Happy April Fool’s Day

thK6VJ9NH4As I write this, it’s only a day away from April 1st, which was at one time a very fun day for me.  I put together some rather extravagant jokes when I used to work at the hospital in Ohio.  All of which played out perfectly.  Screwing with the wildlife these days just don’t seem to have the same affect  🙂  It is time for a new thread to go up to keep these bustling along at a rapid pace.  PEACE!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. News flash:
    Blackflag has joined the Communist party.

    Attack the Capitalists, seize their ill-gotten gains and give the wealth to the People!
    Let us all stand together, as equals in all things, including our height and eye color, and let us all be free from the worldly goods that drain our humanity from us!

  2. After our talks about boycotts-I find this statement priceless-just think about it.

    “Individuals have a right to apply their judgment and values to the question of whether to enter into or maintain relationships. That’s the point of the religious freedom law, and it’s the right exercised by those protesting through boycott.”

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/31/psst-you-do-realize-a-boycott-is-discrimination-right/#ixzz3VyzM70G3

    • It is correct.
      There is a distinction between subject discrimination (who you do or do not wish to associate) with the universal principle of discrimination (the right to choose). Most people confuse the two.

      The confused believe that one should not discriminate, so to eliminate discrimination based on subject values. However, what they actually do is eliminate the freedom of choice that they, for themselves, hold dear. As such, they cut off their own feet.

  3. 😎

  4. @Anita, In reply to your previous on how Conservatism is taking hold. It’s their turn, nothing will change. It’s quite easy to figure out this based on the actions of the current Republicans. Let’s use Hillary’s emails for an example. She clearly broke several laws. ALL of her emails are out there and can be retrieved, without her server, because her emails went TO people using different systems. She also received emails from people using another system. The server can be taken, IF an investigation of a crime were to be undertaken. WILL the Republicans do anything about it? So far they are blowing smoke up everyone’s ass, except mine, 🙂

    Also, Obamacare is funded, Obama’s immigration BS is funded. All this FROM a republican majority. Sorry, but nothing is going to change accept the names and faces. The path we are currently on will continue, unchanged, until everything implodes. That might happen anyday now.

    • Ok if that’s the way you wanna look at it…even tho you blew off everything I said. I’m looking more at the people’s mindset changing, not the politicians. We’ll see.

      • I can see the change, mostly from people who are on the fence anyway. This has been normal, after several years of one group gets old, people trend towards the other group. The problem that I see as the biggest problem, is that the people simply are not holding the politicians accountable. They lie, but it’s OK because the other guy on the other side lied in the past. Hillary’s emails are OK, because someone in Bush’s administration did the same thing. This is the thinking of people who are insane and lack both morality and ethics. THAT is the majority of those who vote.

        Why doesn’t it seem to me that there is not enough being done to deal with the Hillary issue? Is it because the Left brings up some BS in the past as an excuse? I wasn’t involved in politics during most of Bush’s Presidency, so I don’t really know what went on or if any of the claims be the Left are true. If they are true, then, I guess those who didn’t call for action then don’t have much to say about this issue, if they are similar. I am focusing on issues that the MSM are not reporting on. They are equally corrupted by the elites. If it weren’t for the internet, we would all be clueless, brainwashed minions. I don’t expect the free internet to last long.

        Are you planting a garden this year? I have some cool seeds from an Italian green bean that is larger and better tasting than our normal beans, gonna try them this year. Tomatoes, onions and the norm from there. 🙂

        • If it weren’t for the internet, we would all be clueless, brainwashed minions. ……….careful….even with the internet, most are still brainwashed and clueless.

          • The nice thing about the internet is instant research and verification. I’m one of those people who go to a library for a book and come out six hours later. Always been that way. The other day was having a dispute on Facebook about how “well” the economy is doing under the Ebola Administration. Stopped everything for three minutes and googled, “US population, percentage working” and got this really neat chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not exactly a right-wing think tank that.

            http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

            Anyway, that shut my friend up pretty quickly. Probably still muttering “that crazy fascist, racist Trynosky” but I don’t really care. Somebody once said “I’d rather be right than President”.

            http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-day-henry-clay-refused-to-compromise-153589853/

            See what I mean? You go to look up something like that quote and find out ten times what you wanted to know. Love it!

    • Black Flag® says:

      Gman,
      You have it all wrong.
      Obama is a statesman, one of a generation. It is plainly obvious you are completely out of touch.

      Look, man, the wealthy obtained their wealth by spurious means akin to theft. Government is right to correct this obvious theft by seizing it and giving it back to the people who actually worked for it. No man needs more than another man, and we will only have freedom if everyone has the same ability, and the same access to excess wealth.

  5. http://www.pqmonthly.com/march-31st-is-trans-day-of-visibility/22226

    Now we have tranny day..complete with their own flag. Facepalm that it started right here in my backyard. And how about this cupcake’s worldview:

    Gender is a social construct. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ is over-simplyfying and non-congruent with the modern age and generations under it. Honestly, if you don’t experience a concept first-hand nor want to get educated on it, I suggest keeping to yourself. You are irrelevant. You are also infringing on someone else’s LIFE, not lifestyle. Don’t be so ignorant.

    😮

    • I think most people with some sense are going to be putting some of these folks in their place on the subject. I really don’t care about what people do, but I CHOOSE not to be associated with such a group. That’s not discrimination, it’s my choice, very tired of people claiming some high horse on the matter. I do not have to accept Tranny’s as anything when it comes to gender. There are only two biologic genders in the human race, man and woman. If people don’t like it, tough shit 🙂

      • Black Flag® says:

        Gman, you are out of touch.
        People are who they believe they are, biology does not matter. It is a choice.

        • So it seems, but that don’t mean I have to be a part of it. I really don’t care what people do, till they demand that I do something I choose not to do. There’s where the line in the sand is. I was thinking about you over the weekend, hope things are as well as they can be.

        • It seems someone has a sarcastic streak going. 🙂

    • They are making the wrong argument-If a man wants to take on and live the stereotypical gender role of a woman or vice versa than he should argue that he has the right to do so as a man. Instead of claiming that we as a society has to accept that he is a woman. If gender roles are just a made up concept than why must we as a society accept a lie about ones biology instead of just being asked to accept his right to live as he chooses as a biological man.

      And what does this have to do with transgenders who from my understanding actually want to change there biology as least as much as they can-vs someone who doesn’t actually want to be a woman.

      • Did you ever wonder why this is even relevant today? It won’t be a relevant issue if people ignore it, like MSNBC has become, irrelevant, because people can’t stomach watching their garbage. As a side note, I’ve seen some tranny’s who look simply hideous, and I’m sure I’ve missed a few who one couldn’t tell one way or the other. So it makes one wonder, is it really all that bad when a tranny male uses a female restroom? I don’t see it a problem when a female tranny uses a guys restroom. Just wondering 🙂

        • Yes, it is all that bad. It’s plain crazy to deny the reason for separate restrooms, privacy and safety. I’m getting tired of these lines getting blurred. There has to be some red lines somewhere. Give them a tranny restroom if they want to be so inclusive.

          • Why GIVE them anything? If they want, let them pay for it. Why should the rest of the people pay for the bullshit they think they are entitled too? They are entitled to NOTHING. Maybe we should bring back insane asylums, that might fix lots of these issues, real quick.

        • As I was reading through the comments I was wondering WHY this is relevent. How did our society ‘devolve’ to the point that a presumably sane person can believe that they have a choice to be a man or a woman? And why is it that these people expect me to accept them and their lifestyle?

          • “Presumably sane” being the key word. When people start standing up for what they believe in and stop caving in to the Lift Wing Loon’s, fighting back hard if needed, then things will keep heading down the same road.

      • VH…I am curious…why do you believe that you have to accept it?

        • I didn’t say anyone had to accept it-I said they were asking for the wrong thing. They are asking society to accept a lie-instead of asking society to just accept them. There is a reason why they are trying to force people by law, to accept a lie.

      • VH….do not despair…..it is news. There is not one single liberal on this site or any other site that when reality hits them…….they will NOT let their child share a rest room or shower or anything else with a tranny or homosexual or whatever. They talk big………but in reality, they do not walk the walk. You see it everyday.

  6. Let’s see, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader at the time, proudly speaks of a moment when he stood on the Senate floor and openly and now admittedly LIED (and very proud of it) and not much is being said about it. I’ll start, Demand Harry Reid resign, NOW!

  7. The Justice Department is investigating the Dallas Independent School District for civil rights violations…..the offense? Because the Dallas police and truant officers are arresting and picking up school kids that are skipping school. And because some of the kids run away and even fight the officers…the kids are being placed in handcuffs. The Justice Department is saying that arresting juveniles for skipping school and violating curfews is a violation of their civil rights….especially if you are using handcuffs and pepper sprays to subdue those that are fighting and throwing bricks.

    They are also saying that there appears to be a “disparate impact” on the minorities because the arrest records show that over 60% of the arrests are minorities…..it does not matter that over 80% of the truants are minorities.

    And the hits keep on coming.

    • Same argument used in NYC by Justice to end “Stop and Frisk”. Same argument being used to try and stop more numerous and intensive policing in bad neighborhoods.

      We really have become a nation of dummies. We accept things because they “sound” good not because we can either understand or explain them.

      Back when I was a kid there was this bank robber Willie Sutton. When captured he was asked by a reporter why he robbed banks. Classic answer, “Cause that’s where the money is!” Everybody used to laugh at that, Not today, like the Eloi in “Time Machine” they would all just stare at each other. No comprende!

  8. I can’t read this because I don’t have a subscription to WSJ-but I’ve read articles about it-they say he asks some interesting questions of the left-mostly based on how far do their RIGHTS extend. You guys who can read it-can maybe enlighten me further on it’s contents. 🙂 Or not, up to you 🙂

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-intolerance-1427760183

    • Other peoples Rights END where yours begins. To explain, If I choose not to associate with gay men, in any way, that is my RIGHT of choice. Their Rights to be accepted end where my RIGHT to not accept them begins. It’s very simple, people just seem to be to afraid to stand up against the little bullies in the schoolyard. When they scream “Racist” I say “I can’t be a racist, I hate everyone” (they don’t know how to take that statement, because they can’t call me any more names, it’s all inclusive). The same can be used for the Homophobe and Islamaphobe BS. Poke them in the eye, tell them to pound sand, you’ll do and think as YOU chose, not how they want you to think. 🙂

    • Not one model promoting Global Warming has been right to date, none of them. Yet, this newest of cult’s ignore this. They fall back to repeating the same old BS Al Gore used in 1998. None of it is true today anymore than it was true in 1998.

      • Black Flag® says:

        Nonsense, Gman.

        Climate models have proven that man is the cause of climate, and we are absolute in that change. Nothing nature does is greater then man’s influences, heck, all scientists know this

        Time to get with reality, man! Models prove it, and your observations and measurements are obviously and patently wrong.

  9. And this is infuriating-they use the term “intensive mothering” makes one know from the get go that this study is a farce. Although, I do not agree with shaming woman who need or just want to work.

    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/03/31/are-stay-at-home-moms-making-a-difference-in-their-kids-lives-new-study-says-no/

    • I feel that stay at home mom’s are the way to go. The home seems more like a home. It’s no cakewalk being a homemaker, something that is seriously lacking, which may also answer why today’s youth lack respect and morals. Just sayin!

    • Total crock!

      Mom at home is not to spend 24-7 amusing the child but to keep the little bugger out of trouble and keep them pointed in the right direction. Denise retired last year after 36 years in Kindergarten and Pre-K teaching, public and parochial. One of the very worst things to her were parents who hovered over the kid. The kid who had to be constantly entertained.

      A kid learns, a kid develops his or her imagination by independent play. As a 68 year old, I relish the time I spend with my grandchildren, observing them. Sure, Grandpa cannot resist interacting but last night, for example, I had the 15 month old down in the family room. Off he went to roll around the cars and trucks, to have a ball opening and closing the doors on the play castle and to stand up and walk hanging onto the old Fisher Price explorer truck. The kid loves my old dog tags, putting the nameplates in his mouth, swinging the things around and running the bead chain through his fingers and teeth. He’s discovered cabinet knobs and will stand there spinning them.

      When Jackie comes here, the four year old, I sit down there watching TV or reading a book and observe her having adventures with the play family village, building with the blocks or playing with her doll house. She makes up games that I HAVE to play with her. Her three year old cousin could care less if any adult is around just so long as he can build his little Thomas the Tank Engine layouts. Our jobs? Keep them from bouncing stuff off each others heads or, as they would say in Texas, “Riding herd”.

      You do not get this in daycare! Back in the day, Mom was a homemaker until we were older. Trust me, she did not focus the bulk of her attention on us.

      • Black Flag® says:

        Wrong wrong wrong.

        All stay-at-home parents do is indoctrinate their children into the parent’s own ideology.
        Government relieves this problem by placing kids in open schools, allowing the kid to embrace a wider range of ideologies that will expand their horizons.

        Kids in school learn how to take drugs safely, how to defend themselves from bullies, how to have open sex in their teenage years without pregnancy, and prepare them for the real world.

        You think your mama would teach all of this to her kids? ahhahahha! Fool!

  10. Harry Reid’s corrupt past: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/03/corruption-scandals-led-to-harry-reids-abrupt-retirement/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20(3)&utm_content=

    You’ll notice that one involved Clark County Nevada and Chinese energy. This is also why the Cliven Bundy standoff has not led to any criminal charges. A good lesson in how to stop corruption, armed citizens willing to tell them NO MORE!

  11. I thought I’d aggravate a few Lefties over at the NM on an article about the religious freedom laws being discussed. Here’s what I had to say about it: 🙂

    Based on the logic of the Left, we are gonna have a lot of lawsuits pending in this country. It is the RIGHT of a person, whether in business or not, to choose who he/she associates with, whether it is on a professional basis or not. It’s a natural RIGHT to discriminate, based on the RIGHT of choice. To attempt to legislate otherwise or let Judge’s do your bidding will eventually fail, because it fails human nature.

    Based on Left Wing logic, a overweight 50 year old can sue a 21 year old supermodel for refusing to have sex with him, claiming “Fat discrimination”. A 69 year old woman can sue a 35 year old man for refusing sex, claiming age/sex discrimination. People who live in high crime minority neighborhoods can sue a plumber for refusing to provide his services to the neighborhood, claiming race discrimination. I can go on.

    What happens when Liberal’s are sued by conservatives claiming political discrimination? or vice versa? Voters who vote for higher taxes getting sued by those who don’t want to pay higher taxes is coming soon as well, because that is what Liberal logic will lead too. Midgets will sue the NBA. Someone will eventually sue a Tranny for being so ugly it caused a child emotional distress.

    It’s OK, sue the baker and make a mockery of freedom when another down the street is willing to bake the cake. Same with the photographer and the florist. All this will cause is animosity where none is needed. I want to see a LGBT member sue a Muslim baker, florist or photographer. Isn’t it exactly the same? Do the Muslim minority also have to serve the LGBT against their religious will? Do Jew sign makers HAVE to make signs that say “Destroy Israel” or “Gas the Jews”?

    Remember, when what you ask for cause YOU to be hated, then YOU deserve it. And YOU are asking for it.

    • Ben Shapiro
      Truth Revolt
      April 1, 2015

      Last week, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a law with the same name as one signed on the federal level by President Bill Clinton in 1993, which was co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the presumptive next Senate minority leader. Naturally, Pence found himself on the wrong end of a partisan barrage from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos for signing that law the following Sunday. It sure is nice to be a Democrat.

      What exactly does the law state? The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana states that “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” That rule does not apply only if the government’s action “is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is also “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” If government does act against someone in violation of that person’s religious principles, he or she can assert that violation “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.”

      The law does not specifically single out same-sex marriage as an activity against which a religious person may discriminate, but it certainly holds out that possibility. Of course, that possibility is already inherent in a little concept we in the United States used to call freedom — freedom to choose how to conduct one’s business and freedom to practice one’s religion in one’s practice of business.

      Under a philosophy of freedom, the market solves the general problem of private discrimination, because if one person decides to discriminate against Jews or blacks or gays, he or she loses money and is put out of business for his or her trouble. Nobody has the right, under a philosophy of freedom, to invoke the power of the government’s gun in order to force someone to provide a good or service.

      That system is a heck of a lot safer for minorities than a system by which government regulates the proper conduct of voluntary activities. Black Americans should know that, given that Jim Crow was not merely a system of voluntary discrimination but a government-enforced set of regulations designed to ban voluntary transactions involving blacks. Gays, too, should understand that freedom is far preferable to government-enforced societal standards governing consenting transactions, given that government used to be utilized to discriminate openly against homosexual behavior.

      But the left has rewritten the concept of freedom to mean “whatever the government allows you to do,” and leftists now insist that government cannot allow discrimination — unless, of course, the government is itself enforcing discrimination against religious Christians who don’t want to violate their belief in traditional marriage.

      Same-sex marriage, it turns out, was never designed to grant legal benefits to same-sex couples. That could have been done under a regime of civil unions. Same-sex marriage was always designed to allow the government to have the power to cram down punishment on anyone who disobeys the government’s vision of the public good. One need not be an advocate of discrimination against gays to believe that government does not have the ability to enforce the prevailing social standards of the time in violation of individual rights. There are many situations in which advocates of freedom dislike particular exercises of that freedom but understand that government attacks on individual rights are far more threatening to the public good.

      You do not have a right to my services; I have a right to provide my services to whomever I choose. If you believe that your interpretation of public good enables you to bring a gun to the party, you are a bully and a tyrant. So it is with the modern American left, to whom freedom now means only the freedom to do what it is the left wants you to do at point of gun.

  12. Interesting story as to why Conservatives seem to be losing all the time: http://freedomforce.com/2625/if-reelection-is-the-goal-things-will-continue-to-get-worse/

    • Dale a Albrecht says:

      4 years into a serious drought condition and only NOW mandatory restrictions? Exception our CA friend T-Ray, I believe this goes to show how self centered most Californians are. Several years ago we in eastern NC had a water issue. Projected hurricanes kept missing the coast. Affected areas always lowered the levels of the resevoirs before the storms so they will NOT overflow the dams. Needless to say the water did not replentish very quickly. Within 3 months mandatory water restrictions went in. Personally, I cut back to absolutely < 20 gallons a day, within the 1st month. Not the 181 per person Californians are said to still be using.

      California in general is so used to living on other peoples/States assets they forget.

      Best add about water conservation was from the 60's was an ad about the western slope of the Colorado Rockies. It showed a bunch of trout siming in a stream. Background sound of a toilet flushing in "california". The water level lowered. Another flush lower still. 6 flushes and the trout were flapping on the stream bed. Very graphic.

      • I have my own well, 97 feet deep, never ran out and don’t expect to anytime soon. California has always had droughts, as history has taught us. When will they learn to build desalinization plants? Liberal’s are too busy trying to take from others they don’t have much time to think about their own future, what a joke. Let’em suffer. Except our friends like T-Ray of course 🙂

        • Dale a Albrecht says:

          They had 2 desalination plants in the 60’s. I think they’re down to 1 and trying to bring a new one on line. The arabia peninsula has roughly the same population as Ca and I believe 50 % of their water is from desalination. Albeit oil fired plants, and probably a different hygiene level for the most part. I’m being polite.

      • My water usage is down 35% since ’09. I am not planting a garden this year. I lost about 7 fruit trees last which is over 10% of my plantings. I watered at minimum levels last year so got no crop. I expect the same to happen this year. I have been inspecting the system for leaks and repaired any and all I know of. I have not watered anything yet this year since the grass is still green and there is enough moisture in the soil. That will last for another 2-4 wks unless we get some rain. The apple blossom is spotty this year reflecting the stress on the trees.

        Our property is covered in large black and live oaks. I do not know how much longer they can hold out in the drought. I have spent 3 days picking up down limbs and burned two large piles this spring. Friday I will take the day off and burn another one. I am not lacking for fire wood since we only needed it one week this winter.

        Reservoirs in the north half of the state are at about 50% but the southern ones are closer to 30%. MoonBeam continues to push for his train to nowhere and for the tunnels under the Delta. No new reservoirs under construction, virtually no desalination plants planned. No attempt to pipe water down from Oregon to Shasta Reservoir either. Conservation is great but it does not make up for lack of storage or new sources of water. Brown can claim it is an emergency by he does not act like it. I pity the valley farmers who are losing orchards and vineyards.

        The rice farmers are selling there water rights to LA. For now it is voluntary but if nothing is done to create more storage, LA will just confiscate the water since their population out numbers the farmers. We still have outdoor fountains running here and down south. We still have corporate green lawns. Sacramento bans artificial turf, brick, stone or concrete for front yards. So its party on until the pipes run dry. 😦

        • I would bet that most city folks thinks their water comes from the faucet and have no idea where water really comes from. I doubt they care anyway.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Just like the electric car proponants….”man it’s great, just find a plug and I can charge up” Not only stealing, but no concept of where the power is coming from. I always enjoy watching “Chinatown” and it’s not so veiled portrait of Mulholland and the developer cronies of LA.

            T-Ray… we knew by previous discussions that you have taken all actions needed in water conservation in a critical situation. I can not understand the mindset of the overwhelming portion of the CA population that is not jumping up and down on their representatives desks and then those reps, overwhelming “Moonbeam” on his BS expenditures on totally NON-CRITICAL projects. Unless they are taking the same drugs Brown took in his younger days. Unless the plan is to de-populate the State and spread its cancerous mindest nationwide.

            I never would go over 1 unit of water usage in any given month. That’s 1000 gallons. equaling 33 gallons/day. Even though in the sound area of NC there is plenty of water, it is still best to convert your plantings to indiginous plantings. Not only do we have some pretty exotic looking flowers and plants but they thrive without additional water. Who knows, maybe as the earth continues to warm we might get back our former parrot population.

          • Most Californians still do not know why eggs jumped 50% at the beginning of this year. It is because of the new cage rules that they voted in several years ago in the name of humanitarianism.

            LA and SoCal are so far removed from their sources of water that they do not see the consequences of their lifestyle choices. They live in a utopian world of green grass and water fountains that magically happen. The environmentalists can sell them on whatever tale they can spin and they vote for it. Due to their numbers they control the state. As the drought continues, I am certain that LA and SoCal will demand that their water rights are superior over the farmers in the valley and the northern and eastern counties.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              I left CA permanently 41 years ago and have visited only twice since then. People ask me why I never moved back and my answer always is, California, especially SoCal, and more specific, LA is the worlds largest open air sanitarium in the world. LA-LA Land is not inappropriate or the term fantasyland either.

              You may see a change on the attitude, if San Fransico is hit and they have to “share” their dedicated water supply.

              Went to a class in Dallas several years ago. Most of the students were from CA. They kept asking how much is that house, that one and so on. The people from the area would say, 300K, 250K. The CA folk would say in their area the house would be multi-millions.

              The thing that strikes me about flying over TX is that everywhere that water can be collected it is. Water tanks everywhere. I include ponds in that definition.

  13. Well. Been a while folks. Hope this sees everyone well. So.

    The Religious Freedom Laws. Good thing, or much ado about nothing?

    • Personally. I think the whole controversy is just stupid. For the very, very few cases that there are, why can’t the LGBT couple just take their business elsewhere. Why would they want to force a business to do business with them? After all, they are the customer and it is their money. Why would they want an unwilling vendor? You for sure aren’t going to get their best product, are you?

    • One has to wonder-why do we need a Religious Freedom “RESTORATION ACT” when we have the First Amendment in the Constitution which is supposed to be The Law of the Land. Proves how many of our rights have been scraped away little by little.

      To answer your question it is both a good thing and “much to do about nothing”. The reaction is what I call “faux outrage”. Course since the governors are now gonna clarify the law -I suspect it will be worth nothing-it isn’t worth much now-but something is better than nothing.

      I do wonder why people just seem to accept that refusing to bake a cake for a wedding is discrimination-if they are discriminating against anything it is a gay wedding which is an action-not a person.

      • Great point! A wedding is an event, which is not a living being. Based on that, an event cannot be discriminated against, because everybody “boycotts” events due to principle. Great point VH! 🙂

  14. I’ve been following this amazing view of nature in action since it came available. New Bald Eagle chicks have recently hatched here in PA. A live stream of the nest: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1592549&mode=2

  15. Interesting tid bits from New York…..since stop and frisk was discontinued……shootings and killings have Gone through the roof.

    • Caught that shootings up 1061% in East NY Brooklyn, about the same in Mt. Hope area of the Bronx. Murders up by 20% in one year. But I see that Mayor DeBlasio is making the trek to Iowa. Delusional SOB.

    • Dale a Albrecht says:

      Headline news NY Times…..Off duty Brooklyn police officer shoots unarmed taxi/chauffer driver in restaurant. Takes victim to hospital where he is pronounce dead.

      Officer later arrested after claiming he found the victim on the sidewalk and rushed him to the hospital. Then witnesses came forward and said the officer started shooting in the restaurant….then the officer said basically it was the victims fault because he dodged INTO one of my bullets.

      dateline May 4th 1928

      Read the 1st two weeks of May 1928….SOSDD, campaign finance, Palestine, ME crisis, Russia, France politics, World upset that the chinese are attacking japanese armies IN china. US Marines protecting US mining interests and garrisoning eastern Nicuaragua and bombing and chasing sandinistas. Health care costs

  16. Interesting legal question…..if a transgender male goes into a women’s facility and there is a female, say 8 years old in the same facility, and sees male nudity………Why is that not a child abuse, or an indecent exposure situation?

    • What difference does it make if the child see’s in in a restroom or in a playground?

    • This is part of the reason they want to force people to accept a lie-that is a woman don’t you know-because he identifies as a woman-that penis means nothing. And this has already happened-man in the woman’s dressing area-lying in a hot tub with his bombs showing on the top and his penis showing on the bottom-some mothers complained when their I believe 7 or eight year olds saw him-his response-you must accept me as I am-so I ask-if you identify as a woman why are you making a point of showing your man parts-so I further ask-I have to accept you as what-and why must I accept you instead of the men .

      • Because, GMan….I find that to be morally reprehensible….. But that is me. I will never accept that and if I am with my grand-daughter and I see this…..that man will be dragged out by his cojones….I will NOT accept that nor do I have too.

        • I happen to agree 🙂 Like I told VH, their Rights end where mine begin. I, however, would not grab those nasty cojones, I would give them several hard NFL style punts 😀

          • I suppose you two don’t have to accept it-but since they had a “you can not discriminate by Gender policy”-the man had a legal right to be there. So off to jail you go.

            There is always a reason for their seeming insanity-no distinctions allowed between man and woman. I just can’t figure out why the feminist are going along with it-have they just not figured out the far reaching effects this can and will have.

            • How many ass whoopins will the tranny take before he gets the message? Probably only one good one. Problem is solved.

            • No VH….allowing a grown man expose himself in front of a minor has nothing to do with discrimination….not one single thing. And, there is not one progressive on this site, Buck included, that is going to allow any tranny around his daughter… And I know you will not either.

              • I know it’s not a matter of discrimination-I seriously hope you didn’t misunderstand my post and think I approved-believe me I do not-but the fact still remains that in many places it is a done deal-it is legal. It is happening- people are letting it happen-there are people who think it should be allowed. So I’m just pointing that fact out-that per the law, hard as it is to believe-the law will be on his side.

              • Colonel — why do you think I wouldn’t allow a ‘tranny’ around my daughter?

              • I’m not the Colonel-but I don’t have a problem with my daughter being around a transgender as long as he or she is dressed and isn’t invading domains where woman have a right to expect privacy.

              • Actually, I don’t really have a problem with a transgender that has transitioned using the woman’s facilities.

              • Buck…allow me to be slightly more specific. I have absolutely no problem with “being around” if that is your choice…..like a party setting or a classroom. Hell, I just recently got back from Vegas….going downtown to Fremont Street on the weeknd is now an experience. I saw trannies, gays, etc all over the place. Vegas is beginning to make a change, however because it is beginning to cause some loss of business…. My sig other and I had fun watching this “culture”….and I will say that none of what we saw bothered anyone. They were allowed on the street but none were allowed in the casinos or restaurants. Men wearing bikinis, jock straps, and, high heels and women in strange and unusual clothing or the lack thereof…..I understand this….do not agree with it but understand it. I pity the first one of these that approach me, or my grand daughter, but, fortunately, I have never been approached by any gay, transgender, etc. to my knowledge.

                When children are involved, this is where I draw the line. Let us start with school. So, we have a male that “thinks or prefers” to be female. Are you, as a father, going to allow community showers after PE? Are you going to allow your daughter to go into a public restroom where older men would be and possibly exposing themselves to your daughter?

                Even in New Orleans, the trannies go into their own respective gender bathroom.

                If you allow that, then I have seriously misread you. Fortunately, I do not have to worry about that down here.

              • I have little issue with Tranny’s myself. Frankly, those I have seen in public make me feel sorry for them. They can’t possibly not know that they are making a spectacle of themselves. I’m speaking of the one’s that are quite clearly men dressed as a woman and it’s totally noticeable. I’m sure there have been many times that I haven’t even noticed a tranny, as many look the female role very well. But, I gotta tell Ya, the last one I saw was hideous.

              • Colonel,

                I’m not really sure where to start…

                Why do you put their ‘culture’ in quotes?

                What do you mean when you say they better not approach you?

                As to the bathroom, I truly wouldn’t care if a transsexual were to use the bathroom while my daughter was there. Unless of course she were there purposefully exposing herself – but the same would apply to anyone. Not just a transsexual. Let me put it this way – are you ok with a gay man using the stall next to you? They aren’t there to proposition you and are causing no problems. They are merely there to use the bathroom.

                Perhaps my position is different because of where I live. There are a number of restaurants in NY that have communal unisex bathrooms — large room with sinks and then a series of doors to a private bathroom.

              • It is not a fair representation of the situation when you limit the discussion to people of the opposite sex sharing a bathroom with individual stalls but ignore the Fact that if discrimination laws pass based on gender-it will be a lot more than just stalls in the bathroom-it will be showers, dressing areas, etc. Your daughter will see these men without their clothes on-it doesn’t have to be intentionally exposing themselves-it’s simply a feature of the shared space.

                It isn’t safe , it isn’t appropriate, especially for children, and it isn’t fair or reasonable to put the responsibility to solve a societal problem on the shoulders of children.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      California courts order the State to pay for a prisoner’s sex change because he has identified himself as a women for years, and to not do so will be a violation of his constitutional rights…..huh? The insanity of the courts and the people to continue to allow this perversion of the constitution to continue.

      • I have a nephew that I’ve mentioned a time or two-he has spent time in jail, is in one now actually-He had trouble getting medication to treat high blood pressure.

    • “And this applies even if you are…a Republican!” WOW, I want to live in this world.

  17. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Why would any city/country ever want to host the olympics? My god, Chicago spent $100M just on their losing bid for the 2016 games. Boston itself clearly doesn’t want the 2024 games, so the committee kicks it to a Statewide referendum….spread out the losses.

  18. http://conservativetribune.com/woman-in-balloon/

    A little humor for the day. 🙂

    • The problem with most Liberals is they can’t see past their noses. They reflect this with most of their kneejerk reactions to anything “against” their agenda.

  19. So the Angie’s List company has decided to cancel plans to expand in Indiana as a direct response to RFRA. Other companies and organizations are blustering about doing the same. This could be a good thing. It’s that self organizing thing that BF has been talking about. So let Angie’s List, etc set up shop in their liberal enclaves. Conservatives and Christians can do the same. Win/Win.

    • agreed. Angie’s List just hit the “DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH” list for many Christians. How quickly a company on the rise can completely ruin their future over some BS Left Wing garbage.

    • Nice thought-but from what I’ve been reading about the “Fix” to the law-Indiana would have more religious freedom if they didn’t pass the law. All these people still screaming about this bill that actually know what’s in it-Are probably privately cheering.

      • Sorry it’s a long irritating article with a lot of BS blah blahing-but here’s the relevant passage:

        “Specifically, the new language says the RFRA does not authorize a provider — including businesses or individuals — to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, goods, employment, housing or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex or military service.

        The proposed language exempts churches or other nonprofit religious organizations — including affiliated schools — from the definition of “provider.”

        So basicly in Indiana Protections of conscience will not apply to a business or an individual. I also read that it has been extended to include criminal suits not just civil suites-so it’s possible that people might actually be put in prison for offending a person who happens to be gay, instead of just sued and fined into bankruptsy.

        http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/

      • The way I see it is Gov Pence just caved to all the threats from the left. Apparently he does not have the stones to stand up for the people he was supposed to represent. He will not get my vote again.

        • He didn’t show much courage in the face of adversity. I think the whole thing has been overblown by the Left, but, that’s their M.O. All of the threats to the pizza place, based on some selective reporting, is just one example why many of these people need jailed. Want to make threats, off to jail you go. Want to misreport a news story, off to jail you go. We can let out the non-violent drug offenders and replace them with Lefty’s, which would most assuredly make the country a much safer place to live 😀

    • I would agree. I would like to see this ‘self organizing’ thing you speak of, I don’t want them in my state anyway. Same with Apple….they can take their gadgets elsewhere, like Saudi Arabia (who executes gays for being gay). Maybe Apple can preach tolerance to the Arabs?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        These protesters and organizers only do so where they are safe. You do not see SEIU running to China etc to organize labor as an example. Or to Saudi Arabia in your example. In Colombia, organizing got you just plain DEAD.

  20. I promise this is the last thing I’m gonna post on this issue-unless it’s a response to someone else’s post. 🙂 Just couldn’t not post this. Goodnight

  21. I’ve been seeing posts on Facebook about gays being refused a cheeseburger in Indiana…..the state that you can legally marry your cousin while carrying an assault rifle.
    Here we go again with attacks on gun rights. And what do they have against my cousin? 😉

    And, of course, I’m called some pretty rude names when I ask WHO was refused said cheeseburger and WHERE did this said brutality take place.

    • I would love to have the PERSON in front of me, then ask him to repeat his comments. I wonder how many would stay silent? Or maybe apologize? I doubt that many would continue with their ignorant online rant. Being behind a keyboard makes many people very courageous, take them away from the computer, most are little sissy’s. I can rant with the best of them when I so choose to, which isn’t often. It’s good to release the aggravation sometimes 🙂

      AS a rule, if the Left is up in arms over something, whatever they are up in arm’s over is likely based on lie’s, “Hands up Don’t Shoot” is a prime example.

  22. “In the city of Oakland, California, a group of LGBT employees formed an LGBT employees association. A group of Christian employees tried to found one of their own, but were informed under the ENDA law, they couldn’t and would lose their jobs if they tried.”

    And people wonder why Christians say wait a minute!- when these new laws are discussed-it is evident by actions like this-that if these laws passed-Just being a Christian makes anything you want to do-legally an act of discrimination.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/next-frontier-gays-use-law-to-silence-christians-at-work/

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    HEADLINES:

    Obama’s negotiating strategy has resulted in “landmark” agreements.
    Obama has saved us from WAR with ground breaking agreements.
    The legacy of Mr. Obama will be that he saved the world from war.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    Meanwhile, Redstate posts comments from Iran claiming Mr. Obama is spinning false claims about the agreement.

    Putting that aside, I have a question for the left wing, non thinking, flock of parrots we call the media.

    Exactly WHAT war have we been saved from? Precisely WHO was going to start this war we have been saved from?

    Is not Mr. Obama the CIC? Is it not Mr. Obama who would order, or try to order, this war? Is it not primarily his role, per him and your interpretations of law, to decide whether to engage Iran in war?

    So are you not claiming that Mr. Obama has saved the world from Mr. Obama’s war??

    The world seems so much clearer after spending a few days in the Rocky Mtns. That being NOT TEXAS for the fella that mistook my travel plans. 🙂

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    This is virtually the identical view from my friends porch, where I stayed on the first night of my short trip.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    From near the driveway to another friend’s house on day 2 of the trip.

    http://montananewsnow.com/storage/Bitterroot1stsnow.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1350860236893

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    As for using FORCE to compel people to participate in the weddings of homosexuals, there are bigger issues but then again we allowed these to be taken long ago.

    http://mises.org/library/ceos-against-private-property

    And GMan, the test of where a “right” stops is not when it meets your rights as you see them.

    It is where it creates a conflict with other rights that by reason we know to be true.

    The Right to association creates no conflict with anyone. To claim a right to be served by someone who does not like me, is to claim a right that violates the right of association, property rights, and the right to adhere to religious beliefs that are not harmful.

    So when two rights are in conflict we must figure out which one is not a right or whether both are not rights. We do know that both cannot be rights, because they conflict.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      More along this line.

      The left created a group with rights. Actually many groups with special rights, as groups not as individuals. Obligations to society can only exist if the society has some right placing the obligation on others. For in affect that is what rights do, they place obligations on others. Obligations to NOT impose.

      By creating the group identity they sanctified the notion of group rights, which should equally apply to Christians as a group, as much as Homosexuals as a group.

      But RIGHTS are individual in nature. Our Right to associate is an individual right. I have the RIGHT to pick and choose who I hang out with or do business with. Thus a Church cannot make a decision as a group to not associate with another person. That decision should be left with each individual.

      So lets presume an openly homosexual “couple” starts attending church. The congregation of that church should hold no right to deny them a visit. The preacher might, as the owner of said church, but not those visiting the church. The only way they as a group could ask the couple to leave is if 100% of them agreed. Otherwise it is up to each individual to figure out how to handle their RIGHT to association relative to the new couple.

      At the same time, individuals are certainly free to tell the couple they are not welcome, in the view of that particular complainant. After all, rights and freedom do not dictate the practice of good manners. The latter just makes the former less abrasive.

      As for all these brain dead folks screaming at Indiana and some little pizza shop owner, they have given the moral authority to others to retaliate with FORCE.

      Boycotts are COERCIVE FORCE. When one hits another with a stick the give moral authority to that person to pick up the stick and use it for their own defense.

      Buck is correct that we have gone round and round on the boycott issue. But to remind everyone, you have no moral or ethical authority or sanction to try and harm those who have done no harm to you.

      You can certainly speak out in defense of those you feel aggrieved, but a boycott is not just speaking out. And harassing a business with hateful and threatening phone calls is not just speaking out. It is INTIMIDATION backed by threat of HARM.

    • And GMan, the test of where a “right” stops is not when it meets your rights as you see them.

      In the sense that I choose whom I provide services too, it certainly does. I claim the Right of association. It doesn’t need to be as complicated as most people make it. NOONE, including government, has the right to force me to provide a service to another person I don’t chose to provide that service for. That would be forced servitude.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        GMan

        It is actually NOT “forced servitude”. Those claiming so know it is not, but it does make a nice rhetorical argument. It is forced association and forced “service” to ALL customers. Not to one person or Govt entity in particular. Which is what “servitude” is actually all about.

        “Servitude” is actually a voluntary agreement. “Indentured Servitude” is equally voluntary, in that the debtor agrees to work off the debt, or the compensation for damages. If you want to find a better example of Forced Servitude you can make a claim against TAXES. In addition to THEFT of private property.

        There are two basic and Natural Rights being violated by the forced service.

        Right to association and Right to property. The latter includes the fruits of your labors, which included the products you procure or produce for sale.

        You have no Natural Right to be or not to be in debt nor in a state of servitude. Which is not slavery where in other parties take your freedom and impose upon your Natural Rights by claiming you are “property”.

        And yes, I am being a little nit picky on your use of the term.

        • Overly nit picky. If I’m FORCED by government edict to provide a “service” to somebody against my will, it sounds like “forced servitude” to me. You can change the definitions all you want, I’ll keep things simple 😀

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            You are forced to provide the same service to everyone. That is not the same as being forced to provide a service that you do not normally provide, or to provide it to one and not others.

            The “servitude” argument has serious logical flaws based on historical definitions and understanding.

            Like I said, it may make a great rhetorical argument for those who cannot think but it does nothing to point out the violation of RIGHTS that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution.

            Sometimes “keep it simple” means you are also “keeping it stupid”.

            • I happen to be of the thought that a business owner has the RIGHT to choose who and who not to do business with, regardless of reason. I’ll use the example of a plumber refusing to do work for a black man. No reason given, but the plumber denies the request to provide service. It is in the plumbers rights to do so, without giving a reason.

              Having said that, I’m sure Buck might disagree. Or maybe not. I’m almost sure our newly confessed Communist, Black Flag, agrees 😀

            • You know the phrase “In the closet” was it stupid to use it-were people actually standing in a closet. Yet people clearly understood the message. It in reality was forceful because it conveyed a feeling of injustice-painted a picture so to speak.

              Now “forced servitude” has that same type of effect in my mind. The message is clear.
              Pointing out which rights are specifically lost is important no doubt. But using the phrase is not stupid-it clearly conveys the effect of the lost on the person involved-it paints a picture.

    • Black Flag® says:

      “So when two rights are in conflict we must figure out which one is not a right or whether both are not rights. We do know that both cannot be rights, because they conflict.”

      EXACTLY

      There is no such thing as a conflict between rights.
      It is ALWAYS a conflict between what is a RIGHT and what is NOT a right.

      There are those that are confused to what is a Right and what is not, and that is where the conflict begins is where the confused tries to enforce a non-Right to be a Right.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And in this “evaluation” lets not forget that when faced with conflict, BOTH could be NOT Rights as well.

        Which leads to the question of all time, and the foundation of civilization vs. barbarism. HOW do we identify what is, or is not, a RIGHT?

        Or, HOW do we prove which is true and which is false?

        Are all claims of rights true if it can be shown they do not conflict with other such claims of a different nature? Is that enough, or does it even matter as long as those conflicts do not exist?

        Rhetorical, but also necessary for thoughtful and defensible arguments.

        • Black Flag® says:

          “And in this “evaluation” lets not forget that when faced with conflict, BOTH could be NOT Rights as well.”

          Agreed.

          “Which leads to the question of all time, and the foundation of civilization vs. barbarism. HOW do we identify what is, or is not, a RIGHT?”

          A right is an action that is universal to all men, at the same time. All men can exercise the same right at the same time with no conflicts.

          As such, and very quickly, all lot of “presumed” rights disappear.
          Only a couple would remain

          • Just A Citizen says:

            BF

            Lets chase the “Nature of Rights” some more.

            Would it not be more proper to refer to a “Right” as a Natural Entitlement rather than just an action?

            Any action may or may not be implemented. And we know that your freedom to exercise said action can be impaired.

            So to have an action that can be impaired but not taken means that action is really an entitlement from the nature of our existence.

            We are entitled to act in accordance with our nature, for example. Someone might impede our ability to do so, but they cannot remove the entitlement.

            I ask this in all seriousness, as many cannot fathom how Rights can exist while the ability to exercise such a right can be prevented.

            As for use of the term “action” alone, I think of my “right to my property” . This right as described is not action. My effort to secure said property, or to protect it would require action. But a right to “have” does not require action.

            • “Would it not be more proper to refer to a “Right” as a Natural Entitlement rather than just an action?”

              I can understand your posit here. A right exists, but whether it is exercised or not remains a choice. If you do not exercise it, the right does not disappear, however, the right is realized only by an action.

              I’d be comfortable in saying “Entitlement”.

              As far as right to property:
              To obtain property requires some action. The right “to” property is a concept reflecting the fact of “control” over its use, much like a right to, say, speak my mind – it is a concept of control, whether or not its exercised.

              Again, your description of “Entitlement” probably best reflects the situation.

              I like it! The “Entitlement” to do or do not, to exercise it or not, is much better conceptualized with that word.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Sometimes life can be just so funny. Just got our passports for the family, so we can do some travel with less hassle.

    Within the passport, on the pages set aside for various Visa stamps, are numerous sayings about our country, by various famous people. One of them:

    “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” — Thomas Jefferson.

    You might recognize this Jefferson character as that “Deist” borderline “atheist” touted by lefties as proof our Founders did not view our nation as being founded upon Judeo/Christian values.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought of the day:

    What if Congress declared war on X, and the President ignored them and did nothing?

    • That is a good question. I’m figuring the President would be arrested for treason and removed from office. Then again, maybe the Congress would just be ignored as irrelevant, much like is being done lately 🙂

    • Black Flag® says:

      Then nothing would happen.
      The Prez is CinC of the Army, and ultimately determines whether to act or not.

      Now “X” will be rather annoyed being at war (which WOULD exist), and probably would act in someway eventually, which would eventually cause the Prez to act….

      • Just A Citizen says:

        BF

        Agreed. Which identifies a serous flaw in our existing structure of power.

        We could have a POTUS ignore Congress’ attempt to wage war.

        And we could have a POUTS wage war while ignoring Congress’ attempt to have peace.

        But we cannot have Congress waging war on its own nor affecting peace on its own. While POTUS can do both, on his/her own.

        War and Peace need to be commitments of the PEOPLE. Thus of BOTH major branches of Govt.

        Assuming of course, that a Govt does exist.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Agreed.
          War Act should be a referendum.
          If Congress puts it forward, and it is defeated, Congress is dismissed completely.
          If Prez institutes an attack, and the referendum goes against his actions, he is immediately dismissed.

  29. http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/check-your-privilege-college-puts-up-bulletin-board-that-slams-christian-and-white-students/

    I don’t fare well, based on this bulletin board. But, I really don’t give a pigs turd about this nonsense.

  30. Dale A Albrecht says:

    “Human affairs are not so happily arranged that the best things please the most men. It is proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by the mob”.

    “That government is ill conducted, when the mob rules the leaders”.

    “From the time that money began to be regarded with honor, the real value of things was forgotten”.

    Seneca 4 BC – AD 65

  31. If this old guy remembers correctly, what we are now seeing in the Indiana case is exactly why Senator Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Bills of the 1960’s. He took a tremendous amount of heat for opposing things that just seemed so “right” and he admitted that discrimination was wrong but the issue for that principled man was that you should not, in a free society, be able to force someone to accommodate someone else that they don’t want to.

    I remember at the time as a teen in high school being torn between his views and those of Robert Kennedy whom as a 16 year old I still admired. Something Kennedy once said about the end justifying the means got under my skin. It was clear to me from that day forward that if you are going to have freedom, it will occasionally be messy.

    I believe Goldwater’s position was that things will come out right in the end with patience. When people see how stupid discrimination is, it will end on its own. My Dad actually felt the same. I remember a quote of his about black and white sharecroppers. “When white sharecroppers in the South finally realize that they are being screwed over the same way as their black neighbors and being white buys them nothing special except being white, discrimination will end”. Pretty smart guy. They finally got it.

    • I couldn’t agree more! In a free society, discrimination should be allowed, to an extent that doesn’t harm someone physically. It is human nature, it will always exist. I personally harbor no ill feeling towards any certain group of people. This, of course, exclude the people of the Westboro Babtist Church, they’re a bit screwed up, but that’s a character issue. Character is where it should begin and end. All the other stuff is quite silly and useless.

  32. We’re witnessing another reincarnation of “legitimate” bigotry. That is, “socially acceptable discrimination.” It reared its ugly head against black people, especially in the years leading up to the civil rights movement and beyond. It was the main motivation for the Holocaust. And now it is the main reason why homosexual activists are allowed to harass Christians, but Christians aren’t even allowed to say what they believe, even concerning hypothetical scenarios. Somehow or another, Christians have been painted as the monsters in the religious freedom debate. And before you ask, “How can that be?” just think about the monstrous portraits that were painted of Jews and black people to justify the double standards necessary for their persecution.

    Am I saying that Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals and homosexual activists in this country? Yes. And let me say that the reverse is really not going on to the extent that homosexuals would love to believe. This whole fiasco depends on the myth that homosexuals are a minority in need of protection. In fact, they are a minority that refuses to be protected. Because they don’t want protection. They want victory.

    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/10936/religious-freedom-hypothetical-hate-and-legitimate-bigotry/#OARjgMjyT31xOExq.99

  33. http://russia-insider.com/en/chinas-swift-alternative-and-engineered-death-dollar/5184

    Is the end of dollar as the world’s reserve currency coming to an end? It sure seems that way to me. Opinions?

    • Black Flag® says:

      Dollar’s end? One day.
      Not soon though.

      • I’m guessing it will take a significant event to speed up the end of the dollars current term. History has shown that all reserve currencies eventually end, our will be no different, despite the Elites attempts to forcibly keep it that way.

        • Black Flag® says:

          Before you can say “the dollar will end as a reserve”, you have to measure these conditions.

          1) Do you believe that the State will relinquish its control over money?
          If “yes”, then, upon that day, a new money will appear almost instantly to replace the government currency. Odds of this = 0.0000001% that any State will relinquish its control, so discard this event from our review

          If “no”, further questions;
          For one reserve State currency to fade, another State currency has to replace it.
          What are the Necessary conditions for a Reserve currency?
          1) No capital controls. It must be freely traded.
          2) It’s capital base must be able to support the currency (ie: large economy)
          3) That economy must accept intense recessionary pressure
          4) It must be stable.

          So, let’s work on 2), this shortens the probable list quickly.
          China, Japan, Euro-nations, USA.

          Though Switzerland, Canada, Singapore all meet 1), their economies are far too small to support the reserve currency.

          But China has extreme currency controls, so they fall off the list.

          3) Recessionary pressure and 4) stability.
          The only reason the world would move away from the dollar is because the US no longer is willing to suffer recessionary pressure and moves to instability in the production of currency to overcome recessions.
          So the new currency reserve has to be the opposite.
          Why would the world move from one unstable currency reserve only to pick another unstable currency reserve?

          So the new nation currency must accept severe recessionary pressures, that is, as their currency becomes a reserve, the exchange rate between their currency and the rest of the world will climb.

          That means this countries exports will rise in price, while imports fall in price.
          This country will need to accept to be a net importer of goods.

          China is a net exporter of goods, they are Keynesian and will continue to price their exports cheaper then imports, and will continue to devalue their currency to support their exports opposite of the NECESSITY of stable reserve currency.

          Japan is a net exporter of goods, same as China.

          List now:
          Euro, USA

          4) Stability.
          The Euro, as it has been structured, is highly unstable (see Greece, Italy, Spain, etc).
          The Euro is, in fact, the 2nd reserve currency of the world after US$, because of reasons 1), 2), 3), and may have been a viable replacement for the US$ (indeed, it was organized to be just that for the Euro-zone).

          But the recent events have shown its underlying and systemic instability.
          It has fallen off the list.

          What is left?
          US$

          This will not probably change in your lifetime.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            While I don’t disagree with your assessment, I’m not so sure that the rest of the economic world is that smart. These are odd times and what countries are doing with fiat currencies hasn’t been fine before (QE) . Let’s say that China backs it’s Yuan with gold and Russia jumps on board with China, It’s a hypothetical that is being kicked around a lot. Not sure normal thinking can apply anymore. I think the US will try and protect it’s status, I don’t think he outcome will be very good.

            • Black Flag® says:

              Gman,
              It isn’t that anyone needs to be smart.
              That is how the world works.

              No one goes into the yuan since currency controls prevent such moves.

              Governments are all racing to the bottom with their currency devaluations, and no nation right now is willing to become a net importer other then the rich countries of the west. So automatically that excludes exporting countries.

              All of this is self-organizing. The US$ rise to reserve status was not a plan, but a consequence of other decisions.

              Do not confuse a consequence to be necessarily a planned consequence. The US did not “want” to be a reserve currency, it happened by accident. Certainly, over time it became apparent what had happened, and the US exploited it, but it was more a “oh, look, we are the reserve currency… now what?” type of expression.

              There are serious defects to be a reserve currency, as well as serious benefits.

  34. Hi ha Buck….well, you and I are different and I will accept that. I am totally unaware of unisex bathrooms anywhere in Texas…..and I guess things are different in New York. But you limited your response to bathrooms…..what about women’s locker rooms and/ or showers……still feel the same? If you do…ok. Not for me nor my grand children and my kids feel the same.

    I also am not referencing anything as being approached by anyone. I do not see how you are going to draw a difference between pedophiles…..all they have to do is claim tranny.

    But, I will admit that my nature and my beliefs are mine….

    As to Actually being approached, in the context of sexuality, let me just say……I hope it never happens. It would not be pretty.

    But, I will admit that I have misread you and that is unusual for me.

    • Im still not sure what you are getting at about being approached. If you mean being asked out or propositioned by a gay man or transsexual, what’s thebig deal? Just politely decline and go about your business.

      On the larger issue you raise about bathrooms, showers, etc., I truly do not have an objection to this. So long as the individual is minding their own business, what’s the big deal? Let me ask you, do you have a similar objection to a gay man in the men’s locker room or shower?

      • Well, Buckster, (shacking my head in disbelief) You surely surprised me on this one. I would never agree and will never agree to placing children of opposite sex in any type of environment that allows any adult to share and do the same things. But…sir….that is me. It does not make you wrong or me wrong…..just preferences…..until you force your preference on me.

        To answer your question….no sir….if a gay man was in a mens shower….I have no objection whatsoever…..none. My biggest objection, and only objection, is where children of the opposite sex are involved. That is just plain assed wrong. However, if you do not see objection to it…that is your privilege…..as long as you do not force it upon me by claiming discrimination….because I then will claim reverse discrimination.

        As to where we got off on me,being approached….No sir….I would not react politely to personally being approached. However, I do not think that is going to happen. I wear my Veteran’s hat wherever I go.

        I do not subscribe to the progressive mantra very well….because the progressive mantra is equally discriminatory as well…..and what is happening now…is trying to define discrimination. But, thank goodness I live in Texas…..we do not have much problems with it….

        • “…where children of the opposite sex are involved. That is just plain assed wrong.”

          Why? What’s the big deal if a child sees someone of the opposite sex naked in this type of environment? So long as the individual isn’t harassing anyone I don’t see the problem.

          “…being approached….No sir….I would not react politely…”

          Why not? Again, what’s the big deal? So what, are you telling me that if a gay man or transsexual came up to you to introduce him/herself and ask you out, you would what? Punch them? Verbally abuse them? I’m still not following your line of thinking here.

          “I wear my Veteran’s hat”

          I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at here either.

          • “Why? What’s the big deal if a child sees someone of the opposite sex naked in this type of environment?”

            What does the type of environment have to do with whether or not children should be forced to see someone of the opposite sex naked or to be forced to allow someone of the opposite sex to see them? . That is part of this new system you know-your not just forced to see them naked, you are forced to allow them to see you naked. Is your argument that people should be allowed to go around naked in their daily lives as long as they don’t harass someone. Or that somehow these particular activities make it okay?

            • You’re not being forced to be seen — I know plenty of people who get dressed in a private bathroom stall at the gym because they do not want to be seen.

              • Sorry, but I went to school-we had an area we used to change clothes-we were not allowed to leave and go to a bathroom area to change. So the ability to choose is limited depending on where you are.

                Just admit it Buck-if you support this measure you are saying that people do not have the right to expect privacy based on their sex. And that will mean our children will have no right to Privacy. The gay lobby is trying very hard to cover up this fact by claiming men or now woman.

                I also find it hard to believe that you would argue that a huge percentage of the population should be forced to find alternatives to exposing themselves instead of just trying to find an alternative for the few that need it.

              • VH – then create a third room for transsexuals…But I disagree with forcing them to use the men’s restroom.

          • There is no line of thinking here, Buck. I was answering your question…..as to the veterans cap….no gay or tranny is going to come up to someone wearing a vet hat. It is a shield. There is absolutely no approaching in the military…don’t ask don’t tell is a dismal failure. Passing some sort of rule does not change individual thinking here.

            But, like I said…..if that is how you feel..ok. I do not feel the same….but respect your position.

            Happy Easter Egg to you and yours.

      • Yo Buck, Do you let your daughter see you in the nude? I may give you benefit of the doubt if you answer yes, since she is still young. How about when she is 8? 15?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Better question is how does Buck’s wife feel about her daughter being exposed to a naked man in a shower or bathroom just because he claims he is a woman.

          Wonder if his wife thinks that children exposed to naked adults of the opposite sex is A-OK?

  35. Some of the man’s insults make my hackles rise 🙂 but I think he makes some good points none-the-less . He talks a little about why it was right to pass the civil rights laws-the differences between civil rights applied to the issue of race and gay issues. Questions the left on whether or not it is appropriate to intentionally destroy business’s -Actually in this regard he seemed to be talking to Buck-who said he leaned toward people having the right to discriminate but still thought it appropriate to boycott them. You should read this one Buck. Anyway it is interesting and makes one think.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/

    • If I disagree with a business owners decision to refuse service to a group, don’t I have the absolute right not to patronize that store? Don’t ai have the right to tell my family and friends why I refuse to shop there and ask them to do the same?

      • Yes

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        You have the right to tell them why you won’t. You may have the right to speak out but not to solicit their participation. The fact they are family and/or friends introduces a coercive factor in their decision making. “If he is my friend I need to support his boycott”.

        • Complete and utter bull.

          I have every right to tell others and even to ask they similarly boycott. They have every right to say either:

          (1) Hey, I didn’t know that about that store. I’m not going to shop there any more too!

          (2) Alright, whatever. Do what you want…I’m still shopping there.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Your claim of a right to impose your will upon others is what is utter bull.

            You claim a right to initiate FORCE against innocent people, namely those who have done nothing to you but upset your sensibility, or violated your conflicting collection of morals and ethics.

            Do you have a RIGHT to tell lies about someone in public? To defame them without cause or without absolute proof?

            • No – I claim a right to discuss my views with others. They have the same right to (x) similarly refuse to patronize said store and (y) discuss their views with others.

              And yes, I do have the right to spread lies. Of course I will then have to face the consequences.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                Discussing your views is NOT the same as asking people to boycott a business. Or to demonstrate someone’s home or place of business in an attempt to get them to do what you want.

              • In discussing my views I have every right to see of others agree with me and ask that, if they do, that they similarly refuse to patronize the store in question.

    • While I agree that some of these boycotts get out of hand and take on a life of their own without many people involved knowing the facts, how do you define what is and what is not acceptable? Where do you draw the line of what people do and do not have the right to do?

      • With rights come responsibilities-One has to answer those questions for themselves. I will say that in a world such as ours, with such an open and far reaching ability to communicate and destroy-I personally think it’s best to use our rights to argue our point by addressing the issue not attacking an individual person or business to make our point..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Easy. There MUST be harm. REAL harm.

        Not hurt feelings, not some amorphous claim of “dignity”, but actual harm.

        If boycott is coercion then it can only be used in self defense or retaliation. It is no different than any other form of FORCE.

        And these boycotts do not sometimes get out of hand. They ALWAYS get out of hand. Because far to many people are looking to jump on somebody for something. Real reasons are no longer necessary.

        It is looking like the Salem Witch Trials in the media every week.

        As I have said before, if you do not like a business then don’t frequent that business. But don’t try to organize or inflame everyone you know just because YOU don’t like them.

        • JAC,

          To boycott or to arrange a boycott seems like it would be tied to the right of freedom of speech and assembly. So this line you draw seems to be drawn more on ethical or moral grounds than on rights or legal grounds. I agree with you on that basis but I’m having a hard time agreeing that they do not have a right to be wrong.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            There is a moral/ethical component, but all Rights must necessarily be moral and ethical. Or more correctly, our morals and ethics must align with the Rights. If these Rights are in fact natural and not simply designed to deal with political associations.

            If Rights do not conflict then how or why would you need moral or ethical constraints on said rights?

            Speech between people that was deemed repugnant or insulting was resolved by duel or a smart whack of a staff upside the head.

            I have a Natural Right to associate with whom I wish and to allow those I wish to use my property. This right does not affect the natural rights of anyone else. They are free to do the same as I.

            Buck has the same Natural Right to do business with me or not. However, Buck does not have a right to organize people to act in a manner that undermines my right of association. He has no right to organize boycotts against my views when they cause no actual harm to anyone.

            Those who claim a “right” to boycott or a “right” to receive service are in affect claiming that there is no “right” to property or association.

            Boycott is the use of Force designed to IMPOSE the will of one person/group upon another person/group. Such force is not only immoral it violates the very nature of the Right itself. It is in fact a direct attack on Freedom itself. And Freedom is the ability to experience your “Rights”.

            Your right to speech does you little good without the freedom to exercise the right.

            The dividing line here is speaking vs. organizing. And obviously some speech is intended to get people to organize.

            As I stated to Buck before, he has the right to complain about what he thinks is bad behavior but his right stops when he ASKS others to join him. Unless he was actually harmed

            Let us all remember that the Witch Hunt mentality we see today is the result of years of thinking that “boycotts” are proper and “non violent” means for people to express their grievances towards others.

            Because nobody ever questioned the claimed Rights or the moral/ethical limitations then you get what we have now. MOB MENTALITY and actual harm done to people, even when it is not deserved.

            It is important to keep in mind at this point that the Freedom of Speech or the Right to speak established by our Founders was not a Right to say anything or print anything. It was a stated right relative to an individual’s relationship to Govt. It was in fact Political Speech that was deemed protected. Namely, attacking the Govt. in speech and print.

  36. Why I don’t live near any populated area: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/04/03/nuclear-bombs/

  37. @Buck, Why do you think a business owner can be forced to do business with any person or persons?

  38. @Anita, How’s the weather up your way? Still below normal temps today, but the sun is shining 🙂

    Thought I’d see if you have heard that it’s being reported that the Michigan National Guard will be activated on June 15th. The “DRILL” is to take place in No. Michigan and it involves the relocation of large populations from imminent danger. They were told to be prepared to work with foreign troops from several countries and a UN observer will be assigned to each unit.

    Do you know anything about this?

    • Mid 40s. Bright sunshine. Housework done, ready to go out for first attempt at yard work.

      Haven’t heard anything about this. Michigan has a couple mean training bases though. Head north on 75 any summer weekend and you see convoy after convoy of military vehicles out and about, military personnel in fast food joints, etc. Doubt anyone would question what was up, since it’s normal to see them around anyway.

      • No biggee! I just thought it was odd for an exercise on mass relocation in Michigan was odd. It’s not like you folks have hurricanes. Nuclear meltdown maybe? Or global warming is gonna make Lake Michigan flood all the bordering cities 😀 The date also coincides with the Jade Helm 15 military exercise everyone is talking about (in the CT world). Did you happen to catch the “extraction” exercise in Florida last week?

  39. Heard something about it. I don’t see the harm. If there’s something behind all this Jade Helm business, I’m glad guys are getting trained in counter insurgency. If it went down, the gov just trained a bunch of guys who would defect to our side. Now we have 300 million plus a bunch of freshly trained guys. Bring it.

    • Crap. Right here G.

      • Training is always good, did plenty of it myself. It is changing, as they are now training on our own streets. I don’t know why they feel the need for this, as most bases are small towns of their own with plenty of common areas that are just like any US town.

        What does this mean “Crap. Right here G.”? I’m not worried about training, I’m a little concerned about what they are training to do. Extractions? Why would the military need to practice fitting in within the population of any US town? That’s a no brainer and shouldn’t need practice. What’s with the white vans in Florida during the extraction exercise? Why are they doing this on city streets? So many question, so few answers, but I’m having fun trying to find them 😀

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    Thanks for the input. Always trying to learn more about economics and such. I just have a feeling that bad things are coming, maybe because I can’t figure out why Obama is screwing with Russia. Time will tell. 🙂

  41. Happy Easter 🙂 Hope everyone is having a great day!

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    More on RIGHTS and the RIGHT to Speak in particular.

    Did it ever occur to anyone that we really do not have a Natural Right to “free speech”??

    If such a right existed why would we need so many rules governing speech in order to prevent violating others Rights in other arenas??

    We need no such caveats for the “right to property” or the “right to self defense” or the “right to association” or even the “right to practice our religion”. Although that last one breaches the same questions relative to speech. Such as a religion where violence or slavery is considered “part” of that religion.

    • I have read your posts, and you do bring up some good points. There is a lot of questions about the “Rights” of companies and organizations, at least in my mind, as to what rights they really do have that are intended for individuals. Certainly, Citizens United plays a big role in that. There will be many more cases in SCOTUS on this subject, but I do have a view or two 🙂

      If a boycott is organized and it harms a business, the business owner should have the Right to sue the organizers and participants for damages, before a jury. But, in reality today, the Left’s attempt to boycott anything has been a failure, big time.

      Now, I ask, is not a boycott the same as a protest? How would a business prove one over the other, as both could be damaging. Protesting is completely legal, therefore, boycotts are likely to be as well, because it serves the same purpose.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        A boycott is intended to cause direct economic harm. To coerce the target into changing behavior by suffering economic consequences.

        Demonstrations do not have the same impact nor always the same goal.

        Demonstrations inform while boycotts destroy. They do have one thing in common these days. Both can be based on knee jerk reactions to incomplete information. It is unfortunate but thinking and reason are not required for either.

        • It may be unfortunate but for you to argue that people do not have the RIGHT to do so defies reason and surprises me. RIGHTS, as you have long argued, have consequences, but they remain RIGHTS.

          You have the right to carry a gun, but it would be pretty darn stupid to walk around swinging a loaded gun around…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            I do not recall saying rights have consequences. I have said that people’s actions have consequences. But Rights do not require action.

            My right to own a gun comes from my Natural Right to defend my own life, that of my family as well as my property. But my right to own that gun requires no action from me or you.

            My use of a gun carries with it consequences. But I do not even need to have a “right to bear arms” in order to secure and use a gun. And the consequences will remain the same.

            My right to property requires no action from me or you. My property remains secure as long as you do nothing to impair or take my property. Your action to steal my property carries consequences, yet you have no Right to steal my property.

            You have NO RIGHT to impose you will upon those who have not harmed you or tried to impede or prevent you from your Rights. So you have NO RIGHT to organize a boycott against those who have not done these things. Boycotts are NOT SPEECH. They are action and usually the action of an unthinking mob.

          • @Buck and JAC, Taking this to new thread to keep it going, as I have some questions.

        • JAC…..have you ever stopped to consider that the same right that allows peope to boycott and to storm stores and restaurants to disrupt work or/ commerce by physical presence…gives you the same right to stop it….even if it is violent confrontation? Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to discuss several things with 3 DA’s of three separate cities ( Fort Worth, Amarillo, and Austin ) and one US Attorney that is assigned to Houston. The specific discussion was about the trend that seems to be catching on where protesters are entering establishments and physically disrupting meals and/or running customers off….including standing out front and physically blocking people from coming into the estblishment…..and using the “right” of free speech as an excuse or reason.

          Your discourse with Buck actually hits on a subject that is going to become a major issue in months to come leading up to 2016…..The discussion centered on the extension that Texas has about the castle doctrine. In Texas, the castle doctrine extends from your home to your car ( or any mode of personal transportation ) and your work space. You are ENTITLED to protect your personal space…..with violence if necessary. There is no duty to retreat.

          Now, having said that, the discussion turned to an employers right to protect his business from not only physical damage but economic damage as well and whether or not employees acting in the stead of the owner, who may not be present, is liable for any civil or criminal acts as a result of protecting the place of employment. Since The Texas Castle doctrine does not have a duty to retreat and we can stand our ground, the question was broached about physical contact, weapons, and the use of any means necessary to stop any type of protest on your personal and/or private property. The statute protects employees and the owner from civil suit as a result of protecting property.

          All 3 DA’s said that you are justified in protecting your property and, by extension, your means to make a living, if there is ACTUAL or PERCEIVED harm…and harm does extend to economic. They also said that even if your business opens to a public street or sidewalk, a business owner has the right to use force if the entry ways are blocked or if people are physically assaulting potential patrons….and physical assault was described as simply touching someone trying to gain access. ( The Texas laws allow properly licensed gun owners to prevent violent criminal activity. )

          All this to say, that freedom of speech does not extend to blocking entry ways, actually coming inside of an establishment, and creating or organizing a physical boycott of said establishment. In addition, Texas Civil law allows for monetary damages as a result. So, at least here, yiu are allowed to use any means necessary to clear your establishment of protestors and to prevent blocking of doorways and entry ways.

          Now, as an interesting side note, the Federal attorney disclosed to us that they have received direct orders from the Justice Department to use the full weight of the justice department using harrassment by claiming bogus civil rights violtions. He went on to say that the Justice Department probably will not win any cases but the cost to the business owner to defend themselves against the Federal Government may make opposition to Federal encroachment a moot point. he went on to say that he, personally, does not like this form of Federal harrassment but he would follow orders if given to him.

          So, the short story is, Texas business owners canand will defend their property and be justified in doing so up to and including the use of weapons.

          • D13
            “have you ever stopped to consider that the same right that allows peope to boycott and to storm stores and restaurants to disrupt work or/ commerce by physical presence…gives you the same right to stop it….even if it is violent confrontation? ”

            There is no right to do so.
            This is where concepts of boycotts get all screwed up.

            No one has the right to violate the right of property. People have no right to “storm stores” to disrupt work. You have no right to come into my house on my property to promote your (bizarre) views, so neither do people have the right to come into my business and do the same thing.

            You have the right to organize your boycott on your own property. Invite the like minded people to your house and agree to not buy my goods. I don’t care.

            But occupying my property is not one of your rights.

%d bloggers like this: