Open Mic

LOI doesn’t have a new article lined up and Purple is getting long.



  1. May everyone have a wonderful day 🙂

    • Let’s see we had three inches of snow followed by freezing rain last night (heavy) Lotsa melting this morning but prepping for the evening re-freeze and 3-4-5-6-7-8-9 (take your pick) inches of new snow.

      Apparently anytime it is not snowing is a wonderful time!

      • I have several inches of slush everywhere. Just got the old man unstuck, in the driveway, no less. No matter, no place to go anytime soon. At least it’s warmer, which I’m very happy about that. Hopefully we can get back to normal temps, been way too cold the past month.

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    One reason I love Malkin. Willing to do actual Journalism.

    To the Media……………….SLAP.

  3. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.

    “The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.

    “Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.

    This is just one part of this article, the rest is here:

    Anita, your not going to like this at all.

      • Good to see you back. Posted this the other day on the previous topic. Interested in your opinion. I would also ask how you feel about the trial balloon being floated re: the president and executive order/memo on tax increases.

        ONE FOR BUCK!

        This month’s “Atlantic” is a treasure trove of information as was last months. There is a piece on the underground railroad and its history which includes the following:

        “Even politicians who had sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution—including its clause mandating the return of runaways to their rightful masters—flagrantly ignored their duty. William Seward openly encouraged Underground Railroad activity while governor of New York and (not so openly) sheltered runaways in his basement while serving in the U.S. Senate. Judge William Jay, a son of the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, resolved to disregard fugitive-slave laws, and donated money to help escapees.

        Eventually, such defiance gained legal standing, as Northern states passed “personal liberty” acts in the 1850s to exempt state and local officials from federal fugitive-slave laws. It is a little-known historical irony that right up until the eve of Southern secession in 1860, states’ rights were invoked as often by Northern abolitionists as by Southern slaveholders.”

        Second paragraph is particularly interesting. The “fugitive Slave Laws” may have been the law of the land and the Supremes may have ruled on “Dred Scott” but the moral imperative overruled.

        • I’m sorry, but what is the ‘moral imperative’ behind forbidding two people who love one another from getting married? What is the ‘moral imperative’ behind denying these two people the same rights you and your wife enjoy and probably even take for granted?

          Oh, and on the issue of executive action and taxes, what specifically is being floated?

          I’ve never left – just been way too busy the past few days to write in. Hopefully tomorrow I’ll be able to take the day ‘off’ catching up on a few work items at home and playing with the little one…

          • Just A Citizen says:


            There is nothing in any State law, I know of, preventing two homosexuals from calling themselves married and certainly nothing preventing them from living together and enjoying each others company..

            “Marriage” has ALWAYS been an arrangement of matrimony between a men and women.

            So the issue is not one of morality but one of natural laws, common law and its relationship to govt. law. The laws granting Govt “sanctity” to traditional marriage creates NO MORAL issues for anyone.

            By what authority did we grant Govt or a few lawyers the power to create NEW definitions of words which have existed for thousands of years? Answer….none.

            Perhaps the homosexual community should have focused on the actual “privileges” granted by Govt. instead of the FAUX privilege of “marriage”.

            • As I’ve long said (and what I thought you agreed with) — once government got into the marriage business, government cannot discriminate.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I agreed with you on the Govt granting privileges, based on SCOTUS rulings regarding the 14th. I don’t agree with all those rulings either but I assumed them to stand in my prior comments.

                Marriage is not a privilege in and of itself. It is a “condition of matrimony between men and women”.

                The privileges in question are issues of joint property, inheritance, etc., etc.. This is where the legal challenges should have been aimed and the Govt should have acted to remedy the disparity. I note here that many of the supposed issues of unfair treatment for homosexual couples did not even involve the Govt. Such as Hospital visitation. Many hospitals removed the “marriage” limitation before the courts even ruled on “marriage” itself.

                Remember, the status of “marriage” did not automatically convey any privileges in these other areas until the last century. Tax and property law being two main areas. So it would be easy to separate these privileges from a license that “sanctifies marriage” between only certain people.

                Now, I do think the Cons screwed up when they went after LAW to create “DEFINITIONS”. But that was because of early Progressive Judges using that approach.

                This issue is much like Abortion in that the COURTS should have stayed the hell out of it and let the people settle the matter. Judges are increasingly rationalizing their own views of morality via legal arguments constructed on mist.

              • I disagree – I strongly believe judicial intervention to be warranted. It is the job of the courts to protect the rights of the minority.

                I also feel your focus on separating the inherent privileges (eg property and inheritance rights) from ‘marriage’. By way of government involvement the governments recognition of ‘marriage’ in and of itself is a privilege. The only way out would be for government to refuse to recognize ANY marriage and require all couples to obtain a civil ‘Civil Union’ license. This of course will never happen.

              • “once government got into the marriage business, government cannot discriminate.” So that means there can be no restrictions on who or how many can get married. The only exception I suppose would be based on age.

              • The only way out would be for government to refuse to recognize ANY marriage and require all couples to obtain a civil ‘Civil Union’ license.

                This would have been the most logical solution, however, it won’t happen. I’ve been reading many comments on many sites on the subject of government and religion. I grew up believing marriage was a religious event, whatever the religion. Muslims don’t treat gay folks well, as they have been throwing them off buildings lately. Many Christians see homosexuality a sin. I personally don’t care about the matter, as it has zero effect on me, but having read the many comments, I find that the whole ‘Gay Marriage” issue is less of a legal matter and more of an attack on Christianity itself. Had it only been a legal issue, the “Civil Union” fix would have worked just fine.

              • No – of course there can be restrictions. But they cannot discriminate against a class of people absent any rational basis.

              • How is it an attack on Christianity?? It is simply about obtaining government recognition.

                The civil union fix would only work if govt refused to recognize any (including homosexual) marriage. I can’t think of many homosexual couples that would be ok with that!

              • Going below!

              • So basically you make up a new definition for discrimination based on the reasoning being rational-well who gets to define rational. The point is that this argument has nothing-I repeat nothing to do with discrimination. The law as written doesn’t discriminate against gays or polygamist-a new law including gays wouldn’t discriminate against polygamist either. At least put forth a true argument-you simply think it is unfair or admit that your new idea is just as discriminatory as you claim the current one is.

              • VH:

                1) How is denying two people the right to marry based solely on their sex not discriminatory?

                2) Assuming it is discriminatory, how does such discrimination pass even the lowest level of scrutiny?

              • 1. How is denying more than two people the right to marry based solely on a number not discriminatory?

                2. Assuming it is discriminatory, how does such discrimination pass even the lowest level of scrutiny?

              • Answer my questions first.

              • 🙂 No, you are the one claiming discrimination-that the law as written is discriminatory based on nothing more than someone’s Rational opinion. Yet other restrictions would not be-I assume because of someone’s future rational opinion. Yet you want me to answer a question which is actually based on what one might happen to think is fair.

                You see, I have no problem with “We the People” deciding the gay marriage issue based on fairness-I just have a problem with the courts deciding based on a BS argument based on a false claim of discrimination based on nothing more substantial than the opinion of a very few judges.

                And as Stephan just said-You can’t have it both ways -if the current law is discriminatory-the NEW LAW and it will be a new law written by the Court system, which is supposed to be a no no, is also discriminatory.

              • Refusing to answer the question because you can’t!? 🙂

                You have no problem with the people getting to make the decision by vote regardless of whether that decision unconstitutionally discriminates against a class of people? I find that comment interesting.

                You continue to say it’s a false claim of discrimination yet are unable to explain why. So please, answer my questions.

              • I suggest you reread what I wrote. And since I do not believe either law would be discriminatory your claim makes no sense. And the law is not discriminatory because as written it treats all people the same. But then I am not claiming that some restrictions that keep people from marrying are discriminatory and others aren’t-you are-so back it up 🙂

              • So you believe forbidding a class of people from marrying is not discriminatory? How so?

                By the way, where did I claim some restrictions are discriminatory and others aren’t? I fear you misread what I wrote. Just because something is discriminatory does not make it unconstitutional, hence my second question.

              • Oh well, seems we are at the same impasse as usual-it was fun none the less-I just find it odd that I answer your questions, acknowledge your points in these little discussions but you evade mine-must be the lawyer in you coming out-you can’t seem to answer a straight up question 🙂 Have a good night.

              • Gnite!

                I’m not evading your questions – at least I’m not trying to – but I’m not going to answer your questions before you answer the same questions I posed to you first!

              • Buck, the only reason you posted those questions was to evade my point. I posted your questions back at you to try and make you see that that was what you were doing.

              • It seems to me you point was that the law as written does not discriminate. But VH, the law DOES discriminate. That is why I asked the question. How in your opinion does it not?

              • Okay Buck-since your trying to acknowledge my point-Now tell me why the law written as you want it to be written isn’t discriminatory too-because that’s my point. If it discriminates now, which it doesn’t, again because the law as written treats all people the same, why is your way not discriminatory to other people like polygamist. And if you believe it doesn’t discriminate against polygamist-How can you claim it discriminates against gays now?

              • The law does discriminate. Not everyone is treated the same – I am not permitted to do what you can (marry a man) and you cannot do what I can (marry a woman). We are treated differently solely because of our gender.

                Now, as I’ve been trying to say, the fact the law is discriminatory dies not render it unconstitutional. So long as there is at least a rational basis. What in your mind is the rational basis for this discrimination to pass constitutional muster?

                On the issue of polygamy, it is not discriminatory in the same way. It does not forbid a class of people from doing something due to some immutable characteristic (race, gender, sexual orientation). Rather it is a restriction based purely on number. Moreover, to the extent it is discriminatory, there is clearly a rational basis given all other laws and privileges granted to a married couple (eg, inheritance, taxes, etc.). Restricting the number that can enter into a marriage serves a real administrative purpose.

                That being said, I would oppose any laws that would restrict a group of individuals from entering into a purely religious marriage. As G and I were saying yesterday – just take ‘marriage’ entirely out of government business.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Buck…the roll of the courts is to protect the rights of ALL people.

              • Yes, it is, I couldn’t agree more. But more specifically the courts must safeguard the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

              • Yea, I got a real answer 🙂

                I suspect polygamist would disagree with your rational argument-I suspect they would use all the same arguments that gays use to disagree with you. I actually believe that their arguments would be stronger. Someone in the union dies it isn’t just one person not being able to claim the rights attached to a spouse it’s two or three or whatever-even worse two of them might actually of been legally married and that one would have total control over not only the earnings of the deceased but the right to make all the decisions on his or her’s health related question. And lets not even talk about the effect it would have on any children they might have. And talk about visitation rights at the hospital.
                -how dare you discriminate against them.

                As far as all these benefits what difference does it make-they can file their taxes just like all other married couples-either filing together or filling seperately as married. It could actually put them in a higher tax bracket-but if they aren’t married-they most likely would have access to bigger benefits for themselves and their children-depending on what the individual mothers in the group make.Filing single with a child and a low income or maybe no income-you can get a lot of goodies. But even if they don’t -you change a tax law here and there. So I don’t think your rational argument is so rational.

                Please note that all these arguments are a matter of opinion-whether or not there rational is somewhat subjective-but they aren’t based on discrimination in law.

                Now that we’ve hopefully gotten past the why it is unfair category-Take a second look at your definition of discrimination. Why again is it discrimination?

                And if you still believe it is discrimination against gays but not against polygamist I have to wonder why you thinks its okay to do either. Especially when you would deny one group based on taxes and benefits but you argue for gay rights based on their right to those taxes and benefits. I have to ask “do you hate polygamist-are you just not “into” what they do-does it make you feel icky -is that why you are willing to discriminate against them and not gays. Sorry I just couldn’t resist 🙂

          • Did not ask that question counselor. Asked whether you think the state courts and state law can take precedent under any circumstance, I guess. Whether you like it or not, agree or disagree, as the article states, the North ran with “states rights” just as much as the South. Now, if on the other hand, you are an absolutist then the people like NY Governor Seward should have been impeached and jailed and the feds should have come in and taken over the Northern courts and legislatures for ignoring both the Fugitive Slave Laws and the Scott decision.

            As I am so very fond of saying, you cannot have it both ways no matter how much you would like to. As they say in those court potboilers all the time, “Yes or No, just answer the question, Yes or No”?!

            Somehow you missed he wants to raise corporate taxes by executive order/memo?

            • The state court cannot and does not trump a federal court on a constitutional question. This applies to both sides and yes, if caught Seward would have had to face the legal consequences. However you raised the issue of moral imperative. If someone was to raise this as a defense for their actions, what pray tell could be the moral imperative here?

              On the taxes – yes, I heard Sanders had floated the idea to Obama who is considering the issue. But I am unfamiliar with precisely what is being considered.

              • I was thinking about this some more. The SCOTUS said the feds have no Constitutional authority to determine that marriage is between a man and a woman, that we know. Does it not also make sense that the Fed’s have no say in the matter, because they do not have the authority to begin with? Doesn’t the SCOTUS ruling make it a State (Article 10) issue? Additionally, since gays are not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, this would further erode the Fed’s perceived authority via Federal court?

              • Read the 14th Amendmemt.

              • I did, they been stretching it till it bears no resemblance to what was intended. The end NEVER justifies the means not for a two bit politician, not for the Supreme Court.

              • Buck, One thing I have believed for a long time is that the 14th has been seriously abused and is being used beyond it’s intent. I still have that opinion, so I guess we’ll be finding out in June 🙂

    • The author seems to assume he can read minds. I doubt that he can.

      • Hey, watch it-I happen to like this particular author 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Reasoned conclusions based on the line of questions and past history. Not mind reading.

        I expect Kennedy and Roberts to side with the Govt. They have proven that they are susceptible to fear of upsetting massive programs. Why else would Roberts find the “tax” legal?

        • I would tend to agree on what the decision is likely to be, for the Govt., however, if the Gruber comments are part of the testimony, I’m not so sure. We will find out in June 🙂

  4. Colonel, I just noticed you replied to my piece on Turks with the following:

    I had the privilege of fighting with a Turkish Special Forces contingent in Vietnam for 6 weeks in Kontum in the Central Highlands. They were very efficient and very good. They all carried a curved 19th Century fighting knife. The most unique factor of fighting with them, other than the fact they did NOT take prisoners, was the tradition of the knife that they carried, slept with, bathed with… essence…it never left their side. The old Persian tradition that anytime that their fighting knife ( I wish I could remember the name ) was out of its scabbard, it MUST draw blood before re-sheathing. Not too bad until you realize that the knife was cleaned and sharpened every day even when there was no combat….it still had to draw blood. So, I observed on many occasions that the knife drew blood from the owner if it did not draw blood anywhere else. When they were in combat, even if the enemy soldier was killed with their modern weapon, the knife was drawn against the enemy corpse ( usually cutting off an ear ) to continue the tradition.

    This story has absolutely no bearing on your subject…it just came to mind.

    In the interest of generating even more useless trivia I would have you note that in Feherenbach’s definitive 1,000 page history of the Korean War, “This Kind of War”, he makes note that the Turk brigade went to Korea with bolt action Mausers in 8MM. Unable to re-supply them with ammo the US wanted them to accept Garands. They refused until the US sent the M-1’s to Japan to have a bayonet lug mounted that would accept their privately owned family heirloom bayonets. Turks do take their Cutlery seriously. Fantastic book by the way. Written in 1960, the prediction about the “next” war and how it would be waged vis a vis Korea was prophetic.

  5. How is it an attack on Christianity?? It is simply about obtaining government recognition.

    The civil union fix would only work if govt refused to recognize any (including homosexual) marriage. I can’t think of many homosexual couples that would be ok with that!

    I’m simply basing this on the many comments I have read on different sites. I have said all along, simply change the government licensing to “Civil Union” would have fixed it. If someone wanted a Marriage Certificate from their Church, then get it from the Church.

    Based on what I’ve read, this wasn’t good enough. Gays have mostly forced their way to be accepted by the religion and society. Some comedy on the matter 🙂

    I’ll stay with my not so perfect opinion, the LBGT movement was used by the anti-Christian Left. Not sure why, don’t care why, but the comments I have read are very telling.

    • Also, being that polygamy is part of Muslim culture, it’s next on the legalizing list. I put my foot down at NAMBLA though, that just ain’t happening.

    • That wasn’t good enough because with the push for ‘civil unions’ for same decouples there was no corollary push for ‘civil unions’ for heterosexual couples. In other words, same sex couples would be granted ‘civil Union licenses by the government while heterosexual couples would continue to receive ‘marriage’ licenses.

      • I would have the govt issue “Civil Union” licenses ONLY, to cover the legal matters. Even when I proposed that to the Left, it fell flat and I was a homophobic racist redneck RWNJ.

        • And if I were to propose that to the religious right they would label me as anti-Christian and damned to hell. What’s your point?

          • I wouldn’t have 🙂 As I have said long ago, the governments could have simply changed the name to “Civil Union” license, claiming the separation of church and state. Then politely asked that Churches provide a marriage certificate. Problem solved.

            • Once again – I agree with the solution as its one I’ve long offered myself, but it will never happen. There would’ve too much resistance on BOTH sides.

          • To add, I don’t believe in the “separation of church and state” crap, but it would have worked 😉

      • Strangely, your post on who gets what verifies my position that is wasn’t just a legal matter.

    • Just to throw another monkey wrench into things and point out the idiocy of some arguments look at the issue of “age of consent” on a state by state basis.

      Look at the “spread” too. Seems that Joe can go to jail in one state rather easily where if he crossed the state line he would be doing ok. Then, just for the hell of it look at the chart for the same 50 states for marriage age and exceptions. .

      What a Sham! Where are the federal courts, where is equality, justice, fairness? Where are the marchers in the streets Where are the flags and rainbows?

      The whole damned argument is nothing but a frigging PC joke that took on a life of its own.

      Laws have meanings, states have rights, the executive and judicial branches have limitations or we do not have a republican democracy. QED

      • Laws have meanings, states have rights, the executive and judicial branches have limitations or we do not have a republican democracy.

        Not according to the Left. We are more like a Fascist State. I got a bad feeling this will not end well and time is short.

  6. Regarding the deal with Iran: I’d asked what happens now? Does Congress have a say about it?

    Obama is going to use word games to sneak this through via executive agreement as opposed to calling it a treaty.

    According to the article: There is no difference between an executive agreement and a treaty in international law. This is because international law only recognizes one class of agreement—a treaty.

    The only difference between such documents is that treaties must be ratified by the United States Senate and executive agreements need only be signed by the President or the Secretary of State.

    This sentence seems to be mere opinion, but,,: The Senate and the Supreme Court are both complicit in this arrangement. Most in Washington, D.C. prefer the practice of enlarging international law in our nation without the messy necessity of opening such matters up to the will of the people.

    Someone tell me why we have checks and balances then.

  7. Don’t the US government control where the poppy fields are growing the main ingredient for heroine?

    This is also in correlation to the sad state of affairs this country is in.

    • Like Vietnam, we manged to create a direct pipeline. Think those private contractors would blow an opportunity like this?

      This was a warning given to me by a Russian emigre about my age a dozen years ago. Prior to Afghanistan, Moscow no drug problem. Post Afghanistan, big drug problem. Perhaps the genesis of the Russian Mafia the same as Prohibition was to ours.

  8. Weather update, G. Starting Saturday we’re kicking this freeze to the curb. High 30s continuing upward to consistent 50s and up to 55 by the middle of the month. Look out world, I’m outta hibernation.

  9. It’s getting deeper everyday:

    How important is this?

    Gawker had filed a FOIA request with the State Department in 2012, seeking some of Reines’ correspondence with a journalist. That FOIA request was denied by the State Department on the grounds that they possessed no emails of Reines’ sent to that journalist. Well, no. When you allow a State Department staffer to use a private email in order to conduct State Department business, then you can correctly claim that you don’t have the emails. But the point is: You are supposed to have them!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Wasn’t there several years ago a dust-up with Hillary’s e-mails being hacked and embarrassing comments published? Same personal account perhaps? Anyway it will be interesting to see the “SELECTIVE” prosecution of handling documents. Petreaus had to be destroyed because he forced the Obama administration to do something they truly did not want to do. He probably was jumping up and down with them pissing away the late success of the campaign in Iraq. Because the buildup was also Obama was dead set against. Afganistan the POTUS wanted to say flowery words but not do anything about it, so in all cases he could blame Bush.

    • Already I am hearing Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it!

      Unless somebody has the cojones to point out the link between Petraeus guilty plea for doing a similar thing (classified info at unsecured location) nothin, not nothin, not no how will stick.

      Anybody see Bohner/McConnell taking this up?

  10. Four lovely inches so far……..

  11. Just A Citizen says:


    This legal argument you and others have created claiming sexual discrimination for not issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals provides a solid reason to keep lawyers away from making or interpreting our laws.

    It is the same “nature of lawyers” that undermined the purpose of the 14th amendment itself, the Commerce clause, and others. Only “lawyers” could create the argument that not giving govt. sanction to homosexual marriage is discrimination against people based on their sex.

    The fallacy in your argument does not matter. Because the “lawyer” is happy with creating the illusion of logic within the context of other laws that are equally false.

    The creation of “protected classes” is itself a violation of the 14th amendment. Then you try to use “protected class” to justify the next step.

    Here is the counter argument. I know you will not accept it but it is actual logic.

    Sex discrimination applies to ONE sex vs. the other. Your argument applies to BOTH sexes simultaneously, thus it is NOT SEX discrimination. BOTH sexes are restricted equally based on the COMMON LAW that marriage is a man and woman living in matrimony. The definition does not need to address polygamy because each man and woman in such arrangements are “living in matrimony”.

    Oh, the notion that RIGHTS can be trumped by “compelling Govt interest” is a Logical and Moral FLAW in and of itself. To claim people have a Right to marry whomever they wish requires that we dump thousands of years of normative human behavior and the common laws that developed to maintain social order. And this “dumping” is not done by changing those norms or common laws, but by DICTATE of selected Wizards in Black Robes.

    • JAC – do you disagree that a ban on same sex marriage is discriminatory? Clearly it is, whether it is deemed sex based or sexual orientation based, there is still inherent discrimination in such a ban.

      Where you draw the line as to why it is not sex based is interesting, but I believe misplaced. Sure, in a way it applies simultaneously to both genders, but yet it still applies differently.

      How do you find protected classes to be contra the 14th Amendment? Even so, there is a long history of constitutional jurisprudence on the topic creating and applying these standards of scrutiny which cannot be simply ignored. But fibe, for the sake of argument, let’s throw it out. You are now left with no discrimination period. Hence, no ban on gay marriage can be allowed. Thank you for making my argument even easier!

      Lastly, we’ve been through your last paragraph. And once again, once you force governmental recognition of marriage and issuance of governmwntsl licenses to marry, government can not discriminate in so doing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes it is discriminatory, but so are hundreds of other things that involve human action and interactions. Our big difference in this as with other issues is your Govt LAW approach as opposed to my “natural/common” law approach. I see the Govt. Laws and necessarily being compatible and complimentary to Common Laws.

        This is why I come down strongly on the side of States rights and you on National State. Federalism was based on a FEW and RESTRICTED Federal powers in order to allow people of differing views to exist in harmony. When you use National Govt LAW to override those differences, by force, you create disharmony and sometime outright rebellion.

        That is why I say this issue should have been left to the States and thus the PEOPLE. The marriage issue would have been resolved in most States within the next 20 to 30 years, without all the venomous political rhetoric and division. It would have been a “unifying” force instead of a divisive one.

        Discrimination is not necessarily a violation of “Rights”. I do not see a “natural right” to a marriage certificate. Unlike “right to property” or the “right to control of ones own life” or “the right to Liberty”. The idea of a Govt issued license comes from the people’s practice of living as “husband and wife”. Which by the way was also a requirement by definition. It did not come from Govt., it came from people. Govt’s involvement comes from the other things that eventually became part of this arrangement. Actually to solve issues attached to it. Like the issue of joint/separate property for married women.

        The Progressive Court’s argument was that the 14th prevents withholding benefits from any citizen or group of citizens. A “protected class” is the basis for “Affirmative Action”. Which clearly establishes and “unequal” application of benefits.

        The entire Legal argument and subsequent laws which expanded the 14th fly in the face of how all the other Constitutional restrictions were created and applied. Just notice how much the “compelling Govt interest” argument has to be trotted out.

        Yes, there is a long history of “jurisprudence”. Which is my point, and primary objection to this whole issue. The PERSONAL feelings and beliefs of a few selected people, most of whom were raised in privilege, overrides the common law of the people as well as the very Constitution that protects those people. The one they accepted and took part in creating.

        This should be not surprise to you that I abhor Judicial Activism in its true meaning.

        Your last statement is still as irrational as it was at first. A “license” conveys no privilege. If you want to rely on the 14th then you have to stick to REAL benefits that arise from the license. Sanctifying a marriage in this day and age especially, has no substantive meaning.

        But lets apply your argument equally to everyone. Why can the Govt discriminate against me based on the quality of my Health insurance policy or the value of my property or the level of my income??? Why are poor people given free money and I am not?? Why are my children prevented from cheap college loans and others are not?

        You see, discrimination exists all around us. Violations of our “rights” happens every day based on some “grouping” or “class”. This is all justified by “compelling govt. interest”. Which itself destroys the concept of “rights” in the first place.

        One other point. Where did anyone “force” govt. recognition of marriage?? Several States even allow “common law marriage” so an official “certificate” is not even required in all cases. Again, our difference lies in your view of Govt. vs. mine. Or at least what I see as the proper relationship with Govt.

        It can best be summed up in an argument I had with some hard core lefties on another site some time ago. They were claiming that the Govt. CANNOT, under any circumstances, legalize slavery. I pointed out that was false. The Federal Govt could in fact legalize Slavery, as it would simply take an Amendment to the Constitution. The only thing preventing this is that We The People have rejected slavery.

        Laws created by the governed. If you want to change the laws, you first need to change the attitude of the governed. At least 2/3 of them.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I almost forgot one key point. What BAN on homosexual marriage??

        I know of no law in the USA PROHBITING homosexuals from living together and calling themselves married, if they so choose.

        Just as there is no prohibition from anyone else doing the same.

        • Come on JAC…now you’re just being ridiculous. You know full what what am talking about.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Perhaps, but then again you are using the fallacious claim being thrown around by the left in the media. So why use the phrase “BAN” when you know there is no such thing as a “BAN”.

            This may seem nit pikin to some but we are talking about core principles and the law. So I am trying to be more precise. Rather than succumb to the emotional rhetoric and propaganda.

            Don’t you think it is important that we are precise in our arguments? That erroneous statements should be challenged??

            • This is the very definition of nit picking. You know full well what I mean and what we are talking about. You don’t need to stop debate every single time someone uses some terminology that may not be 100% accurate when all involved know full well what is being discussed.

  12. Just A Citizen says:


    What PRIVILEGE is actually granted by Govt with issuing a marriage license??

    Take away all the other laws connecting to that status and what do you have left??

    • Governmental recognition.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Yes, NOTHING BUT THIN AIR. Glad you finally agree.

      • Lol….Buck….that is thinner than piss on a plate.

        • Not at all. Governmental recognition goes towards ones very dignity in society.

          • Strange. My grandparents had more dignity than anyone else I know. They were born in the very early 1900s..when government wasn’t nearly as intrusive.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            How sad a testament that is, truly sad.

            • I fear you and Anita misconstrue my comments a bit. By refusing to grant such recognition, it is telling those couples that they are somehow less than these couples in the eyes of our society.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Less?? I don’t think so. Maybe “different”. Which kind of gets to the whole “REAL” issue, doesn’t it.

                They want the LAW to force all of us to accept them as the “SAME”. Or even as “NORMAL”.

                But your new argument is no better than the others. What difference if the Govt does not recognize your “arrangements”. Nobody carries around a Govt. card or sign saying “The Governement RECOGNIZED ME”.

                Sorry but it seems to me that the “marriage license” conveys no protection or privilege by and of itself. Remember, the legal issue is protection and privileges. None are conveyed by the license. There is nothing there about your FEELINGS.

              • Pardon me but for some time this recognition has not been granted. Let us say, all of recorded human history for example!

                So now it has been discovered? For the first time?

                In comparison with the end of slavery as an example, to change things on a permanent basis and not just free the slaves in secessionist states as was done by the emancipation proclamation it was deemed necessary to pass three Constitutional Amendments.

                I do not somehow even remember anyone suggesting something like this for “gay” marriage or for that matter on abortion. What did happen, was that it became obvious the super majority had no intention of changing thinking on either topic so the courts decided on an end run. But first they made sure to shoot the defensive line dead.

                The last time I remember the left pushing really hard for something legally was the Equal Rights Amendment which failed in the States. They learned. The learned ones in the black robes learned too. Worst of all, the incipient dictators that occupy 1600 Pennsylvania, learned.

                God help these United States.

              • I completely disagree with you here. Refusing to grant a license to ‘those’ people is just plain wrong. It is discriminatory and absolutely says that they are somehow less in the eyes of the law.

                Which, once again, is not necessarily a constitutional problem in and of itself…so long as there is some legitimate reason for the discrimination. Which, in this case, there just isn’t.

              • Going back to definitions of words again. They have along standing traditional meaning and in my unfortunate (for me) opinion, marriage cannot be between members of the same sex. To even think otherwise is to live down the rabbit hole that Alice fell into.

              • I want to marry my goat. And I think you all should be forced to accept that. After all, its not fair that you all view me as “less than” or as some kind of “freak” in the eyes of society. My beloved goat and I have feelings too.

  13. Ringling Brothers has announced that by 2018, Elephants will no longer be included in Big Top acts. There have been increasing concerns by the public over the way that elephants are trained and the circus, bowing to public pressure (all 13 people), will refrain from offending them. .

    So, Starting in 2018 Disney should permanently retire “Dumbo”.

    There are no concerns over: Seals, Tigers. Bears, Lions, Cheetah’s, Horses, Monkeys, dogs, zebras, or squirrels apparently.

    The 48 Ringling elephants will be put out to pasture and not, contrary to rumor, returned to South East Asia and India to be worked to death.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    As I was on my “judicial activism” soap box earlier, let me add the following. It is a summary of the dissenting opinions on Roe v. Wade, from Wikipedia.


    Byron White was the senior dissenting justice.
    Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. White wrote:

    I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[38][39]

    White asserted that the Court “values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Despite White suggesting he “might agree” with the Court’s values and priorities, he wrote that he saw “no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.” White criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue by creating “a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.” He would have left this issue, for the most part, “with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”

    Rehnquist elaborated upon several of White’s points, by asserting that the Court’s historical analysis was flawed:

    To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[40][41][42]

    From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.””

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    I would like to throw out a thought or tow for consideration.

    The concept of any right being subject to “a compelling govt. interest” creates a two edged sword. One is that it protects our rights against undo intrusion.

    The other creates a caveat to our rights, thus destroying our rights. This is the most dangerous edge.

    By validation that there is such a thing as “compelling Government interest” it necessitates we accept the concept that Government is a unique entity separated from the people. That the people themselves are not the government. How else could there be a govt interest which is different than that expressed by the majority of people?

    This of course violates a fundamental principle of American political philosophy. “We the People” in order to form a more ……………., “Government of the people”, etc. etc.

    If the people are in fact the govt. then by what right or authority do a handful of judges overturn the “govt. interest” created by the people as expressed in the laws they pass?

    Buck rightfully claims that part of the Constitutional constraints “we the people” created was to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. However, WHO decides what those rights are worthy of protection but the “majority” itself.

    The argument also ignores the other part of that argument, which was equally held by our founders. To protect the rights of the majority from the tyranny of the minority. This included, to many, the potential tyranny of the Supreme Court.(see anti-Federalist papers).

    • Interesting stuff today, a fun read 🙂

    • “Buck rightfully claims that part of the Constitutional constraints “we the people” created was to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. However, WHO decides what those rights are worthy of protection but the “majority” itself. ”

      Now you know my brain just turned into mush trying to interpret just how that would work.

      The only conclusion I could come too was that-We the People right the laws and the Courts job was to simply make sure we followed those laws and applied them equally to everyone-Am I even close?

      • VH, I’m sure you read the agreed solution to this matter from last night. The government’s should have changed the terminology, on their own, when this started to become an issue. I do not, as I stated last night, that the gay’s or the Left wanted this simple solution to the legal matters, they wanted to get into the religious aspect of it. This is nothing but an attack on Christianity, as part of the Progressive (Communist/Fascist) push. It’s even part of Congressional record, from back in the 60’s. It’s a mental attack on the religion itself, to denigrate the sanctity of marriage. Buck probably don’t see or agree with this, but the evidence is quite strong.

      • As a Constitutional Republic, it’s set up to protect the minority from the potential tyranny of the majority. Buck is correct. We are not a Democracy, as far too many people think. In a Democracy, the will of the majority rules.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes, pretty good summary.

        The MAJORITY determines what the laws are, and thus dictates the terms for protections of the minority.

        • The MAJORITY determines what the laws are, and thus dictates the terms for protections of the minority.

          This is questionable with the recent Congress’s 😀

        • By that very strained logic, the minority would have no rights nor protection.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            In reality they don’t.

            Their protection comes from the views and beliefs of the majority.

            How else do you get your Govt laws enacted??

            • Which is why the Courts role, in large part, is to ensure the rights of the minority are protected.

              Sure, a majority can amend the Constitution to strip the rights of the minority, but this is one of the main reasons why we require such a supermajority to do so.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Now you are really spinning in circles. So the COURT has this omnipotent authority or wisdom from WHERE??

                Are you now admitting that you think Judges should just make stuff up based on their personal views of right and wrong?

                Your second sentence destroys your first. I agree, that is why supermajority is needed. But that does not change the underlying truth. The majority CAN impose itself upon the minority, even under our system.

                The only way this could not be true is if LAW is handed to us from God on High. Literally, handed to us, as in God descends and places the LAW in the public square for all to see.

                Of course it wouldn’t be long before the lawyers would try to split hairs on the LAW itself. Then judges would proclaim they have the authority to “interpret” God’s Law, because who else is qualified. Yes, that is sarcasm but it is more satire than just sarcastic.

              • That is exactly correct — a supermajority is needed because the whims of the majority alone to curtail the rights of the minority would pose a huge problem. So yes, I disagree with your statement that a ‘majority’ determines the rights of the minority. There must be something more than a simple majority here.

      • This supports my view of the push towards Socialism/Communism/Fascism (or what ever new name they will invent, probably Progressivism):

  16. Dale A Albrecht says:

    With following this discussion on “rights” for getting licenses to get married. It all really, once you get through all the BS and legal mumbo jumbo, boils down to government benefits and corporate retirement annuities. Private assets you can dispense to anyone including your dog, but tax breaks, SS, insurance benefits you need direct relationship to pass on those benefits or entitlements.

  17. Anyone else notice how all the talk about the SC and the current case on Obamacare is centered on the intent of the law but when it comes to the Constitution in most battles they are piercing individual phases and words to death.

  18. Just an FYI

    Iranian Dictator Khamenei Hospitalized in Critical Condition

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck’s argument about Govt recognition and dignity is not unique to the marriage issue.

    “ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is representing Manning in her effort to get medical treatment for gender dysphoria, praised Thursday’s court decision: “The court rightly recognized that dignifying Chelsea’s womanhood is not the trivial matter that the government attempted to frame it as. This is an important development in Chelsea’s fight for adequate medical care for her gender dysphoria. That fight continues but at least the government can no longer attempt to erase Chelsea’s identity by referring to her as male in every legal filing.””

    Now it is my understanding the MR. Manning has not undergone his sex change therapy and is therefore a MAN by DEFINITION. But alas, even the military court has fallen for the Govt. recognition is necessary for one’s own “DIGNITY”.

    Odd, I cannot think of a single time in my life where I felt my dignity was dependent upon some Govt. acknowledgement of who I am. I always felt it was dependent upon my own values and behavior relative to those values.

    Of course, we are living in a world where free health care and Govt imposed wages are also necessary for a “dignified life” so I guess I should not be surprised.

    • JAC – why add insult to injury? It should be enough that MS. Manning requested to be addressed as such.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Really? No Buck, it is not enough, especially for a COURT to intervene in such a matter. Rather ridiculous in my opinion.

        • And here I sit thinking it absolutely ridiculous the government steadfastly refused to address her as she wished.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Should I sue the Govt to force them to recognize me as a Grizzly Bear if I choose to call myself a Grizzly Bear?

            • If you want to change your name to Grizzly Bear, go for it. I’ll tell you what, from now on I shall call you Grizzly Bear!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                You did not answer the question. Should the Govt. have the power to force you to call me a Grizzly Bear?

                Should the Govt. have the power to suspend reality in favor of personal feelings, beliefs or whims?

                I urge you to be careful with your answer.

              • There is no suspension of reality here. The situation here is very different from you being deemed a grizzly bear. If you can’t see that then I don’t know what to tell you.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I am not genetically a Grizzly Bear nor am I genetically a woman. Physically I am probably closer to bear than woman.

                So yes, there is a dictated suspension of reality. The fact you don’t see it boggles the mind.

                I will not succumb to such foolishness. I will not willingly accept a world where people get to declare their identity, contrary to reality, and then can use Govt. force to make me accept their farce.

                In the meantime I will afford the Mannings of the world with the same decorum, manners and civility I offer to everyone. I will most certainly tolerate his delusions as long as they have no affect on me. Oh wait, I am being forced to PAY for his “conversion”. Well maybe I won’t be so absolutely polite after all.

              • Precisely — why refuse to honor her wishes? Why refuse to grant her the same respect you would anyone else?

                The issue of paying for her medical treatment is an entirely different issue from granting her respect and referring to her as she requests.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Because HE is a Man and not a woman. SHE refers to a woman.

                And the issue is not what I would call him, or how I would address him. The issue is by what authority does a JUDGE FORCE anyone to address another person in a manner they choose, especially when that address is contrary to reality.

                You are placing whim and desire above science and reason. Kind of sounds a little religious, if you get my drift.

  20. Just A Citizen says:


    Is not a supermajority a majority?? Let me help you, the answer is YES.

    And let me remind you that the “created law” we are discussing was “created” by a handful of people, not even a slim majority.

    Tell me, what is the basis for judges suddenly discovering this relationship between Constitutional protections and Homosexual marriages? If it did not exist for the past 100 plus years, how did it suddenly spring to life?

    • And there goes your nit picking again!

      Was the issue raised 100 years ago? Would be curious to know. By the way, what about Loving v. Virginia – why was that discrimination not ok, but this is?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        You have provided one more example of Judicial Activism. Strange how almost 100 years after it was ruled legal it suddenly became illegal, UNDER THE SAME LAW.

        “Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama’s anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.


        The plaintiff, Tony Pace, an African-American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, were residents of the state of Alabama, who had been arrested in 1881 because their sexual relationship violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statute. They were charged with living together “in a state of adultery or fornication” and both sentenced to two years imprisonment in the state penitentiary in 1882. Because “miscegenation,” that is marriage, cohabitation and sexual relations between whites and “negroes,” was prohibited by Alabama’s anti-miscegenation statute (Ala. code 4189), it would have been illegal for the couple to marry in Alabama. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex (“adultery or fornication”) was only a misdemeanor. Because of the criminalization of interracial relationships, they were penalized more severely for their extramarital relationship than a white or a black couple would have been.

        The conviction was first affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court. On further appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that was also part of Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After Pace v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s. In 1967, these laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.”

        I am trying to fix dinner and juggle a couple other things right now. So I defer on the direct answer to your example, for now.

        • So you believe states do (and should) have the right to ban interracial marriage? That surprises me…

          I need to get running myself — need to go shovel yet again today! Continue this another time!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Good luck with the shovel. Bend your knees or you will regret it for a long, long time.

            What I think is right is not the same thing as what I think is correct under our legal system. I will give a fuller answer later.

            • I’m been waiting JAC-but I’m the impatient sort-so I’m gonna have to comment before you do-As much as I agree that We the People should run the government and our voices should be the control. I do not understand this being Judicial activism. It seems that our whole Constitution is based on the rights of the individual-and this seems like a clear violation of rights-not just privileges to me. I may believe we have the right to deny a marriage licence but I don’t think we have the right to tell those same people they can not form unions, live together or sleep together. Unless we go the path of an amendment. So help we out here -because I truly do not believe that the courts should just get to arbitrarily make laws. But this one seems un-constitutional to me.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Judicial Activism as I use it, which is its most obnoxious meaning, is when judges make up new law by creating convoluted and nit picking arguments. Now those on the left claim the current SCOTUS is exercising “judicial activism” when it overturns prior “left leaning decisions” in favor of more “constructionist” views of the Constitution.

                In the example I gave the SCOTUS made a ruling on the very legal issue Buck was raising. It found NO VIOLATION of the Constitution regarding the banning of inter-racial marriage. Yet 80 years later the Court suddenly discovers a “different” legal argument allowing them to overturn the prior court.

                So by either my definition, or the one the left uses against Scalia and Thomas, the later decision is “activism”. The law did not change. Only the Judges perception of Socially acceptable.

                Now under our system the judges should not make law, the people should do that. So if it were in fact “socially acceptable” to inter marry then the people should have passed the laws needed to make that legal.

                Our system is only partly predicated on personal freedom. Hence the BS caveat that “compelling govt interest” can override our Rights.

              • What I believe will happen is that the SCOTUS will allow gay marriage under the 14th Amendment. Effectively, it’s the final burial of the 10th Amendment. However, the Scotus may also rule that because there is nothing written in the Constitution about marriage being a right (protected by the Bill of Rights) and no authority was given to the Feds on the matter, they may rule that the 10th Amendment may apply, if the States provide for a legal union that gives the same legal privileges as what has always been considered a normal marriage of a man or a woman.

                My only concern is the first part, that has nothing to do with gays because I don’t care what they do. I would rather see the second idea.

              • Okay, I’m trying to understand based solely on activism-but as a matter of law-should this law have been overturned by the Scotus in the first place years ago based on a violation of our laws?

                Isn’t it possible for Scotus to determine or rule that the first ruling that something was constitutional be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they were simply wrong based on law?

                Or basically when can Scotus rule something is unconstitutional instead of taking it too the legislation?

                Obviously I’m a mite confused 🙂

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Which isn’t that how the SCOTUS ruled several years ago…It is up to the States on how they want to define marriage. Only to go round robin again with the lower courts over-ruling the SCOTUS based on a different amendment of the Constitution.

              • That is certainly how I read the ruling-the left took the overturning of the Marriage defense law as an open door to dismiss State’s rights based on the use of Reciprocity in order to use the 14th amendment to claim gay marriage restrictions unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court set on their collective a## and allowed numerous marriage licence’s to be given out. Now they will claim acceptance by the people because so many States have legalized gay marriage. And really how can we go and nullify marriages that have already taken place. Put book on it-gay marriage is going to be legal as soon as the SC makes their ruling-the SC it’s self has gone to great lengths to allow all this stuff to happen and it’s going to happen.

              • Maybe I’m going overboard but if you really look at how they are using reciprocity to argue that states don’t have the right to ban gay marriage. What they’re really doing is using the 14th amendment to argue that States Rights are unconstitutional.

              • Maybe I’m going overboard but if you really look at how they are using reciprocity to argue that states don’t have the right to ban gay marriage.

                VH, you are entitled to your wonderful opinion 🙂 I don’t think it’s overboard at all. It the reciprocity argument works, this could actually be a very good thing.

              • Don’t see how.

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Anyone else remember the GLOBAL outrage when looters invaded Museums and destroyed or stole historical artifacts during the US liberation? Remember the vitriol thrown in the news media towards Mr. Bush and the USA for “allowing this to happen”.

    Wondering why I don’t see the same outrage expressed now? Just a few articles, matter-of-factly announcing ISIS has destroyed X, Y or Z.

    Can the difference be explained only by the difference in expectations? I think not.

    • Hot the nail on the head again!

      When the Taliban first blew those statues of Buddha back before 9/11 there was month log universal outrage. Now there is nothing. Primary reason is it would somehow connect Obama’s Charlie Foxtrot to what is happening and that is NOT the narrative any more than Netanyahu’s warnings are.

  22. Just a thought on the Hillary email debacle: Was she hiding her emails from the prying eyes of Obama?

    • She is a paranoid. Nobody remembers after that Vince Foster guy how his office got sanitized?

      • I would be paranoid too if the boss was reading everything I wrote. In any case, this whole thing should disqualify her from higher office. What should happen and what does happen are two completely different things.

      • The new late night joke should be if you want a copy of Hillary’s emails, ask China.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        And the papers the DOJ looking for were surprisingly found in the private portion of the White House “AFTER” the statute of limitations expired. The DOJ came and picked them up, but Janet Reno AJ at the time, said no use to anyone especially the special prosecuter due to time limits. Dead issue and not pursued, disposition not known now for historical reference, probably destroyed to protect Hillary’s future political career..

  23. I have said before, that what the LBGT crowd wants is to force everyone to accept their life style as legitimate and normal. By forcing their way into using the term marriage they think they gain acceptance. Most people are just tired of the fight and wish it would just go away. Hence the capitulation. This is a state issue and the Feds should stay out of it. Instead, the courts have manufactured a right so they can claim it has been violated. Every person has the right to marry within the traditional definition of the term. This definition is not discriminatory. No one’s right was being violated.

  24. •Here is the blunt truth. Last month there were 148.2 million working age Americans working and 101.5 million working age Americans not working. This month there are 148.3 million working age Americans working and 101.6 million working age Americans not working. Does that sound like progress or stagnation?
    •The BLS expects you to believe that in the midst of a supposed economic recovery, 354,000 working age Americans decided to leave the workforce in one month because their financial situation is so sound. How stupid do they think we are, or are they so incompetent with their models and measurements that they just make this shit up?
    •We should be so proud. The 92.9 million Americans not in the labor force is an all-time record. Who needs a job when you can “earn” a $50,000 per year life on welfare or SSDI. Working is for suckers.
    •What are the 1.5 million working age Americans who left the workforce in the last 12 months doing? What are the 13 million working age Americans who have left the workforce since 2008 doing?
    •Since 2008 we’ve added 3 million jobs, while 13 million people have supposedly left the workforce, and the unemployment rate is supposedly lower today than it was in 2008. So the working age population is up by 16 million, we only have 3 million more jobs, but the unemployment rate has fallen from 5.8% to 5.5%. This is simply hysterical. The blatant lies, manipulation and utter bullshit is mind boggling in its outright dishonesty.
    •How come the household survey says there are only 96,000 more people employed than in January, but the blaring headline only proclaims the 295,000 from the other survey? Propaganda at its finest.


    Cool tool. I lowered the z to k ratio to zero, to simulate a highly infection disease. Lowered the walking time to 1 minute. the last adjustment I put at around 330.000

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Any idea what that other value represents? If you set Z to K how does that affect infection rate? Less die so it keeps spreading??

      • Yes, the z to k is zombies minus dead zombies. I put that at zero because at first, very few would be killed , if any at all. It also would better represent a normal virus being spread, unknowingly. I would add couple new “zombies” to cities as each hour would pass, simulating travel. I’m unsure what the lower adjustment does, I’m guessing it’s part of the Gillespie dynamics. I set it at 288.88. I also put the time to one minute, as a normal virus would move quickly

  26. I would like to add to the gay marriage issue. IF the SCOTUS rules that the 14th Amendment applies and gays can legally marry, this may have some far reaching implications. One, it can be viewed as “because one State allows it, all states must allow it”, which could be applied to conceal carry permit holders. Basically the ruling could make one’s states law, applicable in all States.

    • I don’t think it’s a matter of may-gay marriage would become legal in every state.

      • I think you are correct. I do think SCOTUS will rule that way. How they rule is very important. It may turn out to be a “be careful what you ask for” ruling.

  27. Hilarious following the Hillary email scandal. Like, is it a good thing to have this guy out there speaking for you?

    Warmer temps coming our way and I am so ready! Unfortunately, not much snow this winter but cold, cold cold. 40’s and even a couple days of 50’s on the 10-day outlook. Hopefully they are more accurate with the forecast than they are with Global Warm, Cool, Climate Change!

    Enjoying the Badgers winning the Big10 and moving into post season play. Minimal bench which is a major concern……. Frank the Tank Kaminsky should win Player of the Year. Pretty cool stuff.

    • I’m actually stating to believe this little scandal may take Hillary out of the running. When I first heard about it-I thought, oh big deal they’re not going to not vote for Hillary based on an email account. But wow, the more that is written about it and you add in the fact that the media doesn’t seem to be real enthused about her and Obama and the White House hate her and Bill. She really might end up not running or if she does being totally destroyed by the left media because they would rather have whoever runs against her. Hell, that’s pretty much what happened when she ran against Obama-the left media, the party-treated her like garbage they forgot to take out.

      • I think the private email is less of a factor versus having her own server. She can then delete any damning emails, completely. Until the server is handed over, the truth will never be known.

        • My understanding is that, since she has control of the server-she can permanently erase emails.

          • Tech people can retrieve anything that’s put in a computer or server. It may say “permanently delete” but it’s always in there. Many people have been nailed for child pornography because tech folks those “permanently deleted” child porn files. It’s all still there.

            • Well I don’t know just what I’ve read, but I will take your word for it and hope real hard you are right. 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:


              My understanding is the same as V’s. Your example is people who have normal email accounts. Mrs. Clinton had the SERVER itself. So it is possible to delete the records permanently from a server, if done correctly. They can also be overwritten with new data.

              • All I’m doing is repeating what I have read on some computer tech sites. I’ll take their word for it, because they are far more knowledgeable on the matter than I.

    • I can’t believe I wasted all those minutes watching that insane drivel. No wonder MSNBC don’t have any viewers. The name calling is crazy, did anyone notice the tweets and facebook remarks? These people are brainwashed nut cases.

  28. “I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills.

    “In terms of the institution, I would rather have John Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking that they’re going to change the world,” Pascrell added.

    Remember that last sentence.

  29. Just A Citizen says:


    Before we continue the discussion on the 14th Amendment and the marriage issue, I suggest everyone read the wiki article on the Amendment.

    As an added note, notice how it was ratified. Congress passed “laws” forcing southern States to submit, contrary to the Constitution itself. Remember, Radical Republicans are the first “Progressives”. Whether you agree with their ends or not, they established the “any means necessary” ethic with these kinds of moves.

    • Okay, but damn it’s long 🙂 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes, learning is hard work. 🙂

        Now here is another critical link in the story. The most important point here is that “immunities and privileges” as interpreted by SCOTUS is NOT what we are often told by those claiming that a law in one state must be recognized in another. This includes a marriage in one state that is Not a marriage in another. This is dealing with the original privileges and immunities clause, not that of the 14th amendment.

        As you are probably coming to realize, the 14th was a legal abomination when it comes to “Amendments”. Based on some “interpretations” it sets a circular argument against the other parts of the Constitution. Something never done before and something that should never be done. Not without specific reference to that section being negated.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Correct me if I’m in error with this interpretation of how the 14th amendment was passed. It was considered ratified by 1868. The southern states had to ratify it to REGAIN their seats in congress. That is clearly blackmail. But wasn’t one of Lincoln’s major contentions was that the southern states that rebelled NEVER left the union.

          • And add to that-that according to the SC a law is unconstitutional if the Federal writes a law that uses coercion to force the states to comply. Looks like in reality the 14 amendment is unconstitutional. He he he

    • Gonna start slow-

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Seems to me that the two important lines in this are :

      1.without due process of law
      2.equal protection of the law

      So what exactly do the above words mean? I think I understand equal protection of the law but due process of law-you can take your complaint to court-so there’s a state law covering your complaint-should be end of story to me. Based on State Rights. But this doesn’t seem to be the case with gay marriage.

      • No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

        The Privilege of a Marriage license is just that. Licensing a marriage is not required to be married under religious terms, it is for legal purposes in court and with taxes, amongst other stupid things. That is what you should be focused on.

        • I think my problem is I’m concentrating too much on just gay marriage-this effects a lot more than just gay marriage. But you did just point out that they used the word privileges instead of rights-that seems important. Actually it seems nuts.

        • Gay marriage doesn’t affect you in any way. I would bet, once this all get settled and gay marriage is legal, a few years from now (if we are still all alive) , gay divorce will be the big news maker. The whole thing is just part of society that comes and goes. Remember back in the 70’s when the women’s movement occurred? The old Civil Rights movement? the KKK? Abortion? It is all continuing. WHY? Because a society arguing amongst themselves are not paying attention to the government. The government is corrupt and no longer represents the people, because the people have been busy on things that are minor, compared to the problems that government have caused and continue to do so.

          My gut feeling is that gay marriage will win, rightfully so, but it will be done in a way that helps freedom. The SCOTUS are all old. They are not stupid and their ruling will likely send a very big message to the American people. We should listen. It may be our last warning.

          • You lost me G-what are you talking about -in a way that helps freedom- and what message.

            The only message I’m receiving is that State Rights are being killed off one by one. And from the looks of the 14th amendment and the way it is written I’m pretty sure the SC with time can kill off the voice of the people without any trouble at all by just interpreting the poorly written amendment just about anyway they want too.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Your doing great. Although “privileges and immunities” is not that clear either.

        But lets deal with the big one you identified……..Due Process.

        “Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

        Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges—instead of legislators—may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.

        Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American theory of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.[2]

        Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England.[3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.”

        It is important at this point to recognize that USA law deviates from English law on the due process question. Even though our original laws were largely based on the English system.

        So Due Process has been “interpreted” to mean more than you think. It is not just the adherence to objective laws and procedure under civil or criminal trial. Guess who decided it meant more than that and who should be the arbiters!

        • particular political attitude–unenumerated rights -damn if that doesn’t sound like another way for the Courts to write law.

          “The term “substantive due process” was first used explicitly in 1930s legal casebooks as a categorical distinction of selected due process cases, and by 1950 had been mentioned twice in Supreme Court opinions.[5] The term “substantive due process” itself is commonly used in two ways: first, to identify a particular line of case law; and second, to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two Due Process Clauses.[6]

          Much SDP litigation involves legal challenges regarding unenumerated rights which seek particular outcomes instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects; in successful cases, the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutionally-based “liberty” which then renders laws seeking to limit said “liberty” either unenforceable or limited in scope.[6] Critics of SDP decisions usually assert that those liberties ought to be left to the more politically accountable branches of government.[6]”

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Very good. Per the last sentence……….. that should be the States per the statement that those rights not included are reserved to the States and People.

            Which leads to the next question……….what is “Liberty”?? No need to make you chase it down. SCOTUS claims it is up to them to decide. Some Justices have outright claimed that by Congress not enumerating all the Rights of man they deliberately left it up to the Courts to determine. Again, in direct opposition to what is written in the Tenth Amendment. Aside: and why James Madison argued against including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. He foresaw that the Govt would eventually claim Total Authority over defining those rights, if any were listed.

            So if a Right to Marriage exists then the restrictions, if any, on that Right are for the people within each State to decide.

            Seems like a great revelation………but alas, it does not last long…………………..

            Now if the States do have that Sole authority, as do the people within the State, then does the 14th prohibit the State from treating citizens differently with respect to getting a “marriage license”? The expected answer is Yes.

            So the due process argument DESTROYS the State Authority and the People retaining the determination of certain rights to themselves.

            Bringing us to your most astute point………………… The 14th Amendment, combined with numerous SCOTUS decisions have DESTROYED the Tenth Amendment. It is in most cases conceivable……….moot.

            • Well, I find I am quite depressed by this revelation-So if the SC came back and didn’t pass gay rights but said it was the preview of the States-that wouldn’t make any real difference? Is the only way to correct this by another Amendment to change or nullify the 14.

              • Or would we have to change due process or both?

              • I see why you didn’t just answer my questions-at this point it doesn’t really matter and there aren’t any real answers either. But I’m an American-the job now is to figure out how to fix this! A Convention anyone?

              • purview not preview-make that mistake a lot.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I am sorry, I thought I did answer your questions. Although I admit some of it was by posting more material.

                So, ask again, or ask anew.

                Meantime, don’t get to depressed over this. There is some upside. But now you have a better handle on my arguments with Buck and why I believe our Republic was undermined a long time ago. It is really the difference of two philosophies relative to Constitutional law.

                Mine is one where it is more restricted and clearly defined. Justices would have little leeway under my view. The other is that laws are broad and Judges get to iron it all out, after Congress and the Executive get their chance.

                My primary point in all this is that if the broader approach is in fact used, you get the mess we have, and one that is much, much worse eventually. Power under such a system gravitates to a select few, who create Guilds which have a monopoly on the law.

                Buck and most modern law school grads believe in the broader approach. Because they believe in a Nation State more than a Republic. Remember Mathius once clarified his view that the States should be nothing but “administrative” branches of the US Government.

                This is in essence the political war that is underway. Now if someone could just articulate it a little better.

                As for your stress level lets try a change in approach. Think about whether you agree that Rights should be universally protected across all States. Then try to identify how best to accomplish that protection. Do you try to list all the rights that might exist, separate those that are R rights vs. r rights?

                What would be left to the States or the local towns, cities and the people?

                It is hard to know what to fix or how to fix it until you know what you want.

                Oh, and YES I am up for a Convention. Many Conventions in fact. But I doubt very much we the people are ready.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              The Constitution and its amendments is a “Contract with America” As we well know all contracts have escape clauses and generally have sections that give and then take away the very thing that was just given. ie the 10th and 14th amendments. The commerce clause and its interpretations since the ’30’s and the 14th have given the Federal government unlimited power instead of what the authors envisioned a limited central government with most power residing at the state level…..the courts never rule on the law but post their findings as “interpretations” That is why the administrations are so hell bent on nominating jurists with particular “political” leanings. Therefore the court has been co-opted to be a political extension of the political wings congress and the executive. Political decisions were to be removed and findings based on the rule of law….ha…in our dreams

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Yep…………..the LAWYERS.

        United States[edit]

        Main article: Due Process Clause

        The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[17] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

        See those last two parts. The Court decided that it was the Court’s perview to decide if Laws were vague or violated some other substantive provisions. And the Court decided to use “due process” under this vale, to create “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights.

        We now start to get a better picture of how the entire Constitutional experiment gets derailed. If you follow some of the links on the 14th you will see there were many differing opinions on what these laws were supposed to do or how to be implemented at the time.

        The 14th was passed to partly address what many viewed as an Unconstitutional Civil Rights law passed by Congress. The authors said it was fine. But then passed the 14th, then rescinded the Civil Rights Law and then passed it again, making sure it was legal.

        There is no doubt in my view that the purpose of the 14th was to address equality for “black” people in this country, particularly those who had been slaves and never had citizen status before.

        There is also no doubt that the 14th represents a sea change in the construction of the United States. Moving it away from the Federalist model of the Founders to the Central Nationalist Model (Nation State vs. Republic).

        I have one more quote to fetch regarding what constitutes “civil rights”. You will find it very strange in light of modern arguments.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Here it is.

          The author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was Senator Lyman Trumbull, who introduced the bill in the Senate.[2] Congressman James F. Wilson summarized what he considered to be the purpose of the act as follows, when he introduced the bill in the House of Representatives:[3]

          “It provides for the equality of citizens of the United States in the enjoyment of “civil rights and immunities.” What do these terms mean? Do they mean that in all things civil, social, political, all citizens, without distinction of race or color, shall be equal? By no means can they be so construed. Do they mean that all citizens shall vote in the several States? No; for suffrage is a political right which has been left under the control of the several States, subject to the action of Congress only when it becomes necessary to enforce the guarantee of a republican form of government (protection against a monarchy). Nor do they mean that all citizens shall sit on the juries, or that their children shall attend the same schools. The definition given to the term “civil rights” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary is very concise, and is supported by the best authority. It is this: “Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government.””


          During the subsequent legislative process, the following key provision was deleted: “there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” John Bingham was an influential supporter of this deletion, on the ground that courts might construe the term “civil rights” more broadly than people like Wilson intended.[4] Weeks later, Senator Trumbull described the bill’s intended scope:[5]

          This bill in no manner interferes with the municipal regulations of any State which protects all alike in their rights of person and property. It could have no operation in Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, or most of the States of the Union.

          The next day, on April 5, 1866, the Senate overrode President Johnson’s veto.

  30. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would IMPROVE our representation in the House. That is it would eliminate the situation where ONE Congressman is representing a million people. Which of course makes representation pretty much impossible.

    “After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.”

    Now the quiz.

    How many states must ratify this amendment for it to become law??

    • Quiz, What difference does it make if we can’t get the government to conform to the F-ing Constitution now? Changing the numbers is a joke, right? Last I checked it takes 2/3rds of the States to ratify an Amendment.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You failed the quiz, probably because you let your knee jerk cynicism get in the way. 🙂

        • after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress

          Not kneejerk at all, I just see through the Statist bullshit.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Yep, still knee jerk.

            Your answer is UNRESPONSIVE……to the question.

            The answer you gave was wrong.

            • I don’t know the answer either -is it a trick question-I noticed in the passage of the 14th amendment-there was a point were 2 states retracted their ratification and they counted them anyway. Then you asked this question 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Yes it is a TRICK question. Not related to the 14th but related to landmines lying around most of us don’t know exist.

                I’ll give you the answer, then you try to figure out why it is not the 75% number you presumed, which would be 38 states.

                The answer is 27.

              • Here’s a guess-we have states but we also have territories-I do not know what rights these territories have when it comes to this type of thing.

              • Did the partiular passage that required 2/3 passage have 50 states?

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    The nets a buzz over three guys getting married. First “three way Gay Marriage” they say.

    Everyone is sooooooooo happy and I saw many comments about the USA getting on board with our law.

    Then I noticed the following caption under one of the photos of the Brides, er Grooms, er….whatever…… I thought the caption interesting in light of our discussion on this issue.

    “The trio consummated their love under Buddhist law in the ceremony as same-sex marriages are not recognised as legitimate under Thai law”

    No litigation, no District or Supreme court to make up new definitions, just went and got married under a different set of laws, that co-exist with Govt. laws. Very interesting.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Now this evening I watched a story on the Sharia law court in Texas. Supposedly limited to “divorces” only. The reason given by the Imams was that under Islam people cannot be divorced by a decree under Civil authority, as in a Civil Court.

      Now this makes me really wonder just who does have the jurisdiction over “Marriage”. Supposedly these courts are not violating US law, but they may nullify a divorce granted by a Civil Court. I am assuming here that the parties agree to this decision, otherwise it would wind up in Civil Court. But then what??

      Of course the corollary of this is that Marriage is NOT DEFINED by the Govt. Which means that MARRIAGE is available to people OUTSIDE GOVT….

      Boy oh boy, so many questions and so many confusing answers.

      • Did you see the rest of the reoprt because Islam marriages are not recognized as a legal entity in the State of Texas unless married under State Law. Consequently, the parties are not subject to common law status in the dividing of properties or income or child suport. Islamic marriages, supervised under the auspicies of Sharia Law as done in the Mosque’s, carry little or no weight.

        Hence, it is very difficult for Islamic marriages to qualify for loans for mortgages or cars, etc., since the marriages are not subject to the common law statutes in Texas concerning community property. And since females hold no legal standing under Sharia marriage and have no rights…..they are also not subject to any Federal or state jurisdiction concerning civil rights. HOWEVER, Texas was very firm on the fact that it pertains to marriage issues only. Islamic women married under Sharia in a Mosque has no recognition in any civil matter. When married under Sharia in Texas, the female gives up all civil remedy including common law status.

        Texas was also very clear in that any type of misdemeanor or felony as it pertains to females will be prosecuted under State Law….meaning there will be no mercy killings, beatings, etc.

        HOWEVER…………..Under Sharia Law, apparently rape of a wife is permitted…the State of Texas has also said that rape is an aggressive felony and will be prosecuted.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I got that from your post the other day and the discussion. But it does raise one question for you.

          Does Texas have Common Law marriage? If so this would have to apply to the Muslim couple who lived together in matrimony for the required time frame. Meaning one day…POOF….they are subject to Texas law, like it or not.

  32. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The CIA is getting a makeover to make it more efficient. I quess anything is better than their performance of late. I thought it was humorous that Brennan cited one of the reasons was that the agency did not anticipate the sudden collapse of several M/E governments with the “Arab Spring” Question is, why did they have to anticipate the collapses when the SOS and POTUS were the chief cheerleaders.

  33. “A compassionate and sensitive sonographer should remember to turn the screen away from the plane of view [of the woman having an abortion].” This I see as good advise

    ” Staff, too, may find themselves increasingly disturbed by the repeated visual impact of an aspect of their work that they need to partially deny in order to continue to function optimally and to concentrate on the needs of the women who come to them for help.” This I see as denial-I mean you should “partially deny” the truth of what your doing. Why so you can continue to do something that your own eyes show you is wrong.

  34. This following quote was attached to a renewal application of my auto liability insurance.

    ” To comply with regulatory guidance as provided by the United States Department of Justice and to aid in the prevention of money laundering, you are requested to provide your occupational information”.

    Then came a long list of questions wanting to know the jobs you held and/or currently hold, along with salary information and bank account numbers of checking and savings accounts, any annuities and retirement pay you are receiving.

    I immediately called my insurance company to inquire what the deal was and I was told that it was a new Federal regulation. Then I was informed that it was necessary to fill this out online as the questions must be answered before any insurance cards coud be mailed or E-mailed. Then I was informed that my insurance company feels that this is unconstitutional and no ones business and said…all the form requires is an entry. So, I entered ZERO in each space just to fill the field and it went through.

    There was a comment section to which I wrote……for all financial information requested, I defer to the IRS.

    Interesting, huh?

  35. I’m gonna start a new page if LOI doesn’t have anything set up to short loading times. So be advised 😀

%d bloggers like this: