Rand Paul

My first pick as of today would be Rand Paul.  I think we play the role of the world’s policeman too often.  At the same time, we were attacked on the 11th of September.  If there is to be a fight, I would rather it be on their property than in America.  So can we critique Senator Paul?



  1. 😎

  2. Editor’s Note: The following is the prepared text of a speech by Senator Rand Paul delivered in New York City at the Center for the National Interest’s annual dinner on October 23, 2014.

    Thank you. It’s an honor to be at the Center for The National Interest.

    Immediately before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama wrote that we are at “the end of history.”

    The world, Fukuyama argued, had arrived at what he called the universal triumph of “Western liberal democracy as the final point of human government.”

    Almost 25 years later, we know Fukuyama was either wrong or, at the very least, a bit optimistic.

    History has not ended.

    Russia slides backward vainly hoping to resurrect the Soviet Union.

    Vladimir Putin justifies aggression in Ukraine as defense against decadent and hypocritical Western powers.

    In East Asia, Beijing extols the remarkable rise of China as the supremacy of a one-party state capitalism.

    In the Middle East, secular dictatorships have been replaced by the rise of radical jihadist movements, who in their beliefs and barbarity — represent the antithesis of liberal democracy.

    These challenges are in part consequences of failing to define our national security interest in a new era.

    Our allies and our enemies are unsure where America stands.

    Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis.

  3. Well, I was going to say that Rand Paul is a little weird to me. Then I read this article and well, he’s not so weird anymore.


  4. Just A Citizen says:


    I am with you. Paul is the next best choice to voting for myself. 🙂

  5. Been reading about Rand Paul’s statements about judicial activism being a good thing-something about the court standing for liberty. Supposedly this is a libertarian thought. So libertarians what’s the logic behind this?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      When trying to understand RAND Paul keep in mind he is NOT a Libertarian.

      He is a Hybrid, like many other Republicans who hold some Libertarian views but still believe in Govt. intervention in some aspects of our lives. He also does not hold the Libertarian view that we should only be involved in conflicts overseas that are in response to attacks on the USA.

      • Okay, but there seems to be quite a lot of articles about this topic as a libertarian principal-not that that really matters not all libertarians believe the same exact things-but Rand seems too. I had to read two articles to get a basic understanding. Curious about your opinion.


        • Ha Ha-here’s the second article-had to slow down-got a message I’ve never received before-the computer told me I was posting to fast and that I should slow down. 🙂 Now it doesn’t want to post at all.


        • Just A Citizen says:


          I am not sure why they call it “activism” for starters. That term is usually used to explain Judges who are “changing” the law to suit their own desires or value system.

          I do believe that the application of the 14th amendment to so many things was an “activism” by prior courts. But once that was breeched, new decisions based on the same precedent are no longer activism.

          This is how Buck gets away with calling a Conservative SCOTUS decision to reinstate States’ authority as “Activism”. Because it would change the current status quo.

          Now as for the Libertarian part, I can see how libertarian legal minds would utilize the “liberal courts” prior activism to meets its own goals. But remember, Libertarians are also all about the Constitution. So in the examples you provided they are using PRIOR interpretations, that is using the expanded interpretation of the 14th amendment.

          I do not see how the argument that Congress has no authority but neither do the states on any issue as necessarily libertarian, conservative or liberal. That is how the Constitution is constructed. It does provide some limitations to States.

          I can tell you with certainty that it was never the intent of the Framers to impose the “Bill of Rights” upon the States. Nor any other “rights” construed therein. But then they would not have had to as most states included the same rights within their own Constitutions.

          I doubt that those who constructed the 14th amendment ever thought it would be used to establish supreme FEDERAL authority over all rights and privileges or to make the autonomy of states completely moot with respect to all such matters.

          Remember, the issue they were trying to resolve was States using their “sovereignty” to prohibit Black People from having the rights afforded them when Congress outlawed slavery. Can you imagine the look you would have gotten if you told them it would be used to legalize marriage of homosexuals??

          For the record, I believe the application of the 14th to “marriage” that is the use of it to declare “marriage” of homosexuals legal is seriously flawed. A “marriage license” issued by the State is NOT A PRIVILEGE. It does not confer any benefit in and of itself. It simply cannot be obtained unless certain conditions are met. One of which was that the two people being married were a “man and woman” who were not siblings nor married to anyone else, for example.

          The “immunities and privileges” are granted by a list of other laws. Like the TAX LAWS. So it is those laws that actually discriminate by conferring special “privileges” to those who are “married”.

          I now wonder why some single people do not file suit against those laws as “discriminatory” based on “marriage status”.

          Oh, and I still think the notion that bans on homosexual marriages amount to sexual discrimination is absurd. It is a twisting of reason that is typical of the Progressive mind. Since a self proclaimed “libertarian” suggested it in the article, I would call that “Activism”.

          Now I also want to remind you of when I was trying to explain Ayn Rand’s view on Libertarians way back when. She did not like them much. The arguments you saw presented here is part of the reason. They adhere to the Constitution regardless of the flaws it contains, and they provide no solid moral foundation for many of their positions.

          I would argue the opposite is also true. They claim they support the Federalism of the USA but then want us to create National Rights from thin air.

          We would all be better off if we remembered the primary and sole purpose of a Constitution. It is to form a Govt and then to outline the powers limited to that Govt. Thus ours contains both “enumerated powers” and “restrictions”. The “Bill of Rights” was intended as a limitation on FEDERAL Govt Power but has been expanded beyond that.

          The Founders/Framers were strong adherents to the concept of State’s Rights and that States should hold the greatest power. That there is diversity among people and the more people the greater the diversity. States and municipalities must therefore be free to construct those laws and institutions that best fit the desires of those living within them. Local rule was the rule.

          Thus the First Amendment prohibits the Fed. Govt from establishing a church, but it did not prevent the States from doing so. It prohibited Federal regulation of “guns” but it did not prevent the States from doing so. Marriage was never considered a Federal matter of any kind. But then virtually 100% of the population would have agreed on what the meaning of the word was, and it was based on the Common Law. And ironically, their definition did not preclude interracial marriages. That Govt Imposed barrier was constructed much later.

          I also want to point out that as the article alludes, Libertarians share certain “values” or at least “policy ideas” with “Liberals and/or Progressives”. The emphasis on Individual freedom and liberty is one. The difference is that the modern Liberal/Progressive is not consistent in their stated principle. You should be free to have sex with a goat, but not to use your own income as you see fit. You should be free to use the men’s bathroom if you feel like a man today, but you cannot decide how to use your property for your own benefit. And heaven forbid that you might want to exclude any particular person from your business. You see they are free to associate with whomever they want, but you are not.

          You are not really free to find your own meaning of life, you must adhere to their view. That is in essence the Progressive view. It is also the view of most “Conservatives”. Both want others to conform to some standard they believe critical for some reason. Neither can allow people to simply decide for themselves how to live their life, as long as they do not impose their will upon others.

          I’ve spewed a lot there, hope some of it helps. Feel free to ask more questions if you want.

  6. Don’t know why this surprises me-at this point it shouldn’t-but it certainly points to population control and economics being the real reason for abortion.


  7. Well isn’t this interesting-I can already see a problem between the unions and the environmentalist-and I personally think there will be some major problems between the feminist and the LGBT. Suspect there will be problems between the individual letters in the LGBT too.


    • Liberal’s will learn that multiculturalism will not work. They keep adding to all numbers of cultures and one day they will begin to conflict in a big way. I’m glad I live in the country, this will be a mess one day.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Seems like the best place to post this, for now.

    January 21, 2015

    Don Watkins (Ayn Rand Institute)

    “My fellow Americans,” Obama said at the close of last night’s State of the Union, “we too are a strong, tight-knit family,” It’s not unusual for politicians to invoke folksy metaphors of this kind, but in this case it just about sums up Obama’s worldview.

    According to the president, Americans are not independent individuals who should be free to pursue their own diverse goals and values. Instead “we are one people” who should rally around a “sense of common purpose.” What purpose? No answer. Who should decide that purpose? That much was abundantly clear.

    For Obama, the government’s role is to set our goals, determine our priorities, and centrally plan our lives so that we achieve these priorities.

    How should we improve the country? By having the government provide us with energy, education, health care, broadband, childcare, infrastructure, sick leave, and higher wages; and by having it tax and regulate “the superrich,” especially if they happen to be in the financial industry, all of which will somehow “[build] the most competitive economy anywhere, the place where businesses want to locate and hire.”

    Without the mawkish sentiments about “family” and the pseudo-aspirational collectivist jargon, Obama’s agenda comes down to taking a bunch of money from us, directing it to purposes he thinks we should value, and using the power of government to coerce individuals and businesses to act in the way he thinks they should act.

    If America is a family, then Americans are a bunch of children, and we need to subordinate our goals and priorities to Dad.

    Is that really a worldview consistent with the founding ideals?

  9. Just A Citizen says:


    Buck says:

    January 21, 2015 at 10:20 pm (Edit)

    G – how does a payroll tax on all employees which is used to fund parental leave get to the government dictating who can and cannot have kids?”

    How did the Govt. providing payroll taxes and subsidies for health insurance become used to decide who gets care, what type care as well as where and when they get it???

    Do you realize how often your fellow Progressives use the “we are paying for it so we get to dictate the conditions” when it comes to any Federal payment.

    The Feds pay for the emergency room costs not paid by insurance. Therefore the Feds get to dictate health insurance coverage, fine those who don’t comply, and then dictate the terms of the available insurance polices.

    While it may not be on the near horizon, you are naïve to believe it will not come up at some point. Not all your fellow “Progressives” share your standards of where to draw a line.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the morning.

    When the Tea Party folks suggested we may need to exercise our Second Amendment Rights in order to get the Govt. off our backs, the LEFT when batshit crazy over the “threats of violence” just because they don’t get their way.

    Now what is the difference with Progressives threatening riots in the street and “burn baby burn” when it comes to the issues of perceived injustice and economic disparity??

    Ever notice how the bottom line of all redistribution proposals are that we must give the money to the masses “or else”?? Or else what? Well the masses will create great civil unrest……..you know………rioting and burning.

    The difference between these threats. The Tea Party would be lucky to get a few hundred foolish enough to use arms against the FEDS. The Progressives have the ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands based on the emotional mantra of “the man is putting you down”.

    • Our guns can also protect us from THEM, which may be a more viable reason after watching the Ferguson fiasco. Speaking of that, how come they ain’t out there rioting now after the DOJ made their recent statement?

  11. Just A Citizen says:
  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Anyone see the flaw in the argument that the “working middle class” is getting hosed??

    Granted this does not include the last couple of years. But hopefully you will see the FLAW.

    Any questions???

    • Just A Citizen says:

      This graph also reveals a flaw in the assertion that women are not paid the same as men. There is one situation where this is true, but another where it is not. Now can anyone speculate as to why the situation with disparity exists?

      I do not have the answer, only speculation of my own.

      • The one that shows the non-working man and working woman. Seems to indicate a business owner possibly. Jus a quick guess.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          And compare it to its equivalent counter part, working man with non-working woman.

          I don’t think you can assume business owners. Only that the man or woman is the ONLY person employed and showing income on the census forms.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    This one shows the dollar value of the upper limit for each quintile for FAMILIES.

    That is the break between each 20%. The “lower limit” for the upper 5% is also the “upper limit” for the families making up the top 95% of income. Don’t forget that each segment is the part between the limits. So the percentage of all families above the upper 80 and below the upper 95 is 15% of the population of FAMILIES.

  14. Buck says:

    January 22, 2015 at 4:47 pm (Edit)

    “my mother and Grandmother didn’t need it, the women of the future don’t need it. My ex had her maternity leave and went back to work. That was largely due to financial reasons, not a personal desire. Life happens. She actually looked forward to getting back to work.”

    A few things:

    1) Didn’t need it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been useful or beneficial.

    2) What about you? your father? your grandfather? You are still stuck in the mindset of…women get pregnant…they need to take responsibility. No mention of fatherhood?

    3) As SK has pointed out, the world is different now than it was.

    I’m not saying it wouldn’t be beneficial, I would prefer stay at home moms to be honest. This is a choice made by those who are in position to make those choices.

    Fatherhood? My whole family has been lucky to have fatherhood as a big part of the kids lives, even after divorce. Myself and my kids included. I can’t control the choices people make these days, nor is it my business or problem.

    The world is different, Outside of my family or my choice, what other people do is not my business, nor is it my responsibility. The money I earn is not up to the highest bidder, it’s mine, I earned it and I will decide who gets my charity. The more the government demands, the more likely people will just work under the table and tell them to piss off.

    In retrospect, if women want to buy an insurance policy to cover this, it’s their business. If companies want to terminate their employment after their guaranteed 12 weeks are up, that’s their right as well. Always be careful what you ask for my friend, you may get more than you bargained for.

  15. JAC asked-Could an abortion that was needed to protect the life of the mother, in fact, be considered as “self defense”???

    Lets change the question just a little bit. Could an abortion carried out after the legal definition of viable has been reached-which means the baby is a person at that point by law- that was needed to protect the life of the mother be considered self defense or something else? Although there isn’t any reason at this point in a pregnancy that would require killing the baby to save the mother. Yet they still allow it.

    And lets also ask , if an abortion is carried out after viability and it wasn’t based on the life of the mother but the condition of the baby-is that self defense too or something else?

    • Why not ask a simpler question. Why do you think it’s your business to tell others what to do in their lives?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is a silly and mundane response. Why do you think it your business to condemn “murder”?? Do you not agree with laws prohibiting murder and the punishment for those who commit murder?

        You see, there in lies the answer and thus the key question.

        • It’s not mundane at all. Not everyone thinks the same and not everyone believes the same. The subject of abortion will not end without a Constitutional Amendment. To continue to talk about is a waste of time. To me, it’s wrong and immoral. To others, it’s perfectly fine. Let God deal with it. If you feel strongly on the issue, work towards a viable solution.

          For the record, I feel the same way about the gun issue. If the gun grabbers want to outlaw them, they need an Amendment. Short of that their shit out of luck. I often ask the simple question, if you outlaw them, who’s going to come take them? It’s a suicide mission so good luck with that stupid idea.

          I simply have applied the same reasoning to both issues, short of an Amendment why bother preaching to the choir?

          • Because the only way to create change is to change people’s minds. What is your answer to just allow evil to grow-to allow each generation to be taught that everything is okay. Let God take care of it-what the hell do you think our responsibility is in this world to just sit back and do nothing with what God has taught us. To just sit back and tell people to shut up and mind their own business. Well you shut up if you want to. I intend to fight against that which I see as per fucking evil.

          • One more thing G-just how do you expect to ever reach the point of getting an amendment-if everyone who wants to stop these things don’t talk about them? While your not wasting your time talking about them-the other side is .

            • I apologize for losing my temper G. I could of made my points in a much nicer way.

            • The other side, sadly, has the law behind them. This is what needs to change. You and I and everyone can talk till we’re blue in the face, until the law is changed it will likely remain as legal. The Pro-choice people know this. I don’t know what it takes to start an amendment process, but as passionate as you are, that is where I would put my energy. I don’t see how debating the issue here will accomplish anything. It don’t mean I want you to be quiet on the issue, but to channel your energies where they can be effective. If a vote came up in an election to outlaw abortion, with a few, very few exceptions, I would most likely vote to outlaw it. So, I’m on your side on the issue, but simply not nearly as passionate. I will never have to make that decision, even as a new father, my days of making babies is long done. Now, go out and channel your passion, learn how to get it on the ballot in your State first, then pass that knowledge along to others 🙂

              • http://personalliberty.com/analysis-house-gops-abortion-bill-face-really-means/

                If this don’t explain that politicians are more for themselves than those they represent, I don’t know what else will V.

              • Yes, I saw this earlier-so I was already angry 🙂

                The same people who voted for the exact same bill when it had no meaning other than it was election time, now have a problem with it. I do wonder why the republicans keep making fools of themselves-is it on purpose-they didn’t have to have this dispute in the news-so I must assume a good number of them are just stupid.

                Of course the most irritating part of this-is that the basis for the argument is so stupid-does anyone really believe that a woman who was raped would not know long before she was 20 weeks along that she was pregnant.

              • V – correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the opposition was to the requirement that women file a police report to be eligible for the rape exception.

              • Yes it was, but all they would have to do, is get an abortion before they are 20 weeks along. Having the ability to do so just because you filled a police report is what should be taken out of the bill.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                That was only one of several issues raised. Quite a ridiculous one if you ask me. Aren’t we supposed to be trying to get more reporting of abuse and rape?

                There is a large part of the Republican Party that does not want to deal with the abortion issue, AT ALL.

                Politically speaking they are right for opposing this bill. V.H. and others may not like it but it is the better strategy with respect to the long game. One the R’s are not good at.

                Now if they would just wake up and do the same to all the other bills they have planned just to slap Mr. Obama around with. Put them in a drawer and get to work in areas where they have been given an opening.

                Mr. O just made a boo boo if the R’s would just pick up the stick he threw at them. Time to tackle those “middle class tax cuts”. Yes Sir Mr. President, we are with you 100%. Now lets figure out which BUDGET CUTS we are going to implement to pay for them. Then we will agree to raise taxes on the “Stock traders” if that revenue is used to reduce the deficit.

              • JAC – yes we should be encouraging victims of abuse and rape to step forward, but should not be forcing them to do so as a means to get an abortion.

                But I digress – I was just commenting on the GOP opposition to the ill in question; not commenting on my own objections.

              • I just have to ask-anyone can answer-if a woman’s due date is tomorrow can she have an abortion today-if she happened to get raped or will be emotionally upset about the situation or what the heck, can she have an abortion while she’s actually in labor? Is there a cut off where there simply isn’t a sufficient justification to kill a baby in the womb.

              • V – I’ve long said the point of viability.

              • Okay Buck-I just wrote a bill-abortion is illegal after viability, pick a week 24, 26, the only exception is the life of the mother. Would you support it?

              • Buck, a couple things that have always made me wonder why:

                Why can a person who murders a pregnant women get charged with double murder (woman and child)?

                Why do Liberal’s fight like hell as pro lifers, then fight like hell to protect the eggs of sea turtles?

                I just read a reply about voter ID laws, that used examples that never mentioned skin color, used one example of a person who worked two jobs as an excuse (still no skin color) and some absurd Texas law change concerning student ID cards not being allowed, which affected all students. The subject was disenfranchisement of minorities and I asked for legit examples. Provided no link. Why can’t I seem to get anything of substance from those who claim foul?

              • Don’t put a date certain – leave ‘viability’ to the medical professional, expand life of mother to health of mother, and yes, I would probably support. Of course, being an attorney, I would need to review the final language!

              • G:

                1) I don’t support the double murder charge in all cases, though clearly there is s difference between a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy and someone ending it for her against her wishes.

                2) Apples and oranges…and you know it.

                3). I’ve posted links in the past on this topic. Not going to get into it again now.

              • Ha Ha, Well I’m not an attorney 🙂 but I’m positive that you just nullified the law-made it so subjective that it is totally meaningless.

              • Not at all. Just added in some missing protections. 🙂

              • Well, your extra protections are why we have abortion without any real limits in this Country, instead of a law based on viability which you Say is what you support.

              • We do not have abortion with no limits.

                I do support viability and I also support making sure there is an exception for the mothers health. I am against BS restrictions (eg, 24 hour eating requirements, medically unnecessary ‘safety’ restrictions which force nearly all facilities to close, forcing doctors to read a medically wrong script about the dangers of abortion, etc.)

              • Yes, we do -and we’re not talking about those types of restrictions-we’re talking about exceptions that allow abortion after viability. Unethical doctors using loopholes in the law-all nice and legal and all those Buts that allow abortion on demand. Oh they might make it a little more difficult but clearly happening all the time.

              • And those unethical doctors will magically stop?

              • Don’t understand the point-for one thing most of them are working in plain sight. But what is your point-their gonna do it anyway so we might as well make killing viable babies legal too. With that reasoning we could get rid of the whole legal system.

              • No – my point is I don’t understand your objection to my tweaks of your proposal.

                Would you agree to:
                1) no date certain on viability and
                2) allowing for an exception to cover the health of the mother (this would be defined as serious health impacts…I’m not trying to make an exception for morning sickness).

              • JAC is answering #1

                #2 is still too broad-we have gone from life threatening to health-define serious health impact-at the very least it would have to be limited to the physical.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      One correction. As it exists, “viability” does not construe “personhood” with respect to legal meaning. Personhood still remains a human who has been born. The viability constraint would simply end certain, or all, legal abortion.

      You also don’t get to change the question. You have to answer the one I asked.

      You can ask a different question in “addition” to mine if you like.

      Now note that my question did not try to split the hair of viability.

      Would the killing of an unborn due to birth defects be considered a “guardian induced suicide”?? Or perhaps “euthanasia”, which is a homicide justified by compassion for suffering.

      I also don’t see why the viability point is relevant to the question about abortion due to defects in the child.

      • I’ll be happy to answer your question-just thought it was obvious-In my opinion it would be justifiable homicide the justification being self defense. Now that is based on the assumption per your question that the abortion is truly necessary to save the woman’s life.

        Now this viability point you are making-yes it means that the infant could survive outside the womb-it was the cut off point of the law in an attempt to balance protecting life vs a woman’s right of autonomy-so I think applying personhood to an infant who has reached viability per their definition does mean the child has reached the point of personhood as it relates to abortion rights. So the point in all this is that the easy answer of “it’s not a person” goes away and the justification for killing one who cannot speak for themselves comes into play-So what now is the correct terminology for the taking of these lives?

        Consider my questions in addition to yours 🙂

        Last I looked besides one state?I think, in this Country suicide is illegal and so far so is euthanasia. And as far as suicide, I would think one would have to kill themselves for it to qualify as suicide-same with euthanasia-if you just decide to kill someone, even for “their own good” in my opinion still qualifies as taking a live. So what in our legal array surrounding killing justifies these killings.

  16. Just read the Saudi King just died-wonder what effect that will have on the world.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H., Buck, etc.

    Re: abortion

    So if “viability” is a criteria, then what is the legal charge against the mother who aborts during this time? Is she charged with First Degree Murder? With Malice?

    Do we send her to prison ……….. the chair??

    There is a reason I raised the question of self defense when killing an unborn to protect the mother’s health. Notice how NONE of the accepted “common law” definitions of murder or its variants fit the situation.

    Notice how “caveats” have to be carved out to make a “ban” acceptable to our “common law” sensibilities.

    Not to mention that “viability” tied to a clock is arbitrary and uncertain. I don’t know a single woman who delivered on or even close to the Doctor’s determined delivery date. So how do we know when “20” weeks is really up? Which is why I liked Mathius’ criteria of “brain activity”.

    As I see it there are far to many CONFLICTING moral principles on both sides of this debate. If a ban is appropriate at viability then there can be NO EXCEPTIONS. We had a doctor on here once explain there are medical reasons to abort beyond 20 weeks to protect the mother’s life. Rare, but they do exist. Now you have to create and exception then you have to create all the mushy legalize to deal with the gray you just created. Same holds for allowing abortions due to defects.

    Which defects, how severe, when, etc, etc. And what about the rare exceptions to the “averages”??

    It seems to me that the fact that neither side can address the moral questions without contradictions and exceptions shows that this is an issue beyond Man made law. At least for now.

    Nobody is ready to deal with the truth. That a person is killed by abortion, but that it is nobody’s business but the parents. This is where Black Flag needs to step in and provide his eloquent explanation of why this is true.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh, and before we get further on the issues of laws and penalties, let me put forth my view on JUSTICE.

      Justice is that which goes to the accused, not the victim. Victims do not get justice, especially those killed. Justice is the legal and philosophical word that summarizes the concept of “getting one’s just deserts”.

      In other words, “getting that which is deserved”. The dead get nothing “deserved”.

      It is the killer who must “get what is deserved”, just as for all criminals.

      So what is justly deserved for killing another human? What is justly deserved for each “type” of homicide?

      Who else is affected? What compensation or restitution should they receive for the murder? This is an old “common law” concept dating back thousands of years. One we have misplaced by transferring it to the “state” from the individuals who are harmed. Other than the murder victim.

    • As I commented to V above, I wholeheartedly agree viability should not be ‘tied to a clock’.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I saw your response, about leaving it to Doctors. But that won’t work either. You will need criteria and definitions to protect the Doctors from litigation and charges of murder. Who sets the criteria?

        What happens with different opinions?

        Where as there is no dispute about the existence of a person once they are born. Or if you choose that a person exists from start to finish. But once we set ” in between” stages things start going off the rails.

        • I think you are making this more blurry than it actually is.

          The point of viability may well change but it is a relatively objective standard. No second opinions required; the woman’s doctor says not viable, doctor is free to abort.

          Any claims against the doctor would not be criminal but malpractice, like anything else.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am not blurring anything. You are going to leave the decision as to whether a law is violated to a Doctor. You presume all doctors will be honest and equally skilled. We know all doctors are not honest, especially in matters where they sympathize.

            Claims against the doctor would have to be criminal, because nobody but the parents would have grounds for “malpractice”.

            The only other entity would be the licensing board but someone would have to bring charges.

            Now what about the mother? Is she guilty of a crime or not?

            • I don’t presume all doctors will be honest. I am queasy with imposing criminal charges on a woman and doctor for a private medical decisions. I agree that the woman will most certainly not bring an action against the doctor so my reliance on ‘malpractice’ was misplaced – but a complaint can be brought by anyone with knowledge with the medical board.

              A son viability, I amnot a doctor but I would envision something along the lines of being capable of surviving outside the womb.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Follow up.

            What is YOUR definition of VIABILITY?

    • I don’t see any conflicts on my side of the argument-abortions shouldn’t be allowed except in the case of the mothers life. Period-If you think protecting the mothers life is a conflict-I disagree-we have two lives-if one of them is a clear and present danger to the others life-then one has the right to protect themselves. All these exceptions and viability arguments are simply ways to try and limit abortion since our SC decided to pass an immoral, stupid law.

      And why might I ask do Parents have some special right to kill their offspring. They well may be responsible for them but they are still people not property that the parents can do whatever they want with -at least not in a civilized society.

      But please don’t make me listen to BF”s reasoning -he once started to tell me why people have the right to torture their animals-ain’t buying that crap either.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Parents have not special right to kill. But if the unborn child is killed who are the harmed parties?

        Why do you or the State have anything to do with this if neither is harmed?

        And you do have a conflict in your exception. The child does not “threaten” the mother. The childs existence is threatening but there is not a direct threat.

        Self defense applies to those who are taking deliberate actions to harm or kill you. You had to change the meaning of self defense, probably unknowingly, to get to that answer.

        If a child is a person, deserving not to be killed, then that child’s right to live is EQUAL to the mother’s right to live. It is not subservient.

        You have identified the only possible solution, however, and why I raised the original question. That being “self-defense”.

        I do not think it free of conflict, but I see it as closer than many others.

        • I’ve definitely got some questions and disagreement about some of the above-but it is gonna have to wait until tomorrow. A bath, TV under my warm covers and then sleep in a couple hrs is calling. Have a good night.

        • “The child does not “threaten” the mother. The childs existence is threatening but there is not a direct threat. ”

          I hesitate to argue over the meaning of legal terms but logically it seems to me that the baby, if it is a threat to the mothers life-is a direct threat because of it’s location-now this may not give the mother the right to intentionally kill the child but it would in my opinion give her the right to remove the threat. Depending on timing that well might kill the child-so if abortion isn’t the only reasonable way to stop the treat-then I agree abortion shouldn’t be allowed.

          I also do not agree that the baby in the wombs life should be equal to the mothers by law when the mothers life is being threatened-for the same reason-location. The mother is the one who should make that determination-but we do not, by law, have the right to force a woman to die for anyone.

          Now those first two comments-I’m trying to understand your thinking on this- because I can see that you are basing your remarks on law and your thoughts on freedom.

          But in general-Murder is wrong-murder effects all of humanity.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            The root of my comments, with respect to “law”, is the claim that the unborn is a “person”. That conveys LEGAL protection. At that point the unborn and born are “equal” in legal standing. ALL laws, not just those governing killing. The laws then determine the punishment for the crime, and the type of crime.

            Aside: This is ignored by those pushing personhood amendments, and one reason I have always opposed them. If you read the numerous laws on the books you will find the legal term “person” used to describe those to whom the law applies. Thus ALL laws would have to be revisited to make sure they should or should not apply to the unborn.

            Thus we have “self defense” as well as other forms of “homicide” which do not require life in prison or execution. I am putting aside the arguments as to whether all of these laws are proper, just working from them as we know them.

            The reason I took this approach was to test the arguments of both sides on this issue. It is a similar test to what BF alluded the other day. The vast majority of human beings accept “murder” as wrong. And they punish those who murder. The same holds for homicides due to accidents. There are penalties but not as severe as outright murder.

            When we apply the various questions about homicides and penalties we usually get answers broadly accepted when dealing with “persons” who have been born. But when we try to apply the same standards to the “unborn” everything gets muddy, gray, with exceptions, etc. etc. This is a good indicator that either the underlying moral/ethical arguments are flawed, or our understanding of “natural/common law” as we apply it to those born is flawed. Or of course both could be flawed. But both cannot be right.

            As BF said, apply your standard to the born, it gives your answer to the unborn. Because the “answer” has to be consistent IF you presume the unborn to be a person, like those who are born.

            You may be able to carve out a new area of “general acceptance” but that does not eliminate the moral contradictions.

            Self Defense.

            The protection of “self defense” has historically been limited to defending against an “overt” attack. Killing an assailant as opposed to killing someone who has passed out at the wheel and is heading straight at you, for example. Thus the unborn is not consciously attacking the mother. And we can’t use “accidental” because the abortion is not an accident.

            But as you say, we have NO RIGHT to force one person to die or even risk their life for that of another. Which is why the DRAFT is immoral.

            So we are left with the need for a new category or a significant change in “common law” understanding to address this situation.


            You raised great questions on this the other day. Those that relate to birth defects. How is the issue of defects addressed? I can see when it might be attached to viability. But what about the others? If the unborn are people, does the “Guardian” have the right to decide if they should die because of there dismal future? Not for those born.

            Which of course leads to the nightmare GMan raised. If the law requires those with serious defects be born, they will almost certainly become a financial burden to the State. So how long before the State steps in and says, it is ok to terminate these “persons” because of their burden to society.

            So many questions………….. some good answers, and others that are unresolved.

            P.S. One of the reasons I use “law” in my exploration of morality and ethics is that many of our laws are based upon thousands and thousands of years of “common law”. Thus they act as a window to the long standing thinking of human beings about certain moral principles and methods for organizing peaceful societies. Which is why our founders feared “govt. law”. It does not necessarily reflect the long term thinking and understanding of the masses. It can become the tool of the narrowly focused and special interest.

  18. G……that absurd Texas law saying that student IDs are not good for voting or anything else except their school…….that is what the people of Texas wanted….including me….and that is what we have. Student IDs are good for one thing……school activities. Nothing more.

    Oh, and I guess that everyone did notice……Texas had the voter ID in effect…..despite the Feds saying no.

  19. For the first time in history……Texas apprehended more OTM’s. AND, the majority of the OTM’s ( Other than Mexican ) are NOT HIspanic……and they are not from Central or South America either.

    Year 2014….. total OTM’s…….184,000 ( rounded ) and they were from Afghanistan, Armenia, Bosnia, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Botswana, and Turkey. There are some other countries but these were the most…………….wonder why the media does not report this?

    We had what was called “expedited removal” for OTM’s. The Obama administration has removed that procedure. Texas put it back. OTM’s are now shifting to the west.

    • And the other question…….why cross the border? Why not come in legally or with visas? Makes one wonder.

    • Great. More sleeper cells. That’s darn near 4000 per state. Were you able to kick them to the curb or do you have to turn them over to the feds, who will just turn them loose on the street! 😡

      • Hi Anita…..it is obvious that some of these are going to cells…..but when we catch them we have to turn them over to the Feds….we do not know what happens after that. However, we do take finger prints and voice prints. If caught again…..they go into State custody. We are not so nice.

  20. Now that the FBI has determined that there is no cause of action for the Ferguson shooting and found that there is no civil rights or any other violation……..anybody want to venture a guess on what Holder will do? He can either accept the finding from his own department or be a renegade.

    • @ Buck…….with the FBI investigating and coming to the same conclusion as the Ferguson Grand Jury, it seems to me that it renders the issues with the Grand Jury as moot. It also seems to exonerate the local DA…..regardless of the DA’s motives and/or competence or the lack thereof, I have a couple of questions.

      Where does this actually put Eric Holder, when his own investigative arm found no civil rights violation and no impropriety with the evidence in what was presented or how it was presented?

      Secondly, from the civil action side of it, the governor of Mo. told the National Guard to stand down and not prevent the burnings and looting, it seems to me that the private sector has a pretty good civil action against the state.

      Third, I can also see charges being file both criminal and civil against Brown’s father for inciting a riot with his rhetoric and public appeal at the time.

      What say you, sir?

      • I disagree it renders the grand jury and DA’s actions moot. By all accounts the DA demonstrated dereliction of his duties at best, and committed a crime at worst.

        • Is it not OK for a DA to engage in selective enforcement? He’s just mimicking the Obama administration and it’s OK for them. (I don’t see that, but just saying). If the DA didn’t feel charges were warranted to begin with, then what’s the issue? Not different than Obama not wanting to enforce our immigration laws. How many illegal immigrants have committed felony crimes like murder and rape in the last 6 years?

          • Yes there is prosecutorial discretion – bring charges or don’t. You don’t get to seek charges to save political face, punt your management of the grand jury proceeding, all but champion the defendants case throughout the proceeding, and put on the stand a witness who you know to be lying.

            • If we look back at the Zimmerman case, it’s easy to see why a GJ was called, even though no charges should ever be filed. Did the prosecutor not provide all the information he had? Shouldn’t the GJ also hear from those he knows are lying? If not, why not?

              I see this as a “you got what you asked for” moment after the Zimmerman case, except the taxpayers didn’t have to pay millions in a no win case. The Left demanded action on Zimmerman because the prosecutor decided that no charges were warranted, in swoops the race pimps and the Left wing media machine (namely NBC) and poof, a trial costing millions occurred, only to prove the first prosecutor correct. So now, that has led to a new strategy, convene a GJ and let them decide. Give them everything that the prosecutor would base his/her decision on and see how the chips fall. Now, the DOJ comes out and further supports the decision.

              • A recent video from NJ was just released showing a black cop killing a black man in what appears to be wrongly. I’ll bet there will be very little said on the matter by Al Sharpton, unlike the two cases mentioned above. #blacklivesmatter, only when a white person kills one it appears.

              • So in your mind a prosecutor should invite perjury? Put someone on a stand who will corroborate the cops story as an ‘eye witness’ when in fact she was nowhere near the scene?

              • By the way, what are your thoughts on the Davis case in I believe Florida — black man with a concealed carry permit was tackled to the floor. Interested to hear your take on this.

              • I ink the GJ should have all the information, whether it’s inviting perjury or not. People who perjure themselves should be held accountable and charged accordingly. But, yes, ALL the info. I’m sure that questioning will remove the lies from the case.

              • Went below

              • I’m sure the DA will bring perjury charges….right….

                Not to mention it could very well be a crime in and of itself.

  21. Good Grief and look at their reasoning to ban E-cigarettes:

    “E-cigarettes were included in the ban because their use in public “creates concern and confusion and leads to difficulties in enforcing the smoking prohibitions.”

    I’ve been surprised by how many people I know, who have smoked as long as I have known them who have switched to E-cigs-but that’s not good enough for these self-righteous jerks.


    • NYC used exactly the same logic in banning any toy gun, water or cap that resembles a real firearm. The blaze orange cap was not enough. The resemblance of the outline is enough to cause fear and confusion.

    • “creates concern and confusion and leads to difficulties in enforcing

      Their answer for everything.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    I cannot wait for this bunch to leave D.C.. Unfortunately they won’t leave entirely. They will be part of the water for a long time to come. Hillary will bring more of them along if she wins.

    Wonder if they realize their whining about the PM is as childish and “chickenshit” as they accuse him of being?

    “The White House’s outrage over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to speak before Congress in March — a move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.

    “We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.

    “There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

    Officials in Washington said that the “chickenshit” epithet — with which an anonymous administration official branded Netanyahu several months ago — was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s planned speech came in.”

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If this doesn’t fully expose the “I am GOD” mentality in the White House, nothing will.

      • It is like listening to an immature spoiled child-but then Obama has been acting that way since he took office. He is incapable of working with Congress because he believes he is better and smarter than all of them. He is incapable of bringing all Americans together on any issue and it isn’t just his policies-there have always been Presidents with policies I disagree with-it’s his inability not to take a pot shot at every opportunity-his inability to be diplomatic because he prefers to be a smart a## .

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Agreed. He will make a great pundit on MSNBC. His sarcastic holier than thou attitude would fit right in.

    • I LOVE THIS! I keep hearing rumblings that Boehner will back off it though. Does anyone know if Netenyahu has accepted the invitation? I can’t imagine (yes I can) Boehner just throwing this out to see if it would stick.

  23. JAC,

    I don’t remember a doctor coming on here and discussing the necessity of abortion after 20 weeks to protect a woman’s life-Wish I knew how to find that discussion-I would like to read it.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      It was way back in the early days. I think he was an acquaintance of USW’s. As I recall USW posted an article which was written by the Doctor.

      He provided examples of various medical conditions which were good reason for the parents to choose abortion. He also discussed how it was emotionally draining, for him as well as the family.

      What I remember was that these situations were rare, but did happen.

      I doubt the claim that the life of the mother is “NEVER” in jeopardy after 20 weeks is not absolute. Such claims are rarely ever absolute.

      Which means the caveat of “protecting the mothers life” has to include the entire pregnancy.

      But if you use Buck’s viability or Mantius’ brain pattern as the cutoff, the “date certain” is moot. You just need to deal with the caveats or exceptions to the prohibition.

      • The points I’ve heard and made isn’t that a woman’s life can’t be in jeopardy during the whole pregnancy-just that the need to perform a late term abortion isn’t usually necessary to remove the baby, if ever. My understanding is that most late term abortions require the woman to deliver the baby-the abortion part of the procedure is just to insure that the baby is delivered dead.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The key there is “most” and not all. So if it is “most” then you cannot write a law that is inflexible beyond a time certain. You need to address the exceptions.

          Now the proposal the other day in Congress supposedly did this, but that leaves issues and contradictions. Because it also included rape and incest.

      • “But if you use Buck’s viability or Mantius’ brain pattern as the cutoff, the “date certain” is moot. You just need to deal with the caveats or exceptions to the prohibition”

        I don’t understand this point. Why is it moot? viability is an educated guess at best and brain activity-how much activity qualifies-any at all or some other %

        • OR are we talking about brain development-because brain activity, which I just looked up seems to be hard to measure. They are making progress but not enough to use as a guide I wouldn’t think.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          If you select some measurable criteria to determine “viability” you don’t use a “date”.

          So the law would specify “viability”, including a definition or reference to a standard, and not 20 weeks or some other hard “time period”. Thus the viability criteria makes the 20 weeks moot, because it does not matter. All that matters is “viability”.

    • V, I think the solution may be much more simple than the Pro Choice people make it out to be. Abortion is a medical procedure. It simply should be treated as one and a pregnant women, who is diagnosed with a life threatening problem by a doctor, should go to a specialist, who confirms the diagnosis and issues, with the patients consent, a prescription for abortion (much like a drug prescription) or, an additional reference to an abortion specialist who also confirms the medical problem of the mother. and, again with consent, performs the medical procedure.

      Let’s start there and see what happens! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        There is NO SOLUTION. Such a thing would require super majority acceptance.

        There is none now and no chance of any in the near future. One of the reasons the Republicans should not be pushing stupid legislation that just creates fodder for their opposition.

        But that would require the rabbid anti abortion folks biting their lips for a few more years and focusing on changing minds rather than legislation. Like I said…………..NO SOLUTION.

        I bring this topic up here to test the waters with ideas that might work for a solution some day. Also to test the logic and principles within the various arguments. All of that is needed to work towards a conclusion but it will not get us there immediately.

        • Most assuredly! This will be an issue long after we turn to dust. Like I said, the only solution in this country is an Amendment. Beyond that, lot’s of time talking, little time doing 😉

  24. Not to interrupt the abortion debate, but this little gem just hit my mailbox : http://www.wideopenspaces.com/hiking-ban-considered-pennsylvania-hunting-season/

    As an avid hunter, I’m totally and unequivocally against such actions.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Is there agreement from those who support VIABILITY that there is NO EXCEPTION for rape or incest once viability is reached??????

    • Maybe it’s time for raped women to start speaking up. get a police report, go to doctor, get abortion pill within a few weeks, problem solved. What should be considered is what are the actual statistics that make rape and incest a real problem, or is it just a very minor issue that the Pro-Life side are willing to give in too. By giving in to something that is minimal at best (I haven’t seen the stats) is what is allowing the clinics to stay open. Force the issue and make rape abortions require a police report that supports rape, not an accusation of rape. Doctors can tell if there is rape versus consent in a vast majority of cases. Witnesses are also part of the equation when the claim of rape involves a woman too drunk to consent (which I think is BS). Cases of incest should require a doctors confirmation, via blood test.

      The problem can’t be fixed by not believing the old fear mongering “they’ll just use clothes hangers” mantra.

    • I can probably get there. I would prefer some exception where there is demonstrable evidence that the woman was unable to come sooner due to threat of violence. But clearly this would be extremely rare.

      Thinking out loud here, but if viability is present, and especially as medical technology continues to advance, I can envision a system where after viability, the woman could choose to have the fetus removed and hooked up to a machine to continue development. I think Mathius has discussed this before. Thoughts? Be nice – I haven’t had my coffee yet!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I could see that happening. Someday they may be able to remove the recently fertilized egg and raise it in an incubator of some kind. Abortions would stop and be replaced by “transfer” operations.

        That would end the dilemma of killing but then we have the issue of “raising an unwanted child”.

        As for the here and now, I see no reason a woman could not have the unborn child removed and placed in an incubator to finish development. Recognizing that the minute the child is removed it is now “born” and has full rights as a “person”.

        I see no reason to compel a woman to remain pregnant once the “life of the child” has been addressed. However, given our abundance of legal people I suspect issues of probability and endangerment could come into play. This weakness would need to be addressed somehow in legislation.

      • “unable to come sooner due to threat of violence”

        Why do you think this matters in determining whether or not one can kill a viable baby? Is the baby any less viable? Is the mothers life in danger?

        Have you ever read up on the details of a late term abortion-they have to go through hours of labor-they still give birth to this child-they simply give birth to a dead child-is this really easier on the woman.

        As far as removing the baby-if medicine advances to the point that it would be safe for both mother and child-it would be better than killing the child-but a sad day for society in general.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Without even reading the Keystone Pipeline legislation I can tell you I oppose it.

    Because it will almost certainly include “condemnation” of private property for the pipeline. Condemnation done in opposition to the land owners. TAKING.

    I have no problem with Congress short circuiting the Environmental Analysis process, which is Mr. Obama’s primary complaint. That is just the usual stalling tactic. NEPA it to death.

    I also think there are many dishonest arguments being made by the R’s. but that is a separate issue.

    • I’m still trying to figure out why the Feds are even involved. It should be a State issue and all that needs done is for the property owners to get royalties, for life, regardless of the owner. If the pipeline is buried, it should only be a short term interruption and farming can continue. If it’s above ground, the land owners should be compensated much like those in PA who allow wells to be put in. I haven’t looked to deeply into it, but if land owners are not made VERY whole, I would also be against it, as it really doesn’t help the country as a whole, it’s oil from Canada, they should pay for the use of property, forever!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It is simple. The pipeline is “international” and involves Canadian Companies. It is totally within the Federal realm. There is probably a Federal Trade Agreement and permits involved to cross the border.

        However, I do agree that the Fed’s Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should have been limited to Federal Lands. But the NEPA law requires all major Fed actions to have an EIS. So they used the decision by State Dept to approve the international permits as the lever to get the EIS going. The EIS procedures require all impacts be considered. Thus the greenies pounded on global warming and other indirect and distant impacts. This is what our environmental protection laws have become. A tool to halt any project you don’t like, if you can mobilize enough green groups to howl like hell. And of course file a couple lawsuits.

        But back to your point. It is within the Federal purview to approve the transport of oil across the US border.

        As for the pipeline location, excluding Federal lands, you are correct in that should be up to the States and private landowners involved.

        But notice how even within the States they are going to use condemnation to force landowners to have the pipeline on their property.

        Thus we see in modern times how the Fascist foot got in the door way. In the 1800’s the same thing was done for roads, waterways, then pipelines, powerlines, etc. People knew it was more efficient………..never considering the long term impacts to our freedom and liberty, once they turned the key over to Govt. regarding all infrastructure.

      • As I understand it the goal of the pipeline is to move the oil to our southern refineries where it will be upgraded to useful product prior to marketing either domestically or internationally. If the Canadians just wanted to sell crude, they could ship it through the Great Lakes. So many of the jobs being discussed are permanent jobs in pipeline operations, refining and port operations.

  27. Anybody want to guess what my opinion is on this?

    • Wow…sorry! Didnt mean to put it on blast like THAT!

      • Why? It’s easier that tapping on a link, job well done! 🙂 I don’t have issues with Muslim’s anywhere near where I live. When I lived in Youngstown, Ohio, after 9-11, a local convenient store had some bricks thrown through the windows, because the owner was presumed as being Muslim. He was Sihk, I think that’s the spelling, but he was not Muslim. The kids that did the damage were caught by the locals who saw them and they got punished according to local law. The bottom line, there will always be idiots, regardless of religion, race etc. A few social media threats should be the norm, considering the actions of the radical Muslims the last year or 20.

        Anita, you live closer to a large community of Muslim’s, if they aren’t causing problems, then I don’t worry much. I have a much better chance at being killed in a car accident than by a Muslim extremist. I would prefer to deal with the Muslim extremist, to be honest. 😀

        • I copy & pasted the link as I always would and suddenly the whole letter got displayed, weird.

          G, I’ve learned that most of the Muslims that live in Dearborn are Shia. Different MOs than the Sunni who are these lone wolf type fighters. Shia are more linked with hezbollah and the like. Bigger more state funded type attacks, as in…launching bombs over at Israel. Strange, that gives me some comfort being so close to Dearborn.

      • I see a tremendous double standard…

        • Exactly. This is more how I was thinking than what G has on his mind. They can directly threaten us…daily.. and we just suck it up…without picking them off one by one on the street. Here, they want the star of the movie to rise up and say ‘just kidding’ like that’s going to solve anything. All the while they get to keep picking us off with barely a wimper coming from imams or heads of state in the Muslim world. Most of them are still in denial, or taqkiya(sp) I should say, and the jihad lives on. Hey Muslims? You first!

    • I have no doubt that there are a few idiots out there shooting their mouths off. SO WHAT? No one is hurt by words. Muslim’s need some thicker skin, hell, I’ve had Liberal’s say much worse to me, LMAO!

  28. This is only the beginning of this NEW scandal. Libyagate has begun. http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/admiral-u-s-could-have-ousted-gadhafi-peacefully/

  29. Just what many believed, Global Warming lies are nothing more than part of Agenda 21 : http://personalliberty.com/al-gores-latest-salvation-ban-cars-cities-worldwide/

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Closing thought of the day.

    Our current involvement in Syria against IS/ISIL is far closer to how our involvement in Viet Nam looked, in the beginning, than Bush’s invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq.

    Wonder why the DEMOCRATS are not screaming Viet Nam, Viet Nam at the top of their lungs, like they were doing after we got troops engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq?

    I am talking to you NANCY PELOSI………… I just erased the words I typed to describe what I think of that animal. Wouldn’t want to destroy my rep of being well mannered….LOL.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Mr. Cub has passed to the great ball field in the sky. One of my favorites.

    • Yeah, bum deal. His career was ending just as I was memorizing ever stat there was available in the newspaper sports section. Newspaper? showing my age and shakin my head.

    • We are already seeing this….but that is ok….Texas is not paying attention to it. We arrest them, finger print them, take their picture, and turn them loose back in Mexico. If they show up again, they are jailed.

      DHS and a couple of hand picked Federal Judges from somewhere up North has said that we should not do that……but what the hell……………..just what exactly can Washington do? Invade Texas? Send Federal agents down here to arrest whom?

      I used to be against selective enforcement and selective prosecution and such….but since this administration has used it……so are we, Obama has done us a great favor by setting this precedent.

      So…bring it on.

      • I think you have a point Colonel. Somebody basically has to say to the Feds, “Go ahead, arrest me, take over my state”. Then the fun begins.

        As much as I am not a fan of Andy Jackson nor the trail of tears, his comment regarding the supreme court was a classic. “let them enforce it”. I think most constitutionalists who believe that if you want to make changes either in the Constitution or its intent, there is a mechanism (amendment) to do so. This judicial folderol that we have been living with, which gets worse and worse every year and will gradually replace any and everything in the document based on nothing more than current whims.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          absolutely….activist law in action….even though the mechanism of change was built in, no party wants to take the time to or spend the effort to convince a super majority of the population to modify the bedrock of our nations laws. Neither party wants any interference with a simple 51% majority vote or in the case of Executive orders or Memoranda a majority of (1)

          Years ago the Supreme Court ruled that what defines marriage was a State issue. So the States put laws in place and or amended their constitutions to do just that. That triggered a loop of lawsuits perking up through the lower federal courts who are now striking down State laws using the14th amendment. Why, years ago the 9 black robed wizards could not have said that and settled this mess. I quess it a way to have a perpetual employment mechanism built into your job.

          • Ya got a point there about the lawyers. They too are part of the “service” economy. Personally, I’d trust the judgment of the folks behind the counter at Burger King more.

  32. Buck says:

    January 24, 2015 at 9:42 am (Edit)

    By the way, what are your thoughts on the Davis case in I believe Florida — black man with a concealed carry permit was tackled to the floor. Interested to hear your take on this.

    The idiot who tackled him should be charged and held accountable. I have seen the video as well. I’m curious to find out what the white guy’s position is on gun control. There is just something fishy about that person, because not many adults are going to see an elderly black man as a threat. Was the white guy just profiling? Could be. He’s lucky that he wasn’t shot dead.

    • Agreed. Davis and bystanders are lucky they weren’t inadvertantly shot as well.

      • I would love to find out what on earth he was thinking. What an idiot. The reaction of the conceal carrier was excellent, although had he been younger and stronger, things may have been different. Do you think racism is a part of the story?

        • No clue. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least but haven’t seen any evidence of it.

          Question – what would your reaction be had Davis not had a permit? At the moment he was tackled, the guy couldn’t possibly have known one way or the other.

          • Had he not had a permit, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it. It is only news because it MAY be an act of racism. If not for the permit, we may be seeing the white guy as a hero, instead of an idiot. Regardless, I would call him an idiot. What if the black guy was an off duty cop? We could do what if’s all day, but I think it’s safe to say Davis was a moron and lucky to be alive.

            • Wait – how is Davis a moron?

              And regardless of wether or not he had a permit, I think you would need to come down on the same side – either he was heroic trying to stop a perceived threat or he was an idiot assaulting someone.

              • Sorry, was thinking about the attacker, not the attackee, LOL. The white guy is the moron. I would have likely called him a moron regardless. Under those circumstances, Davis (I’m trying to get the names right) was not acting in a threatening manner, the idiot should have just called 911. I have a rule, do not attack a person with a gun. If nothing else, the Zimmermen case should have taught that lesson.. I have another rule, don’t try to be a hero, it usually backfires. If those two don’t work, minding one’s own business should be applied. I hope to find out what the white guy was thinking and his views on gun control.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Gentlemen, you can be heroic and an idiot at the same time. In fact heroism requires at times a certain amount of idiocy.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Like the SAR folks who jump out of perfectly good helicopters and attempt a rescue at the risk of their lives to save an idiot who ignored all good advice and should not have been there to begin with. Heroism to the max….but somewhat insane and idiotic. My hat is doft regardless to those men and women in SAR.

  33. Noticed Obama is on his way to Saudi Arabia. To bad he couldn’t have made it to Paris on such short notice.

  34. Buck, since we’re chatting, what do you think of all the Lefty hoopla over the American Sniper movie. I thought Michael Moore made an idiot of himself, again.

  35. Dale A Albrecht says:

    He doesn’t care now about showing his true colors. Claims not enough time with Paris, yet was out trying to pre-sell his SOTU ideas. Granted he was at least in region by being in India, but wouldn’t the same security precautions have to be taken in Saudi Arabia on the fly? He refuses to meet with the Israeli PM and then gets hacked off because Congress invites him.

    I wonder how much money the US gov received by “giving” out private, personal information to private companies from the healthcare.gov website.

    To G’s post about the director of DHS and immigration enforcement. Nothing will be done except complaining by congress because the republicans fully intend to use the “migrants” as political pawns, to further their agenda also.

    The administration keeps serving up soft pitches and nothing is done by congress…we are no longer a nation of laws…Nothing was done by the Issa investigation on Bengahzi…why…senior republicans were just as up to their noses in it as Obama and Hillary.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Or just maybe there was nothing about Benghazi worthy of further action by Congress. There is no law or regulation allowing that we hang bureaucrats for incompetence or mistakes.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Maybe, just maybe by having the oversight committees truly reveal what went on, maybe the “Peter” principle will be put into effect on at least some of the idiots that are running the government and they will “Rise” only to the level of their incompetance.

        How many contempt of congress charges have been filed lately, or lying to Congress, or withholding evidence and getting caught and yet nothing is done.

        Heck…the Supreme Court is suppose to be the beat all to end all oversight committee. The ACA should have immediately been overturned without waiting for some obscure point to trickle up, but only if you have standing…but by virtue Congressional leaders readily admitted that they did not read it before passage…did Obama before signing it? Pelosi’s quote…”to see it you have to pass it”

  36. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The point of law I do not understand on how it is applied. Congress passes an immigration law and is duly signed by a president. I agree that this is the federal’s responsibility. However, a future president changes not the law but how they will enforce it. Like NOT. Statute has not changed on bit. A State like Texas or Arizona which will be harmed by NON enforcement of a legally signed federal statute should be able to enforce that statute to the letter, if the feds by a “memo” choose not to enforce. If the statute was NOT on the books and the State put a MORE strict law in place that is wrong.

    • Dale, what you have is a government who have made themselves above the law. This is only the beginning. Those who see these actions by Obama as good will be crying in their milk when the next GOP President does it and they don’t like it. I will just point out that when they let their boy do it, they gave permission for the next one to do it too. They will have gotten what they asked for, a President who can change laws with a memo. What will they do when a future GOP President decides to write a memo that informs the federal government that Federal Employees are not to recognize gay marriage? It works both ways, none of which is good for us.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        To be honest I really am not confused and understand the reality of the politics involved by both parties. I’m just discouraged. The other day I ran into a guy who got his undergrad in history and anthropology. Got a law degree and went to work for a law firm in DC. He resigned due to what he found was what he termed as the amorality of the legal profession. He is now extensively touring the US like John Steinbeck in Travels with Charley and “talking to the people” Trying to wrap his head around, what are the people thinking and what do they know or care about? So far his conclusion is much like what we all say here….people DO not in general know the history. People in general DO NOT care unless it directly affects them here and now. What new, whats the latest and greatest hot item is all that would cross their minds and were totally incapable of having an intellectual discussion or argument about anything. Without saying so what, or digressing immediately into name calling if you are in opposition to their stand….which is not a discussion with any merit and worth having, except noting that this is pervasive and explains why we are in the position we are in today as a nation.

  37. Dale A Albrecht says:

    My view of what I was typing got cut off….so to continue my thought. The fact that the DOJ prosecute a State for enforcing and mirroring the Federal law only because for political reasons the feds had chosen to NOT enforce their law, it is imperitive for the State to enforce the law as written if they so choose. My take is that the DOJ was successful against AZ because their senior congressional leadership agree with Obama. Texas is the polar opposite. Besides how much true leverage does the feds have on Texas, practically none if any. In Arizona the Feds control huge portions of the State, though their ownership and the reservations. Even though theese are supposed to be soveriegn nations they still are controlled by the Feds.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      DOJ was successful because of the Supreme Court. Immigration is one area where Congress did not delegate certain powers to the States. The States must comply with the immigration laws, but that includes the Executive branch regulations and policies. Also remember that Arizona was not found in error for enforcing the laws but for profiling and going beyond the Federal procedures.

      However, when the case against Arizona was won by DOJ they had not yet done this latest memo of “prosecutorial discretion”. They might be on better legal ground now for enforcing the law but hat leads to the next point.

      If the States enforce the law, that is detain ILLEGAL ALIENS, what happens next. Per the LAW they have to turn them over to the Federal Agency. The State is not allowed, per the law, to “deport” those they catch.

      You cannot assume that the congressional delegation is on board with the Fed action/inaction just because Congress cannot deal with the issue. Remember, the Republicans cannot get anything past Obama he does not like. Some things they cannot get out of the Senate because the Dems control the “filibuster” of bills if they choose.

      Your frustrations are not necessarily the result of a majority of Congress just allowing this all to happen. The inaction is largely the result of a highly partisan Congress. At it has been this way since Reagan. Neither party can get what it wants by normal legislative processes. Just note how the Dems had to contort and cheat the process to get the ACA implemented.

      Also consider the role the media plays in the publics view of Congress. If you are one who wants to fix this, but the Dems control the public narrative then why would you try and tackle illegal immigration when you will be pasted as a RACIST PIG.

      I direct you to the left wing sites this week. They are already hammering the Republicans for their “alienation of immigrants” and for their “racism against immigrants” and for their “insulting immigrants” and of course their “anti immigrant” behavior. These left wing sites create talking points that then bleed into the MSM.

      I know it is hard to believe but not all things done in Congress are evidence that both parties are the same or of some conspiracy by the elite. Sometimes shit just happens.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    There is a very, very, very important message at the very end of this story. Lets see who has their thinking caps on today.


  39. January 24, 2015
    Fundamental Concepts – The Aberration [Weirddave]
    —Open Blogger

    When I see, from the entire left side of the political spectrum, more and more strident demands to end Western culture as we know it, I wonder if these people have any clue exactly what it is that they are asking for. King Midas got exactly what he wanted, to his everlasting horror. There’s a lesson in that, an important one, but one that I suspect is lost on someone who navigates through life by the seat of their righteousness, guided by the certainty of their conceit.

    We have an entire segment of the population…..the race baiters, the SJWs, the various flavors of communists, anarchists, socialists and anarco-whatevers, feminists, gay rights crusaders, activists of every stripe…..all of who remind me of nothing so much as the proverbial fish who is ignorant of the water in which he is swimming. Like that same fish attempting to drill a hole in the bottom of his tank to “escape”, I don’t think that getting the results they claim to desire would be to their benefit at all.

    Modern Western civilization is an aberration. The environment of freedom, productivity, wealth, tolerance and leisure that all of us enjoy has been around for a few hundred years at most, and on only a small portion of the planet at that. All of the rest of human history, heck the rest of the world today, tells a far different story, one where none of these leftists would even be allowed to exist. Oh, I suppose a vanishingly small percentage of them would be able to worm their way into the ruling class, but the majority would be utterly crushed. Can you imagine a thriving feminist movement in Saudi Arabia? Gay rights parades in Iran? Race baiters living off of the guilt of society in Middle Ages Europe? Hell, they were all the same race and they killed each other by the millions. When we see women getting their heads chopped of in Riyadh, or gays hung from gantry cranes in Teheran, or Boko Haram slaughtering entire villages, it isn’t a “tragedy”, it isn’t a “shame”, it isn’t “barbarism” (actually, it is all of those things), what it is is the NORM. This is how human beings have behaved since the dawn of time.

    It’s the norm everywhere but here, that is. Now, there’s noting different about us compared to anybody else in the world. People are people after all. But what is different is Western culture, and that’s due the intersection of three great concepts over thousands of years. Think of it as a real life example of Sid Meier’s Civilization. In that game, as civilizations discover new ideas and technologies, they are able to do new things. A civilization that has domesticated horses and learned to work bronze can produce chariots, for example. Without both advances, chariots are impossible. Let’s follow this in real life.

    The first leg of the three legged stool that supports Western civilization came from the Jews, and it’s monotheism. The idea of one God as opposed to many different gods begats the concept of absolute right and wrong, which is necessary in order to have the concept of morality. Morality is what takes humans away from a world where might makes right.

    The second leg came from the Greeks and Romans, and that’s the idea that the world has certain natural laws, that these laws are universal, and that they can be studied and understood and even manipulated. From this comes science, of course, but a better term for this would be reason.

    Finally, from the Anglo-Saxons we got the concept of rule of law. Just as there are universal natural laws that govern nature, so too must man’s laws for governing man must be universal. Nobody is above the law, thus everyone is treated equally. Equality is the third leg.

    Morality, Reason, Equality. I wish I spoke Latin, because I’d incorporate the three words into a personal coat of arms. The melding of these three concepts is what produced the West as we know it today. Islam certainly has it’s own morality, but reason is subordinate to it and the concept of equality is foreign. Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Socialism and all of the other left wing totalitarian systems claim to be based upon reason, but what morality there is is subjected to an ever changing “greater good” as determined by a small elite which shoots rule of law right in the head. In fact, rule of law doesn’t exist in any totalitarian system or oligarchy.

    No, Western culture is the only place that all three have gained equal ascendancy, and that brings us back to where we started, because leftist political ideology is dedicated to destroying all three of the legs upon which our society rests.

    Morality? To a leftist, there is no such thing, there is only expediency. Reason? If it advances the cause, great, if not, ignore it (Question the science behind global warming and you’re a “denier”, point out the correlation between concealed carry and low crime rates and you’re a “nut”). Rule of Law? In Obama’s America? Don’t make me laugh (just think of the difference between how the government treats Cliven Bundy, who owes millions in grazing fees, and Al Sharpton, who owes millions in taxes), and the entire point of the social justice movement is to make sure people are not treated equally.

    So what happens if these leftists get their way? I posit that Western society will revert to the norm, and that, except for the fraction of a percentage that will make it into the new ruling class, all of these leftists will be swept away with it. None of them would be allowed to survive in any other civilization in history. There’s an old, old proverb that I suspect they will become intimately familiar with, albeit briefly. “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it”.

    To the barricades comrades, the basement of the Lubyanka awaits us all!


  40. “White House officials angrily denounced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for responding favorably to House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to speak before Congress in March, telling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the prime minister had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.”

    LOL…….So, Obama got back what he is dealing out. Obama has lost face in the world…..this is not going to be the last time…and, please, no lessons on protocol…Obama rewrote protocol some time ago, It is almost impossible to respect the office of the Presidency. Obama has destroyed it.

    • And that remark about there would be a price to pay for spitting in their face. Not that there’s an appropriate time for such remarks-isn’t it especially bad to say this when Iran is threatening to attack Israel over an attack that killed some of their people who just happened to being hanging out with Hezbollah. Makes one wonder-are you encouraging Iran, “Mr. President”

  41. I think Flag’s last post to me on the previous thread and my initial comment say a lot. Just for the heck of it I will repost them with a question. What are your opinions out there on opportunity or lack thereof to advance in this society today?

    If ten people work in McDonalds for the minimum wage or slightly above, how many can ever rise to the management level? Flag does make some excellent points about the “service industry” including people like mechanics, plumbers, carpenters etc but in the old days, these were “professions” requiring skill. Seems that jobs in fast food or hotels or nail salons are not going to get you in the middle class anytime soon. So, where are the good jobs or at least enough of them to keep up with expanded population growth?

    Stephen K. Trynosky says:
    January 23, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Problem Flag is, you don’t know any people. Ya know, the kind that roll out of bed in the morning, make the Corn Flakes for the kids, get them on the bus and then spend the next hour commuting, working 8 1/2 to 9 hours (employers rarely give you time off your eight hours for lunch anymore) then begin the commute home. The folks I’m talking about don’t have college degrees, usually pay outrageous taxes for basically nothing in return and are less and less likely to have any type retirement plan.

    It is good to fence with you. It makes me see the error of my ways. I was raised and educated with a strong sense of noblesse oblige instilled at an early age by parents who knew poverty, knew lack of opportunity and knew discrimination. There was a lot of “there but for the grace of God go I”, in their thinking.

    The fact that you can afford cheap crap Chinese electronic devices all over your house does little to improve your station in life. The Army taught me that we cannot all be generals and no matter how hard you worked nor how many years you were in nor the deployments you went on, you were lucky after thirty to retire as a Light Colonel or M/Sgt. Have known many hard working business owners who certainly had good fulfilling lives but couldn’t quite, after 40 years at a six day a week job and 12 to 14 hour days retire on the cote d’azur. Have also known a few who putting in the same hours did very well. That, after a lot of analysis came down to “right place, right time” rather than some fantastic skill set on their part. More common than lottery winning but in most cases just as “lucky’.
    Black Flag® says:
    January 23, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    Do you really think I don’t know people. I absolutely DO understand people – I know economics

    So you’re complaint is that “life is hard”.
    No shit

    If “these people” are disappointed with their lot in life, it is their job to fix it.

    If you don’t like the job, change it.
    If you don’t like the commute, find a job that doesn’t need it.
    If you don’t like the hours, find a job with better hours.
    If you don’t like the conditions of employment, renegotiate or find another job.

    If you don’t like taxes damn well quit asking for government

    If you can’t fund a retirement, LEARN TO SAVE BETTER.

    But don’t bloody complain to me, I am deaf to your stupidity if you refuse to do anything about it.

    “The fact that you can afford cheap crap Chinese electronic devices all over your house does little to improve your station in life”

    Bullshit! It is fundamental improvement, or I wouldn’t have bought it
    I get all the benefits it provides for CHEAP! This saves me money to buy other things I wouldn’t be able to buy otherwise

    Instead of a $100,000 Chevette that lasts 40 years, I get a $10,000 Honda that lasts 5 years, $90,000 of all sorts of other things

    No one can predict the future. Circumstances come and go.
    6 months ago, I had a few hundred thousand dollars of company shares.
    Today, its now about a few thousand. Oh well.
    In a year, it’ll be back to a few hundred thousand again.

    If I need the money today, …ouch… I won’t get the hundred grand in a year.
    If I don’t get the money today, I may have bigger problems in a year.

    It’s not “luck” or “bad luck”, it is merely circumstances in collusion and then what choices are made at the time.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I think you greatly underestimate the opportunities that exist today for people to get ahead, as you call it.

      You cannot see them because you evaluate everything against the paradigm you knew. Yes it no longer exists. But I’ll guarantee you that the one your parents grew up with didn’t exist when you started working either. Change is the only constant. Adapt, improvise, be flexible and you will thrive. Stand still and expect the same outcomes of your father and you will starve.

      You also understate the difference between todays youth and those of us who are over 60. Many young folks today place as much value on their life style as on the money they earn. They switch jobs not for money but due to boredom. All kinds of things have changed.

      • JAC

        If anything, opportunities grew between my parents generation and mine. we can all argue about how the automobile put harness makers out of business not to mention the buggy whip business and horse breeders but there were jobs in the replacement industry available to them. More jobs, better jobs.

        This path no longer exists. In part it is certainly due to technological improvements. Robotics for example. Where it may have taken 50 people on an auto assembly line in the past it takes two today. So, where do the other 48 go?

        That is the real question. Where do the other 48 go? What, they are going out to create a family and a life occasionally cleaning someone’s garage? Not hardly I think. the garage cleaning jobs will be done by the African and Latin American workers who will, out of necessity undercut any price you might set. A very obvious example of this is lawn service workers. There was a time when people scrimped by as seasonal lawn workers but look who is doing that work today.

        Folks go on and on about national security yet we keep bringing in low wage, low skill workers that we have no need for. We keep exporting jobs, low tech or high tech despite the fact that they do not really reduce costs as much as we have been led to believe. If 70% of the Army’s boots for example, come from Korea, should little Kim decide to move South what are our troops wearing on their feet? Same could be said for any big industry from aircraft manufacture to shipbuilding. Once you lose the technological and industrial base, if you need it in a hurry, you are shit out of luck. I see an awful lot of young folks out there with very limited futures. I remember having this argument with my contemporaries back in the ’70’s who felt that their future was not as guaranteed as their parents. I disagreed (correctly) with them then. I do not anymore. Many of my contemporaries, with just a high school education, went on to work for Ma Bell or its subsidiaries. Many more went on to work for our big Public Utilities. These guys all had tech jobs, some moved to middle and even top management, made damn good salaries, had nice retirement packages through the union or a managerial plan and are just fine today. Show me that path today!

        We must start looking at the future and planning for it. Cheap labor is only a very temporary answer. That is a Huxley world and one I’d rather not live in. There seems to be this assumption out there that society cannot devolve. Really? That is what happened for different reasons to the cities between 1945 and the 1980’s. Just because you have an MBA does not mean Junior will get one nor that it will mean diddly in a post modern non industrial economy.

        As Andy Rooney might have said, “didja ever notice” how many affluent people are subsidizing their kids today? It’s not just the opportunity issue. If you have been very successful and innovative, there is absolutely no guarantee that this will be genetically passed on. One good friend who did very well picking winners on Wall Street, has three grown children. Despite his less than stellar university (all he could afford) his kids have all and I mean all gone to Ivy league schools and beyond for grad work. If you can get him to talk about it he will tell you that he cannot guarantee they will have his skill or good fortune. Instead, he has given them a network which has proved to be just as good. We all know that if you were Harvard Law, you will do a lot better than if you graduated Seaton Hall Law regardless of your university performance. It’s who you know. For my own kids, I set them up to gain practical experience in addition to academic work. Not as good as Harvard or Yale but there are firms that would still hire a guy with three years practical experience in management plus a good middle of the road degree rather than some snotty Ivy leaguer
        who can’t find the mens room.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Another person who shares your view of economics. So lets summarize.

      These people doing nothing now have work that pays them more than they were making, doing nothing, but somehow this is NOT GOOD FOR THEM. The technology that allows them to find these jobs and make money is “not considering the impact on them”.

      Good freeking grief. Where would we be without all these self righteous people telling everyone how miserable their lives are.


  42. American sniper blowing all other movies away ( pun intended )…..Hollywood does not understand why? Liberal news does not know what to do except blast it ( pun intended )….

    The pocket book speaks!

    • Anyone care to venture a guess why?

      • Americans love winners and hero’s. Add that to it being made by Clint Eastwood, who makes great war movies and you got a winner in Hollywood. I haven’t seen it yet, will wait till it comes on pay per view.

        I’m sure that whaleman Michael Moore is cringing in disgust, but it shows that the people are not going any further to the Left, but coming back to the middle right. Want Moore didn’t quite figure out when he called Kyle a coward, what does one consider the Drone President if Kyle is a coward?

  43. Why is it that no one want to address the truth about the measles outbreak that started at Disney Land in California…..be prepared for more…..and other types as well.

    • What’s your take Colonel? My understanding is that the vaccine caused it to begin with and many who have it now have been vaccinated.

      • Then I will have to see…there was a doctor on the news this morning….( yes, it was Fox news ) saying that the vaccine was fine…….I also heard on MSNBC ( yes, I flip around to get everyone’s perspective )…that the children that have caught this are not vaccinated and neither are some adults…..

        I can only relate to what is happening on the Texas border with measles and chicken pox…My take would be my opinion……but my opinion is ( assuming that it is not vaccine related ) that California practices a total open border. They are letting anybody in regardless of any ailments. Down here, we look for disease and are prepared for it. We handle everyone with gloves and masks….and anyone caught sick is taken back to the border and isolated.

        So, I can see illegals going to Disney Land and schools infected and spreading illness around. Now, there a nay sayers that will pundit it is a small fraction and not worth anything…..until the outbreak occurs. Texas has gone back to proof of inoculation before admittance to school. That is the only way to control things. You better close the borders and check people out…..but that is my opinion I am sure not shared by the left.

  44. Dale A Albrecht says:

    If I read the news correctly this past week. The government in Yeman basically fell to the rebels, despite our help. The headline today, Obama says that the anti-terror campaign will continue in Yeman even with the power vacuum….doesn’t this put an exclamation point on the idea that drones, as cool as they are, just do and will not cut it in a boots or sandals on the ground as the case may be, war.

    • Actually, Dale, I do not believe that Yemen is in a power vacuum. It appears that way but after years of experience, I have an itch on the back of my neck that says otherwise….I will , of course, watch it closely. Obama has all the foreign policy skills of a deranged skunk. It stinks and you never know what will show up next.

%d bloggers like this: