Mid-Term Yawns

Considering the impact the coming November elections could have on the federal government, it seems to me that the media is almost bored with the topic.  Yes there are stories and coverage, but the feverish coverage shown in the past seems lacking to me.  Democrats won control of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2008.  They lost the House in 2010, then lost their super majority in the Senate, but somehow kept the Oval Office.

I still wonder how Romney lost, but credit it to the media advocacy of Obama.  They were still praising his vision on foreign policy while the ruins in Benghazi were still smoldering.  They accepted and championed the lie it was linked to an anti-Muslim video.  There was no scandal because the media would not report it as a scandal.

Now today with Iraq and Syria poised to fall, Libya still in turmoil, there is still media cover for Obama.  A respiratory virus common to Central America is hitting nearly every state in North America, but the media see’s no link to Obama’s open border policy.  Instead, the only worthwhile event is Ebola, which cannot be blamed on the POTUS.  Republican demands for a travel ban are met with accusations of racism.

I don’t expect any major shift because of the election.  I think the old media is killing itself with blatant dishonesty that is apparent to all but the most partisan and gullible.  If/when the New York Times, ABC, NBC & CBS news  die, I will both celebrate and morn their passing.


    • I believe this happens more often than we can imagine. At least he had the type of machine that he could see it wasn’t logging correctly; most have no idea how their vote was tallied.

    • Insane! What kind of a system do they have that anyone can come in and start plugging ballots? And what has happened since they found this out?

  1. More of “let’s pay attention to something that we cannot influence” … pointless thread.

  2. The MSM are mostly government propaganda and mostly for the Left. I don’t much watch them. Lately, I’ve been concentrating on hunting deer and enjoying the NFL and my fantasy football competitions. What little of the political commercials I have seen, basically are still the same dirt slinging BS as always. Not the kind of people I would agree to represent me in any forum.

    JAC, everyone likes to see the Champ get beat down in the NFL, except for that teams fans. The Hawks will be fine and should go deep into the playoffs. They will have some strong competition, dependent on injuries. I think the 49ers will implode and miss the playoffs. Look out for the Cardinals, they are quietly winning some good games.

    To all the Packer fans and Lion fans: I’m a Dolphin’s fan and surprisingly the Fins went to Chicago and dominated. Your welcome! But don’t put the Bears in the coffin just yet! That’s a fun division to watch and should have some great rivalry games this year.

    I think the Patriots best days are behind them and may not win the division. Watch out if the Dolphins defense continues to improve, not to mention the offense. I like the Ravens to win the North division, Pittsburgh’s days are also behind them. Cincy has some issues, Cleveland is up and coming but a couple years away.

    Dallas, Philly and the Giants will keep that division fun to watch as well. If Dallas stays healthy, I see them in the NFC title game. IF!

    Denver is a lock for the AFC title appearance, IF Manning stays healthy. Like most teams, a one player loss is the difference in a championship or not making the playoffs. San Diego and KC are playing well too. Expect Denver to lose a couple more games this year, maybe 🙂

    The NFC South is a mess right now, but one team will get very good in the second half and make a nice run.

    The Colts need a better running game to get the trophy and the Texans will keep that division fun. Mid season is just around the corner!

    Deer hunting is getting exciting as we near the rut (for you Liberal’s out there, that’s when they mate).

    Cheers to all 😀

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    There is a very large hole in this writers support. Can anyone else see what it might be?

    From Mises dot org.

    Obama Appointee Supports Individual Rights

    By Randall Holcombe

    Tuesday, October 21st, 2014

    I’ve been critical of the Obama administration in the past, so it’s nice to find something positive to say. This article says that President Obama’s new acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Vanita Gupta “supports decriminalizing cocaine, heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all dangerous drugs, including marijuana.” It’s nice to see that someone in government supports individuals’ rights to make their own choices, rather than having the government tell them how they have to live their lives.

    My personal view is that it is a bad idea to take any of these drugs, but just because that’s what I think, or that’s what some politicians think, doesn’t mean it should be illegal for you to do things other people think are bad for you. “Freedom” is meaningless if you only have the freedom to make choices that your government thinks are good choices.

    The article says Ms. Gupta has argued that the misnamed war on drugs “is an atrocity and that it must be stopped.” The article goes on to say that she objects to what she perceives as draconian mass incarceration, which has resulted in a bloated prison population, and the war on drugs that she perceives as a failure.

    I don’t know anything about Ms. Gupta beyond what is in that article, and the article focuses on her supporting freedom for individuals to make their own choices with regard to drug use, rather than have government dictate those choices for them.

    Based on that article, everything I know about her is positive, and I’m happy to see the president appointing people who stand up for individual rights.

    The article I linked to came from The Daily Signal, an internet publication of The Heritage Foundation. One would expect the conservative Heritage Foundation to be at odds with the Obama administration on most issues, but I admit that I am disappointed in this case that The Heritage Foundation, which claims on its website to support public policies based on limited government and individual freedom, is taking a stand against individual rights, and in favor of more government oversight and interference in our lives.

    People are not free if they are prohibited from making what those in government perceive are bad choices. In this case I am happy to see the Obama administration standing up for individual rights, and disappointed that a prominent conservative organization supports the nanny state.”

    • I’m thinking it’s that decriminalizing drugs isn’t the same as making them legal.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is the “presumption” that the progressive believes this because she has some “principle” about individual freedom and liberty.

        If this were true then the job she is nominated for would be the antithesis of her principles.

        Furthermore, if she does believe this then where is the proposal to eliminate all welfare and other federal programs for those who will be to screwed up to work? Or an exception to medical providers that allows them to deny service if the druggy has no insurance or cannot pay? These programs are all anti-individual freedom as they require confiscation of private property to fund them.

        Propose eliminating these supports for the drug addled brain dead and we will quickly see that she does not hold a principle of Individual freedom.

        There is also the possibility that the power elite on the left would be happy as clams with much of the population “medicated” to the point of being numb and complacent.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    The Elephants need to think outside the box.

    Raise the minimum wage in the USA to $20 per hour, index it to inflation.

    Declare the war on poverty OVER.

    Immediately introduce legislation to eliminate ALL (100%) of the WELFARE programs.

    Pass a law requiring all employers to maintain viable and secure retirement savings for any and all employees.

    Immediately introduce legislation to eliminate Social Security for those under 55.

    Pass a law mandating insurance coverage for every American. Outlaw Doctors from refusing patients for any reason, including lack of insurance.

    Immediately introduce legislation to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA.

    The effect on the economy will be a draw.

    But we will have eliminated the greatest and most powerful Bureaucracy ever assembled.

    And of course we can immediately move to a lower FLAT TAX to pay for what is left.

    • Could you lower the bar to age 50 for SS? I’m still counting on getting something back that I had already paid forward.

    • LOL…interesting……however……………………..lol…all I can say is wow. But you left out a couple of things…..eliminate unemployment insurance. Make social security only available to those who paid into the system and raise the qualifications of getting social security 40 quarters to 80 quarters of consecutive earnings. Eliminate government disability programs and let it go to private charity. Allow unfettered and totally tax free charitable contributions with no limits. For example, if a company makes one billion dollars in profits and wants to lower its income tax liability by giving 500 million to charity…they can do it. Allow 100 percent of verified medical costs as deductions on income tax and allow families take care of aged parents without forcing them into tax supported “old folks” homes. Allow companies and individuals alike to designate where their taxes can go. People are smart. Limit congressional posts to ten years with the same type of retirement programs that regular people have. Nothing guaranteed.

      Revise the tax structure to a flat tax and get away from indexed taxing that penalizes people for being successful. Eliminate government sponsored school lunch programs and return the authority to states. ( States are beginning to take responsibility now, anyway). Let the States run their own programs…..if a state wishes to give away the farm……and the people that live in that state agree…then so be it. If they do not wish it…..MOVE.

      Want to solve immigration? Change it to….You are welcome to this country. The only thing that you have to do is pass a physical. If you are sick, we will isolate you until you are well and then walk on in….since there will already be no welfare state left…good luck. Either work or get out. There will be no green cards or border delays unless you are ill. You will not be eligible for any state run program or government benefits of any type until you work 20 consecutive quarters ( five years ). After this, you are entitled to citizenship.

      Can I add these to your list?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Response and more living outside the box.

      Soc Security: Anita caused further thinking. ELIMINATE it 100% for everyone who is not already collecting.

      Create Retirement savings accounts and transfer all Soc Sec money paid in along with the “interest” due on those contributions.to the individuals. The only unanswered is “how much interest”. This is part of the “debt” to be paid.

      D13, no need to change qualifications now, we just eliminated it. People can retire whenever they want.

      D13 diability: Already eliminated with prior programs, SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Same for all welfare programs. Only ONE exception. Veterans injured DURING service.

      D13 charity/taxes: FLAT TAX……..ZERO deductions of any kind. Tax on GROSS EARNINGS. It will take about 10% of GDP or a little less to run a trimmed down and proper Federal Govt. And of course to pay off our debts will take a little more for awhile. So a Flat Tax of about 15% with Zero deductions. Also eliminates the crack that allows the lobbyist/politician incest.

      Lunch programs, GONE. As I said, ALL WELFARE programs gone.

      Unemployment: I have no problem with Unemployment Insurance paid by employee/employer contributions. NO GOVT CONTRIBUTIONS NOR EXTENSIONS. Should be Federal law mandating INDIVIDUALS have such a DEDICATED savings account, just like an IRA.

      Other things Eliminated:

      Pass legislation mandating Universities provide at least 4 years of college to any person who wishes to attend, FREE.

      Eliminate the Dept of Education and all Federal grants and aid in funding.

      Pass a law requiring all farmers to carry PRIVATE Crop Insurance. Eliminate all farm subsidies and insurance programs.

      Eliminate the CRP and other pay to not farm programs.

      D13 Immigration: Alternative idea. Issue green cards for those wishing to move here. All laws of the USA apply, including min wage and required retirement/savings, etc. After 5 years and taking a test showing proficiency in English and understanding of US history and law you can become a citizen. AGREE that all coming in must undergo medical testing and quarantine if necessary. Committing a violent crime while on Green Card will subject them to the law for said crime but forfeit chance at Citizenship. Once their time is served they will be returned to country of origin.

      • Maybe you’d like to explain why you think this is a better way. I’m seeing a lot of must does-might get rid of some Bureaucracies but it would seem to create other types to enforce all the must does, like free college, having to buy medical insurance, crop insurance etc.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Think about the “public” and “political” ramifications.

          And if implemented then you just replace one set of must do’s with a second set, minus the massive bureaucracy. In other words, a more “efficient” Progressive system.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Oh, oh, I have an even grander idea.

        Pass a law REQUIRING all citizens to have an established savings account and that the save at least 20% of their annual gross income.

        Failure to do so will result in a TAX of 25% of your gross income.

        There has to be more of these opportunities. Thinking………..thinking………….thinking…..

  5. Is anybody seeing the results of early voting? Not results, per se, but the turnout is extremely high here. And the photo ID is not slowing up any lines and there seems to be no problems so far.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I have been catching pieces. The Dems are claiming this is in their favor. I suspect it is in some places. They are trying to upend the S. Dakota Senate race by focusing on the Reservations. Registering and getting early votes………..all at the same time.

      They are trying to inflame the black community in Georgia, N. and S. Carolina while “registering and getting early votes……all at the same time.

      I do wonder, however, how it is that people have hard data on WHO voted in early voting. Isn’t voting supposed to be “confidential”?? How is it that the Dems can tell you how many of those early ballots are from Democrats?

      Could it be that this is one of the reasons the Dems have pushed early voting so hard? If your turnout is dropping below expectations in the early going you can then reallocate resources to Get the Vote Out in those areas below target.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Question for the “Left”. Time for our watchers to participate.

    Why should I be allowed to make you pay me so that I can live where I want?

    The is the net affect of most welfare programs that are federally funded. States with small incomes use federal subsidies for citizens in the State who are unwilling to relocate to States with jobs or adequately funded welfare programs.

    Otherwise there is no reason for Federal programs. The citizens of each State can decide what they are willing to pay for welfare. Those needing welfare can move to those States with robust programs.

    • Back in the day, States like Connecticut passed laws saying you had to have a minimum residency to access welfare. The point being southern states (true) handed you and the kids a one way ticket North to save their pennies. The courts in the ’70’s I believe then struck the residency requirement down.

      Many was the time I interviewed welfare clients and saw that the Mom and kids were all born down South. I heard the Bus ticket story scores of times from Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and So. Carolina residents coming to NYC.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Read the article explaining how the DEMS have Positive campaigns to run against the long held practice of R’s running on fear mongering.


    Then take note of the Author………….. fruit dose not fall far from the tree, or mental illness is hereditary.

  8. Some interesting chatting going on! I wonder how many times all of this has been said in the past? A lot, I’m sure. I’m on a bit of a politics break and as my emails have been loaded with politicians begging for money, it’s a good idea. Pops hung a 4 point with the crossbow this morning, I dropped a big doe with the muzzleloader. Two hanging in the barn is a good morning anyday (and far better than babbling about politics) 🙂 Back in the stand in the morning, need to rest the body after dragging two out this morning! Fresh venison on the dinner table 😀

  9. I’ve wondered about this-because from what I had read about the case overturning the Defense of marriage act-I too felt the Court left the decision up to the States to define marriage.

    Democrat-Appointed Federal Judge: No Right to Same-Sex Marriage

    Ryan T. Anderson / October 22, 2014 / 0 comments

    On Tuesday, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez upheld Puerto Rico’s law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage.

    Notably, Pérez-Giménez becomes the first Democrat-appointee to the federal bench to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage Act case.

    And it is the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision that Pérez-Giménez highlights as to why states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy:

    The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.

    Pérez-Giménez goes on to cite Windsor: “the definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.’”

    The judge also appeals to an earlier Supreme Court case, Baker v. Nelson, where the Court rejected a challenge to a state’s marriage law because, the Court said, the challenge lacked a “substantial federal question.” Pérez-Giménez explains:

    Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.”

    Pérez-Giménez, a federal district court judge, also points out that his Circuit Court has cited the authority of Baker: “The First Circuit expressly acknowledged—a mere two years ago—that Baker remains binding precedent ‘unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.’” And, the judge points out, he “cannot see how any ‘doctrinal developments’ at the Supreme Court change the outcome of Baker or permit a lower court to ignore it.”

    Indeed, the judge has harsh words for other judges who have struck down state marriage laws: “It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance—this Court does not venture an answer here—to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.”

    Just so. And if state marriage laws ever make it back to the Supreme Court, this is precisely what the Court should rule. Indeed, Pérez-Giménez highlights what other courts have frequently forgotten about the rationale underlying marriage laws:

    Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.” Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

    Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

    Pérez-Giménez thus concludes:

    Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome.

    As Pérez-Giménez points out, “The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.” Someone should let President Obama know.


    • Just A Citizen says:


      I agree entirely. The courts are run amok at this point. Except those that are ruling on ONLY State Constitutional issues.

      The Defense of Marriage Act was susceptible to challenge in the sense that Federal rights and privileges were not granted equally. Namely that tax benefits were not extended to “married couples” regardless of sex. In other words, if a State recognized a couple as married then the Fed laws for “married” should apply to them.

      Each State then must deal with how to recognize whether couples married in other states will be recognized in the that state.

      The equal protection provision regarding all states recognizing other states laws was not designed to deal with something like marriage. It was designed to deal with things like contracts and private property.

      If I buy property in a community property state then move to a non community property state, the latter will recognize the community property status of the land I purchased in the community property state. But it does not have to extend community property status to land I buy in the second state.

  10. This may show up twice, eventually-it says I already posted it-and I did-but it disappeared


    • Just A Citizen says:

      Wow. Very interesting conclusion.

      My defense of churches has always been the “substantial” requirement of the IRS code. Pushing a single petition should never meet the substantial test if the church is full time.

      Never considered the “Taxing is the power to destroy” and since the Govt is prohibited from destroying it must therefore be prohibited from taxing”.

      Curious what Buck the Wala thinks about this.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    “Calibration error” my arse. Somebody just got caught, well at least the machine got caught. Now they need to find the PERSON or PERSONS behind this. This is not calibration but outright programming.


    • Good morning, JAC. This is not error. It is deliberate. Have you been following Colorado and the voter fraud there with the mail in ballots? People digging through trash cans to find discarded ballots and filling them out. A democratic chair in Colorado at a frat house in Denver caught where there were approximately 20 ballots just laying around and when asked what to do, she says to fill them out anyway and mail them in….even though no one is there or claims them. In Houston, a democratic sponsor caught filling out ballots with fake names and address’ and sending them in…..these are down ballot issues for local races. It is appalling.

      • I really have to fight my inner self to not agree with BF and others about voting…..there is no other way right now and I do not and will not subscribe to the theory that doing nothing is doing something. We have to fight…and not fighting with weapons and anarchy but using the system to beat the system and get involved. One person at a time.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        While I know there is fraud with mail in ballots I think you have been misled about the story in Colorado.

        This was one of those stings by that fella who started VERITAS Project. He was telling people he found ballots in the trash but it was all made up to try and catch people supporting the idea of using them.

        Now the R’s and their minions are playing it all over the place claiming they caught fraud. All they really caught are some stupid Progressive/Liberal young folks going along with the idea that using discarded ballots is a “good idea”.

        It was reported days before he went public that the Dems had spotted him and none of the “official” election people were caught on camera doing anything wrong. Those he shows in the video are not connected to any campaign in an official capacity.

        It was interesting however, that Daily Kos published a story on him and his crew in an attempt to frame the story prior to the video release. Including accusations, ahead of time, that the video would be edited to make their people look guilty, when in fact they were not.

        So there is a good chance they are all lying and we have no idea what is really going on.

        Meanwhile, the Dems GOTV campaign grinds on in S. Dakota and other places. Inflaming racism and hatred to get “disenfranchised” signed up and then to the ballot box, or envelope.

        If there is one thing we could do to clean up elections it is to OUTLAW private voter recruitment and registration, and of course ballot collections or driving people to the polls.

        • Actually, no JAC……I was informed correctly and did my own research.I actually wanted to see if anybody would pick up on it so I could reference the KOS since that is routinely followed by the left. You are just too damned informed……and you were the only one that caught it and called it. It is very hard for me to set an ambush with you around….are you sure that you do not want to join my staff?

          Yes, I know who the feller was…the other point, that you stated, was how easy it is to get college students to follow any directive with mere accusation and hyperbole. And since it was the young that put Obama in office…it was an interesting thing to see now easy it is to coerce, misinform…etc. and the young people will follow it. It also shows how susceptible these same “students” and young people are to anyone with an agenda. They would rather listen to someone than do their own research…..and just like the 60’s….this is being played all over again. ( You know, never trust anyone over the age of 40 ).

          However, it is pointed out, correctly so, that mail ballots can be easily obtained illegally and mailed back in…..I will use myself as an example……I am now 66 years YOUNG! I receive a mail in ballot because of my age……I could very easily take that same ballot, walk across the street and hand it to someone to fill out…and then they could mail it in. It is just as easy to send in fake names and ID’s to receive mail in ballots at legal addresses…..then fill them out and send them in…..there is no accountability on 100 mail in ballots being sent to the same address……that was caught in Houston, Texas where it has been determined that a down ballot race was won by a democrat by mail in ballots…in a precinct where the number of mail in ballots did not match the number of residents….specifically, the number of ballots outnumbered the number of registered addresses in that precinct and a democratic appointed federal judge….threw out the challenge and let the election stand.

          At any rate…..nice catch sir…….although you ruined my ambush…I must plan better. You are a worthy adversary. Do you play chess?

          • Perhaps a paintball challenge…you and I….mano y mano…..in the field. Or maybe perhaps the “cow pasture ” chasing little white spherical things with big sticks……

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Lol……….. Yes Sir, I do play chess, although have never been very good at it. To slow and to little “action”.

            Paintball would be fun. A little swat and follow would be even better. I am thinking a playoff with two games on each home “pasture” and a tie breaker (if needed) on a neutral field.

            I will not be so quick to correct you in the future. I should have known the “dumb old colonel” would be playing “dumb like a fox”.

            Note to your comment about the local mail in fraud. Because the judge refused to review this it goes down in the data base as “no fraud recorded”. This is why I believe the studies on voter fraud to be filled with error and politically based wishful thinking.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is the Daily Kos article I mentioned above. Published the day before the videos were released.


  12. Anita, Looks like one of those ISIS wannabe’s hit in Canada. Next place, the good Ole USA. Anita-1 Black Flag-ZERO 😀

  13. What I do not understand is the reluctance to call these things what they are.

    If a person recently converts to Islam and adopts jihad, he is NOT an anomaly. When the term lone wolf is used, it is used on purpose. Many people will adopt the theory that “lone wolf” means an aberration. Lone wolf simply means he was by himself…..but still part of something else. If it turns out that the shooter or shooters in Canada were recently conversions to Islam and adopt jihad…..they are Islamic terrorists…..pure and simple.

    We better be vigilant.

    • Similar thoughts, but to me Obama refuses to call them Islamic or Muslim when they commit acts of terrorism. Even though the people committing these acts call themselves Islamic or Muslim. If that is how they describe themselves, who is Obama to re-define what they are or how they see themselves? Has the government taken over Webster’s Dictionary and not told anyone?

      The Ft. Hood murder is shouting as loud as he can that he is a terrorist. And Obama & his minions have pretty well silenced him.

  14. I have gone to the store, different stores, about four times recently and have had to calculate my change in my head- because the person checking me out for some unknown reason has chosen not to enter the amount I actually gave them to pay the bill. Instead they just entered the amount owed. When confronted with doing this they just say some variation of oh I just messed up. What is up with this-is it just a new way of trying to cheat you out of money or what?

    • I’ve heard the warning of checking your receipt before leaving the cashier. While you’re bussling around they tack on cash back then hand it directly to their buddy standing directly behind you in line.

      • I lean towards purposely trying to confuse me or hoping I simply won’t notice before I leave the store. Because last night the girl handed me 5 dollars and when I said that isn’t right-she immediately said oh okay I owe you another 10. No confusion, no looking at the register-just the exact right amount immediately upon my questioning the amount. I’m assuming she didn’t want me to draw attention to the situation. Now that my brain has grasped onto this little game-I intend to bring much attention to the situation when or if it happens again.

        • What you need to do is…hold up the line and immediately ask to see a supervisor. Create a very loud stink……it is really easy…..I did that once at a Mickey D’s…..got a free coke…and I did it once at a Best Buy….stood there and asked for a supervisor and loudly proclaimed that the receipt did not match the change given and I wanted to report it. Most people will not do this and simply write it off as a mistake…….but I disclaim mistakes now as everyone uses the computer….when a receipt is falsely generated….it is not a mistake.

  15. David Skekabim says:

    @ Anita

    Re: Satanism

    I would like to address your accusation that I am an advocate for Satanism.

    I am not only an advocate for Satanism, but also Christianity and Islam and Judaism, New Age-ism, Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Paganism, Atheism and everything else under the sun that I did not mention.

    It is a matter of principles of principalities. You see, the principle is respect and celebration of religious freedom and expression. That’s what a free society is all about. It is about holding true to our values and principles. And everyone likes to be free to decide what to believe and practice it without getting harassed.

    Satanists have just as much right to participate, to express and practice as anyone else. So long as they are not violating people, what’s the big deal? Why shouldn’t they worship Satan? …because YOU think it’s evil? Well, you’re not them and have no right to tell them what is best for them.

    Understand, Satanism is more about freedom and indulgence than anything else. The more spiritual sects are about harmony and balance, which is, as far as I can tell, the same thing everyone else is striving for.

    Go hang out with some Satanists. They’re not that bad really. Some are a little odd, but for the most part, they’re an alright bunch. From my experiences, they seem to be more concerned with enjoying life than practicing ‘evil’. They are human. They have families, love their children and and spouses, they live in the suburbs, go to work every day and give their mother flowers on Mother’s Day too.

    The reason I often pick on Christianity is because there are tens of millions of fundies who are not respecting others’ freedom of religion, but are instead taking a very arrogant position as to think they have exclusivity to God and superiority over others in their communities. They are using politics and whatever else, trying to snuff out anything that isn’t them. It is selfish, myopic, counter-intuitive to a free world, and contemptuous of the holy man they worship.

    It is my hope that Christians can take more of a leadership role and set a good example, to show the world their best ‘Jesus face’, to teach others how to love and understnd as Yehshua taught.

    Right now, they’re all worked up, scared to death, and hating on everything gay, Muslim or Satanic, and doing what they can to dominate, …seemingly out of nothing but fear of letting go.

    The second a Christian (or anyone) is able to get away with denying the freedom of another for no other reason than because they disagree with their beliefs and are offended, freedom and rights have gone over the edge of the slippery slope, and society erodes.

    It’s time to get over our hang-ups.

    Don’t get me wrong. I like Christians. There are a LOT of genuinely good honest loving charitable intelligent Christians that I love and respect, and feel are a very valuable asset to the modern world and human race. They’re good folks, GREAT folks. But some of them are acting kinda like the slow kids in class, so to speak. And it is holding us up. They are like a soft version of the radical Muslims chopping up infidels. They just use law instead of a cleaver.

    I recommend doing some digging into the political aspects of the development of Christianity. All that hating on Pagans, witches and Satanists and whoever else, was a means of scaring people into ‘joining up’. “Be a Christian or burn in hell!” was the order of their day. It was all about building and supporting empires. It’s ancient scare-tactic propaganda that is still having reheated left-overs.


    I know I have often not taken the best approach to things. I again apologize to you and others for any undue hard feelings I may have caused. I have been a bit abrasive at times, and for no other reason than because I have been very confused and frustrating, teetering on the edge of hell, struggling with some personal issues that has had me all out of whack. I’ve been bit retarded in my development of what I’ve been going through( more like a train wreck). , But I am pretty sure it’s over. I think I finally snapped out of it. Things are starting to fall into place. It’s a new day, and I’m feeling good.

    The world is in motion and changing fast. I see this as a critical point in our evolution. And we need to keep our grip on what is right and practical, to build upon it, to try and focus on truth and love, …If for no other reason, in the interest of handing future generations something good to work with. They are certainly worthy of our best efforts.


    • Glad to hear you’re feeling better about things. At the risk of being labeled yet again, I stand by my original comment. Be careful what you wish for. I guess you can say the same for me.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I agree, people need to take a stand against evil. That may not be Satan in reality, but it is the evil that is spread under that or another name. To claim that we should tolerate evil for the sake of freedom is completely irrational.

        Now lets take a look at the “Church of Satan”. Talk about one huge Oxymoron. If contradictions are the root of evil, per BF, these guys are the poster child.


        Now to address David’s primary principle. While Satanists, like the one referenced here, are evil or espouse evil, the crux of the issue is what should we do about it/them.

        Your principle of live and let live applies to any effort to use force against them if they have not attempted force upon others. The correct means of opposition is debate and refutation of their beliefs or propaganda.

        But if they truly believe man is a “carnal” animal that should act upon his base “carnal” self, how long before violence is going to be done in the name of their “religion”??

        • I have a question-why do people keep referring to satanism as a religion?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The few I have met actually believe in Satan and worship him. That would make it a religion, would it not?

            As for the character above, he denies Gods of any kind but claims Satan as his church’s namesake. Like I said, Oxymoron all over the place. Or just plane Moron. Maybe both. 🙂

            • Satan comes straight from the Bible-without the Bible reference there would be no Satan reference-and the Bible reference clearly shows that Satan is not a God.

              So I’m just curious what guidelines are used to determine if an organization is a religious organization or just a secular organization. I personally would define satanism as an anti-religion organization.

              • Christianity is a religion. In it we pray to Christ and proclaim him our savior. But Christians also pray to John, Paul, the Virgin Mary and angels are included in scripture. If angels exist or are believed in, then by that same logic, Satan exists. I would also say that Satan worshipers are practicing a religion. It is anti-Christian, but still a “religion”. It may test our ability to love and forgive, but that is also part of being Christian.

              • Per the definitions we have been perusing they would fit-although most anything would-my only point is that there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction-other than if you call your beliefs a religion-they are a religion. Maybe that’s okay-maybe in most instances it’s even a good thing-but when you get down to the nitty gritty the distinction is so small it’s almost pointless.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You have piqued my interest with your question. I looked up the definition. It does not require even a “GOD”. The modern definitions of “religion” look a lot like the definition of “ideology”. Religion would of course be one form of ideology which includes some “supernatural” or “super human” component. Thus Satanism qualifies.

            In my quick search I did find the following very interesting. Especially the philosophical argument of Pope Leo.

            “Word Origin and History for re-li-gion Expand

            c.1200, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,” from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion “piety, devotion; religious community,” and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness,” in Late Latin “monastic life” (5c.).

            According to Cicero derived from relegere “go through again” (in reading or in thought), from re- “again” (see re- ) + legere “read” (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely ), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. In English, meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300; sense of “recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers” is from 1530s.

            To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

            • So basically-they have broadened the meaning of the word religion to the point that it isn’t really a word anymore.

              The broadest definition I found required a spiritual leader. And all you have to do is hear the words “I’m spiritual, not religious” to see that the word spiritual doesn’t have the same meaning anymore either.

              But I still wonder how the government or the courts define Religion when cases about religious freedom arise.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                From the legal dictionary online:

                The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part of this provision is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second part is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Although the First Amendment only refers to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses also binding on states (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 [1940], and Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 [1947], respectively). Since that incorporation, an extensive body of law has developed in the United States around both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person’s right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

                As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person’s beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection. The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court’s broad definition.

                In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

                The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion has deeply rooted historical significance. Many of the colonists who founded the United States came to this continent to escape religious persecution and government oppression. This country’s founders advocated religious freedom and sought to prevent any one religion or group of religious organizations from dominating the government or imposing its will or beliefs on society as a whole. The revolutionary philosophy encompassed the principle that the interests of society are best served if individuals are free to form their own opinions and beliefs.

                When the colonies and states were first established, however, most declared a particular religion to be the religion of that region. But, by the end of the American Revolution, most state-supported churches had been disestablished, with the exceptions of the state churches of Connecticut and Massachusetts, which were disestablished in 1818 and 1833, respectively. Still, religion was undoubtedly an important element in the lives of the American colonists, and U.S. culture remains greatly influenced by religion.”

                So you see, a GOD is not required for a religion to exist. Per SCOTUS it doesn’t even require supernatural or superhuman beliefs or faith. Although their decision is based on whether people “sincerely” hold to their faith in a way similar to Christians or Muslims.

              • Okay, thanks-that is very interesting. I find that I kinda like that the definition of religion is broad when it comes to legal definitions. I’ve always felt that religious freedom was the last bastion against all our rights being taken away-it ties in with freedom of expression and freedom of speech as the most necessary rights we possess

              • “He who controls the language, controls the debate”. Becoming more and more obvious every day in every way. It’s one of the reasons the big “O” can’t say terrorist. Screws up the debate from his point of view.

        • I need some botox for the unibrow I got while checking your link! 😡

  16. Baby Born Healthy After Couple Refuses Abortion Despite Doctors’ “Fetal Abnormality” Claim

    by Sarah Zagorski | Dublin, Ireland | LifeNews.com | 10/22/14 9:15 AM

    When an Ireland couple, Melanie and Damion Sheenan, went in for their 20-week scan they found out some upsetting news about their baby. The doctors told them that their unborn son had severe fetal abnormalities, including a brain and spine that wasn’t formed. They were immediately advised to abort.

    Melanie told the Christian News Network, “They felt that the child wouldn’t survive birth and if it did, it would be so profoundly disabled that, their words were, ‘it would have no quality of life. I was put under immense pressure to go ahead with the abortion.”

    joshuasheenanBut the couple refused and gave birth to a perfectly healthy son named Joshua. The doctor’s diagnosis was completely inaccurate. Damion said, “The doctors said that Joshua would be incompatible with life, and now he is sixteen weeks old and he’s brilliant. He’s doing everything that he should be doing. He’s the best thing that’s happened to our family. We couldn’t imagine our family without him now. Just to see the joy and the love that he brings to the house.”

    The couple explained that even after they rejected abortion, they were repeatedly pressured to kill their baby. Melanie said, “I had phone calls to my mobile and my house phone to tell me how many days, weeks that I had left till my 24-week cut-off [to have an abortion]. Whenever we went to appointments, the nurse in charge of the consultant would introduce as the couple who was continuing with the pregnancy against medical advice. We were made to feel that we were doing something terribly wrong by wanting to keep our baby.”

    This sounds more like harassment than friendly medical advice. While our pro-abortion society is supposedly big on “choice,” when a family decides to keep their baby they are persecuted for it. They had no right to talk to that family with such disrespect for their decision and for their child’s life.

    Damion said, “They thought that it probably wouldn’t be right to bring him into the world, so that’s when they suggested the abortion to us.” They claimed that Joshua’s quality of life would be so poor because he would be severely disabled.

    Melanie concluded, “Even if mothers get hours, days or weeks with their baby, they say that it is the most precious time. And in our circumstance, the doctors’ diagnosis was completely incorrect. … And if we would have went with the doctors’ diagnosis, he wouldn’t be here today. The best advice that I can give is to carry on, because it is still a life, and God still has a plan.”


    • Wow!

      • You think they might have a court case-I mean the doctor making a mistake might have caused them to kill their baby-but probably not-in the wrongful birth cases the doctors mistake cost people money-this situation would have only caused a baby to be killed and that is obviously acceptable these days.

  17. Somebody just sent me this, a Canadian link. Hope it comes through. Haven’t heard anybody yet down here make the connection that what happened yesterday is the equivalent of killing a Tomb Guard at Arlington.

    • Just saw this myself. Poor guy was a sitting duck. The cartoon doesn’t even need a caption.

  18. Just A Citizen says:
  19. David Skekabim says:


    Reading your responses from above, it is clear to me that you people STILL don’t get it. You simply cannot get past it. You are sooo stuck in that little conventional box, …call it a prison cell.

    I’m done with you people.


    • Sorry you feel that way. So much for tolerance.

    • Before you leave David-let me say that I am glad you are feeling better.

      Then let me say-feeling Self Righteous MUCH. I will boil down your problem with religion and especially Christianity to— you think too many are too self righteous and feel they have the answer to everything. Looks like you are guilty of the same.

      I hope you won’t really leave but if you are going too–good bye and I wish you the best

    • Your wanting answers from the wrong place. It’s not where you are, it’s where you need to be, in nature!

  20. Just A Citizen says:
  21. Anita, A possible ISIS wannabe attacks cops in NYC! If true, Anita 2 Black Flag FINISHED

    • Hate when that happens. NOT! Been telling BF for years that one day I’m going to trip him up. They’ve only been telling their fleas for months to strike on their own..police, military..doesn’t matter. The fleas have been busy this week between here and Canada. Have to feel for them this week. Megan Kelly put it to words pretty well…Canada lost it’s innocence this week. Now the question is when will our president own up to it? His strategy isn’t working and the fleas have taken note. Sad & still scary. Didn’t feel this way when Bush was around. Hi Buck and Matt.

      • It is the opinion of many that Obama is indeed a Muslim. His actions would seem to give some credibility to that belief.

        I’m not in fear of the fleas. There just isn’t many around here and we are all armed all the time. This area would embarrass Texas in that area 🙂 Hi D13 😀

        Your Lions are looking good this year. Now, I’m going to get back to cutting up venison 🙂

        • I don’t think Obama is a Muslim-he believes in Black liberation theology-that’s what his church taught and for whatever reason the two theologies seem to support each other in this country. Not sure why.

          • Both are stuck in the past?

          • Dunno, I think the sucker has no beliefs. Everything with him is a sham. Rev. Wright was convenient when being an up and coming black community organizer/politician. Not so convenient now.

            One, certainly not I, might be tempted to call him a typical contemptible Commie-pinko atheist SOB.

            • I think he has beliefs. I don’t think any of us know what they are because his words and actions are so far apart. If anything he strikes me as a Marxist/Socialist with their agenda. The Soviets wanted to “conquer” America from within, by attacking us at our values. We are no longer a Christian nation. Now we are transgender, with the highest abortion level in the world. Offer a prayed before a football game and get sued. Say anything about Muslims, black/gang violence, etc and you are accused of hate speech.

              • I think if you compared Black liberation Theology and Marxist/socialists ideas, you would find them very similar.

              • Many people think the Ft Hood “workplace violence” issue is what’s driving the Obama is Muslim issue. The Swap for a deserter might add to the issue.

    • There will always be a one percent. It’s great when they are benevolent geniuses, not so good when they are amoral idiots. Three teenage girls tried to join ISIS and were one connecting flight away from making their escape. Three out of 300 million. Just like there are copy-cat murders, there will be some “lone wolf” psycho’s who take up jihad. ISIS can claim credit. Might just as well blame the media who can & will make someone who commits an act of evil, a household name.

      Haven’t heard lately, is homeland security still on high alert against right-wing, former military, lone wolf attackers?

      • I don’t think so….it is old news and there have been no attacks.

        • And, I have not had an urge, myself, to dress in camo’s, wield an axe, chop heads off. pray to the east….eat kebobs, gauss, or bamieh….especially no desire to eat dolma. Fasoulia is pretty good….but I have not eaten that in years.

          I carry a 9mm and a Walther PPK ( no, I am not James Bond ), keep a sawed off Mossberg 20 gauge shotgun handy at all times ( Loaded with 4 shot, steel )….I do not attend church and I play disc golf, ball golf, and I bowl and fly an airplane. I do not have any urges to load my aircraft up with explosive and fly a perfectly good airplane into buildings.

          I like football and ice hockey. I do not stomp on flightless animals. I won’t be wronged and I won’t be insulted. I don’t do these things to other people and I expect them to not do them to me. ( Basic words from the Duke….the Shootist). I like John Wayne movies and westerns. I do not watch chick flicks nor Vietnam movies. ( I do not need to see Hollywood’s bastardized version…I was there ). I do not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, nor have I ever partaken of non prescribed drugs ( including marijuana ) at any time.

          I go out of my way to not step on beetles and the like but will stomp a scorpion into oblivion. ( Hate those little shits ) I leave snakes alone unless they wish to compete for my space. I hunt for food….and sport. If I hunt for sport, I always give the game to the Tarrant County food bank…that is until Obama took over and the FDA said that donations to food banks of game are no longer allowed.

          I drive a gas guzzling SUV…..I do not give a shit about the emissions. However, I will properly bank a camp fire and not use burn barrels for carcinogens or exotics. I take paint cans to the proper dumps for disposal and I do not pee into lakes and rivers. I do not spit into the wind.

          I eat red meat and potato’s. I eat chocolate and drink the occasional Dr. Pepper. I watch fried foods closely out of necessity and cannot eat many carbs because of elevated triglycerides

          I stand up for the National Anthem…PROUDLY….. I will take off my hat and salute, whether in uniform or not. I will pick up a tattered US flag. I will take a US flag from a person that is abusing it the same as I would rescue an animal or human from harm.

          I like sunsets and sunrises….I like thunderstorms ( except when flying ). I do not like “blue norther’s” and ice storms.

          The list goes on…..but seeing it now…perhaps I am a threat.

          • Absolutely, welcome to the club!

          • If I am a threat to anyone, it’s thieves. I just hate thieves. I’m quite sick of taxes, which has become more theft than service, much, much more. However, I’m highly allergic to prison and death, which makes me not a threat at all to thieves who happen to be elected and given permission to steal my money (even though I didn’t vote for the thieves). Think about that when you vote in the next election, because regardless of who wins, taxes aren’t going down. That includes locally.

      • The teen age girls were Somalis. That is an atrocity. There are tons of those refugees in this country. The friggen government has built entire apartment complexes for them. Wonder if we have “guilt” after Mogadishu?

  22. Information is slowly coming out-so I guess we’ll see where it leads.

    I have to say-I think the man’s personal E-mails with his wife should remain private.

    Valerie Jarrett Key Player in Fast and Furious Cover-Up After Holder Lied to Congress

    OCTOBER 24, 2014

    President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was a key player in the effort to cover-up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious scandal, according to public records obtained by Judicial Watch.

    The information is part of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Vaughn index” detailing records about the gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. JW had to sue the agency for the records after the Obama administration failed to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court ordered the DOJ to provide the records over the agency’s objections. Yesterday JW reported on the broad information in the records, including that Obama asserted executive privilege for Holder’s wife as part of the administration’s efforts to cover up the scandal.

    Practically lost in the 1,000-plus pages of records is an index that shows Jarrett was brought in to manage the fact that Holder lied to Congress after the story about the disastrous gun-running operation broke in the media. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran the once-secret program that allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

    The files received by JW include three electronic mails between Holder and Jarrett and one from former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke to Jarrett. The e-mails with Holder are all from October 4, 2011, a significant date because, on the evening of October 3rd, Sheryl Attkisson (then at CBS news) released documents showing that Holder had been sent a briefing paper on Operation Fast and Furious on June 5, 2010. The paper was from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael Walther.

    This directly contradicted Holder’s May 3, 2011 testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during which he stated that he, “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” The October 4, 2011 date may also be significant because it came shortly after the August 30, 2011 resignation of U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke and reassignment of acting ATF director Kenneth Melson to the position of “senior forensics advisor” at DOJ.

    The description of one of the e-mails, written from Jarrett to Holder, reads, “re: personnel issues.” Another, also from Jarrett, reads, “outlining and discussing preferred course of action for future responses in light of recent development in congressional investigation.” Unfortunately, the index is vague and that’s all the information we have about them. Nevertheless, given the timing and subject of these e-mails, it seems clear that Jarrett quickly became a key player in the Fast and Furious cover-up in the immediate aftermath of the revelation that Holder had lied to Congress.

    Sign Up for Updates!


    • But then again-executive privilege being used to stop people seeing these emails seems a bit much. And isn’t there something in law about not having a reason to expect privacy which would make any emails between me and my hubby involving a business email make privacy legally moot.

      • Outside of war strategy, there should be NOTHING secret when it comes to Government. NOTHING! When the government needs secrets, it’s no longer serving the people, it is ruling them.

  23. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t know how this “judge” could make such an unbelievable, insane, unjust ruling without throwing up in his own mouth.

    Judge Sides With IRS, Dismisses Lawsuits by Conservative Groups Over Targeting Scandal

    Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / October 23, 2014 / 84 comments

    A federal judge in Washington, D.C., sided today with the Internal Revenue Service and dismissed lawsuits by tea party organizations seeking redress for improper delays and scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status.

    District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled that two lawsuits by True the Vote and Linchpins of Liberty, along with 41 other conservative organizations, were moot because the IRS took steps to address the scandal and “publicly suspended its targeting scheme.”’

    “It’s a disappointing ruling because it basically leaves targets of bad behavior by the IRS without a remedy,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

    A federal judge sided with the IRS today and dismissed the case filed by conservative groups targeted by the tax agency.

    >>> Commentary: The Wrongdoers at the IRS Get Away With It

    Walton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, decided that because the organizations eventually won tax-exempt status, they had remedied any wrongdoing. (His two rulings are below.)

    “We are stunned by today’s judgment,” True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht said. “The notion that the IRS can target Americans for years because of their political beliefs is reprehensible.”

    “The notion that the IRS can target Americans for years because of their political beliefs is reprehensible.”–@TrueTheVote founder Catherine Engelbrecht

    Engelbrecht also told The Daily Signal:

    The court acknowledges in its opinion that the IRS did in fact target True the Vote for our perceived political beliefs, but then it holds that neither the agency nor the individual IRS agents or officers are responsible for this unconstitutional conduct. Right now, we are considering all legal options and will announce our next steps very soon.

    >>> Commentary: Politico Found Lois Lerner. So Why Can’t the U.S. Attorney in Washington?

    True the Vote and Linchpins of Liberty filed suit on the grounds that IRS officials improperly held up their tax-exempt status for several years.

    Texas-based True the Vote, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that seeks to stop voter fraud, waited three years before the IRS awarded it tax-exempt status. It first applied in 2010 and received word in 2013.

    Tennessee-based Linchpins of Liberty was created to mentor high school and college students in the continuing relevance of America’s founding principles. The IRS delayed the group’s application for 501(c)3 tax-exempt status for nearly three years, founder Kevin Kookogey recalled in an on-camera interview early this year.

    “The court appears to believe that tossing a life-preserver to a swimmer who has already drowned can magically revive the dead.”–Linchpins of Liberty founder Kevin Kookogey

    “Obviously, this ruling is stunning, and we intend to appeal,” Kookogey told The Daily Signal today, adding:

    The court appears to believe that tossing a life-preserver to a swimmer who has already drowned can magically revive the dead, or that the government’s promise not to hurt anyone in the future releases it from liability for past harms.

    Although True the Vote, Linchpins of Liberty and more than three dozen other groups argued there is no guarantee the IRS would not target conservative groups again, Walton ruled that the “prospect of future harm is speculative.”

    Von Spakovsky, the Heritage legal fellow, disagreed.

    “Given the unapologetic behavior of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials, and their total lack of remorse, I don’t think it’s ‘speculative’ that this could happen again in the future,” he said.

    >>> No Apologies: Lois Lerner Breaks 16-Month Silence on IRS Scandal

    Kookogey said he was baffled by the judge’s logic.

    “My constitutional rights were violated at the moment the IRS first began to unlawfully obstruct and delay my application for tax-exempt status back in 2011,” Kookogey said. “Granting my status three years later — after we filed the complaint and moments before the government was required to file an answer — does not undo that harm or render our claims moot.”

    Walton also refused to grant a request from True the Vote to require Lerner and other IRS officials to pay a fine for delaying the group’s tax-exempt status and subjecting it to additional scrutiny.

    Lerner was the head of the IRS division that oversaw tax-exempt organizations. She resigned last year and twice has refused to testify before Congress.

    Although the groups filed suit before they were granted tax-exempt status, Walton cited a remedy in place from Congress that called for organizations seeking such status to go to court for it. That provision, he said, should have been used.

    In addressing True the Vote’s request, Walton said because the IRS eventually granted it tax-exempt status, the group no longer had grounds for the case.

    >>> Commentary: More Evidence of Lois Lerner’s Liberal Bias

    Kookogey, a Nashville lawyer, told The Daily Signal that Linchpins of Liberty lost a $30,000 grant, a significant part of his own business and opportunities to mentor students because of the IRS’ actions. The agency’s delay in granting tax-exempt status also prevented Kookogey from fundraising and building the organization, he said:

    If this ruling is permitted to stand, it will embolden a government which has already exceeded its limits to believe that it can violate the natural rights of its citizens until caught, at which point it must only apologize, ‘fix’ the problem, and move on to the next victim.

    During Lerner’s tenure, conservative and tea party groups such as True the Vote waited years for the IRS to rule on their applications. The IRS targeting scandal prompted more than a dozen hearings by congressional investigators.

    Congress learned this summer that emails Lerner sent during the time of the targeting had vanished because a computer drive crashed.

    True the Vote v. IRS Ruling by The Heritage Foundation


  24. Red line? ISIS used chemical weapons against Iraqi army
    posted at 12:41 pm on October 24, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

    Share on Facebook 18

    What happens when terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction? They will use them, and that also includes marauding armies of terrorists like ISIS. Despite the risks associated with using old chemical ordnance, risks that the West hoped would dissuade ISIS from making use of battlefield discoveries of old stock, the Washington Post reports confirmation that the terrorist army has deployed chlorine-gas weapons on at least one occasion against the Iraqi army:

    Dizzy, vomiting and struggling to breathe, 11 Iraqi police officers were rushed to a government hospital 50 miles north of the capital last month. The diagnosis: poisoning by chlorine gas. The perpetrators, according to the officers: Islamic State extremists.

    The chlorine attack appears to be the first confirmed use of chemical weapons by the Islamic State on the battlefield. An Iraqi Defense Ministry official corroborated the events, and doctors said survivors’ symptoms were consistent with chlorine poisoning.

    Iraqi forces say two other crude chlorine attacks have occurred since the extremists seized vast tracts of Iraqi territory this summer, but details on those incidents remain sketchy. The reported assaults all raise concerns that the militants are attempting to hone their chemical weapons capabilities as they push to control more ground.

    The attack was on September 15th, six weeks ago, but is just being made known now. Even the Russian propaganda outlet RT has picked up this report, although they emphasize that ISIS didn’t make very effective use of the weapons:

    A recent statement from the Iraqi Defense Ministry said that the IS had used the gas in a “primitive and ineffective way” – in roadside bomb attacks and near several water treatment plants where it had gained access to chlorine. Without indicating the locations of the attacks, the statement said that the militants aimed at impairing “the morale of the Iraqi people in general and our armed forces in particular.”

    American defense officials were not aware of the September 15 chlorine attack and referred to the Iraqi government for further information.

    Alistair Baskey, spokesman for the National Security Council, told the New York Times on Thursday,“The use of chlorine as a chemical weapon is an abhorrent act. These recent allegations underscore the importance of our work to eliminate chemical weapons in this volatile region.”

    There have lately been several reports of IS militants using chlorine gas on the battlefield, however, none had been officially confirmed. They appeared after the jihadists seized a large former Iraqi chemical weapons production plant this summer, whose 2,500 degraded rockets the Iraqi officials claimed unlikely to be fit for use.

    The Daily Caller notes that Barack Obama drew a “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, only to retreat from it later. At the time this video was made, ISIS use of chemical weapons was only rumored:
    Is ISIS Using Chemical Weapons In Syrian Town Of…
    Daily Caller

    Now that it has become a reality, the question will be whether this changes the calculus for the US, NATO, and the UN. Russia and China might balk at UN Security Council approval for military action against ISIS under normal circumstances (if such a term could possibly apply in this case), but the use of chemical weapons might make that a very difficult position. If the UN won’t act when WMD is used, especially by non-state actors, then whatever use still remains of the UNSC other than a debating society will have evaporated for good — and what’s more, Russia and China have to know that. The West has already begun acting outside of those confines, for better (operations against ISIS already under way) and worse (Libya).

    They could decide to sit back and allow the West and the other Arab nations in the coalition to continue going after ISIS, but there’s a problem with that strategy: it’s not working. ISIS isn’t being destroyed, degraded, shrunk, or even managed at the moment. They have fallen back temporarily in Kobani, but only tactically. They are advancing on Baghdad, continue to sack Yazidi villages and enslave the women, and now they’re aiming to reverse one of their few strategic setbacks this year:

    An Islamic State offensive in northern Iraq that began Monday with a series of car bombings on Kurdish military positions has been thwarted thus far by U.S.-led airstrikes outside the critical Mosul Dam area, though the militants were advancing near the Sinjar Mountains, according to Kurdish officials.

    A senior Kurdish military official said Thursday that the threat to Mosul Dam had been neutralized for now by U.S.-led air power, which badly hurt Islamic State fighters who had massed for the offensive. The United States conducted 12 airstrikes near Mosul Dam on Tuesday, according to the U.S. Central Command. …

    Overnight Wednesday, the Central Command said that it had attacked four Islamic State targets south of the dam, which controls both agricultural water supplies and the electricity supply for Mosul, the city that the Islamic State has held since overrunning much of northern and central Iraq in June. The Islamic State briefly controlled the dam, but a concerted effort by the peshmerga, backed by Iraqi special forces troops and coalition airstrikes, retook the facility in August.

    Yawar said that a series of French airstrikes in the area – separate from the American ones – had killed dozens of Islamic State fighters south of the dam.

    But the militants overran two lightly defended Yazidi villages on Tuesday, establishing at least a partial encirclement of the large mountain range, which looms over the otherwise flat northern Iraqi desert and serves as the spiritual home to the Yazidi minority.

    The airstrikes and limited ground operations of the Peshmerga are not enough to keep ISIS from its expansionist path. With chemical weapons now available, the odds of getting Sunni tribal leaders to join forces against ISIS have probably gone from slim to none. It will take a large ground operation to defeat ISIS, and to prevent the further use of chemical weapons, too. If the Arab nations in the coalition (and the Turks) are not going to provide that, then the West had better come to grips with that reality and either put together that force or wash their hands of the Middle East altogether.


  25. I was reading this article:


    And I saw this comment:

    “They appear to be diminishing the freedom of religion to what the tax code allows.”

    This made me start thinking about how so many of our rights are determined by the tax code. I’m trying to see the big picture on how this is working as it concerns individual rights applied to people, for profit and not for profit corporations and business’s, and religious churches and separate religious organizations.

    The court has basically said that for profit business’s have political speech but non-profit companies and churches do not unless they pay taxes of some sort like property taxes. So you have to pay to be involved in the political process-this type of thing could be called another type of poll tax-in order to require ID’s to vote we had to give the ID to people for free-seems a little contradictory to me.

    Then we’ve got issues like being taxed for someones birth control-in this freedom of religion seems to be treated as a very limited group right instead of an individual right. Actually freedom of religion doesn’t seem to be treated as an individual right anymore at all.

    I’m all over the place with my discombobulated thoughts here:Anyone want to help me figure out the big picture. 🙂

  26. Just A Citizen says:


    Contained in this article are some facts that I mentioned here before when arguing with Mathius over the supposed “studies” claiming discrimination. Namely that these studies don’t reflect reality and don’t look into actual behavior in each state.


    The comments made under testimony also reflect those I heard years ago, which I have also shared here, by a Dem operative. Namely that welfare was a small cost for keeping these “people” in the big cities and out of the “suburbs”.

  27. We discussed DOMA the other day and the one Judge who didn’t overturn the States definition of marriage. Was reading today and came upon this-

    “Learn more about Gay Marriage

    In 1996 the federal government enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allowed states to not recognize same sex marriages granted by other states. In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that that DOMA was unconstitutional. Currently, thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. See recent gay marriage news”


    Look at what they point to in DOMA as relavent -then read what Kennedy said in the actual ruling:

    “DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    I wish this focused more on the basic rights violated by laws that dictate private business behavior but it does cover several other key points. Namely that the affect of the Civil Rights Act was a Govt TAKING of private property.


    • Ah Crap, now I have to sound all contradictory. I don’t know whether to put a smiley face or a frown next to that statement-so I’ll put neither.

      But if things were now, like they were back when this law was passed, I would vote Yes to civil rights laws. I could write a book about why I would do so-but I’ll just be short and say that I see a difference between not allowing people to buy or rent property to live in or stop an eat at a restaurant or rent a room when they are traveling, etc. and in forcing people to bake a cake, take a picture or preform a marriage ceremony.

      I look at these laws and I see that they did a lot of good, But they also did a lot of bad. Now as far as I can see all they are doing is bad. So I don’t know if we should get rid of them all and see what happens or get rid of some and tighten up on how they are implemented, if that is even possible..

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I know you know this, but I will say it anyway.

        The Contradictions in your principles are haunting you.

        Easy answer…………laws governing behavior beyond crimes for violence should be limited to restricting Government, not people.

        Start with core principles and work up. Right to property is a Core. This trumps a supposed right to be served by another private person.

      • How about if we just shrink everything a declare a new right. The right to be offended. Then we can just say So What! I’ve been offended before…didn’t hurt me a bit, I just moved on.

  29. Are you ready for some Sunday morning football? My Lions are struggling in London so far this morning.

    Chalk up another win for Sparty vs the Wolverines…that makes 6-1 in the last 7 meetings. Banner flying over Spartan Stadium: Mich..plzzz keep Brady Hoke!

    Sparty On!

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Stupid………..stupid……………stupid…………… and the sheep lap it up.

    Proof once again that there is no HONOR among this tribe of thieves and thugs.


  31. I haven’t said this for awhile but it’s time-if the extreme progressives that seem to be all we hear from anymore win- we will all be living in a cesspool.

    They are willing to do anything to win from being faux satanists to teaching 5 year olds things about sex they don’t need to know to attempting to hand out Bible cartoons of the Bible as a person putting their hand up a woman’s skirt to THIS:

    I wouldn’t blame this on liberals if they weren’t coming out in groves to support it. But I would like to say that there actually are things worse than being raped. But I’m not gonna set some up to be raped so I can yell about how much worse torturing some one to death or cutting off their body parts is compared to rape. When did it become okay to do something wrong to point out something you think is wrong. Just as a FYI-their statistics are crap too.

  32. Just A Citizen says:


    At least the Lions won. At the rate things are going the Seahawks are going to lose again.

    Absolutely sucking up to now.

  33. Interesting argument going on down here…..

    There is a local franchised McDonald’s here that just went automated. Automated cooking, automated drink machines. They cut their employee staff by 70% leaving only people receiving the trucks with supplies and cashiers and one counter person for those that want to come inside. They expanded their traffic lanes to three and have a voice synthetic ordering system that……..makes no mistakes. There is a lane for debit and credit cards only and a lane for cash customers only and a lane that will do both. The cash lanes are just like fast checkout….put your money in and get back the CORRECT change. In lanes 2 and three, your order is hustled out by a live person.

    Want a special order…….just order it but you must be clear. Want a burger with mustard only….you must say what you want. Make a mistake? Just say CANCEL and start over. According to the owners….it is working quite well and they increased their sales almost 25%. Pretty good increase.

    Employees, however, are not quite so understanding. They are complaining that automated systems are taking their jobs. The owners made the statement that they are anticipating minimum wage increases but even without the increase, their costs reportedly went down 27 %. The only draw back at first, they said, was learning how to order. The machine is not going to ask if you want fries…you will have to order fries or order a specific meal but be sure to name your drink or you will get…….ready for this……DR PEPPER. it is the state drink.

    When asked what happens in a power failure or machine breakdown…….they have a back up generator system but NO backup up automation system…….they said that routine maintenance is obviously very important. Unfrozen food is not touched by human hands.

    Sign of the future?

    • Wonder how this will affect Clinton’s claim that business’s don’t create jobs-hmmm looks to me like they not only create jobs-they can take them away.

    • Wonder why it increased their sales. I am surprised that there hasn’t been a short term loss in business in protest of the jobs lost, before the people lost interest and started buying again.

    • One other thing-an attempt to answer your actual question 🙂

      If things keep going like they are-yes-I think it’s a sign of the future. I think business’s like McDonald’s, in the past wanted to be your friendly neighborhood establishment. Wanted whole families to come in and eat and have their kids play in the play grounds. But now, between the bad economy hurting their profits, people demanding their salaries be almost doubled and the violence that is consistently happening at their restaurants -I don’t think it is surprising that they are willing to take the risk of losing their reputation as a family friendly business.

      • Well, they still have the play area ( a rather large one ) and they still do B day’s etc……I noticed that. And when they have B day’s. I understand that they staff up for that with part time help ( keeping the hours under the new established norm now ).

        I am very curious because I want to invest in something local like that but when I started exploring the franchise option, I found that as a franchise owner, I still have to abide by McDonald’s corporate. In other words, if I wanted to adjust prices, I cannot. If I wanted to pay more per hour, I cannot. I have to buy from their vendors at their prices and cannot shop around….this is for quality control and I can understand that to keep continuity across the country. They also have uniform requirements.

        But I do have the freedom to staff like I want and I have the freedom to classify the staff….so I can adjust salary by classification. As long as I have cleaning standards that match or exceed corporate, I can do that.

        But one thing that I noticed was that there was a person whose job it was to make sure that the condiment vats were filled and that temperatures remained constant in the coolers. In addition, to the parfaits and ice cream, it still took a person to do those. But the cooking and sandwich making and packaging was all electronic and computerized. No cooked food touched human hands. The fries mechanically measured out and the cooking times are exact. No one leaves the fries in the oil too long and nothing is over/under cooked.

        I have also noticed, that the fast food industry is changing its identity….it is strictly fast food now and not so much touted as a restaurant. I also noticed that the staff is one hell of a lot friendlier…they are customer oriented and they smile and say “my pleasure” and “thank you” and have dropped the “No Problem” answer.

        Location is the main issue for the type of clientele that I would want. But I am seriously considering it.

        • I’ve heard from people who would be perspective employees that they would prefer to word at Wendy’s or Burger King because McDonald’s offers such a variety of options that it is very hard to be fast in the preparations and much more to remember-that you basically had to work much harder at McDonald’s so the food preparation being automated might be a good thing. Don’t know if that is helpful information or not but it can’t hurt.

        • May be a regional thing, but the burger joints around here have far less traffic than places like Qdoba or PotBelly Sandwiches..even Subway. I’ve been wondering how McDs and others have been keeping the doors open.

          I’ve been looking into food trucks myself. No not concession trucks..the real food trucks. My city is on a big rebound, been wondering if our mayor is ready for some of that tactical urbanism.

          • Mickey D’s down here is pretty popular…especially among Hispanics. It is funny to see that in places like Taco Bell or Taco Bueno….non-HIspanics are the only ones in there. But the profit margins for Mickey D’s are greater than Burger King, Whataburger, etc. Most likely because of volume.

            But to your other thing, I wish I had been in on the beginning of it but food trucks are a big thing around here. ( I am assuming by food truck, you do mean the rolling kind that can set up anywhere )…..but they are big business here…especially around parks and bike trails because even in the winter, unless there is an ice storm, the wx allows us out on bike trails most of the year. 40-50 during the day and sunshine.

  34. Anybody notice just how fast Christie and Cuomo got shut down on their attempts to enforce a quarantine? Wonder what promises/threats emanated from 1600 Pennsylvania?

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    For all those people who were blaming Obama for high gas prices, Hannity I am talking about you and your friends, just wanted to remind you that you must now CREDIT Obama for the LOW GAS PRICES.

    See what happens when you spew bull shit. Eventually you will get some on you.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    To all my Liberal friends, a little education on language and the wording of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-your-second-amendment

  37. Self quarantine……..are they serious?

    • Sure, like they did with the NBC doctor who’s cameraman was exposed. What could go wrong? Or it may be that Obama wants some Ebola outbreaks??? Not trying to go conspiracy theory here, but what else makes sense? Ebola is and only has been contained by quarantine.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Maybe the arrogance of the medical “EXPERTS”???

        just sayin.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A little conspiracy theory for today. Ebola is a bio weapon designed to kill black people primarily . It was originally released in Ziare in 1978 along the Ebola river as a test. This is new new updated strain that passes easier from person to person. Note how many non blacks that have died who got the disease.

        There is you CT for the day 🙂

  38. Veterans asked by Tarrant County Democratic party chair not to wear hats with flags or veteran’s designations to polling places. It is intimidating to some. Our response…..hats and T shirts with “come and take it” on them. They pissed us off….we are now organizing voting day protests at all polling places by standing outside, in accordance with the laws governing how close you can be…..with American flags, hats, and t shirts. Will take a pic.

  39. David Skekabim says:

    @ VH, Anita

    Which color of the rainbow is the most ‘superior’?

    What is the ‘best’ color?

    Which is the ‘correct’ color?

    What do you say is my favorite color?

    When you only see in one color, you miss a lot. White LIGHT uses ALL colors. In order to see properly, you must see them all.

    If you are arguing or thinking in terms that another religion is not legitimate or is offensive or evil, if you’re claiming exclusivity to God or the solstice season which is part of many religions, you’re like arguing that red is your color and the only true color. If you’re thinking in terms of applicable force, you are demanding that others also only see in red. It shows you’re missing something. …says you’re blind.

    Anything developed from a faulty or incomplete inconsistent premise values and/or principles, will also be faulty incomplete or inconsistent.

    Premise; Reality;

    By order of nature (God’s creation) humans are individuals with independent thought. Each and every one of us have our own mind and self determination. This includes deciding what to believe and what to/not to worship, or how/when/where to express ideas. There are as many beliefs and philosophies as there are colors. Infinite.


    If you value your own humanity, inalienable right to free thought and expression and self determination, then you value it for everyone, as it is universal.


    If you value it, you must respect it. To value and respect something, is to love it. To love it is to take responsibility. You have a right and responsibility to yourself and community to maintain a principled social order in the interest of what is peaceful and universally beneficial.

    So.. Love thy neighbor by respecting their rights. Celebrate yours and their freedoms with equality and inclusion.

    It all boils down to love. Everything dealing with freely functional harmonious social interaction will, at least in part and in one form or another, be a result of acts of love, and/or respect, and value of others.

    The opposite of love is not hate, but rather selfishness. As it is, humanity’s values are very selfish and systems of order unprincipled, based on a violent, territorial, restrictive, divisive win/lose structure that brings out the worst of our nature, …instead of a win/win.

    It is all dependent upon the collective free thoughts and choices of individuals.This is why it is important for people to break free from the mindset that has built a world destined for correction or enslavement. Every time you demand force instead of rights, you restrict your society, which will eventually lock up and/or bust.

    It’s a prison built on evil. Break free. ..with Love.

    • Who says I don’t love satanists? I may know plenty of them and don’t know it. You’re way over thinking it…waaaaay over thinking it. Hate the sin.

      • David Skekabim says:

        You’re not thinking enough.

        It isn’t really about Satanists. They are assisting in making a point, however, ..helping to break people free.

        It’s really about humanity getting it together.

        • Didn’t see your post before I replied to JAC. Maybe I’m not communicating my message well enough. See below.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Stupid is as stupid does, or evidence that the entire Clinton family is infected with the same disease.


    • Then he’s playing both sides of the fence, because he laid this line out there Saturday night:

      “I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,”

      I can live with that line.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is the left wing appeal to emotion.

        You support a line that denigrates you for having BELIEF in something important enough to stand your ground when it is attacked.

        Same goes for those who decry “ideology”. What is the answer, no ideology? No belief?

        All are rationalizations for “values are relative so it is wrong to hold any values”.

        As for Mr. Clinton, he is always playing ONE SIDE of the fence. He may talk out both sides of his mouth but his is ALWAYS playing one game. HIS GAME.

        • I agree with what you said but you went a different route than what I was thinking. MLK came to mind…content of his character type thing. Really can’t argue with that.

          • …and before you have bourbon coming from your nose!…I know that Clinton is no MLK! 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Sorry, I misunderstood your point. Agreed, Clinton lacks HONOR, INTEGRITY, and GOOD CHARACTER. As in BOTH Clintons.

      • As long as it is his way! I see this with my liberal/radical friends. As Bernie Goldberg says, they never have met or associated with anyone who disagrees fundamentally with them. Therefore, they define “opposition” to suit their frame of mind. If you go beyond that, then you are some kind of nut. So, regardless of the issue, if you are not for registration of all guns, confiscation of all “automatic weapons” magazine limits, then you are a nutjob. They will allow you to argue whether it is 5 or 10 rounds allowed, whether registration should be annual or bi-annual, whether the fee should be $ 2.00 or $ 200 (as in NYC) but that is as far as their beneficence extends.

        I use guns as a simple example, but name the issue, and they are right there with an extreme take couched as “reasonable” be it gay marriage or abortion.

        Clinton is funny. A plebiscite on Obama? Maybe? However, to me, it is a plebiscite on Harry Reid as the Republican loss of the House a few years back was aimed at Tom Delay as much as Bush Jr.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Ever wonder what happens when self righteous arrogant jackasses collide at the highest levels of Govt?? Well here is a great example:


    If I were POTUS the official who said these things to the press would be sent home IMMEDIATELY.

    P.S.: Notice how the Obama “people” display here the same contempt they have for their domestic opponents. It never occurs to anyone that this may be part of the problem.

    • Need a good laugh? Check out the Twitchy thread on this topic. Someone in the top 5 or so had to have ok’d this to slip out. Wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was the president himself. Everyone knows there is heat between the (heads of state) leaders. Pretty sure Netanyahu understands it’s a problem at the top, not with the majority of Americans.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Netanyahu is one of the arrogant jackasses of which I speak. Your probably right about “majority” of Americans but I think that number is constantly shrinking. People are waking up to Israel’s bad behavior.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    I wonder what voter turnout would look like if mail in ballots and early voting were eliminated.

    You know, return to the way it was done for two centuries.

    Interesting admission on Daily Kos this morning. Democratic success DEPENDS on early “mail in ballots”.

    Does this mean that they “depend” on lazy voters or that this is the easiest means of “stealing” an election??

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Had a short but interesting chat with an 85 year old friend who is a die hard Democrat. He said no matter who I vote for, just vote (I’ve heard that crap before). He then said how much Democrats have given us (Social Security was mentioned).

      I smiled and politely said that today’s Democrats have given us more poverty and if he wanted proof to look and see who runs the politics in the most dangerous 100-150 cities in America. After a brief puzzled look, he smiled slightly and said “Your right, see ya later”.

      It’s hard to argue with facts. The Dems most certainly need to cheat to win elections. I have come to the conclusion that the Progressive Liberal’s who have hijacked the Democrat party are far from honest. I don’t have much use for dishonest people.

      The elections will take place and the sheople will ensure that the current level of corruption will continue. The only way most people will learn that our current Federal government (as well as many State and Local) is NOT in the business of serving the people who elect them, they are in the business of being rulers and thieves who will not be around when needed the most. Sadly, those who trust in government are in for a fatal lesson down the road. It is inevitable.

      Good day to you today JAC, and best wishes for your family as well 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      A comparison of apples to oranges to bananas.

      Federalism is a concept of Govt structure.

      Property rights is a concept of metaphysics and/or morality/ethics. So of course an ideology which claims absolutism in property rights will conflict with any system where rules are placed on such rights by a “group”. Whether that be by common law or govt. law.

      The discussion on “liberation” mixes concepts as well. Liberation from ignorance as compared to liberation from oppression?? Again, if one ascribes to a faulty conception of what “liberation” itself means it will always have conflicts with any other concept.

      Now to the most significant point, and an answer to the author’s question.

      YES….they will ALWAYS be in conflict. That is the nature of opposing concept and principles. Thus no rational discussion or argument about the nuance is possible.

      One more thing. The “property” concept the author describes is not the one most commonly espoused by Libertarians or even many Anarchists. Property rights are constrained by other rmoral and ethical principles. That is the nature of a properly constructed “philosophy” or “ideology”.

      So I can establish a pig farm on my property and you cannot then move in and try to have me stopped. But I cannot move next to you and then start up the pig farm IF, and here is the critical part, IF my action would create a real threat to your use and enjoyment of your property. So my pig farm could go ahead if I can eliminate the obnoxious odor and keep the place looking tidy.

      Now while being critical let me also place some praise on this article. It does highlight the fact that several of the more popular concepts of societal organization and systems are in direct conflict with the concept of Federalism, as established by our Founders and the framers of the Constitution.

      And of course, Federalism if properly implemented per the original version could also be called “homogenous”.

      • “That is the nature of opposing concept and principles. Thus no rational discussion or argument about the nuance is possible. ”

        But isn’t it the nuance between these concepts, that causes us all our problems? Absolutism seems to be an impossible concept to deal with or even argue against and yet, it is impossible to live with IMHO.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I would not call the differences that cause problems the “nuance” but the core principle itself.

          Lets use another general example. When arguing with a statist/socialist over the validity of welfare or some other social program the non statists will fall into the trap of arguing over the “nuance” between the right “amount” of welfare or the “type” of the welfare. But in reality welfare of any kind is a violation of the non statist view. So in reality there is no argument to be had on the “nuance”. The “conflict” is in the core value itself.

          The argument is over the fundamental differences. Welfare is another form of COERCED participation and support of another person’s desires. It is THEFT. Charity is not theft nor is it coerced. So the proper discussion of “empathy” between his “liberation” and “property” categories should be over the use of FORCE vs. CHARITY. Not over whether “property” will create adequate “govt support” for the poor.

          I would argue that the right kind of absolutism is quite easy to live with.

          My issue with the article is that the author is using a form of Govt structure, Federalism, as a comparable base/core theory of rights or social mores. His property and liberation groups could in fact function quite well under Federalism or under some other “form” of Govt. Although the “liberation” concept would probably be pushed towards greater centralization. Because that is the nature of those who wish to dictate our “empathy” response.

          A single National Govt could just as well honor property rights as not. The FORM is not as important as the underlying principles on which it is founded. What Federalism is designed to deal with is the inevitable grab for power that comes with Government. The hope was that by diversifying Govt authorities it would be hard for any single group to gain total power over the people.

          So what is the base, as in core, principle that is at stake? What is the real conflict in all these concepts of govt., social structure, morals/ethics, etc.??

          It is the proper role and rights of the Individual vs the Group. If the individual is truly sovereign, then how can any group legitimately “impose” their will upon the individual??

          Conversely, if the group has primacy then why do we even consider “individual rights” as important? Because in the end they are not, they will succumb to the vote of the “majority”.

          • I’m gonna use an example because they always better help me understand. The other day you pointed out that one reason we needed government was a small thing like running pipes for sewage lines. Now this would in fact interfere with property rights through government actions-so the property rights of the individual would not be absolute-now this causes a conflict or a contradiction if one thinks the government or the group has a right to force the individual owner to allow this access.

            So I will change my word from the nuance to the conflicts/contradictions that arise when looking at these two ideologies in relation to governmental actions.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              And to that I would agree. It is a conflict in the fundamental differences in the two philosophies. Rights or power of the group vs. the individual.

              The notion of absolute property rights (private property) is most accurately linked to the Anarcho-capitalist viewpoint. Some “Libertarians” would also fall into this group but not all of them. Because many “libertarians” are more focused on restoring the Constitution, which is not based on absolute private property rights.

              Under this system all parties would have to agree on giving up rights of way in order to construct sewer/water systems.

              Under our system there is an assumed “proper” role of the majority, via Govt, to take actions beneficial to the community. Thus the taking of property for the water/sewer rights-of-way.

              Where the major conflict arises is the “level” of Govt where this power is exercised the most. The Founders tried to push the greatest power to the local level, because that is where the people are more likely to be able to fight against an unjust Govt. So the Federal was given little power of the majority over the individual. This power increases as you move towards the local town/city or community.

              But make no mistake, the Founders of this country did not believe in absolute “individual liberty”. The believed that men have a right to organize themselves into communities and establish governments to their benefit. Yet they recognized the hazard this right/power/authority posed to “individual liberty”. So they tried to have their cake and eat to.

              They tried to devise a system that would “maximize” individual freedom and liberty while providing for what they perceived as the “benefits” of Govt. Recognizing that this established a system with built in conflict.

              We can now describe that conflict in real terms. As well as recognize that the concepts of “individual freedom” and “Democratic Govt” conflict at the core level.

              Now would be a good time to remind everyone that one of the ways our ancestors tried to overcome this conflict was to instill a sense of “duty” and “responsibility” among the population. Duty to community, our fellow citizens and to our nation. If you act on this sense of duty then you will do things as an individual that will reduce the need/desire for increased Govt intervention. You will also be more likely to serve in a Govt capacity at least once in your life. Strengthening the link between “citizen” and “govt”. The opposite of what we have now with massive numbers of elected appointments and long term bureaucrats.

              Charity is a prime example. With a strong sense of duty or responsibility to help the poor via charity, the need/demand for Govt programs become obsolete.

              So let me address the sewer/water line example to make my other point about how form of Govt can function for different philosophies.

              Under the property rights view the local Govt could still have the authority to construct and operate the sewer/water system. But the pipe lines can only be placed on property where the owners granted a right-of-way per their free will. I assume here they would sell it. If that one person holds out, then the Govt must find a different route.

              Under our current system, the local Govt would “take” the property in question and pay the supposed fair market value for the ROW. This would also be the same under what the author called the “liberation” concept.

              In both cases the structure or form of the Govt remains the same. It is the powers and authorities granted to that Govt. that change. These are in turn based on the moral and ethical principles of each. Well at least they should be based on the ethics.

              This is where the phrase “ordered Liberty” comes in. I once expressed my dislike for this term as I find it a contradiction in terms. What it really means is that most Americans have come to accept limitations on their freedom and liberty for not just the sake of safety and protection of their rights, but for convenience.

              This of course creates even more important questions. If we have Order and not Liberty, but we still want some freedom and some liberty, then WHO decides what we get to keep? HOW do they make that decision? WHAT is the basis for the decision.

              Since I am on a roll now let me offer up another related observation. During the Founding period the heated debates and differences were generally not over the core principles held by the people involved. Individual freedom and liberty were the goal. The heated and sometimes hateful arguments were over the form of how to create a great nation based on these principles. How to preserve a country of free men in a world dominated by monarchy and Statism.

              Our debates today are over substance, not the form. The Socialist movement has taken a deep hold on Americans. Thus we are now fighting over whether to continue the “transformation” of the American Idea towards the Socialist Utopia or to restore the American Idea. This truly is an ideological struggle. And that is why I do not cotton the arguments for the need to compromise just to get things done.

              The Great Compromise was needed to overcome disputes about how much power each State would have in a decentralized federal system. Today we are told to compromise on forfeiting ALL State and Individual power to the Federal. Those are not the same type of conflicts.

              This begs the question, where is compromise appropriate. I maintain that compromise on specific issues can be made IF, and ONLY IF, the result is a step TOWARDS restoring Individual and/or State authority. IF and ONLY IF, the result is a step TOWARDS returning to the original intent of the Constitution and the Republic it created.

              Now think back to some of my discussions and negotiations with Mathius to reach a compromise on a particular issue. Welfare was one of them. If I recall, he agreed to reduce welfare programs to ONLY those with mental and physical handicaps that prevented them from earning a living. This would be a step TOWARDS our goal of freedom and liberty, as it would reduce the Federal role and cost to all of us. Not perfect but a STEP in the right direction.

              Sorry for the long response V. It is cold and raining out so I have been avoiding working outside. Looks like you get to suffer the results of my procrastination. 🙂

              By the way, I read the article you liked twice more. I think the author’s misuse of certain words and creating new terms like “privatarians” or “liberationists” makes the thing very confusing to decipher.

              • Yes, it was a little confusing, starting with the very clear title and then changing the word usage within the body of the article. I have to say, considering the topic, that difficulty was part of what I liked about it. 🙂

  43. Obama shifting America away from Israel and toward Iran
    posted at 12:31 pm on October 29, 2014 by Noah Rothman

    Share on Facebook 24

    This White House’s relationship with Israel, and particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has always been strained, but it is fair to assume today that American relations with the West’s closest ally in the Middle East are downright hostile.

    The White House is making it clear for all interested observers that they do not believe close relations with the Israeli government are a priority. AllahPundit’s dissection of an interview an administration official gave The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, in which Netanyahu was ungraciously described as “recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery,’” is a must-read.

    AllahPundit observed that the unnamed administration in that piece took credit for preventing Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, called Netanyahu a “chickensh*t” for not pulling the trigger despite Washington’s objections, and mocked Jerusalem for now being unable to successfully eliminate Iran’s hardened atomic weapons facilities. Essentially, the administration is taking credit for saving the Iranian nuclear program.

    Logically, this is indefensible. The president has repeatedly assured the public that his administration’s goal was to avoid presiding over the nuclearization of Iran. Even if you suspect that he is not fully committed to that outcome, it is safe to assume that he is dedicated to avoiding the scorn and derision of historians who will look back on his presidency as one which allowed the volatile Middle East to grow exponentially more dangerous. But the administration’s decision makes sense when viewed within the framework of its determination to shift America away from its alliance with Israel and towards friendlier relations with Tehran.

    “[R]ecent months have ushered in a change as the two countries have grown into alignment on a spectrum of causes, chief among them promoting peaceful political transitions in Baghdad and Kabul and pursuing military operations against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, according to these officials,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

    It is not merely the Mullahs in Tehran that are enjoying this new thaw in Washington. Organizations the State Department lists as terrorist groups which are sponsored and protected by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, are also finding America is markedly less hostile toward them these days.

    The Obama administration also has markedly softened its confrontational stance toward Iran’s most important nonstate allies, the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Lebanese militant and political organization, Hezbollah. American diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry , negotiated with Hamas leaders through Turkish and Qatari intermediaries during cease-fire talks in July that were aimed at ending the Palestinian group’s rocket attacks on Israel, according to senior U.S. officials.

    U.S. intelligence agencies on a number of occasions have provided tips on terrorist threats to Lebanese security agencies that are known to be close or under the sway of Hezbollah, said U.S. and Arab officials. Among them is the intelligence unit, known as the General Security Directorate, which has arrested Nusra Front cells in Beirut and northern Lebanon over the past two years.

    The Obama administration’s indirect diplomatic engagement with Hamas has unnerved Israel and allied Arab states. Washington maintains a policy of no direct talks with the Palestinian group, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union. But Mr. Kerry and other U.S. officials regularly conveyed messages to Hamas’s political chief, Khaled Meshaal, through Qatari and Turkish diplomats during cease-fire talks this summer.

    Aside from being dangerous policy, this smacks of naiveté in pursuit of ephemeral expediency. This administration needs Iran to relieve them of the hard work of defending and securing a weak Iraq. Iran’s nuclear program cannot be confronted while at the same time the administration leans on Tehran to take on more responsibilities in its destabilized neighbor.

    But this is not a viable strategy for the United States to pursue in the long-term. The weaknesses of American diplomatic overtures to Iran at Israel’s expense are exposed by the very name which the Wall Street Journal gives this policy of rapprochement: Détente.

    Détente with the Soviet Union was also a policy of convenience crafted by the Nixon administration. It was designed with the aim of mollifying the Soviets in order to facilitate a speedy American withdrawal from Vietnam. It enjoyed some limited successes, mostly in the form of arms reduction treaties, but it was ultimately doomed to collapse.

    Détente quite nearly disintegrated when the 37th President “opened” China, allowing Western governments to exacerbate the widening Sino-Soviet split and igniting a simmering civil conflict within the communist world. It utterly dissolved after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and, after the election of Ronald Reagan, the post-Détente Cold War landscape of 1981 to 1983 may have been the most dangerous period of that entire conflict.

    America sacrificed a troublesome and imperfect but nevertheless stalwart ally in Saigon in order to achieve a temporary diplomatic victory with Détente. The reanimation of this long-dead policy, and Washington’s desire to sacrifice Jerusalem for the fleeting benefits associated with warmer relations with Tehran, is disturbingly shortsighted.


  44. I have an article ready on ISIS. Would anyone prefer that or just an open mic?

%d bloggers like this: