they may think they are earning. Just a thought folks, just a thought. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.

  17. Where’s the Snowden interview discussion? I didn’t read above if it’s there. Come on, this kid should be a national hero. Didn’t even graduate high school … is just 28 years old … and he’s about 100 x’s smarter than 99.9% of the assholes this country permits to govern (for the sake of the 1%) … Snowden Day … that’s what I’m talkin’ about.

    • I like him!

      • Why do you support him?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Not sure why he is such a problem, other than verifying what many already knew.

        • It is a very long story so I will give you the short version.

          About a week after 9/11 I was sitting in my office thinking about the Patriot Act. At that point, I felt that Osama had won. He forced this country to become what he said it was. Since that time I have had to listen to the neo-cons basically stand the Bill of Rights on its head while assuring everyone that they were not doing that. The left, with Obama, jumped on the bandwagon for their own nefarious reasons.

          While I never thought that the Bush administration willfully deceived the nation on Iraq, I did think an apology was in order after the WMD’s were not found, (then a quick scoot out the door). Then Shinseki had the cojones to tell them what they were going to really need to prevent Iraq from spinning off into chaos they fired him. Having been fired/transferred once or twice in my life for telling the truth, this made me a big Shinseki supporter.

          My eldest, the Army Reserve Major, is a disciple of Andrew Bacevich. I tend to agree with about 80% of what he says and since his son was lost in the Iraqi misadventure, I sympathize with him a whole lot.

          Ultimately I think that Snowden will have zero effect on what is or is not done in the future. Our leaders are about as full of hubris as can be. They refuse to learn. As an amateur historian, I loved when we did Desert Storm right. I loved it when guys like Colin Powell and Cap Weinberger said things like “We do deserts not mountains” or “We do deserts not Jungles”. I loved it when I thought that we had learned the lessons of Vietnam which were not terribly different from those taught by Nathan Forrest, “Get there firstest with the mostest”. For some reason, I am sadder over the smaller losses in Iraq and Afghanistan than I am over my 58,000 brothers in Vietnam. Either I am a lot older and more sentimental or I think that we as a nation thought we were fighting for something in Vietnam and we, know as a nation that we don’t know what the hell we are doing in Iraq and the Stan.

          Good enough explanation sir?

          • PS, Charlie is like the proverbial broken clock. Right at least twice a day!

          • YUP…..good enough…

            • I do not know how I really feel other than I feel that anyone who signs an agreement of confidentiality and is given a top secret security clearance should abide by it…..that said, when there is a clear violation of something that is unconstitutional or against the law, I want the problem solved but I question this motive, I feel that he was unethical and his integrity is in serious question with me to the fact that he has none…

              He needs to come home and face the music….he is not a hero by any stretch of the imagination. He violated the law and better yet, he violated an oath.

              Again, that said, I feel that there were other ways to disclose what he saw and not violate his integrity….fleeing the country with classified documents and then sharing them is inexcusable.

              There was another way. I saw his interview and he did not convince me.

              • Oh,since you brought it up….I think that the Patriot Act needs to be abolished.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Snowden hasn’t said anything that wasn’t all over the alternative media long before he did what he did. I find it strange that because he, basically parrots, the alternative media (they had documents too) yet he is a criminal. Those of us who claimed it was happening were dubbed conspiracy theorists, as usual, and as usual, we were right again.

                The Feds could have destroyed this guys entire story, it would not have been hard to claim he was given access to planted documents because they suspected he was a “Right Wing Conspiracy Theorist” who hated his government. They could have fabricated all kinds of fake emails that showed how they set him up with false information to see what he did. But, they didn’t, why, because a) the info was already out there and b) they wanted this info to be out there to see the overall reaction (which was very weak at best).

                Hence, in my opinion they knew he would do something like this and let it happen, because there secret was already out. Then they could demonize and prosecute a whistleblower in a very public trial and use him as an example to other whistleblowers. Except they forgot one thing, to monitor his travel plans. I would bet they will get their trial one day, time will tell. Obama hates whislteblowers and he wants this guy turned into a girl as well.

                I do have a question, if his defense shows that all the info was already public, could that help his defense? Just wondering 🙂

              • Except that all the info is still not public. So what you heard through alternate media was a few trial balloons. You can’t buy the hype on those sites either. I’ve learned that with the price of metals. I should be a zillionairre by now according to them. Instead I’m just a little short on gold and way short on silver.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                What info that he has, I have likely already heard. What can he release, let’s see….NSA forced one SCOTUS to vote for the ACA to keep it Constitutional, 9-11, Ok City and a few other major attacks on US soil are govt sponsored (our govt)……..Most FBI stings that have stopped potential terrorist attacks are set ups intended to scare people, not hurt them, as non of the bombs could go off……Obama isn’t really a natural born citizen….I could go on and on, but you get the point. Gold and silver are being manipulated, it won’t last forever, be patient 😉 Remember, predicting the future is mostly impossible. Many guess, most are wrong. Timing is nearly impossible to get right. The economy and jobs market sucks, the debt is growing by leaps and bounds, food prices are rising daily, gas is up for some unknown reasons (dollar devaluation) and we have a sissy for a President. So tell me, what else can possibly go wrong? 🙂

              • Sedgewick says:

                I like Snowden.

                His actions confirmed what everyone (..who has been paying attention) already ‘knew’.

                The government needs to get out of people’s lives. The people need to push it to do so.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

    “Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

    “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

    The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

    “Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

    Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/05/government-considered-using-military-defeat-cliven-bundy/#QcKyREesH4LkBcVC.99

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Anita, Have you gotten your garden in yet? Mine will be finished this weekend. Took my time this year, didn’t want to deal with the normal late frost. Weather has been great, need more rain though, campfires and cold beer, it don’t get much better 🙂

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Why hide it anymore, the cat’s out of the bag: http://scgnews.com/fbi-drafts-law-to-require-websites-to-grant-backdoor-access-to-government-agencies

    What past historical govt does this kind of stuff remind you of, Nazi’s, Communists, all the above? Or something different, far worse, going to get out of control??????

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    D13 said: . He violated the law and better yet, he violated an oath.

    That can be said about most of Congress and several of the past few Presidents.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      We can add numerous Fed agencies as well. Criminality on steroids

    • This is true….I am not giving a pass to anybody….I am conflicted within myself. It really does not matter that the media had information first…..THAT is not the issue. At least to me it is not. I always was taught that your word, your honor, your integrity defined you as a person. Not some cause celeb…..I have always been taught to tell the truth….never lie. Never be deceitful.

      I have seen and witnessed atrocities in the military. I have always managed to handle them within the system and solve the problem without giving up my integrity, I had and still do have access to top secret and SSIR material and I have no thought of revealing anything to anyone that does not have a “need to know”. In Vietnam and Desert Storm, there were several things that I witnessed that could have gone to media but that is not the place to solve the problem. I was in command and I solved the problems. The problems were solved within the system through courts martial or other means.

      I would never……under any circumstance….even think of going to another country to air my grievances…..never. BUt…that is the way that I feel and I am entitled to that feeling so far.

      The fact that Federal Agencies violate their own laws, the fact that Obama violates his own directives, the fact that most of our politicians can fall under the corruption microscope, does not make it any better for me. I am still of the belief so far, that there were other ways to bring these allegations to bearing.

      My old pappy once told me…”son, look at it this way. Would you hire this person to run your most personal business, to have access to your bank account, and to speak for you”. Perhaps I am old school..set in my ways and beliefs. Honesty and integrity are more important than headlines.

      So, let me ask each of you….am I naive?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Snow den certainly didn’t handle it the right way, if there even is a right way. I don’t know what oath he took, but if it involved defending the Constitution then it could be argued he did just that, making Americans aware of unconstitutional searches.

        I don’t know how it should have been handled, like you I’m torn about it. What should be the discussion isn’t about Snowden, but why the Feds are spying on their own people, history has shown this will have a bad ending . Is Democide in our future?

      • I too am conflicted, but I do not like Snowden-the minute he left this Country and took classified information out of the Country, especially to China and Russia of all places-he lost me. The thing about these oaths-I kinda figure they are too the people and this Country, not the government or any other institution-so whistleblowers are necessary to protect our freedoms-but the line between traitor and whistleblower is thin.

        • MeThree, or something. Conflicted, I mean. I think he did the right thing from what I have seen. I think he did it the wrong way. The problem being, there may not have been a “right” way….

          • gmanfortruth says:

            My sentiments as well, I really haven’t seen any real secrets being put out, just the spying stuff that many knew and is expected from that type of agency towards other countries. BFD I say. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        D13thecolonel

        Good morning Sir, well afternoon in your part of the country.

        I think your conflict is rooted in the OATH to the WRONG thing.

        Honor is indeed the Golden Fleece for a man is nothing without it.

        However, to judge one’s honor by an oath to a person or relationship that ties the same man to evil or others who are not honorable is using bad judgment in my view.

        In this case the dilemma can be resolved by answering one key question. Do you REALLY believe that the normal “whistle blower” process would have worked to protect Snowden from the NSA and/or CIA retribution??

        Keeping in mind that our past three Administrations have responded to the simplest of FOIA and Congressional inquires with reams of redacted documents on the most mundane issues. All claiming “national security” as their justification.

        Would Snowden have gotten a sympathetic ear from Congress? The same Congress that recently RE-auithorized the Patriot Act??

        In my opinion I think Snowden had to do this the way he did.

        This does not, however, address the issue of his true motivations. The guy reeks of a “sleeper” Anarchist who has acted on his own view of “heroism” for the cause.

        Ack……..to many words. Let me simplify and clarify……………..

        Snowden is a Traitor to the USA who acted in a Heroic fashion. One can be both.

        What I do not know is if his actions were actually Patriotic in terms of our Freedom and Liberty, as in the Constitution, or simply the actions of another Egotistical Anarchist.

  22. canineweapon says:

    OK, which one of you lives on Mission Road?

  23. Sedgewick says:

    @V,

    Like you, I believe the traditional family setting is of optimal benefit to children. But that idea can not go beyond a personal or family level. We have no right to decide what is best for strangers, but we can offer assistance.

    If a lesbian couple want to raise a child, it is none of our business. It is the business of those who produced the children, the adoption agencies/orphanages, and the people accepting the responsibility for raising the children.

    We have no right to tell them how to live or deny them based on our family values.

    The law has no business in it either. And the legal paper world cannot keep up with the real world anyway. It has shown to be a miserable failure in many cases like children being lost or given to abusive foster parents, taken from good homes by CPS state run baby markets, etc..

    If a lesbian couple decide they want a baby, and they find a man willing to ‘donate’ sperm, who are we to say they cannot reproduce and raise a child as they see fit? What right do we have to decide what they do with their body, children, and life?

    …man and woman get divorced after producing children. She’s a bisexual who ends up in a relationship with a woman a year later. Does she lose custody or visitation of her children because of her sex life?

    All we can do is do what we think is right for us and our families. If you care and really want to be involved, why not volunteer at, or start an orphanage which only adopts to heterosexual monogamous couples and has a ‘proper’ qualifying standard?

    • “Like you, I believe the traditional family setting is of optimal benefit to children.” Good, we agree on this one basic point. It was what I was trying to determine with Buck-do we agree on this one fundamental because if we don’t than further discussion is a waste of time. It gives us a starting point of agreement which is necessary for a discussion instead of us just stating our personal opinions.

      First lets look at adoption-there are people adopting total strangers. Then there’s special circumstances, what you highlighted above would fall under special circumstances per my definition. I do not believe that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children from the first category. The second is debatable per circumstances IMO.

      I agree that we are talking about some issues that really can’t be legislated against, such as sperm donation-but what we can do is bring the actual consequences of such actions to the attention of the public and try to stop them from becoming acceptable social norms. Others, like surrogacy-I strongly believe can and should be outlawed-the whole concept is simply evil.

      • I am still very confused as to why you label surrogacy “evil”…

        My reluctance to answer your first question is because I don’t believe it matters; perhaps all things being equal (which is an impossibility), then yes, a mother and father is best. But things are never equal and I can think of a million and one scenarios where adoption by a homosexual couple would be best for the child in question. To legislate against this, or require ‘special circumstances’ for gay adoption but not straight adoption, makes no sense to me at all.

        But let’s go back to this surrogacy as evil talk…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Buck

          I believe she posted that many weeks back in a couple of articles.

          Surrogacy at its heart is the CREATION of humans FOR SALE. The decision and actions supporting it are NOT based on the needs of the human child but on the DESIRES and WISHES of the adult humans themselves.

          I WANT therefore I MUST HAVE. I must have therefore I CAN ACT in any manner I wish to secure my want.

          • I can say pretty much the exact same for my and my wife’s decision to have a child — we want so we must have so we create. This too has absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the future child, and everything to do with the desires and wishes of the adults.

            Surrogacy is not the creation of humans for sale; it is merely a different method of creating a child for an adult who wishes to have one.

            I’ll ask again — how is surrogacy evil? I am assuming you believe surrogacy to be immoral — how so?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              I was simply providing my recollection of the article V.H. posted many weeks back. Summarizing the key moral issues if you will.

              Surrogacy is in fact SELLING a child. The surrogate is PAID to create this child and then hand it over, for money. I thought the sale of humans was inherently evil. Does it not reduce the child to the status of PROPERTY??

              I think that surrogacy like many other issues serves a good example of just how confused and conflicted peoples “core principles” are.

              Classifying it as evil has serous holes, just as you claiming it is nothing but another means of acquiring a child to satisfy your want. So is stealing a child from another person. Is that also easily rationalized as appropriate? If not then why not?

              Is the surrogate really just providing a service just like mopping your floor or counseling you on tax havens??

              As for my personal beliefs, I have no issue with surrogacy involving a mother and father unable to have children. In these cases the mother is unable to conceive or carry a child to term. A third party surrogate mother is used to fulfill the Natural Laws of the Universe.

              Note that the laws of Nature do not eliminate the chance of homosexuals from existing. Those laws do however prevent them from having children together. They CANNOT be Mother AND Father. Both of which are REQUIRED to produce children.

              .

              • “As for my personal beliefs, I have no issue with surrogacy involving a mother and father unable to have children.” Why? If a couple was infertile, it would go against the laws of nature to let them have a child through surrogacy as well.

                And I’m not going to even answer your question as to how surrogacy is any different from stealing another’s child….

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              Re: “Why? If a couple was infertile, it would go against the laws of nature to let them have a child through surrogacy as well.”

              The Law of Nature is not the question of “fertility”. That is just an occurrence of a situation, just as homosexuals are an occurrence. Their existence does not violate the LAW.

              The LAW is that it takes a Man AND a Woman to create a child. A MOTHER AND FATHER.

              Two men cannot create a child nor can two women, whether both are fertile or normal in their biology.

              • And with surrogacy and a homosexual couple, two men are NOT creating a child; rather, they are RAISING the child.

                Law of nature satisfied.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck

              OK, you have convinced me I am wrong.

              ALL Surrogacy is nothing but SELLING Children. It matters not the circumstance.

              At the heart of the arrangement is a Surrogate SELLING the child to someone else.

              • So now you are against surrogacy in all instances?

                If so, at least you are consistent!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Re, the question of “optimal”.

        A child REQUIRES a mother AND a father. Without them the child simply does not exist.

      • Sedgewick says:

        @ VH

        My intent of phrasing it in the context of “we” is to demonstrate that I do not personally disagree with your ideas of what is optimal, but do argue that our personal views only extend to influence/control ourselves and/or family. …that we cannot force our subjective standards onto others, through law or otherwise.

        I am not sure how relevant the circumstances are either. So long as the child is being provided with a good loving home that provides an at least nominal standard of what they need, what is the issue? Does that give us the right to interfere? I don’t think so.

        How are surrogates evil exactly? What is the difference in how they get pregnant?

        Is a bisexual/lesbian couple going to a sperm bank any different than them bringing a man into their bed? Does it matter if it is intentionally planned or an ‘accident’?

        And it can’t be legislated anyway, because life doesn’t fit into boxes and circumstances written on paper. Why bother?

    • One problem I have is our government encourages single mother homes for children. Maybe it’s good intentions, but the result is harmful to our society. It builds a culture of dependence.

  24. @Buck,

    On the May 29 edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box, Richard Engel, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, conceded that he could not name a single nation where relations have improved with the United States since President Obama took office six years ago. Engel generally stays above the political fray, so this admission about the president’s foreign policy is revealing.

    Responding to further questioning by Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, Engel asserted that the reason why relations with foreign nations haven’t improved is due to the fact that “our allies have become confused.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/connor-williams/2014/05/29/nbcs-richard-engel-us-relations-have-not-improved-single-nation-dur#ixzz33CsklXWA

  25. Wow, I love it-most of you may already know this but it’s a new trick I wasn’t aware of. I get really tired of gong back and forth form the recent comment list to the actual post. And I just discovered that I could hit the backspace button and go back and forth in a snap. Super cool. 🙂

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie

    Re’ your dig at me a week or so back on the subject of “slavery to wages”.

    As usual your assumption about how I would reply was WRONG.

    And the root of the dilemma expressed is the destruction of the capacity to THINK. The man remains fixed in place, not due to his dependence on his situation and not due to “habit”. Because “habits” are also rooted in a more deeper cause.

    The man’s mind has been muddled by the coercive affect of those who wish to impose themselves upon others. Those who use Govt for such purposes. To the extent that Govt creates this situation then it is to blame.

    The reality is that many humans suffer from this affliction. They will stand in place living an absolute miserable existence rather than pack up and move to North Dakota where they can earn TEN YEARS of wages in three or four. So they are not a slave to the wages or to their job where they live today. They are a slave to their own muddled mind and lack of self worth.

    They are the ultimate result of a Selfless society.

  27. Interesting analogy of the Immigration debate, and all of you will find your own viewpoint repeated:

    Imagine a Eugenic America where citizens who earn less than median income are forbidden to have children. Enforcement isn’t perfect, so 5% of all kids born are “illegals.” Over time, this leads to a substantial stock of people who weren’t supposed to be born in the first place.

    Pundits have the predictable range of positions on eugenic policy.

    Liberals demand amnesty for the current stock of illegals, and pledge stricter enforcement of eugenics in the future.

    Conservatives oppose amnesty – partly because they don’t want to reward law-breaking, and partly because they don’t trust liberals to help them strictly enforce eugenics laws.

    “Think-outside-the-box” thinkers occasionally chime in, “Fertility policy should be skill-based! Letting talented low-income people breed is good for America.”

    As this morally blind debate rages on, a libertarian arrives on the scene. He vocally proposes “Open Breeding.” Abolish eugenics laws, and let any woman who wants a baby have a baby. Mainstream reactions are diverse, but uniformly negative.

    Liberals demur, “These new births will drive down wages, especially for the poorest Americans. Open Breeding is a windfall for the rich, but regular Americans will suffer terribly.” And “That sounds compassionate. But until we’ve taken care of everyone who’s already here, we can’t afford to allow any more needy births.”

    Conservatives huff, “These poor babies will be a massive fiscal burden. Think about all the money we’ll have to spend on schools, health care, and welfare.” And “Civilizing the next generation of Americans is already an uphill battle. These poor kids are just too culturally distant from us to co-exist in the same society.”

    Even many self-styled libertarians back the eugenics laws. “You can’t have Open Breeding and the welfare state. Milman Friedton said so.” And, “Public opinion research shows that the poor are less libertarian. When these extra babies grow up, they’ll vote away our freedom.”

    Regardless of your political standpoint, you probably think the libertarian advocate of Open Breeding has Right on his side. Suppose then you were transported to Eugenic America. How would you rebut your side’s stereotypical objections to free reproduction? How convincing would you be? If your honest answer is, “Not very,” what does that tell you about your compatriots?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      You think that eugenics of a population within a Nation is equivalent to controlling inflow of FOREIGNERS into a Country???

      Pretty STUPID analogy if you ask me!

      But then in the mind of an Anarchist I suppose all Laws are equal in standing. Those punishing you for running a red light are no different than those punishing theft or fraud.

      You analogy only works if the underlying issue is the existence of LAW itself. But that is NOT the underlying issue. The issue is the right of Nations to establish rules governing immigration, migration and standards of citizenship, thus privileges granted.

      • Nonsense.

        It is merely an analogy of a case of PRINCIPLES. It doesn’t really matter the subject — this choice merely points to the irrationality of the arguments you and others present.

        The point of the topic; you do not operate upon a principle, but upon a point of whim. You do not see the example as similar (yet, it is) because the example highlights your lack of root principle so vividly it is so vastly in contrast to the weak position you hold otherwise.

      • … as I said, you would find yourself in the example. You are merely the “Conservative” pointing to “law” that “must be obeyed” regardless of its violation of Right.

        And, like the analogy portrayed, you will not address the principle – HUMAN RIGHTS, but hide behind some legal fiction as your justification to overwhelm a human right.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Nice try but bull shit all the same.

          Humans have always held the “right” to organize themselves and to establish rules of conduct for those organizations. Whether they be clubs, tribes or nations.

          The analogy is ridiculous as it does not deal with Natural Rights. You claim Human rights but such rights are subject to Human creation and interpretation. Which of course means those boundaries are not “legal fiction” at all. No more than those property boundaries located around you house.

          Sorry my friend but your stereotypical responses to me won’t hold water.

          • Nonsense.

            A claim that an arbitrary group somehow equals an individual is FICTION.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              You can claim it is fiction but it is the REALITY of Human existence for a few thousand years.

              Apparently you missed the part where civilizatons around the world decided they had the right to form Nation States and declare the boundaries of the same.

              You ignore all the progress of humans to settle these boundary disputes by establishing rules of law and procedure among these “Nations”. Instead of the old method of might makes right.

              So these llines on a map, and the people who draw them are not fiction. The principles they use to support these are not fiction. They may not be reasoned or rational but they are very, very, REAL.

              Declare them fiction and cross them at your own peril. If they are fiction you will have nothing to fear.

              I never claimed a group equals an individual. I simply stated that humans have organized themselves into Nations and in doing so they have established rules of immigration and citizenship for those Nations. So until the day comes when all nations cease to exist and your ONE WORLD Governance is established I guess you and others will have to abide by those rules. Or suffer the consequences.

              • It is not a “reality” – abstractions are not “reality”, they are CONCEPTS stuck inside your head.

                It matters not what concept you portray – it is in your head. It is in your head that a line on a map has meaning – and moving a line somehow changes reality of the land – claiming this piece of dirt is somehow different then that piece of dirt depending on your abstraction.

                But the dirt didn’t change when you moved the line, JAC. The dirt is real – what bizarre idea in your head is all that changed.

                When someone, based on an abstraction, overruns a Human Right, regardless of whatever nonsense you pretend exists to create that abstraction, it is YOUR ACTION – the use of violence to destroy a human Right – that is always the measure of Right and Wrong.

                And you are deeply in the wrong.

              • You are like all Statists – stuck in a one-dimensional world.

                To you, someone who disparages all government must mean that someone supports World Government.

                Gawd, you are twisting yourself into quite a knot.

  28. .

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    More left wing HYPOCRISY.

    I thought that a business DID NOT have the right to refuse service to anyone based on some arbitrary criteria, like it “upsets our other customers”.

    Lets try Mathias’ method of argument. Substitute gun carrier with Black or Hispanic or Homosexual.

    Where is the Left Winger outrage against such an affront to our civil rights???

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/30/chilis-sonic-gun_n_5419942.html

    • Actually JAC a business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any arbitrary reason…You can refuse brown eyed people if you want…but you cannot refuse on the basis of race.

      Texas is really behind the 8 ball here on open carry and I do not understand it. Chilis, Sonic….all of them here have no problem with concealed weapons….but AR 15’s is a stretch. No one cares about shotguns….people carry them all the time…but AR 15’s raises eyebrows.

      So, in Texas, we have open carry on all shotguns and rifles, regardless of caliber…but not handguns….but conceal carry on hand guns is fine. LOL….go figure….we are trying to pass open carry for all weapons in Texas but we also recognize the right of a business owner to not want weapons in their facilities.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        I agree a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone………….for any reason………and without having to state the reason why for that matter.

        I was simply pointing out the hypocricy of the left in claiming Societal primacy over this right based on the “civil rights” afforded each of us yet are willing to support such “discrimination” when it comes to a documented Constitutional Right.

        I am wondering, however, what the hell is going on with these restaurants. Especially those in Texas. Why poke at the gun toting citizens who pay the bills??

        Meanwhile, somebody should take them boys who felt compelled to flaunt their AR 15’s in everyone’s face out to the wood shed and explain the facts of life to them.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    I had no contact with news or SUFA these past three weeks. Based on a comment above it seems you have experienced a tragedy in your family recently. My heart felt condolences and best wishes to you and yours.

    Now for all the C-R-A-P thrown at you over the “Muslim” issue. This is for you especially.

    http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/pew-poll-on-muslim-support-for-terrorists/

    Now let us just ask the question………….. what would be the responses from Mathius, Buck, Sedgwick and Black Flag if a Pew Poll showed that 26% of Christians believed that suicide bombing or violence against civilians to protect Christianity was justified???

    Would they still claim it is only the action of a few who happen to be Christians and that there is nothing wrong with the teachings of the Christian faith that might be contributing to these numbers?

    Would they view a 20 to 30% support for Neo Nazis as a non existent problem???

    Inquiring minds want to know…………….. 😉

    • Thanks JAC. Definitely a sad week around here last week. The huge turnout was a great comfort and the sky lantern memorial was so cool. Those lanterns sorta lifted some grief off our shoulders too. We’ll make it.

      So. Yeah! They beat me up good over the Muslims. Read the first article in the link. That’s an awful lot of Muslims with a chip on their shoulder. But how dare I even be the slightest phobic over it. I missed your back up big time..even cussed you out for not being around! 🙂
      Have some friends enroute to the house now. I’m interested in the second article of the link too. I’ll check it tomorrow.

      Here’s hoping you regain your peace of mind since you’re back in God’s country. You can relax now.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        I am not back there yet. Just suffering through major house remodeling.

        Lil JAC was with me, learning how to run a power drill and pull sheetrock, haul stuff to the dump, etc.

        Looks like move back to Coeur d’Alene won’t happen until end of June at the current rate.

        Going to be a strange and hectic summer.

      • No surprise a persecuted group has a chip on their shoulders. What do you expect when a class of people are condemned for nothing they, individually, have done?

        That is EXACTLY the problem.

        You condemn a class by an act of a very few, thus creating a situation of response which eventually meets your expectation.

        It is amazing how many people are so stupid in turning their perceptions into an act upon the innocent that they then end up creating the very monster they fear.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          This tired tactic won’t work on me and you should know that:

          “You condemn a class by an act of a very few,”

          I have done no such thing.

          And who is this terribly “persecuted” group you speak about? Where is this supposed “persecution” occurring?

          • Yes you have.

            You condemn all Muslims because of a few, yet forgive your own “religious sect” called “American” for doing worse.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I have done no such thing. You accusing me of such does not make it fact.

              I suggest you read more carefully and stop trying to use your stereotypical arguments on everyone.

              • ” But those who attack any mention of the REALITY that exists among the Muslim group ALWAYS ignore the fact that they exist at all. ”

                What a lie, JAC, that you try to pull here.

                You -again- promote a claim that an abstraction is responsible for the actions of individuals.

                No one denies terror attacks – its one of of those “that is a fact” things – so you pretending that those that disparage your racist prejudices somehow “deny fact” is utterly perverse.

      • He is NOT in god’s country….he has not arrived here as yet.

    • Sedgewick says:

      JAC,

      I would urge you to dig into statistics of terrorism by demographic.You will find that of all the terrorist groups and acts in the USA in the past few decades, Muslims make up a rather small percentage.

      According FBI statistics, of the 318 terrorist acts in the USA from 1980-2005, only 6% were Muslims.

      http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I suggest you use TERRORISM as it is defined and not what the FBI claims as terrorism.

        And why do you wish to limit this review to the USA??

        How about DEATHS caused by …………. and actual attempts thwarted??

        Of course none of that really has a diddly damn to do with the underlying issue. How many is irrelevant.

        AS I said, what would the argument be if 26% of Christians believed that violence against civilians was a proper response to further their religion?

        • Ironically, far MORE then 26% of Christians do believe violence against civilians is a proper response.

          You use of religion as a “cause” is irrelevant. You pretend your cause of some sort of “political solution” is above the meager cause of religion. Yet, your government destroys MILLIONS of innocent lives under an equal guise – while not called a religion – is as irrational.

          But you are so blinder to religion, you think that a response to the violent and evil imposition upon these people must be religious.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            “proper response to further their religion” was the comment. Not just “response”.

            The cause is not irrelevant to the issue on the table. That being the rationality of having concerns about people practicing a certain religion when such a large number within that cohort seem to accept the “radical” view on use of violence in the name of said religion.

            This constant double speak that the wars waged by the US amounts to Christians attacking others in the name of their religion is pure bull shit and you know it.

            Just as the constant use of the Crusades as some example of Christian violence against Muslims. Why is it that those who use that argument forget to mention that the Crusades were launched in response to an INVASION by Muslims into non-Muslim lands.

            Why is it that you of all people seem to suffer selective memory loss when making these arguments. Issues of principle stand by themselves and apply to all sides concerned.

            Using the Crusades or other silly examples is a clear FALLACIOUS argument. You know that yet you continue to play that card.

            • “The cause is not irrelevant to the issue on the table. That being the rationality of having concerns about people practicing a certain religion when such a large number within that cohort seem to accept the “radical” view on use of violence in the name of said religion.”

              That’s the root problem.

              First, you believe some arbitrary comment such as “such a large number” – an assertion out of your butt – has some measure.

              Second, you believe that the constituency YOU belong to is “not religious”. You are haphazard in your labels, believing if you label one group “religious” it gives credibility to your position, and do not label your own group “religious” therefore devoid of the defects you claim upon others.

              But the “American” syndrome IS a religion. It doesn’t matter that they don’t claim they are killing millions in the name of God, they are killing millions in the name of a secular “God” nonetheless. You think as long as “God” is not mentioned in the rational, it is a different thing.

              It is not.

              ” Why is it that those who use that argument forget to mention that the Crusades were launched in response to an INVASION by Muslims into non-Muslim lands.”

              That is historical bullshit and you know it.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                So now you try to change the meaning of the word “religion” in order to defend your defenseless accusations.

                Again you try to put me in a box of YOUR construction. One that has no grounding in the truth of where I am or what I believe. And more importantly has no relationship to what I have said.

        • Sedgewick says:

          ” I suggest you use TERRORISM as it is defined and not what the FBI claims as terrorism.”

          I figured the FBI was a fairly good source. I mean, ..it is their gig to know this kinda stuff.

          ” And why do you wish to limit this review to the USA?? ”

          …because a lot of the recent conversation has been about concerns regarding Muslim communities developing in the US and potential threats.

          Your above post to Anita was, as I understood, to validate her previously voiced concerns by showing how many Muslims have a bad attitude and are admittedly prone to violence.

          My response was to say, …” not really, …because, according to statistics, Muslim terrorists are only a small portion of the overall terrorism issue ”

          And for whatever it is worth, my intent on previous threads was not to give Anita crap about her concerns. My response to her was basically that she is typical human and another victim of all the bullshit we are bombarded with.

          ” How about DEATHS caused by …………. and actual attempts thwarted??

          Of course none of that really has a diddly damn to do with the underlying issue. How many is irrelevant. ”

          Sure, okay. We can pull up all kinds of statistics, which can get really interesting.

          ” AS I said, what would the argument be if 26% of Christians believed that violence against civilians was a proper response to further their religion? ”

          Apparently, it is an openly declared position of many Christians and leaders, currently, as in very very recent. Would you like to see examples?

          I didn’t say anything about Christian terrorists anyway. I merely pointed out statistics suggesting Muslim radicals are only a small part of the terrorism issue. I can dig up stats and examples of Christian radicalism and terrorism if you like.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Sedgewick

            My posting of DATA simply shows that the number of Muslims who harbor beliefs in violence for the sake of their “religion” is more than a miniscule number of bad apples who “happen” to be Muslim. In that sense it does in fact validate “concerns” or “doubts” held by people, including Anita. Those doubts or concerns have no relationship to potential threats from others nor the proportionality of threats.

            This would be especially true for Anita as she lives near a very large population of Muslims.

            I on the other hand do not. I live near a very large cohort of radical environmentalists. Which just so happen to be that large group of “radical left wing” identified in the FBI stats. So I happen to view these groups and various individuals within them with suspicion and concern. This “bigotry” in my beliefs have served me well and saved property, and perhaps people, from the green vengeance on a couple of occasions.

            The entire purpose of your post was to dispel the notion that there is any rational reason to be suspicious of Muslims. It is a continuation of the same efforts made in my absence when some here were being accused of bigotry.

            The intent is to denigrate and end the debate just as BF is attempting to do above by accusing me of the very thing he is doing. Stereotyping a group. The one he calls Americans.

            And yes, I would love to see examples of actual Christian leaders of known churches fomenting violence against CIVILIANS in order to further their religion or to retaliate against its detractors. Let me guess. Your examples will be these groups like Westboro or the nut in Florida or some Neo Nazi mouthpiece.

            You don’t seem willing to acknowledge that some of the preaching about violence among the Muslim community is done by those held in esteem and leadership. Some even hold high Govt office in nations claiming to be our ally. Yet they fund and support the radicals who wish us harm. And they claim Islam as their guide and justification.

            Nobody here has ever claimed this is the case for all Muslims. But those who attack any mention of the REALITY that exists among the Muslim group ALWAYS ignore the fact that they exist at all. It seems the given rebuttal is to ALWAYS try to draw equivalency between nut jobs like the leader of Westboro with the International leaders of Islam who have preached jihad against the west.

            This typical response has caused me to wonder why it is so important for some to simply ignore the reality while trying to tear down the US. How is pointing to the US blemishes going to eliminate the blemishes that exist elsewhere? Answer, it will not. It is a fallacious argument.

            For example, you claim that the numbers do not justify Anita’s concern because they are a small percentage of actual terrorist events. But you see, the question was not what proportional risk they represent. But is there more than an incidental number who believe in violence. A number large enough to warrant at least some concern and thus caution. Well it certainly does appear that is the case. And the number of eco terrorists attacks in this country does not reduce the number or the corresponding threat. A threat I will add that is really not quantifiable. Largely because the targeting and damage have not been proportional to the relative occurrence of Muslim vs. Other attacks.

            The arguments I read from this debate the past week or two are much like the left today rebutting every accusation against Obama with “:Bush did it worse”. What Bush did has no bearing on the reality of Obama’s actions. He is to be judged for who he is and what he does.

            And so it should be for Muslims, Christians or any other group we are discussing.

            Of all the arguments and questions and accusation I read this morning, I tip my hat to Buck the Wala. It was he that asked the most relevant question. That was whether Anita’s “concerns” or “feelings” were RATIONAL given the actual vs. perceived risk. This allows for the legitimacy of concern based on factual and historical evidence, while challenging the “level” of that concern and/or the appropriate action to address that concern.

            As for the FBI data, you make an erroneous assumption about their claims of “Knowing” what terrorism is and is not. Terrorism threats garner a greater chance of funding. All Govt categories in any reporting system are subject to various “influences” such as Administration policies, funding, agency goals, etc. Please note that “robbery” is one of the specific crimes listed among the total Terrorist acts. Since when is robbery considered an act of terrorism?

            Note that eco terrorists are not actually “terrorists” by definition or International norms. They target specific people or facilities in order to stop what they view as bad actions. They do not target the general population in hopes of scaring the citizenry into accepting their view point or forcing them to make the Govt act the way they want. That has long been a key part of the definition. Their actions were labeled as “terrorism” due to political pressure exerted via Congress. The purpose was to have them arrested and held on charges of terrorism because spiking trees and burning equipment fell under malicious damage and other such crimes. The radicals were getting out of jail faster than the FBI could catch them. So their actions were re-classified and poof. Fewer college drop outs looking to damage property and risk hurting loggers or mill workers. Ironically, the Democrats at the time tried fighting this effort and wanted this crime used ONLY in the case of personal injury caused by the action. The same Democrats who want to classify Tea Party as a potential terrorist threat, as a matter of policy. Sorry about that little trip down memory lane. But I think it helps explain why I question the validity of any Govt data. One has to have a long record and understand the criteria to make good judgments about what the data really means. Maybe Displaced Okie can help me out on this one.

            Ironically, those claiming that the 9/11 attacks were not terrorism but retaliation in a 4 th generation warfare use the “terrorist” label on anyone else committing crimes they think they can use to support an argument. A conspiracy by many Muslim Arabs to fly planes into the world trade center, in Allah’s name, was NOT Muslim terrorism but one guy killing an abortion doctor is Christian Terrorism.

            So as one wise person here once said, you cannot have a reasoned debate or argument if you don’t even agree on the definitions. My purpose in posting the comment on the FBI data was only to alert you to using it as the gospel. As I said and as I argued here again, the FBI data was irrelevant to the argument on the table.

            That being, is there justification for some concern by Anita and others. I say YES, there is. The level of debate and the appropriate responses by us, as individuals and by our Govt are a matter for debate. But this whole notion that those of us who recognize a rational reason for some concern are bigots is simply an unfounded accusation in itself.

  31. Just A Citizen says:
    • Sedgewick says:

      He has every right to refuse service to whomever he decides.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Of what good is a Right if you do not have the Freedom to exercise it??

        To be free you must live free. That requires that Govt NOT FORCE or IMPOSE the values of others upon you.

        Govt reduces the ability to Live Free and thus Being Free is reduced as well.

        Not aimed at you by the way. Just felt a reminder might be in order.

        • Sedgewick says:

          The baker has every right to refuse service. That he should be forced to bake a gay cake is an absurd violation of his right to free association and religious practices.

          Refusal to bake a cake is inaction, thus not violating anyone. There is no good reason for such forced labor/service.

          It is a complete social malfunction and example of what happens when government gets involved into people’s personal lives.

          Hey government, shut up, get out of people’s lives and go build a freeway or water system or something useful.

  32. Oh Happy Day! JAC is back!! You go JAC 😉

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    Sed, Re: FBI stats….remember Ft Hood? Workplace violence?

    Black Flag…. I do not recall any actions directed by the US govt being religious based. Stupid, yes. Democide, or those murdered by governments is not even in the same Zip Code as the actions of a few radical’s. I can deal with the few radical’s, it’s the 8000 lb Gorilla called government that should be of greater cause of concern. But, that is a different debate than the one from a short time back. I don’t have any radical type groups (that I know of) in my local area, unless you consider die hard deer hunters radical. 🙂

    Anita, I’ll be back to work in garden today. Much to do still. Nice weather again, may have a campfire tonight! 🙂

    • Blew off the garden yesterday in favor of granddaughter time. Got home mid afternoon and it was too hot for this grandma. Walked in from my firepit at 230 this morning! Getting ready to start planting now.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good for you! I wish you much success in your gardening endeavors 🙂

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    How long before we see “proposals” to change the law or “policies” that have police conducting searches just because someone has concerns but a suspect shows no signs of violent behavior?

    http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/california-police-unaware-student-had-firearms-before-killings-report

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I posted a story a week or so ago about a women jokingly said she ” might as well go home and blow her brains out” and the cops showed up, took her guns all without a warrant. She was Joking !

      I think we all have to take any issue that would deny any of our rights seriously, Joe the Plumber said it best ” your dead kid don’t trump my rights”. Cold, but so true

      • The key here is “without a warrant”. Now, she needs a really good attorney and a several million dollar settlement. I have no problem with taking away guns from crazy people (I’ve known a few) but it must be done legally. The new ever vigilant, ever hyper jack booted thug policing since 9/11/01 must be fought, tooth and nail.

  35. Sedgewick says:

    JAC,

    ” The entire purpose of your post was to dispel the notion that there is any rational reason to be suspicious of Muslims. It is a continuation of the same efforts made in my absence when some here were being accused of bigotry. ”

    There is no rational reason to be suspicious of Muslims. Terrorists, yes, absolutely. Muslims, no. In the USA, you are just as (or more) likely to be a victim of a terrorist act by another labeled group as you are a Muslim terrorist. If you are not equally suspicious of other groups, then you are irrational in focusing on Muslims.

    ” I on the other hand do not. I live near a very large cohort of radical environmentalists. Which just so happen to be that large group of “radical left wing” identified in the FBI stats. So I happen to view these groups and various individuals within them with suspicion and concern. This “bigotry” in my beliefs have served me well and saved property, and perhaps people, from the green vengeance on a couple of occasions.”

    Is that real terrorism or what the FBI calls it? Should you take it as gospel?

    ” And yes, I would love to see examples of actual Christian leaders of known churches fomenting violence against CIVILIANS in order to further their religion or to retaliate against its detractors. Let me guess. Your examples will be these groups like Westboro or the nut in Florida or some Neo Nazi mouthpiece.”

    Yes. That is basically what I had in mind, but your statements demonstrate it is unnecessary. You know the ones I’m talking about. Other ‘types’ of radicals do exist.

    ” You don’t seem willing to acknowledge that some of the preaching about violence among the Muslim community is done by those held in esteem and leadership. Some even hold high Govt office in nations claiming to be our ally. Yet they fund and support the radicals who wish us harm. And they claim Islam as their guide and justification. ”

    I do. But they are not the only ones doing it.

    ” Nobody here has ever claimed this is the case for all Muslims. But those who attack any mention of the REALITY that exists among the Muslim group ALWAYS ignore the fact that they exist at all. It seems the given rebuttal is to ALWAYS try to draw equivalency between nut jobs like the leader of Westboro with the International leaders of Islam who have preached jihad against the west. ”

    Again, they are not the only leaders who have done it. The ‘entire’ US, religious and political leaders and the people, talked tens tons of shit and waged a war on the middle east ‘Muslims’ after manipulating economics and politics for decades. Go research all the propaganda and campaigning in the last 20+ years.

    ” That being, is there justification for some concern by Anita and others. I say YES, there is. The level of debate and the appropriate responses by us, as individuals and by our Govt are a matter for debate. But this whole notion that those of us who recognize a rational reason for some concern are bigots is simply an unfounded accusation in itself. ”

    I apparently failed to properly convey something. The point is not to say that people should not be vigilant in looking out for potential threats in their community. The point was that it is not rational to label an entire group for the actions of a few and treat them accordingly.

    6% of terrorist acts in the USA are by Muslim radicals. Terrorist actions from other radicals occur at a generally greater frequency, but watch/reject the normal/regular Muslim folks?

    If you catch someone planning a terrorist action, does it matter what their social role/label is? A Christian radical building a bomb intended for an abortion clinic is no different than a Muslim building a bomb intended for a church. It is no different than a gang or organized crime syndicate burning someone’s pub, or an eco-nut destroying logging equipment.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sedgwick

      Your last statement capture the fault in the arguments. Apparently I did not do a good job of pointing it out before.

      The “label” or “group” DOES matter if the thing that bonds or establishes the group is a significant contributor to the behavior of its members.

      Take Neo-nazi skin heads. It is their “religion” that is the root of the evil they follow. Not all Neo-Nazis carry out acts of violence against innocent people. But the acceptance and support by most of the group helps feed that violence. These “beliefs” are held my more than just a “few bad apples”.

      So when addressing “Muslim Terrorists” we should be able to evaluate that group on the same basis. In other words, is there something in Islam itself that is a contributing factor.

      It is pretty obvious that there is and that it includes more than just a “few bad apples”. However, I have previously pointed out the difference in beliefs and opinions among those in the middle and far east and those raised as Muslim in the West. Those from that part of the world where Islam has existed the longest, where it was created and its center of “ideological guidance” are far more prone to acts of violence in the name of their religion than those raised here in the USA.

      Yet we still see from the polling data I provided that there is over 20% here in the USA that follow the “belief” that violence in the name of their religion is justified. This belief comes from their religious teachings, the teachings of Islam itself.

      So how do we respond to this reality? “Oh look at the Christians who do the same thing”.

      That my friend is an IRRATIONAL. argument.

      So tell me, WHY is this the standard retort when anyone brings up the connections between Islam and the terrorists that have acted and those that have been uncovered among western societies?

      As for the rationality of using “group” identity in the process of assessing risk consider this.

      When in Grizzly country I do not waste my time watching the elk or deer. They are not among the group that poses the greatest threat to me at the moment. Even if the “chances” of that attack are small, its affect is significant. So I keep my eye to the bears fishing down river from me, not the elk standing on my bank.

      If there is a significant number of members of a group who believe in violence, and others planning violence have been found within that group then it is entirely rational to keep a more vigilant eye on those of that group. Sorry if that hurts their feelings but it is the reality of human existence.

      Where the boundaries of rationality are crossed, in my view, is when people start ranting and spreading hate of the group itself. Pamela Gelllar (sp??) et. al., for example. We should be able to have an open discussion of how Islam influences these acts of violence without being called Islamophobes or racist/bigots, etc. There are many examples of Islamic leaders standing against the violence. Yet the number supporting violence in the NAME OF ISLAM, or using ISLAM to justify their violence, continues to exist. And in the region where the religion was invented the numbers are pretty significant.

      WHY???

      WHY is it so easy for the “Islamic Leaders” disposed to violence to use the religion to motivate others to violence?? Is it something in Islam? Is it purely tribal or some other cultural factors? Is it really just about poverty as some would claim?

      WHY would so many in the Arab world view the presence of our troops in Afghanistan as an attack on Islam instead of an attack on the Taliban Govt???

      • JAC,

        No, sir, your argument is irrational.

        You are the one moving that actions of individuals to become a declaration of an act of a group – the latter being real, the latter merely an abstraction – not real

        It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to why a person may be angry at an invader into their homeland – the problem is NOT THEM, but the invader.

        Get out of the land that is not yours, and the former has no complaint.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          BF

          I am doing no such thing. Are you that stuck in your prejudices that you cannot see the difference between recognizing that SOMETHING within the group may be affecting its members behavior and claiming the entire group behaves the same??

          WHY a person is angry and violent has EVERYTHING to do with dealing with them. And in case you missed it, not all of them live THERE. Some of them live HERE.

          INVADER?? Again your prejudice and bigotry come to light. See how fallacious that argument looks now?

          • Are you that stuck in your prejudices that you cannot see the difference between recognizing that SOMETHING within the group may be affecting its members behavior and claiming the entire group behaves the same??

            You are clownish.

            You promote prejudice by claiming acts of individuals represents a much broader claim that a group is committing these acts.

            You are the one who prejudice – that is YOU PRE-JUDGE INDIVIDUALS merely by claiming they belong to some abstraction (a group).

            WHY a person is angry and violent has EVERYTHING to do with dealing with them. And in case you missed it, not all of them live THERE. Some of them live HERE.

            Yes, discover the “why”.

            But when you do, you then proclaim their “why” is invalid!

            Thus, for you, the “why” is irrelevant. It didn’t matter at all – you did not change your mindset. Thus, substitute any why, your mindset is unmoved – so why bother with the why?

            INVADER??

            So you do not think the US invaded these countries now??? By goodness, you are spinning faster

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              “You promote prejudice by claiming acts of individuals represents a much broader claim that a group is committing these acts.”

              WRONG AGAIN.

              Clownish?? Your the one acting like the Magpie, screeching the same tune over and over hoping someone will eventually think it is a pretty song.

              Since your first accusation continues to be false the rest falls under its weight.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              Did you miss the part where this crap from the Middle East started BEFORE we invaded anyone??

              Did we INVADE Saudi Arabia?? Is that why the fundamentalist Muslims in Saudi Arabia are supporting the Jihad against America??

              Whey do they give one pinch of shit about the Afghans?? Or is it because they don’t view them as Afghans at all but as Simply MUSLIMS?

              Go ahead and share your explanations. I’m sure I am not the only one curious as to what you believe the root cause is.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” So how do we respond to this reality? “Oh look at the Christians who do the same thing”. That my friend is an IRRATIONAL. argument. ”

        That is not my argument. I will clarify and reiterate;

        Analyzing statistics and gathering data to determine threat assessment by group, keeping it real and factual, you can properly determine which threats are primary. You do not address the secondary and tertiary threats above the primary (as demonstrated with your deer and bear analogy above).

        By order of this rationale, Muslim terrorism is typically not a primary threat in the USA, but more secondary or tertiary. Anita lives around Detroit. As I understand, crimes there are primarily forms of theft, and some assaults and/or murders. Radical Islamic terrorism doesn’t seem to be a big issue.

        By order of reason, there are many other such violations Anita should be more concerned with than the possibility of her Muslim neighbors bombing something because they hate US ‘freedom’.

        ” The “label” or “group” DOES matter if the thing that bonds or establishes the group is a significant contributor to the behavior of its members. ”

        It contributes to the level of danger posed by a specific idealism of said group. But from a potential victim’s perspective, the threat assessment should be relative to or include odds and frequency of occurrence per geography.

        Anita is more likely to be a victim of car theft or burglary than to be a victim of radical Islamic terrorism. If she lived in Pakistan, it may be a bit different. If she is worried about being a victim, alarm systems, a dog and gun should suffice.

        If Anita is vigilant against terrorism, why would she not be equally or more worried about walking past an abortion clinic or factory for fear it may explode, than her Muslim neighbor bombing her church?

        If the FBI reports the greatest number of terrorist acts in the USA are eco-nuts and “others”, with Islamic terrorism as only 6%, why isn’t the war on terrorism primarily focused on eco-terrorists in the USA?

        What reason is there to deny or harass a Muslim community for their rightful place in the USA, …land of the ‘free’?

        Why don’t governments, communities and churches go after eco-terrorists and “others” like they do those who pose a relatively small potential threat?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Sedgewick

          I am beginning to wonder if you live in the USA.

          Have you missed the Law Enforcement efforts over the past decades against all these “OTHER” threats?

          Hell, I even explained to you how Earth First types became classified as committing Acts of Terror rather than vandalism, as part of this effort.

          There is a focus on Eco-Terrorism in the USA. However, resources are not allocated on % of actions alone, but also on Potential Damage.

          Tell me when an Eco terrorist or a Mc.Veigh type took down two toweres with over 2000 people inside??

          Which of these “types” have been caught planting massive car bombs in Time Square and trying to take down another airliner?

          RISK involves probability of occurrence as well as Magnitude of the consequences.

          I think there is another thing going on here when people raise the concern. One you ignore in you latest comments. What makes you think that I or Anita, or anyone else, is not taking precautions based on these other threats? Just because I raise Muslim terrorism as a question does not mean I place it at a higher threat level than being murdered for my wallet when on the east side of the river.

          I assure you that I take the killing and robberies very seriously in my area and keep a wary eye out at all times. However, now that another threat has been identified I will also keep my eye on that as I deem appropriate.

          As for Anita, she has good reasons for her views. She has shared them but you simply dismiss them because of 6%………. That a cell was found within her neighbors community or that the very plane the underwear bomber tried to take down passed over HER house is irrelevant to you. Would you not agree that if 2 of the 6% of potential events occurred near you house that the risk to you was greater than the “average 6%”?

          Which is one of my points earlier. Location is relevant as well. If I have ZERO people of a group known to commit violence living nearby then the threat to me is near ZERO.

          However if only 1% of a group commits violence and that group represents 90% of those around me, my risk has significantly increased.

          That is pretty much all that Anita or I have been saying. At least on this Risk matter.

          I have gone further in asking if there are causes buried within Islam itself. If not then why the relationship of accepting violence against innocents to further or retaliate against insults? Where do these beliefs come from and how are they spread if there are not parts of the religion, or its sects, that allow these interpretations to exist?

          Are these not reasonable questions to ask?

          Why do you now link my comments to approving of harassing or denying rights to Muslims? I have never made any such claim. I view this as just another one of those knee jerk reactionary comments against anyone who dare question the Islam/Violence connections.

          It is entirely possible to discuss, explore and identify cause/effects and then address them without wholesale castigation of all Muslims. That is unless they are truly guilty and this is why they act so damn sensitive about any inquiry. I can understand their reactions, although I do not understand the reaction of so many in this country who are not Muslim. Who in fact take every chance to denigrate Christianity or other religions but jump down anyone’s throat who casts aspersions upon Islam.

          Shouldn’t the consistent response from the Secular crowd be Hell Yes Islam is evil, just like all other religions???? Why is it the Seculars seem so quick to defend Islam against criticism? Do you have any insight into this strange phenomenon?

          • Sedgewick says:

            I don’t question the realistic danger of Muslim terrorists or the threat assessment thereof, nor do I discount magnitude anymore than you discount the frequency or likelihood of ‘other’ threats.

            In Anita’s case where a cell was nearby, I can understand her being particularly concerned.

            I agree with the idea of a community being vigilant and watchful of any potential threat. I only argue that it be approached honestly and realistically, in spite of propaganda fear and hype that often says otherwise..

            When peaceful sub-cultures get wholly rejected and/or terrorized I question the same things you do in asking if there are causes buried within.

            ” Why is it the Seculars seem so quick to defend Islam against criticism? ”

            …as if it were in the context of siding with Islam.

            It isn’t. It is an example of one group dominating another in with law as well as in conflict with law, and tradition and basic principles required for a civilized existence.

            …strange phenomenon indeed.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Your conclusion would be true if they were not busy denigrating Christians.

              So I think your “reason” is misplaced among many “secularists”.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I think life itself brings inherent risks to life and limb everyday. Are radical ( pick a group) a danger? Sure, the level of risk is dependent on what’s around you. When I lived in Youngstown Ohio, my biggest risk were black gangbangers. My answer to the risk was to arm myself to offset the risk .

          Today, my biggest risk is from the Government, not Muslims or blacks . My answer is the same, arm myself to offset the risk . Fear I’d not an option? Just be prepared and vigilant against what ever risk confronts you, there are many, wherever you may lay your head down at night.

    • While the nice guy in me wants to agree with you, it is as they say, all a matter of degree. Seems like the Islamic militants, 10% of 1 Billlion (that is 100,000,000 by the way) do this stuff a lot more often that Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Atheist militants.

      By the way, I am talking world wide. We here in the US “ain’t seen nothing yet” as Jolson used to say. When Iraq falls and Afghanistan follows (less than five years) there will be boatloads of “refugees” at our door. We will look at the poor little kids, the schoolgirls fleeing for their lives and open the doors wide for them. Unlike normal immigrants who have come for the opportunity and will bend to the society to secure them, these are the folks who are 90% radicalized just wanting to get out ahead of the Taliban who are the full 100% types. They will bring with them a slightly modified form of the garbage they left behind. This is NOT rocket science, it is based on judicious study of what is going on out there , common sense and lastly good old connect the dots.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    Oh my dear friend, you forget your own arguments at times.

    “When someone, based on an abstraction, overruns a Human Right, regardless of whatever nonsense you pretend exists to create that abstraction, it is YOUR ACTION – the use of violence to destroy a human Right – that is always the measure of Right and Wrong.”

    What happened to your claim that Human Rights are Conceptual as in an “abstraction”.

    They are not concrete items. They are not dirt nor shrubs that can be held in your hand.

    How do you know that YOUR Concept of Human Rights is the CORRECT version??

    I have never claimed that the concept of Nation States or boundaries was anything but conceptual.

    What I have claimed is that those concepts are REAL in that Human Beings have established them and lived with them for centuries. In short………….they exist in REALITY of Human existence as it now is on this planet.

    You can espouse your view as an IDEAL or PROPER all you want. But you cannot claim the boundaries are not real or that the rules of MAN which govern them are not real.

    You claiming a foundational right of people to move when and where they want does not negate the REALITY of the consequence of those movements. Something your silly Eugenics analogy tries to do, by the way.

    One other oddity in your arguments today. You raised the question of being concerned about one’s personal well being while not being concerned about that of another. In this case the migrant who takes work for lower pay.

    Since when is it supposed to be my concern what your economic well being is?

    Looks to me like a rotten concept snuck into your overall argument about Rights.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    I am sitting here laughing at the surreal nature of trying to argue with Black Flag and Sedgewick while also packing up every book I own into small boxes.

    I am now up to 12 book size packing boxes full and two more book shelves to empty.

    Then I can tackle the FILES.

    • I’m cheering you all the way JAC. Missed you last round. Glad you looked back and came out swinging. It’s tough to argue when they will not acknowledge the problem to begin with. Hey guys..are there terrorists among us, or not?

      • Rephrase…Muslim radical terrorists…

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          YES, there are.

          Now back to you and from Buck’s line of questions. Again Buck, my hat is off to you for your approach the other day.

          Do you have any idea what the threat of these “terrorists” is? Does it change based on geography, that is where you find yourself?

          How does it stack up in your mind to other “terrorists” that live among us?

          Is our action/reaction and expenditure of resources appropriate, to low or to high relative to that threat?

          I assume you will admit that there are some in this country who are over reacting greatly and in fact fomenting a fear and hatred of Muslims as a group that is not only wrong but dangerous.

          Footnote and related: Our Founders expressed the view often that those trying to come to America from nations other than England held beliefs and cultural values that were “incompatible” with the principles and legal principles which had evolved from England to the USA. It turned out they were correct.

          Whether those changes were good or bad is not the point, but that by allowing OTHERS to migrate here those underlying cultural norms were in fact changed. The result was a change in the core values that helped lead us away from where we started and to where we are today.

          This is the conundrum that one famous FBI Director once expressed about our Freedom and Liberty. Namely that it would also be our downfall, if others coming here did not share our values.

          Perhaps a topic for deeper exploration on another day.

          • Our Founders expressed the view often that those trying to come to America from nations other than England held beliefs and cultural values that were “incompatible” with the principles and legal principles which had evolved from England to the USA. It turned out they were correct.

            What idiocy.

            By promoting racism, you degrade humanity. The Founders – as if they were of some single mind – had numerous racists and others who were Humanitarians. You forget John Adams defended a slave against the government.

            There is no incompatible culture when men are free, JAC – only in your sick little statist world where men who seek freedom are condemned.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF

              You really need to climb out of that hole your in. Perhaps to many hydrocarbon fumes are affecting your ability to comprehend English or remember our history.

              Racism?? I used “culture” not race nor ethnicity. And in case your really don’t know, the Founder’s concerns were in regards to the French and Germans. They were concerned about the people of those countries reliance on Monarchy and their tendency towards passion fueled outbursts. And of course that their view of LAW was not founded on the Historic record in England.

              And YES, a culture which adheres to a Religion that espouses Theocratic rule imposed by the Govt is COUNTER to the American principles of Freedom and Liberty.

              Men who seek the freedom to impose their view of right upon me are going to be condemned. And I will do what I can to keep them from living in this COUNTRY.

              • There is no change in your principle between culture or race or ethnicity. It is red herring to declare one of these things is somehow independent of the others.

                The principle is the same. You do not want those who you declare are different. What the difference actually, is moot.

            • “There is no incompatible culture when men are free”

              On what do you base this comment?

              • V.H.

                History.

              • History to me anyway, seems to point to the overwhelming power of culture/social norms to shape the society around it-it also seems that it was when people of different cultures who’s norms were vastly at odds with the currant inhabitants that problems arose.

                Then of course we had tribal mentality that also caused local wars and those differences didn’t seem all that extreme. So I really don’t get the “There is no incompatible culture when men are free” claim.

              • V.H.

                Think.

                The root tenant of freedom is “Freedom for me means I must allow you to be free”

                This is beyond culture, V.H. – IT IS A PRINCIPLE, something that can be held by EVERYONE and remain true.

              • Sedgewick says:

                It means cultural differences are irrelevant in a truly free society. A truly free society respects rights. Rights exist irrespective of culture.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We don’t live in a truly free culture. Add governments to VH’s comment, then what? Pretend the world is different than it is? Not likely

              • It is two different matters.

                You are not free.

                The goal is freedom.

                To argue because the former may be true makes the latter impossible is non-sequiter.

              • Those are really nice words but do they work in practice. Is truly free even possible in anything other than principle. WE don’t even agree on the meaning of words. Now I will direct you to the next page and JAC-if I’d read his responses before posting the above I wouldn’t have bothered -he said it better than I ever could. 🙂

              • V.H.

                There are not nice words.

                They are a principle – something that is void in your position.

              • Sorry-his responses are on this page.

          • Imagine, JAC, if the Muslims were as shortsighted as you.

            There would no mathematics, no science, no global circumnavigation and sailing, no chemistry, no algebra, no SOAP… etc.

            It was because unlike the other cultures who followed your thinking, the Muslims opened their doors to anyone in peace.

            And Western Civilization was the greatest benefactor.

            • BF, you continue to ignore my original post a couple weeks back about my general feeling of the Muslims in my area, and insist that we are grouping all Muslims together. STOP. We’re not doing that.

              Are there radical Muslim terrorists among us, or not?

              Starting back to work on the next round of printing election ballots. I’ll be MIA from 7-5 for the next 6 weeks. Cha ching.

              • Anita,

                That’s exactly the problem.

                You can add any adjective in front of the word “Terrorist”, and you will find your case.

                “Are there radical Christian Terrorists” Yes
                “Are there radical American Terrorists” Yes
                “Are there radical Women Terrorists” Yes”
                “Are there radical Blond Terrorists” Yes
                “Are there radical Black Terrorists” Yes

                …and so on.

                So you merely pick one out of the list and promote it for your errant and dangerous ideology.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                Congratulations. YOU got BF to admit YES, there are.

                Of course he just could not say yes, but I think that is as good as it gets from him.,

              • More nonsense from you JAC.

                It is not agreement. As I said, ANY adjective makes the sentence true, even “Old White American Men” terrorists …. you being an Old White American Man.

                The point is that your ideology depends on distortion reinforced by merely picking one set out of a set of millions of adjectives pretending your claim has some sort of validity and independence from the others.

              • It is a matter of degree my friend, all a matter of degree.

              • SK,

                No, sir, it is NOT a matter of degree, but a matter of PRINCIPLE

              • Apples and oranges. If there are 100,000,000 left handed Calvinists and three commit acts of terror, how can you pretend it is the same as 100,000,000 ambidextrous Animists where 79,565 commit terror. One has to dig deeper into the belief system. To quote RAH, ” people are NOT the same all over”

              • Another make believe story refusing principle.

                Clue: It doesn’t matter how many in whatever make up group who wish to gather.

                IT IS A MADE UP GROUP!

                You merely apply your insane gathering to suit your perverse ideology – and, the irony, blame others ideology for it!

              • I’m going to stick with Theodore Roosevelt on this one. He, was smarter than you and me combined (with a few others thrown in for good measure).

                http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf

              • SK,

                No, he is not.

                Further, he was a sadist SOB and a solid Statist who had no problem slaughtering anyone who disagreed with him.

    • It appears a book must have fallen and hit you on your head, my now Statist old friend.

      Lost your mind and your thinking on freedom in an attempt to uphold a perverse ideology.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    Sorry old friend but once again you are completely wrong. You really need to stop projecting your stereotypes of your bogeyman onto everyone.

    “There is no change in your principle between culture or race or ethnicity. It is red herring to declare one of these things is somehow independent of the others.

    The principle is the same. You do not want those who you declare are different. What the difference actually, is moot.”

    Yes, principles matter. Those who do not share my principles are NOT WELCOME.

    That is the sole criteria. Not their color, their height, build or national origin.

    But do they share MY CORE VALUES. Do they truly understand and support the notion of Freedom and Liberty as well as Justice.

    So you see race and ethnicity is in fact separate. Unless you are now stereotyping those of certain races and ethnicities as being incompatible with Freedom and Liberty.

    • Your principle is errant and dangerous.

      You believe you hold some notion of freedom, but in your own declaration demean it.

      You want people to be the same as you is not a declaration of freedom.

      Allowing people to exercise their own freedom, even if it different from your excerise IS freedom.

      “Whenever we are attacked, people are willing to give up someone else’s liberties for their own security.”
      ― Andrew P. Napolitano

      “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of
      citizens to live without interference.”

      The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”
      – Ron Paul

      The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
      – John Stuart Mill

      “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and
      not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. “
      – Jefferson

      You are counter to all of these principles of Freedom – you merely steal the word “Freedom” to mask your denial of it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        You want to make a wager as to whether the opinions and beliefs of those men are more in line with mine than yours???

        • None prescribe your view.

          Again, you wish to censor and block and demean people of a culture. You do not measure the individual.

          Freedom is individual.

          You are counter to freedom.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Your brand of freedom? YES I am.

            Because it will not result in Freedom or Liberty. It will devolve to CHAOS.

            When anyone is free to come to my home then they are free to implement their view of MORALITY. My freedom and views will be eliminated quickly.

            My recourse? MOVE……….but to where? Because each community and place suffers the same problem.

            This my pirate friend is how America was quickly lost to the Mercantilist and Socialist mindset of Europe.

            It is the Achilles heel of Freedom itself. The Catch 22 if you will. You do not see it because it would upset your foundation and cause you to realize that the REAL world is very different than the theoretical.

            You can wax poetic on the meaning but I must reconcile that same meaning with the reality around me.

            FACT………… when people move to an area that do not share the cultural values of those living there, the culture will be changed. That is a factual statement repeated time and again throughout history.

            And if you review my comments you will see that is all I said. I did not even pass judgment as to whether those changes are good or bad. Only that the change occurs. Just as the concerns of those Founders expressing it were validated. The cultural norms of the USA changed as the number of people moving here who had different values and beliefs increased.

            By the way, have you ever reconciled the conflicts in your own arguments over the primacy of Common Law vs. Govt law and how that can undermine the Freedom you claim would exist within such a system?

            Or how about your view that Morality and Moral principles are Unique to each of us and subjective, yet you constantly claim YOURs as having primacy over all others.

            Or how about that your view of concretes when it comes to morals, rights, etc, based on REASON ignores the REALITY of Human Nature and history??

            It seems to me that your means of dealing with these conflicts is to simply ignore them and declare them all irrational or idiotic.

            • Because it will not result in Freedom or Liberty. It will devolve to CHAOS.
              Utter nonsense.

              When anyone is free to come to my home then they are free to implement their view of MORALITY. My freedom and views will be eliminated quickly.

              That is your gross error – amphomorphising the State to be the same as YOU individually.

            • This my pirate friend is how America was quickly lost to the Mercantilist and Socialist mindset of Europe.

              ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

              It was lost because of people like YOU – who, instead of adhering to a principle of freedom, chose the pragmatic route of robbing and imposing upon their neighbors their own desires.

              “Thou shalt not steal except by vote” is YOUR disease, not mine.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Sedgewick

    “It means cultural differences are irrelevant in a truly free society. A truly free society respects rights. Rights exist irrespective of culture.”

    HOW DOES A TRULY FREE SOCIETY MAINTAIN ITS TRULY FREE STATUS??

    HOW DOES IT PREVENT “OUTSIDERS” FROM CORRUPTING THE SOCIETY AND ESTABLISHING A NEW GOVT OF THEIR CHOOSING??

    • Sedgewick says:

      There are no “OUTSIDERS” or coercive edicts in a truly free society.

      • I urge you to read TR too. Is what he asks coercive?

        http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf

          • So, a claim that the Constitution isn’t worth the paper its written on.

            I agree.

            • I think you are what is referred to as an absolutist. I commend you for it but RAH style rational anarchy is more my cup of tea.

              • No, I am a RADICAL

                “Gets to the root”

                Principles are absolute – otherwise they are not principles, but merely desires.

                You have desires but no principle.

              • Mark Twain, who met with the president twice, declared him “clearly insane.”

                TR:
                I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power.
                I don’t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands

        • “Consider this: Roosevelt basically bequeathed us with an area about the size of France that every American owns. . . . He did it by executive order. . . I mean he famously said when he created the first wildlife refuge, he asked his attorney general, he said is there any law that will prevent me from declaring Pelican Island — this is in Florida — a federal bird reserve? And his attorney general told him there was no such law. And Roosevelt said, very well, then I do so declare it. And that’s how the National Wildlife Refuge System was started.”

          “I do so declare it.” That is the cry of most every president since Teddy Roosevelt.

          It is no surprise he is your hero – a dictator.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Sedgewick

        ROTFLMAO……………………

        And that was how the Anarchist Society died……………….with resounding laughter.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Sedgewick

          You have been pretty gracious in your responses despite my hard questions.

          My last is probably a little SNARKY so I apologize. A simple, I rest my case would have probably sufficed.

          Of course I hope you recognize that even in a Free Society there will be those who wish to IMPOSE upon others and there will always be “outsiders”. No amount of Freedom or Liberty is going to override Human genetics.

          • So your argument is that you must impose on Free men so stop men from imposing on free men.

          • Sedgewick says:

            No worries JAC. I am enjoying it.

            I look at the world and see a species who have wrapped their lives around numerous systems and institutions that indoctrinate them into adversarialism by appealing to the ugly selfish reptilian side of human nature. Humanity is largely divided conquered and enslaved by it. It is like the mule and carrot.

            I am only trying to be antidotal.

            For people who insist on violating others, there is the right to self defense.

            • Sed,
              Indeed.

              Pope Saint John Paul II said: “To reach peace, teach peace.”
              I say, equally, “To reach freedom, teach freedom”

              • Sedgewick says:

                Peace IS freedom in many respects. To recognize rights is to respect them, is to act in peace.

                It is another way to state the basis for libertarian idealism. ..the ideal society of optimum freedom and peace, and everything subsequent thereof.

      • Sed,

        They are deaf as their own bizarre twisted ideology plugs their ears.

    • JAC,

      It remains free by condemning those like you – who use abstractions upon individuals to prejudge and then condemn them.

      YOUR ideology guarantees no man will be free.

%d bloggers like this: