Politicians have NO SHAME

thTBO7IVFPAS is the usual, another tragedy and another round of politicians pointing fingers at a political agenda before the bodies are even cold.  Obama, Clinton and every other gun grabbing politician jump up to the mic and proclaim we need more gun control laws.  This kind of kneejerk reaction happens by the Left and their lapdog media whores every time an event like this occurs.  After the South Carolina church shooting, they say  “see, it’s racism and guns”.  They act as though the gun can think and act by itself, literally giving it life.  They are identified as much as the murderer.  Watch the news,  Murderer (pictured) killed 3 people using this gun (switch picture) and tell the world what kind of gun, who made it, what caliber and type of bullet used.  This is part of the agenda to demonize all guns and all gun owners.

Well, I got some news for all of them.  NO!  NO, you are not making me feel demonized.  NO, you are not making my support for the 2nd Amendment something I should feel shame about.  Lastly, NO, your not going to take the peoples guns, period.  I posted a comment recently about a pundit on Fox News’s “The Kelly File” claiming we had to get the “ILLEGAL” guns off the streets.  Too bad Megan Kelly blew the opportunity to ask the right question…HOW do you want to do that?  If the guns are Illegal, then how is a new law going to help when the violent criminal element don’t follow the laws anyway.  These people want an absolute gun ban, but they won’t come out and say it (except Sen. Fienstien).

Now, a message for the politicians.  Even if you could stop all the violent crime in this country, which you can’t, your still not going to take our guns, so get over it.  Self defense isn’t the main reason for the 2nd Amendment to begin with and every time you shoot your mouth off about gun control, your true intent is on clear display for all to see.  Your not fooling anyone except your own useless eaters who believe you are somehow important to one’s survival.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I was originally going to do a short article on how Obama’s agenda of racial division is working, as this recent event is a clear documented case of racial hatred. Soon, the tweets and the Facebook postings will come out how the killer was the victim and the white crackers got what they had coming to them. The people have some serious moral problems in this nation, this is something that will not likely end well.

  2. gmanfortruth says:
  3. Our Gay, Black killer seems to have been another loose canon. Wonder if we will hear about any meds he was on or if he was under the care of a Mental Health professional?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      So far ….nothing. Other than he was fired from a TV station in Florida in previously and also filed an EEOC complaint, which was also thrown out.

    • Another thing. Shooter was apparently wearing a body cam. Anyone notice the video of him approaching the reporter looks remarkably like a video game? You see the gun pointed then you see her reaction. The young ‘uns seem unable these days to distinguish fantasy from reality.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Saw that video. It’s like he wanted it to look like a game, because to him, it probably was. This was a planned event. The guy was a coward, plain and simple.

    • Stephen….I am disappointed…..two unarmed white people shot by armed black man……where is the riot? I want a riot!

  4. gmanfortruth says:
  5. 😉

  6. gmanfortruth says:
  7. gmanfortruth says:

  8. gmanfortruth says:
  9. Just A Citizen says:

    While this is a typically ignorant article it does contain some key points and information that raises legitimate questions about WHO should bear the cost of managing public lands.

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-odd-politics-of-fighting-wildfires/

    Note: The environmentalists in this country simply cannot make up their mind as to whether the national forests are “national” or “local”. They jump back and forth depending on the issue and who is or is not supporting their viewpoint.

    Second Note: Look closely at the stupidity of the greenies complaining about putting out fires and killing trees to reduce wildfires and would rather let them burn. Of course killing those same trees only in larger quantities.

    Third Note: My old associate, Mr. O’Toole, is again being used when it suits the greenies. Yet his view points would also cut against them when it comes to maximizing revenue. For those that do not know the BLM lands in Alaska are vast and mostly uninhabited, tundra, scrub brush and black spruce. Fires in Alaska do not result in conversion of native vegetation to an invader specie like Cheat Grass.

    • I’ve lived in CA now almost 23 years. In that time I have seen a number of saw mills go out of business. Their demise was due to environmental regulations that changed the available logging acreage plus the general anti-business climate in CA. Logging is a dangerous business as is running a mill. Hence workman’s comp bills were astronomical. This state still does not understand that the timber will be removed from the forests one way or the other. Either it is carried out or burned out. There are economic advantages for the former and disadvantages for the latter. The NE counties in CA are now trying to form the state of Jefferson to break away from the urban population who do not understand the economic devastation they have caused by reducing logging, mineral extraction and other restrictions on land use. Now these urban progressives fools are trying to pass a law to mandate 50% renewables in the electric grid plus a 50% reduction in fossil fuel (motor fuel) consumption by 2030. Of course they can’t be bothered to build any new dams to generate clean energy or save more water. One good thing out of this drought is that I am going to have several years of fire wood.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        T-Ray, you have always had great love for your trees. While having firewood for a few years might seem good, your loss is still a loss. I’m surprised you haven’t considered leaving California, the politicians are mental cases 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I am always interested in preserving green space. Up until the past few years all the energy sources have had one thing in common as time progressed. They became more efficient, cheaper and used less space or “land” resources. With the Green Movement it seems that all that has been turned upside down.,,,be that it may, the discussion is fires and managment of forest land.

      Fires happen naturally or by negligence. Example years ago Johnny Cash was in Ojai and did not have a spark arrester (required) on all motor vehicles. A spark occured and a forest fire resulted. He personally was billed for the costs of the fire fighting teams and damages. The campaign started years ago that ALL fires are bad and must be put out immediately. The end result was dense underbrush that used to be burned out occasionally and rarely reached a temperature that would destroy a forest. Or an example hot enough to split the bark on a redwood. If we a people demand that all fires be put out then if we will not allow NATURE to manage her resources we as humans have to replace that function. Clean out the fuel in the undergrowth. Also one thing is that “people” are building where they shouldn’t be building anyway. Like putting expensive homes in a zone where it is most likely going to be destroyed by a hurricane. Or in the Santa Monica mtns where it WILL burn every 7 years or so. 40 years ago people were much more practical. The homes on the coast or barrier island were disposable. Only the “RICH” could afford to have the mansion wrecked and rebuild with no impact on their financial well being.

      Have any of the “greenies” given any plausible explanation of the 750 year drought in the southwest that wiped out the indigenous populations. One that by “empirical” analysis was worse that the drought today.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    I see you still cannot directly account for how the RNC PRE-SELECTS the candidates for POTUS or Congress.

    You are foolish if you think I do not know how and why money is spent in D.C.. But to remind you once again, lobbyists lobby ELECTED Legislators. The elected legislators do not control the RNC nor do they SELECT who is going to run for office.

    I suggest you take the time to dig into the workings of the political parties to gain a better understanding of how they operate. And thus how you wind up having a limited choice for any given office. It might also give you some insight into what you can do to create change.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Let’s begin with how the various committees in each of our whole two dominate parties “Recruit” candidates to run for the various “openings” that may be coming up. Notice the term “recruit”, which they do openly and admittedly (in other words, the average Joe isn’t likely to play). Once there is a recruitment, then, depending on the party rules and some laws in different States a nominee is chosen. I believe that is the basics. Then, the nominee is rolled out for the election and various funds may or may not be made available, depending on the importance of the race. Then, as the story goes, there is an election.

      So, in short. Nominees are recruited and selected by party committees/members (unless there is a primary election, using computers these days). This all depends on the State laws of course, because many are different. But let’s back up a second. In a primary election, those candidates running to be the nominee are STILL recruited and selected to run in that election. Si, it still falls back to who the party committees/members decide who gets to run for office. Which is exactly where the illusion of choice lies. The candidates are in fact chosen by the parties, regardless of a primary vote (because the party would be happy with whom ever they have recruited).

      Considering INDEPENDENTS make up a majority of voters, I’ll say it one more time, elections are an illusion of choice. The parties are not that different. The country has had the same problems for 50 years and will have them, likely worse, for the next 50 years. The recruits will still be bloviating the same bullshit in 2035 as they do in 2015.

      ILLUSIONS MR. Wordsworth (JAC) Illusions! 😉 The current system needs to be obsolete. It’s broken, corrupt and rigged against the average citizen.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        G

        “Committees” do not decide who gets to run, primary or otherwise. Neither do they recruit only one or two candidates and they have no power or authority to prevent anyone from running on their party’s ticket.

        Recruitment as well as support for candidates is by “individuals”. When enough support a single person they get more money, or support, than others. But that doesn’t gurantee they will be selected. Remember the crazy Tea Party candidate from Nevada? She WAS NOT the Republican State Committee choice or even the choice of the “leadership” in the state. Yet she ran and she won the primary.

        You say the average guy can’t play I say BS. The average guy just has to step up to the plate and show his/her ability.

        By the way, do you know how the Republican “Committee Men and Women” are selected in each State. I am talking about the various county and State Committees.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          While I can’t even fathom how you folks left of the big river do things politically, especially way out there in places like California, I did have a chance to go to a BBQ a several years back. My Uncle’s Judge friends (who he catered to their parties before he hurt his back) gave him two tickets to what would become a Democrat committeeman/woman selection/fundraiser dinner. Many of those in attendance were elected to office in Mahoning County Ohio, many others were just people who would generally be considered “well off” financially. Considering the large black population in the area, I think I saw 3 or 4 blacks at the most, all of whom were elected to office already. This was getting ready for the next election cycle.

          Similar to a High School President vote, people were nominated. There were requirements to be on the ballot, one was donations (yes, if you didn’t donate, you didn’t play). Once they announced that all the nominees were named and voting would take place until 8pm, we left at that point as it was boring (and the food wasn’t that good either). At least the beer was part of the ticket price.

          I did learn a few things that day from hobknobbing around with these people, which confirms some of your statements, anyone can run for office. If the committee doesn’t support the person, even if he/she is a party member, then the campaign funds don’t get allocated to that person. At least in that part of the world, if the MCDC didn’t make a person their nominee, there was very little chance of winning the election nor were the results even close.

          This was years ago and I’m sure some things have changed. Democrats are more open about their nefarious activities and don’t care who knows about it. It also may make me a little prejudice, but I grew up in an area well know for political corruption. Many of the very people at that BBQ have since been convicted of crimes of various natures. I’m sure you remember “beam Me Up Scotty” Jim Traficant. He was the Sheriff there long before hitting DC.

          This is an example of a County level political system. I couldn’t imagine what higher levels would be like, much less COST. But what I do know is that money talks and if you want elected in a vast majority of elections you better be the party nominee. Are there exceptions? There has to be. If the two parties maintained a complete, unfettered monopoly on all the elections, the people would revolt against the parties ,as in the example you have provided, who lost the general election. She was likely a sacrificial lamb, somehow showing the people that they needed to support their nominee to get a Republican elected, also knowing their candidate had no chance to win against Reid anyway.

          After watching the Republican Primary unfold in 2012, and watching how Ron Paul was jerked around in several states, It became clear that the parties will decide who their nominee is, one way or the other, despite what voters say. I think it was Democrats who voted in a republican primary down South last cycle to helped one guy win a runoff. At least that’s what was reported.

          I’m still sticking with Bush V. Clinton. That’s who the parties want. They have made this clear since the last election. Trump’s popularity is an example of the revolt against the party, Sander’s may be the same for the other side. Regardless, whoever gets “elected”, there will be no change in how things work in DC. The status quo will continue on. Sorry my friend, you will never convince me that elections are legitimate anymore. The illusion of choice is just that, an illusion. They pretend to wear different colored shirts, play the melodrama game in DC and then when it comes down to it, work together. Like I said, new Republican Congress, same old bullshit lies to the voters. Everything they said they would defund, got funded. No Sir, there is no choice, just more lies and more people who fall for them. I won’t anymore. Feel free to do so as long as you choose. PEACE 🙂

          • Occasionally, things do work out. The party DID NOT want Reagan, the party DID NOT want Goldwater.

            I see this whole thing as an interesting re-play of 1968.

            LBJ (Clinton) could not run. McCarthy (Sanders) had the balls to challenge the boss and took him down. For his efforts he was cast aside when Bobby Kennedy decided to jump in (Don’t know that we have a Bobby Kennedy this year, could have been Cuomo or Warren but they took themselves out, for the moment) Party not willing to go back to McCarthy (Sanders), instead decides to back the “safe” Humphrey (Biden). Chicago riots happen by SDS and other like minded individuals (occupy movement).

            Nixon (or any other Republican) wins.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    As I predicted, the Left calls killer the victim:

    Yet Think Progress suggested Flanagan was a victim of discrimination, saying that he “detailed discrimination he experienced as a gay, black man” in his suicide note. It repeated his allegations that the woman he killed “made racist remarks” (allegations with precisely no evidence to support them, made against a woman who is not even alive to defend herself), and that Flanagan “felt discrimination as a gay black man.”

    Even worse, some Think Progress readers justified the killings as making whites “begin to feel the heat of their actions,” saying that “if this happens in every instance of discrimination people would stop discrimination”; and that the killings were a way for black people “tired” of discrimination to make clear that they “will not bear this kind of treatment anymore.” Here is a collection of comments by Think Progress readers:

    Fredo Setay · City College

    The real issue is: that Blacks-folks are tired of this continuous horrific treatment of Blacks by whites, & their ancesters, & now the off-springs of these horrific ancesters with their alledgedly white privilege; unfortunately, some young Blacks simply can not handled this continued, horrific treatment by these “sick-minded” caucasians, & they(blacks) will not bear this kind of treatment anymore, as our ancestors did…So this is the consequence; now does the punishment fit the crime: “No”, but after centuries of this ill-gotten behavior, this is the outcome, unfortunately; nevertheless, this is what this hidious past & current behavior has created!..Aad those whites who continue, in some ways, to take advantage of Blacks, will begin to feel the heat of their actions!…Not condoning it, but cause & affect!…GOD Bless!!
    http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/27/think-progress-commenters-blame-victims-of-virginia-shooting/

  13. gmanfortruth says:
  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Maybe someone can answer a simple question….WHY would the cops demand such actions and what is their authority to do so?

    http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/08/what-first-amendment-virginia-state-police-forced-bbc-journalists-to-delete-video/

    • Answer: “I have a badge and a gun and you don’t.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        That mentality hasn’t been working out so well as of late. Unless they like being part of the ever growing “police state” which is being pushed back more and more. However, I just don’t have the badge part, maybe that’s why we don’t have issues with this nonsense and our local police.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    A little fun for the day:

    http://www.trendingly.com/country-quiz

    I’m a New Zealander, LOL

  16. gmanfortruth says:
  17. Just A Citizen says:
  18. gmanfortruth says:

    @Dale, Hope your getting ready for this seriously overhyped Tropical Storm that may come your way. When I was watching the video of the flooding on one of those islands, I could swear I saw that same video a few years back. That SUV with the water rushing by is a vivid memory, maybe a little fear mongering going on by the Weather folks?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      What tropical storm? The media has to hype something seeing that Florida hasn’t seen a major storm in 10 years.

      Wednesday, there was apparently a fairly violent storm blew through. I was away in Raleigh. Rarely do storms linger, they are quick. When I returned early Thursday, I thought that something came through. In the paper on Friday, there was a photo on page one of tons of telephone poles and power poles, laying on the ground. The utility guys were just looking at it seemingly saying where do we start. Later Thursday morning I drove through the exact same road and everything was up and no apparent damage. The storm had come through only 12 hours before. That brief storm, dropped 2″s of rain. Just the other day, one went through and dropped 4″ like you jumped in the pool.

      When something is seriously predicted, all the utility repair teams stage out of the State Fairgrounds up in Raleigh. It is equidistant to any part of the coast. All teams have a designated area. A priority 1-2-3 until all is up and running. If there is no damage in that area, they go home. It is always well planned and nobody is stepping on anybody’s toes. The teams all have their plan in pocket and have materials on hand. There is nobody that is trying to assess what needs doing at some central point and re-deploying teams thereby, creating chaos. It is a tried and true very efficient emergency plan.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        If a heavy storm has not been through for awhile. The city utlity teams clear away branches and trees that look like they will cause damage. Usually they’re right. The 100 year flood is about a 10ft above sea level surge. That is due to mostly wind blowing up the sound and meeting the influx of water coming down the Neuse and Trent Rivers that meet at New Bern. The city is 13 feet above sea level. Not that there isn’t water flowing out to the waterfront or drains but we are OK. A neighboring city though floods badly. It happens to be where all the RICH families live and they wanted good river frontage. They get it right in their living rooms.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Since June, we have been quite dry. Normal temps for the most part, but no major weather issues. This usually means we’ll pay for the nice weather down the road, most likely with lots of snow.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/08/27/mexico-warns-texas-not-to-refuse-its-babies-usbirth-certificates/

    The issue of the 14th Amendment and anchor babies may be answered in Texas. IMHO, the 14th does not grant automatic citizenship to these babies, what say all of you?

    • Yesterday on the radio, I caught a comment where one of the 14th amendment sponsoring senators was questioned about intent sometime in the late 19th century. He was adamant that it pertained only to slaves. If you read sections 2, 3 and 4 it is clear the amendment was pertaining to the Post Civil War era. Note the words “rebellion” in 2, 3 and 4. #5 is interesting too. Wiggle room would seem to allow Congress to state the kids birth citizenship but deny residency until majority if they felt like it. In other words, here is your US passport, now go home for 18 years.

      Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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

      Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

      Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

      Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

      Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m pretty sure we are on the same page on this one. The 14th was written solely for the freed slaves (as far as citizenship). That’s where that comma and part about Jurisdiction came in. The whole 14th anchor baby argument is made up Left Wing BS that qualifies as one of those lies, that if told enough, becomes truth. I loved it when Left Winger Bill O’Reilly exposed himself to the world while interviewing Trump on the subject. Have you noticed FOX making a turn to the Left as of late? First Kelly, then O’Reilly. A perfect example how the establishment media are in truth, simply trying to protect the establishment. The anchor baby issue is another great example of propaganda run amok. Still, the sheople fall for it.

        • Fox is for Fox. They like to babble on about being conservative but they are basically just for more of the same only slowly.

          We have had two court rulings in the past few days one where a judge says “illegals” have a Constitutional right to bear arms and another where the judge orders detained illegals released.

          Fox will tell us we must obey, we must be a “Nation of Laws”. They never seem to bother explaining the illogic involved, never use the bully pulpit they have to denounce these crazed jurists. Never, ever rise to oppose unqualified nominees to the bench. When the courts are lawless why should we have to obey them? Hate to say it but while Andy Jackson might have been on the wrong side of the issue, his contempt for the court may have been right. Let us all hope Texas tells them to shove it. Love to see Obama try and send in the marshals to arrest the legislature and governor and declare them in “rebellion”. Perhaps then he could use those three other provisions in the 14th Amendment and appoint Al Sharpton provisional governor of Texas. .

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Andrew Jackson’s contempt for the court was primarily due to the “Court” making up law. Just like today. He appointed Tenay to the court, whose ruling were totally based on the Constitution. Change the Constitution and his rulings, ie the striking down the “Missouri Compromise” and the Dred Scot ruling would have been different…he’s getting painted as a racist bar none, but when he inherited the family assets…he freed them in 1819. He did NOT rule the way Lincoln and the Radical Republican party wanted him to rule on constitutional issues. So history gets revised.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Sorry…Chief Justice Taney. Strong believer in “States” rights. Strong believer in the “Constitution”. Strong believer in “Property” rights as defined in the Constitution. He did not make law while on the bench. He ruled on the law. What most history forgets or suppresses in the two famous cases. is that his vote on the bench was NOT a tie breaking vote like so many of our current justices votes. The Missouri vote and the Dred Scot votes were almost unanimous. Not quite but close. Not based on racism or bigotry…but the rule of the constitutional law as it was at the time.

              • Points well taken.

                Question is how to rein in the courts when they go off the rails? Pretending that they have some “divine right” is nuts. I would rather have taken my chances on the Delphic Oracle and interpreting pigeon guts rather than the 5-4 split in the court on most issues.

                America is one of the few nations that has a relatively simple way to change the constitution yet few, left or right either acknowledge or use it. Been thinking about that for a long time. Seems that when the society reaches a point where it recognizes things should change, amendments move swiftly, 13, 14, 15, Suffrage, Prohibition, Repeal, presidential succession. Yet, when society realizes that things are not really what is being promoted (ERA), they die on the vine. Instead, the politicians seem to welcome the intervention of a court which allows them to duck and cover while sprouting platitudes. .

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Let the wizards in the black robes rule. They’re un-elected. They can be blamed for all the flaws in a law good or bad.

                Notice on appeal the courts ruled that the collection of mass data without a warrant is OK. They ducked the issue but actually saying the people in the case had NO standing because they couldn’t prove any harm much less that the government even collect information on them specifically. But also the government blocked and wouldn’t turn over any information claiming secrecy. They also said do a wait and see. The provisions allowing such data gathering are due to expire in a few months….let us see what Congress does…..They’ll just quietly renew the provisions and make them harder to uncover.

              • You know, that reminds me a lot of the Swiss courts where where relatives of folks killed in the Holocaust sought to recover insurance or bank proceeds and were denied because they really couldn’t prove the victim was dead without a death certificate.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/26/obama-punishes-kansas-for-de-funding-planned-parenthood-by-cutting-its-medicaid-funding/

    Proof the Dems don’t really care about womens health. They are more concerned with eugenics than they will admit, but actions speak for louder than words.

  21. gmanfortruth says:
  22. gmanfortruth says:

    http://americanactionnews.com/articles/source-fbi-a-team-leading-serious-probe-of-clinton-s-private-email-server

    Numerous questions concerning this wench. Will Obama’s justice department actually do anything if the wench did break the law? Could she have knowingly committed espionage? Even if she is charged and convicted, will Obama or the next prez pardon her?

    I still think this goes nowhere and she comes out as the victim, just sayin.

    • See my comment above. 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      She did break the law. A Federal felony offense, Obama broke the law knowing full well she was using a private server. All to have deniability from Congressional oversight when Congress gets supeoned (sp) “official” documents…..but please do not forget…”This is all a vast Right Wing conspiracy”…oh that was the last scandal or was that the one prior to that.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    President

    Kentucky: In a move designed to help favorite son Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican Party state convention delegates voted to change their presidential primary to a caucus. Doing so allows Paul to continue his campaign for President and simultaneously seek re-election. The agreement includes Sen. Paul being responsible for financing the $500,000 needed to pay for caucus logistics. If the money is not raised by certain deadlines, the process will revert to a May primary. The new Kentucky presidential caucus is scheduled for March 5th.
    – See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/kentucky-will-now-have-a-caucus-for-the-republican-primary#sthash.VCeyG6hX.dpuf

    Call me a skeptic, but why do I see this as more of an anti-Trump move versus a favor to Rand Paul? IF, this is something that begins to domino and other states are also going to make similar changes, it sure would make all those accusations of who picks who to run for election gain a lot more steam. BUT, as is the norm, this little beta test may just be to see how it’s perceived. If it’s perceived as just a favor for Paul, versus and protection move for the establishment, then I can see more states making the change. I doubt Iowa would be one of them. Wisconsin, South Carolina, Louisiana and a few others may follow suit. We should all be watching this closely.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      What the hell you talking about??

      This has been in the works long before Trump announced running. The issue only exists in States that prohibit multiple listings of a single person on the ballots.

      Furthermore, this only deals with the Primary. Paul will have to choose which office he is going to run for when it comes to the General election.

      By the way, IOWA is already a Caucus state.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Well, after some further review, it’s all just an attempt to circumvent state election laws concerning one person running for two jobs on the ballot. Makes sense that the so called Libertarian would try and work around existing laws. Maybe this is just a common theme for politicians as a whole, laws be damned, we are above them (or can damn sure find a way around them). Hell, as many laws as Obama has already circumvented, he might as well just sign an EO and run for a 3rd term. I’m sure the left would vote for him again 🙂

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        FYI….reading from Cornell Law about the law concerning a 3rd term has NOT been challenged yet by someone actually running for a 3rd term. It has been thought about but there was always some mitigating factor that the party considering it dropped the thought. Health, Impeachment etc….do not rule it out…Obama is an expert at Constitutional law.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Just think how lucky Clinton was by not being able to run as a convicted felon for a 3rd term. 9/11 could have been blamed on him

  24. Just A Citizen says:
  25. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Headline in this mornings local paper: The local SAR team stationed out of Havelock is being shut down. Not only is it headquartered out of one of the world’s largest military airfields, but we have many other airstations in the area, including Symour Johnson AFB, Fayetteville and all the army there. Plus tons of WATER and the carolina coast. The function is being moved to Dayton Ohio. Makes total sense with all the water and military and personal watercraft activity there vs here. The gap is slated to be filled by CAP. They’re questioning how they will do that….Our tax dollars at work turning a finely tuned service for civilian and military purposes and wasting it for political hay.

  26. Everybody remember this-back then I didn’t know babies being born alive and intact was a money making situation.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14987-planned-parenthood-rep-gives-chilling-testimony-on-post-birth-abortion

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    PREDICTION

    Tonight and/or tomorrows headline reports: FIRES EXPLODE in Northwest.

    We are currently getting high winds, hot and dry high winds, with lightening. Smoke so thick you can cut it with a knife.

    You easterners should start getting some of this soon, if you aren’t already.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Remember, it is the intellectuals who shape the world;

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/at_war_with_reality.html

    or in this case, the ANTI Intellectuals.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    SK

    Well stated Sir:

    “………. Been thinking about that for a long time. Seems that when the society reaches a point where it recognizes things should change, amendments move swiftly, 13, 14, 15, Suffrage, Prohibition, Repeal, presidential succession. Yet, when society realizes that things are not really what is being promoted (ERA), they die on the vine. Instead, the politicians seem to welcome the intervention of a court which allows them to duck and cover while sprouting platitudes. .”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Let’s not forget that the power of propaganda on the people can be a very powerful thing. How often has socialism been recently proven to be a losing ideology (Venezuela, Greece and others), yet way to many people seem to think it’s the way to go. How many societies in history have followed the deadly trail of propaganda? Germany comes to mind. The US is not immune and sure seems to be heading in the same direction as past failed societies.

  30. gmanfortruth says:
  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Man’s Rights
    by Ayn Rand

    If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, capitalism — one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”

    “Rights” are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

    Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter — and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.

    Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience — on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”

    This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first — ”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god — the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens — the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome — the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages — the absolute monarchy of France — the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia — the gas chambers of Nazi Germany — the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.

    All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics — and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.

    The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.

    The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

    All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

    A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action — specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

    Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

    The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

    Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

    The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God — others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

    The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind — a rational being — that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

    “The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A — and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)

    To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

    The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

    Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals — and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government — as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

    The result was the pattern of a civilized society which — for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years — America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships — in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

    This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently practiced.

    America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.

    It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin.

    A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency — so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” negate authentic rights.

    Consider the curious fact that never has there been such a proliferation, all over the world, of two contradictory phenomena: of alleged new “rights” and of slave-labor camps.

    The “gimmick” was the switch of the concept of rights from the political to the economic realm.

    The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a Democratic Administration “will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago.”

    Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of “rights” when you read the list which the platform offers:

    “1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

    “2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

    “3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

    “4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

    “5. The right of every family to a decent home.

    “6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

    “7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

    “8. The right to a good education.”

    A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?

    Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values — goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

    If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

    Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

    No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

    A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort.

    Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness — not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

    The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

    The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

    The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

    Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

    There is no such thing as “a right to a job” — there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man — rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

    Property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only “economic rights” (they are, in fact, political rights) — and there can be no such thing as “an economic bill of rights.” But observe that the advocates of the latter have all but destroyed the former.

    Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal — and men have legal protection against him.

    Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors — the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions — perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.

    Now observe the process by which that protection is being destroyed.

    The process consists of ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government (which private citizens have no power to commit) and thus freeing the government from all restrictions. The switch is becoming progressively more obvious in the field of free speech. For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”

    It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.

    It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them.

    It is “censorship,” they claim, if a TV sponsor objects to some outrage perpetrated on a program he is financing — such as the incident of Alger Hiss being invited to denounce former Vice-President Nixon.

    And then there is [Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] Newton N. Minow who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming — and who claims that that is not censorship.

    Consider the implications of such a trend.

    “Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.

    But according to such doctrines as the “economic bill of rights,” an individual has no right to dispose of his own material means by the guidance of his own convictions — and must hand over his money indiscriminately to any speakers or propagandists, who have a “right” to his property.

    This means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil — that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions-that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license — while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility.

    But since it is obviously impossible to provide every claimant with a job, a microphone or a newspaper column, who will determine the “distribution” of “economic rights” and select the recipients, when the owners’ right to choose has been abolished? Well, Mr. Minow has indicated that quite clearly.

    And if you make the mistake of thinking that this applies only to big property owners, you had better realize that the theory of “economic rights” includes the “right” of every would-be playwright, every beatnik poet, every noise-composer and every nonobjective artist (who have political pull) to the financial support you did not give them when you did not attend their shows. What else is the meaning of the project to spend your tax money on subsidized art?

    And while people are clamoring about “economic rights,” the concept of political rights is vanishing. It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support. The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression — not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.

    The Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It does not demand that private citizens provide a microphone for the man who advocates their destruction, or a passkey for the burglar who seeks to rob them, or a knife for the murderer who wants to cut their throats.

    Such is the state of one of today’s most crucial issues: political rights versus “economic rights.” It’s either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no “economic rights,” no “collective rights,” no “public-interest rights.” The term “individual rights” is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

    Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man’s rights.

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      There is nothing more to say. That about sums it all up, what the contributors to SUFA are trying to get across in our comments.

      Like the big discussion here and in the nation. OK the court has said that a women has control of her body and has unrestricted rights to an abortion. That said does not mean that I have to contribute to that abortion, or that all physicians have to perform one. You want one, fine pay for it and there will be somebody who will perform the procedure, maybe even for free.

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Somebody has to say it so might as well be the first.

    LL World Series…………..JUICED BATS………..JUICED BALLS …………… or BOTH?????

    The number of home runs is one thing, but opposite field and 30 feet beyond the fence, again and again????????????

    • Anybody check for Steroids?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why so shocked? Consider the NFL players of the 60’s versus today. Humans are evolving along with all the stuff that helps them (even the legal stuff). We, as a people, are growing bigger and stronger. Maybe the LL should catch up and match the playing field to the evolution. Just comparing how athletes have changed over the last few decades, it’s safe to say it starts at a young age.

      Athletes are changing, their support products are immense and training has also evolved. It’s growing and the old school folks don’t understand, kind of like in politics, the old school thought is that everything is legit. Things evolve with technology, sometimes not for the better.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      On a side note. I have never looked into how many LL players that get to the highest level make the big leagues. Do you have any knowledge of this? I also would wonder if it’s not time to make the LL league fields bigger, to match the changing evolution.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        In the group of LL players I was with, around 6 made it to the major leagues. Most notible was Rick Dempsey, who the coaches said would not amount to anything. Through High School at least a dozen made it and had careers in the majors.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    With September 1st coming tomorrow, I thought I would put up a list of all of the bad things that people are predicting will happen in September. Much of this is from the conspiracy world, some from the religious world, some from the economic world. An odd convergence for anyone who reads this stuff. So, here goes:

    A meteor is going to hit earth in late September
    The return of Planet X, Nibiru (don’t ask me what this is about)
    The Rapture
    the second coming of Jesus
    The antichrist is named
    world economic collapse
    US economic collapse
    death of the US dollar
    Martial law in the US (not even remotely likely)
    US cities nuked
    Pope announces alien life
    China/Russia and NK declare war against the US
    EMP attack wipes out electric grid (I have issue with the EMP theories)
    Imports stopped due to food safety scare (food shortage)
    Major food shortage (pick a reason)
    Pope announces that Muslims and Catholics unite their religion
    Obama claims UN gun treaty law of land, rebellion begins
    Obama assassination (or attempt) leads to massive civil unrest
    Massive earthquake/volcano events shake the planet, billions killed
    Fallen angels return
    New world reserve currency announced
    petro dollar declared dead
    new world government announced
    US invaded
    The ultra wealthy disappear into their safe houses, leading to a mass panic
    The MSM and politicians actually tell the truth for one full day

    That’s from memory, LOL. Lots of doom and gloom, that’s for sure. The good news….the NFL starts which provides a nice break from the doom and gloom.

    Have a great week 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      G

      In the mood to play the game today. Cooler temps and rain have lifted the mood around here.

      Two of this list are not beyond reason, if one assumes the forces of disruption are in fact at play.

      “Obama claims UN gun treaty law of land, rebellion begins
      Obama assassination (or attempt) leads to massive civil unrest”

      I could see a “staged” assassination attempt which leads to public outrage and Obama declaring new Gun Control actions. Supported by a unified Democrats in Congress. By staged I do not mean phony but that some wingnut is goaded into the attempt. More than likely he will be White.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We have some hot dry weather hitting for the next week or so, nothing terrible.

        On the treaty issue, Kerry has signed it, despite the Senate not voting on it yet. It’s not likely to pass anyway. Nothing Obama would attempt would surprise me, he thinks he is above the Constitution anyway.

        On the assassination (or attempt), this wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Since he took office, he and his minions have reversed decades of peaceful efforts at improving race relations. Now, it won’t take much to get some real race riots going on. I also don’t think that is a good idea for blacks, but that seems to be what Obama and his minions want.

        I missed a few on that list, like why are they building what looks like guard towers at new shopping malls? (why are they building new malls at all). You know, fun stuff like that, LOL.

        On a different note, the Seahawks O-line don’t look very good this preseason. That could be a problem.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          G

          I told ya this summer the Hawks had a problem on Offense.

          The pre season also shows that the league learned from New England’s success in the super bowl.

          Right now I would have to pick Philly as THE TEAM for this year. Of course injuries will decide.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Philly is looking very good. This season seems to be without a serious favorite for the trophy. Between injuries, suspensions, good players changing teams, new coaches and just a lot of overall change, it’s going to be a fun year (as long as the world don’t end in September, LOL). I’m still a Dolphins fan and happy with what they are doing. Did you see that piledriver tackle by the redskins player against Baltimore? I thought that was dirty and worthy of a big fine.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              G

              No, I missed that. Seems the Sports Media has decided to Shred the Redskins on just about everything. Makes one wonder if it is really related to that logo/name!

  34. Wow, things are worse than I thought. Sexual freedom, not so much-sounds more like an obligation which is required to be considered Cool.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/31/what-the-left-and-right-dont-get-about-campus-rape/

    • Had a horrible thought this morning after a night of tossing and turning. We are stuck with Obama precisely because we were so anti-abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade.

      With his Mum, Granny and Grandad being such progressives, wonder what they would have done with an unwanted pregnancy had they the option.

      Forget the birth certificate, anybody ever seen the marriage certificate>?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        SK…you have to stop eating spicy food before going to bed, your nightmares will be reduced……One now has to wonder why is Obama still running for president?

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    BUCK……….. make sure to read this.

    This should make a few of you squirm.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/an_objective_guide_to_birthright_citizenship_comments.html#disqus_thread

    I just love the comments dismissing the author as “emotional” or “politically motivated”. When the RIGHT show themselves to be STUPID.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS ends up ruling on this, which they likely will some day. I don’t think the 14th grants citizenship for anchor babies, but, I didn’t think the Scotus can rewrite laws either (or simply make new ones up). While the immigration issue seems to be a hot topic, it’s not that high on my list of importance.

    • One question-can an illegal’s child go to the Mexican authorities if they get into legal troubles in the United States?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.
        I assume your talking about “citizens”. So the answer is NO.

        EXCEPT, their Parents would have access to Mexican consulates and courts. The Mexican Govt is currently intervening on behalf of “anchor babies” that Texas has refused to issue Birth Certificates.

        I find that one very interesting. Seems to me it exposes the real Mexican Govt. agenda. After all, what business is it of theirs? None. So what they are doing is intervening on behalf of a Mexican citizen trying to claim American citizenship.

        You hit on a great point. so lets take it to its conclusion. Does Mexico recognize “Natural Born” citizens of Mexico under the same rules as other western nations. That is, do they recognize the birth of a child to Mexican citizens as a citizen of Mexico, regardless of where that child is born??

        If so the anchor baby policy is automatically granting DUEL citizenship, something that has long been frowned upon in the US of A.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

  37. gmanfortruth says:
  38. Fox has begun the full court press against Trump. Tonight O’Reilly, the sage, declared that Trump is taking attention away from Obama’s screw-ups and helping the democrats. Forget that conventional wisdom has always said “don’t run against the guy who is leaving”. Right after, his first guest was Krauthammer who of course agreed. The Kennedy show on Fox business, had its panel do the usual Trump jokes after the Mt. McKinley joke. One of those 40W bulbs thought how terrible when McKinley gave us the Southwest in the Spanish American war! The hostess (can I still say hostess?) demonstrated her AP American History Credits by suggesting naming a mountain in the Southwest Mt. McKinley.

    God help us all, we are doomed!

    have a hunch we will see less of Anne Coulter and Laura Ingram on Fox. Lou Dobbs has been pretty good on the Trump thing, let’s see if he is allowed to continue.

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Time to comment on Mr. O’s lil trip to Alaska. While the Cons are tying themselves in knots over changing the name of a Mtn. nobody has asked why Mr. O is using Alaska as his backdrop for the FINAL PUSH on Global Warming policies.

    So far I have seen little in the media that explains the why either.

    Someone has to do it so might as well be me……………….. Alaska is one of those places that has experienced significant changes linked to Climate changes. Many skeptics in Alaska are now believers that “sumthin is up” because they are seeing big changes in ecosystems, fishing patterns, etc. etc..

    I am speculating that Mr. O chose Alaska for his speechifian because he hopes to get otherwise hostile or neutral crowds to come out and cheer on global warming.

    A recent discussion I had with an Alaskan amounted to him claiming that more and more scientists and other “experts” are convinced of AGW. I explained that where actual climate scientists have been exposed to the full range of information the number “supporting” the AGW conclusions has shrunk. He said this was ridiculous based on his own experience.

    I see that both sides of this debate are once again throwing around polling data among scientists as well as the “number who review” papers as meaningful in some way. Well it is not important. Not unless those “peer reviews” included go over the original data and all the adjustments made to that data. Otherwise each scientist claiming the work looks good is operating from the assumptions made by the original work.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It was either you or another that posted that July was the hottest month ever and the oceans were the warmest ever as well, that coming from NOAA. While I find that claim absurd, it’s an example of the same lies better repeated over and over, until people start to believe them. It gets to a point where people make stuff up to support their claims. This is common with the Climate Change cultists. Consider the “warmest ocean temps” claim. If true, we would be have quite a hurricane season on the Atlantic side. The problem, we aren’t having much of anything except the opposite of what usually happens, the storms are dying where they would normally grow bigger. As a country, I think that both severe storms and tornados are down this year. I know severe thunderstorms are way down here, very little lightening and other things associated with a severe storms.

      Why Alaska? Maybe because it is actually being affect by the fallout of Fukushima. It seems that the ocean life is taking a hit and from what I’ve read, the fishing industry is in big trouble. I have to look deeper in the claims of some places fixing to be under water, but I doubt it has anything to do with the melting ice claim. To claim that a melting ice sheet is going to ONLY affect a few small villages is nonsense. Good thoughts on the subject.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Gman

        You have built a wall of fallacy around yourself. Your argument against others is a “claim” that they are all liars. Thus truth can never enter your compound as it is dismissed out of hand due to who might be carrying it.

        Alaska has been undergoing noticeable changes for many years now. A large part of this is the warmer “ocean currents” which move around the Pacific. Great White sharks showing up in Alaskan waters is but one example of this change. It also affects the climate/weather along the coastal areas, where most people live.

        Forest insect activity has significantly increased and in much of the interior this cannot be accounted for by increased forest density, as the Black Spruce does not change that fast. Insect brood periods have been longer than historically recorded. Allowing greater broods and in some cases multiple broods. Some of this is temperature related, and some is related to “epidemic” population levels. The latter is usually ignored by those trying to hang everything on temps.

        And of course, Glaciers are melting at record rates. Significant changes are visible to those living in the State. All of this feeds into the increased recognition/acceptance of the public there that “warming” is real.

        The naysayers claim we have not had “warming” in 17 years. The data shows there is in fact “warming”. The issue is whether that warning is “statistically significant”. The other is whether it matches up with the model predictions. The failure of models is the biggest hole in the arguments if it were not for the “range of predictions”. Those AGW folks played CYA early in the game so it is hard to show that anything does not meet their “predictions”.

        The media does us no favor in this because they report the idiotic “global temp” as if there is such a thing that has any meaning. The least we should see in the way of information is how the temps and moisture regimes have changed by climatic region, not by some global or national average.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I have always been quite clear that man-made global warming/climate change is political bullshit based on lies. Those lies started from the very beginning with Al Gore and continue to this day as the faux climate scientists regularly “adjust” temperature readings so that it fits their agenda.

          That is not saying that areas are not undergoing changes in climate conditions, but I’m not buying the man-made crap. California is going through some changes, because of drought. But is this really unusual? Is it possible that California was a desert way back in history before people walked the earth? I believe I have read that somewhere, but that’s not the point.

          What I don’t understand is why people like Obama and the Left seem to think that things people can do will have any effect at all on any of these natural changes. You mention the insect changes. Is it not possible that insects have simply adapted better to the environment? Even we the people adapt to the local climate if we live there long enough.

          I think we have an el nino thing coming this fall/winter too. That should keep the waters warm. I have also noticed that as a planet, there seems (just an observation) that there is more than normal volcanic activity, which could also account for some Pacific warming. Let’s not forget to look into what the Fukushima nuclear disaster effects may be. This isn’t reported on much. (mostly ignored by the MSM). Maybe someone with some scientific expertise can chime in on some of these things.

          Oh, Obama is a liar and a compulsive one at that. You can start there on a lengthy list of those who can’t tell the truth because it would fail their political agenda. Like the Climate change cultist’s, for example.

        • Ah, not so fast old friend.

          From the USGS:
          “Hubbard Glacier, the largest calving glacier on the North American Continent (25 percent larger than Rhode Island), advanced across the entrance to 35-mile-long Russell Fiord (fig.1) during June 2002, temporarily turning it into a lake. Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord ”

          http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/alaska-hubbard-glacier-growth

          Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months,” according to the report.

          The biggest shrinkage witnessed in the region occurred between 1741 and 1900, during which the glaciers lost about 15 per cent of their total mass as the earth began to exit the climatological period coined the Little Ice Age.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            🙂 Glad you posted this. A great example of how the AGW crowd makes statements that are simply lies. They say them because they think it adds to their argument. When called out, they claim the facts are lies, but never provide anything of substance to back it up. I don’t Think JAC is a Warmer, but I could be wrong. Maybe he’s just playing devil’s advocate and using what he gets back with another argument at another site. Who knows. I simply think the AGW movement is a cult and is based on bullshit that lacks anything close to good science.

            How are you and the daughter doing? My foot is healing, still can’t put weight on it, but at least it don’t need surgery. Hope you two are having a good week, PEACE!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You did look at your own citation right??

            You know, the pictures of the glacier that RETREATED 30 miles in the last century.

            As I said, the natives of Alaska are claiming that THEY have witnessed significant retreat of glaciers in their memory. Thus it makes for a convenient and useful place for Obama to find sympathizers among those who otherwise oppose his policies.

            • Oh, the “natives” have seen shit. Yeah, and they walked 20 miles in the snow uphill both ways to school…..

              No, the glacier so offered has grown, and shrunk, and grown …. all natural. Nothing to see there, period. Any claims about glaciers trend are completely stupid. No one knows. Certainty in such claims as science is a sign of junk science.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        G

        This is Antarctica, not the Arctic, but it shows some very interesting information. Note the significant change in patter in the last 50 years. But also notice the “cycles” that show up.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The chart sees fairly consistent with changing sun activity. I see nothing odd to be honest. Looks like we are at the upper end of natural changes and looking at the past we are due for a sharp drop. That’s a bummer, I would prefer slightly warmer temps, not to much, maybe a degree but not much more that that. Warmer weather is good!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            You see nothing odd? You are blind. Look at the duration of the highs in past peaks. Now look at the duration of the high in the latest peak.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, the numbers have been “adjusted”. This has only been proven, like, 50 times since the whole GW fraud has been going on.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                My data was temperature in Antarctica. It was not about sea ice extent.

                I would add on your subject that “sea ice extent” is not comparable either if it does not address “thickness” of the ice.

                It seems to me that VOLUME of ice would be the proper metric if the concern is the affect of melting on ocean levels. If it is only about Polar Bears then the metric should be Square Kilometer of ice that is at least X thick. X being the thickness needed to support the Bears hunting on the Ice.

                Note, if the issue is bears then it is a “habitat issue” and the “climate” data is only marginally useful in identifying suitable habitat.

              • 1) No reason, Merely arbitrary. Why not pick 1,000 years ago? 10,000? 100? The last 10?
                All are as “reasoned’ as any of them. Thus, depending on which side of the argument, the base is moved.

                2) Sure, but you have to measure the distortions so to correct them. The intake problem is easy, since one can pour water through the pipe and measure the difference. The issue with the intakes was each ship is different, so it was hard to correlate, BUT it was absolutely KNOWABLE – all it took was a proper comparative measure.

                But this is not the case with land temperature data.

                The problem is where -once again- arbitrary corrections to past land data is made. There is no underlying reason to why older temperatures are reduced – there was no prevalent Urban Heat Island effect and why present temperatures are increased – when there is already a distortion due to UHIE. It is merely made by the statistical nonsense I presented, averaging averages with an calculated alpha. As already provided to Congress under oath, statisticians have refuted this methodology as corrupt, yet, such proclamations make no difference on the junk science.

                The oceans temp. are inconclusive. It depends where and depth you measure. The second issue is the matter of water, as you know, water heats slowly and releases heat slowly. Easy to figure in a glass of water, infinitely harder to figure for an ocean that currents operate in 3D.

                Sure, humans have an effect, but it is irrelevant. It is lost in the noise of nature. You can remove human activity, and you cannot see a difference – the feature of chaotic systems.

                Shaking a paint can shaker – certainly you can claim an effect – but stop your shaking and the paint can shaker still shakes. You cannot say that the marble inside would be “here” instead of “there” minus or plus your shaking. The marble continues to bounce around in chaos, with or without, your inputs. Additionally, your shaking, if measured, accounts for a difference 10x LESS then the natural variation. You can’t even measure it as it is lost in the natural noise of nature’s variances.

                In other words, we can continue to act as we have, or stop, and nothing changes. It’s like yelling into a jet engine; sure your voice adds energy to the noise, but does it make a difference to the decibels?…. nah.

                As far as the 30’s; it is missing. Adding wrong data replacing “raw” data IS in fact “missing data”. If you delete a data set and add your own, you can hardly claim “well, we included it” – such a statement is disingenuous.

                There has been no increase in 19 years (not 17). That is the facts. Pointing to graphs that conveniently start pre-1995 only show an increase in the late 90’s – and the average from there is only 0.02 per decade, but it is all in those few years. Given it only took 9 years to proclaim a “global warming crisis” and 19 years later, no such thing exists – to hold on to the 9 years over the 19 years is perverse.

                No, the onus is ON YOU. To place arguments in favor of the meme of climate change, YOU MUST PROVIDE THE SCIENCE, not hide behind ignorance and merely say “all I am is repeating the shit other people say”. If YOU CANNOT DISCERN SHIT FROM SCIENCE, then, my old friend, SHUT UP.

                T-ray:
                100% of scientists say the climate changes. To pretend this is the same as scientists believing it is man-made is stupid. That is the sickness that infects yours and many other people’s head. You fail to discern the argument properly.

                Solar cells can never replace other common energy sources. It is simply not possible, nor affordable. The consequences of such a belief are staggering. As the sun does not always shine, to maintain the grid, you need to use variable grid power. Coal turbines are not easily variable; so you replace inexpensive coal generation with more natural gas and oil fueled energy to sit on standby when the solar/wind fail. Thus, you do not reduce the infrastructure, you increase it, and you are paying through the nose for this.

                …or you get to suffer brown outs or black outs.

                Pick your poison if you wish to continue down that path. There are REAL REASONS we use the energy sources we do – it is not a conspiracy, it is ECONOMICS, and the ignorant lay man is equal in his ignorance of economics as he is in his ignorance of science, math, climate etc.

              • Thickness vs extent.
                Sorry, no argument. Ice expands based on its thickness. There is a direct correlation. This is the same as the stupid argument about trees, that new growth trees are somehow inferior to old growth trees. No, sorry, a tree is a tree. A 10″ thick old tree makes as much useful wood as a 10″ new tree.

                Indeed, bears do not care about thickness at all, don’t worry about the bears. There are more of them then ever, and it has nothing to do with ice.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        G

        And another which segregates by Latitude.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Hasn’t NASA already been caught fudging the numbers? Or was it NOAA? Maybe both 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            G

            Nobody has been caught “Fudging” numbers. Just more rhetoric by those who lack understanding. Make that Wall of Fallacy much stronger so you don’t have to worry about truth.

            The question should be what “adjustments” were made and “why” were they made. And then of course, “how” were they made.

            Fudging eludes to “made up numbers”. That is not what has been happening with the data. If you want to debate the accuracy of the various adjustments that is quite fine. But simply dismissing them because you view them as “fudging” amounts to nothing but “confirmation bias” or worse, “cognitive dissonance”.

            As with most who claim AGW is a LIE, you seem to have precluded any option other than your conclusion. Yet that conclusion seems to be based more on “belief” than on “truth”.

            Don’t take me all wrong on that point. There are many on the “pro” AGW side who do the same thing.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Yes, they have and it has been proven, and I have linked it on numerous times. That’s not important. Here’s what is. The climate changes and does so without man even being a factor (as proven by your chart). The highs in the latest peaks may seem strange to you, but I don’t recall having very accurate instruments measuring the peaks thousands of years ago. Is it even possible to accurately claim what the earths mean temperature was 2000 years ago? Considering how new findings are constantly changing what scientists believed just 10 years ago, the whole climate science issue is rather useless, because we, that’s us people, can’t change the climate, and can’t unchanged the climate. Just when the “experts” claim something, things change and makes the claims look like bad science.

              I think they are trying hard to figure out all the climate stuff, but are so far from having even a remote understanding that it’s silly to even give it much attention. The only attention being demanded are by those who want to enrich themselves on a fallacy that hasn’t been remotely close to what they have claimed. The problem I have is that these people want to enrich themselves at the expense of my financial well being and I ain’t playing that game.

              As a prepper, I have looked in depth to alternative electrical generation in my area. We don’t have enough sunny days or enough wind to have efficient green energy. Efficient energy is what keeps this country going. The AGW crowd would like to destroy our Capitalist country and the best way to achieve that is by destroying efficient cheap energy. They at the UN have already admitted that this is the goal (I can provide the link again if you would like).

              Back to your top chart, we are due for a big drop, I’m sure you can see that. As far as the length of the high period, I’m really not buying it. But I am concerned about the coming drop off in temps, that part of the chart should be far more concerning.

              PEACE!

            • Not true. They have been fudging the numbers, and your links demonstrate it.

              It is a statistical MISTAKE that they repeat over and over, no matter how many times statisticians tell them that their methodology is wrong.

              Simply, with this demonstration:
              Data:
              1,4,12,14,6, 9 (sum=46, mean=7.6)
              Then, GISS and NASA, raise the lower numbers by an alpha difference between the mean and the raw, and lower the higher numbers by an alpha difference between the mean and the raw.

              Then when new data is added – the new data point average is added to the new data point, say “10”, plus 7.6, giving 17.6, with a new mean. What this does is MAGNIFY the current data point by a factor of 6 (in our example) since the previous mean was a composite of 6 data points, into 1 and the latter is a single data point.

              Thus any current temperature anomaly is MAGNIFIED in its influence on any concept of a mean.

              Further, they compare current data points with historical (but have been “fixed” by the alpha difference), they then make foolish declarations about the significance “hottest year ever stupidity) by comparing manipulated data with raw data points.

              It’s all junk.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Why does it seem that the 30’s are somewhat missing?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            G

            What 30’s are missing? The latitude data covers all but the last 10 degrees in the North and South.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Sorry, I meant the decade, which to date still holds a vast majority of record high temps (winter and summer) . It is still claimed to be the warmest decade since records were kept. The problem is that the AGW crowd has to ignore that, because it don’t fit the agenda.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Once again the academia supporting the left reveals itself. The ignorance is astounding:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/we-are-asking-too-much-of_b_8062506.html

  41. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I am surprised that nobody picked up that the University of Texas has removed its statue of Jefferson Davis. It is being placed in a more appropriate setting. They are however leaving in place ALL the other statues of famous officers. Just glancing through the list of those remaining in place seemed to have a common thread even though they mostly were conferderate officers. They served with distinction in the Mexican American War. Then what about Davis? He did also. I think it’s a bit like what was poseted earlier today about the ignorance even on Fox news about McKinley. Hey all the journalist come from the same schools…..But then again Austin is Austin in Texas and a tumor of liberality waiting to matastasize (sp)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Dale

      But I saw where they were also going to move Woodrow Wilson to restore the visual balance to the quad. In my view sacrificing Jefferson Davis to get rid of Wilson is a good trade.

      Now lets see if they follow up. Am also curious if the Colonel is going to cut his Alumni donations to UT! 🙂

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Now are they moving Woodrow Wilson in place of Davis. Now that would be wrong given that Wilson was an avowed racist with all his academic smarts and resegregated the armed forces. If they are removing Wison also….that then will balance it out. But in Austin Wilson would be a god of progressive thinking.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Dale

          The story I read said that Davis and Wilson stood on opposite ends of the quad. Davis is being removed to some “hall”. Wilson is being moves someplace else, but it did not say where. But Wilson would not be in the quad was my understanding.

          I suppose they could decide to “center” Wilson to “balance” the visuals. That would be a shame but certainly keeping of modern Academic viewpoints.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Austin does revolve around Progressive politics. I was looking at Stephen Austin’s history. He was an “empressario” given rights for bringing in immigrants into Texas. His Father preceeded with a grant from Spain. One of the parts of the deal was that based on men there was so much land granted. Women less, children less and “SLAVES” less acreage. One of the major sticking points was that when Mexico wrested its independence from Spain, they banned slavery. Creating a very sticky issue with the immigrants and several of the notible characters in the Texas saga. Maybe the Colonel can help….did Austin own slaves or was he to busy doing other things.

  42. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I just noticed that the Pope just granted priest the ability to forgive women who have an abortion. Primarily due to the agony they go through making the decision to whether or not to have one. My belief is that he is dead wrong on that score. Most of the women, especially the ones I have known DID NOT agonize before. They did later when they realized that 66% could no longer have children. MY data only. The decision to have the procedure was a knee jerk and immediate decision. There was NO agonizing. It was treated just like the passion that created the fetus in the first place. They found that their immediate decision was moot quite quickly and they would have had some beautiful children and raised in loving homes. Now they are empty. I actually like the States that started requiring an ultra-sound, showing that this thing/cist was not and a baby in the making. But PP wants a women NOT to see this because I believe most would decide not to abort and that would impact PP side deals and bottom line.

    At all times birth control was available to these people and not going to a back street practitioner.

  43. Watch for the new tactic on Trump. They are now pushing polls showing Carson or Fiorina “close” to Trump. First knock him off then offer # 2 spot to Ben or Carly and Jeb trots through.

    Once Trump is out of the way, the “experience” rhetoric will mount.

    As this circus progresses, I am getting more and more interested in who will be in the cabinet. I think we can assume Trump will pick heavy hitters, probably from outside government or guys like Rudy G. No clue on Carson of Fiorina and that is a concern. Jeb of course will put back all of his bro’s and daddy’s people.

    Gotta also ask, who can you trust on SCOTUS appointments?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      SK

      The tactic is not “new”. Been used by the media in ever election I can remember. Build up the “new guy” then tear them down. If Trump falls the same will be done to the next in line.

      Frankly, if the R’s want new blood they had better narrow the field pretty soon. Otherwise Kasich and Bush are going to take the money and one of them will win the primary.

      Ted Cruz is my answer to your question. But that “trust” is tempered with an ill feeling that the guy is not all he makes himself out to be.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    A little ammo for those who engage in rhetoric with their left wing friends.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/fighting_back_against_the_sjws.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Cool article. Ever notice how AGW is a SJW headliner? Don’t buy that big SUV because it expands your carbon footprint, LOL 🙂

  45. gmanfortruth says:

    The cop shot North of Chicago has died. This stuff can’t end well. I’m not sure where this is going, but killing cops will have some serious ramifications. Maybe all this talk about martial law might be getting some teeth.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    One of you Catholics care to help me out?

    If X is a Sin per God, then how can a Priest be given “authority” by the POPE to Forgive that Sin??

    If it is not our place to Judge God’s view of others then how is it that the POPE and his Minions can either condemn or forgive Sins of any kind??

    • They aren’t given authority by the pope. They’re given authority by God > Jesus > Apostles > ‘ make disciples of all nations (enter priests). To confess to a priest is a practice in humility. SK can help me out here, but with confession comes contrition, a resolve that with His help, you ‘go and sin no more’.

      • Jesus to St. Peter,

        “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

        Part of the act of contrition, ’50’s version as I remember it. This was required at the end of your confession before you left the confessional. Trust in the Deity to know if you mean it or not. All bets off if you don’t mean it.

        O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended thee. I detest all my sins because of thy just punishment but most of all because they offend thee my God who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.

        Of course there is a hip, new, with-it version leaving out the hard words but I don’t use it.

        Anybody ever see “Dogma” out there? If you can get over some of the grossness it really asks some interesting questions of Christians and specifically of Catholics. The George Carlin version of the hip, modern cardinal is spot on!

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120655/

  47. The biggest challenge with the public’s perception of Climate Science comes from the fact that the public is utterly ignorant of the science, ignorant of math, ignorant of statistics, and ignorant of the facts.

    Thus, they are stuck in “believing” what is told to them.

    The thing is, even if the public wished to relieve their ignorance, each of these components of study takes a long time to learn and understand. Who wants to spend a few months of their lives to understand what is, and what is not, a valid statistical methodology. Heck, even STATISTICIANS trained in the field struggle with this.

    Does adding the number of petals on a rose to the number of weeds in your garden divided by the number of ants dead in a glass of beer have any meaning? Yes, you do get a NUMBER, and all the data can be considered FACT, but does the calculation of such have MEANING???

    This fools almost every lay man. Factual numbers mushed together using valid mathematical mechanics “must mean something, right?”.

    Add on top of this the mushy concept of “facts” in Climate Science. Raw data is not used. Almost all of it is “corrected”. This, in of itself, is not wrong – for example, temperature of the oceans was taken from intake ports on ships, but the ships themselves warmed the water through the intake, giving a higher reading then what may have been the “true” ocean temperature; so a correction is applied. Is the correction accurate? How can one tell?

    Same with CO2 concentrations. It is taken from the top of a volcano that spews, that’s right, CO2. So it is corrected. Is the correction accurate? Well, CHEMICAL analysis of the atmosphere tells a wholly different concentration. Which one is right?

    Then the science of climate. It is a Navier-Stokes equation of fluid dynamics. The short of this is, it CANNOT BE SOLVED. A solution to a Navier-Stokes equation creates…another Navier-Stokes equation.

    Now we can model fluid dynamics very accurately when describing flows in pipelines and on air foils. Why? Because the part of the equation we cannot solve can be discovered by EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION. We let nature give us the data, and we then plug these empirical measurements back into our formula and can come up with amazingly accurate models.

    But we cannot experiment with climate. We cannot take Miami into a test tube and alter specific fundamentals and see what happens to get the empirical data points.

    This confusion about fluid dynamics is used against the lay man. Junk climate scientists claim they have the unsolvable Navier-Stokes component “figured out”, by pointing to how we figured it out with air foils and such. BUT THEY HAVE NOT. They are, quietly literally, MAKING UP NUMBERS OUT OF THEIR ASS.

    This is way climate models are always wrong when calculating future temperature trends. That component of Navier-Stokes IS UNKNOWN, and impacts the calculations significantly. Only nature tells us the answer. And, with no surprise, junk climate scientists ignore (or try to ignore) what nature is telling us, with such assertions “The models PROVE man’s influence….” where nature has fundamentally dis-proven it.

    It is here, not the media, that the real truth of the science exists. Yet, almost no one understands this, and let’s the media’s proclamations become the lay man’s bible.

    • More on ocean.
      So they are starting to use buoys placed in the ocean to avoid the intact warming problem.

      But what depth of water constitutes the “ocean’s temperature”? Surface, a foot below, 10 feet below, 100, 1,000, 10,000? The bottom? Which measurement is the right one, given each of these readings are dramatically different. Where in the ocean? Near the shore, 10 miles away, 1,000 miles away? These give dramatically different readings. Then, what ocean are they putting them. Most are in the Pacific, then the Atlantic, but very few in the Arctic and Antarctica Oceans and very few in the Indian Ocean. Does such an uneven placement give a valid mean?

      And this is the ocean. Compared to land measurements, it is insignificant, though the oceans cover the vast majority of the Earth. Land measurements are concentrated in the US, thousands of them. There are only FOUR in Antarctica. Does such an uneven placement of these give a valid mean? And the readings are adjusted (as per previous post), so is there any validity at all? Let alone the question “Does an average Earth temperature have meaning?” – and does this average, which may or may not display a difference from an arbitrary mean actually exist? This difference is measured FOR THE WHOLE EARTH as a fraction of a degree. Take a thermometer, and walk around your own yard, and it will change by DEGREES depending on where you walk. Heck, you’ll be lucky to measure the temperature by a fraction of degree even standing in one place as it changes constantly. Which measurement at what time is the “reality” of that temperature at that place? So such declarations of an Earth-wide mean is MEANINGLESS and NONSENSE, let alone a basis of any scientific claim or call to invoke some social policy.

      All of this (and huge more questions) are ignored by the layman. He does NOT UNDERSTAND any of this.

      And his ignorance is used against him by those attempting to invoke a policy upon him.

      • So the onus is on you, JAC, to provide the SCIENTIFIC basis of your claim. Not that I’m expecting you to, since none exists.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          The onus is on me for what? I have made no claim other than there is data showing temperature has increased over the past 17 years. Contrary to the contrarian claims.

          You have posted nothing that refutes anything I have said. In fact most of it supports my arguments.

          You guys need to pay attention. You seem to presume I am agreeing with everything put out by NOAA or NASA. I have not said any such thing. I have pointed out the fallacy of declaring the “other” side as liars and then using that claim to discount anything the other side produces.

          Objective pursuit of truth requires evaluating each and every assumption and claim for validity. It matters not which side of the debate produces a claim, they all need to be challenged, tested and either refuted or supported.

      • This was a response to a AWG proponent that posted on the local newspaper website last week.

        Harry, first of all we do not just do trace gas analysis but analyze chemical streams containing hundreds of molecules. Next a 10 year (now approaching a 20) hiatus in global warming over the last 100 years is not the statistical definition of confidence limits. The following paper discusses some aspects of the validation process and also shows that there has been very little global warming since 1979. http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/ICCC_Booklet_2011_FINAL.pdf
        I base my conclusions on 45 years of treating data with statistics. Any set of numbers can produce a mean (average) and a standard deviation. Determining if that mean is meaningful is the root of the problem. I question if a truly meaningful global mean temperature can even be calculated. The objective is to compute a mean annual temperature to within a few 1/100ths of a degree Centigrade. Consider that one has to deal with natural variation (variance) that ranges over about 100°C, i.e., day/night, winter/summer, low/high altitude, low/high latitude, land/sea, etc. Now look at the measurement tools, mercury, alcohol, thermocouple, RTD, and solid state thermometers, radiation pyrometers, etc. Then consider their location, rural, urban, low/high altitude, ocean, balloon, satellite, etc. Has land usage around the thermometer changed since it was installed? Then consider their state of calibration and inherent accuracy. Many are only good to ±0.5°C, some ±0.01°C, some better some worse. Then consider changes in the temperature scale over the last three centuries. Thermometers were invented about 1600 but it wasn’t until the early 1700’s that they were pegged to the freezing and boiling points of water. So direct measurement of temperature is only about 300 years old. For temperatures prior to that, one must use proxy data, i.e., data inferred from a surrogate such as tree rings. Now tree rings are a good tool but how many variables impact the growth rate of trees. I can think of temperature, amount of sunlight, soil fertility, rainfall, competition from other vegetation, fires, atmospheric CO2, etc. Yes you can collect all this data, compute a mean and a standard deviation. The standard deviation is based on randomly distributed noise (Gaussian noise model). It does not take into consideration any unknown systematic errors in the data. How can it, they are unknown. With the wide variety of data sources of dramatically different accuracies and hundreds if not thousands of possible sources of systematic error, it is the height of arrogance to believe the one can calculate a meaningful and accurate global temperature to with a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade. I have asked before in these pages, what is the ideal temperature of the earth. Any control engineer will require a set point to control to, similar to the thermostat on your wall. What temperature do I use? Finally, I am not the one asking for a change in the status quo. That is you. It is incumbent on you to prove to me that the AGW is real, that it is catastrophic, and that your proposed solutions will be effective and are the most cost effective solutions available.

        • I did not go into some additional information regarding solar statistics. The solar output does not obey normal Gaussian statistics (bell curve) but obeys Levi statistics. The difference is that one side of the distribution does not asymptotically approach zero hence the central limit theorem does not apply. So there is no valid mean (average) value that can be computed for solar output. Since the sun is essentially our only source of heat, it stands to reason that there may not be a defined mean temperature of the earth by extension.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Like I said, a Mean Global temp is not MEANINGFUL. Even if such a thing could be calculated it would have little meaning or utility. Unless of course your goal in calculating the number was really for MEDIA use.

          • JAC, the vast majority of scientists and others believe the climate is changing. The issue is who/what is driving the change, humans or nature? Is it predominately human or is our contribution only minor? If we can effect change, then what is the best method for doing that? Realize that cheap, clean fossil fuels have lifted more people out of poverty and have allowed more people to move beyond the drudgeries of life than any other modern invention.

            We now have a bill in the CA house (passed the Senate already) to cut fossil fuel (road) consumption by 50% by 2030 by rationing, taxes, fines…. They also want to increase renewable electric generation to 50% by 2030 as well. They are just going to mandate it and figure out how to do it and how much it will cost later. They are not building any more dams but instead are tearing them down. So that leaves wind, solar and hydrothermal. Wind and solar are unreliable and require a fossil fuel or other plant in a hot start mode to be ready to pick up the slack. Hence wind and solar are some of the most expensive solutions available. The roof top solar industry is screaming about the proposed end of their subsidies. I heard today that the electric utilities are pushing for rate increases for roof top customers to cover their expenses for transmission lines and other costs associated with having these panels plugged into the grid.

            The current payback on rooftop solar is about 5-7 years for a system with a 20 yr life. That is with heavy government subsidies. Without the subsidies and if the utilities increase the connection costs, the payback is 15-20 yrs making it far less feasible.

            The one solution that has the potential for massive implementation is nuclear but few people are considering it. There is also the possibility of a thorium reactor but no research is underway to make that feasible.

            35 years ago, I sat in the cafeteria at Exxon’s central research labs with another young scientist who was working on silicon technology for solar panels. He explained how solar electricity in the not too distant future was going to be too cheap to meter. It would be everywhere. He is now a prof at UC Berkeley still working to perfect silicon solar cells. There has been progress over those 35 years but nothing like what he was promising back then.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              TRay

              As you know I have stated my view that we humans are in fact contributing. I do not know how much nor do I think anyone can accurately state how much.

              So this really boils down to some “political” issues, namely questions of what is useful and at what cost. I find the information in this area even more lacking than on the question of whether temps are increasing or not.

              As you have stated before, solar and wind are HIGH COST and not dependable. The second part could be addressed once the entire country is covered with windmills. But that still leaves the high cost compared to options such as Hyrdo or Natural Gas.

              One thing for sure, if left to our own devices we will find solutions to our energy demand that fit our economic needs. Govt. interference in the solutions is the problem.

              I see comments like Mr. O made yesterday as nothing but Sophistry. He stated that the cost of NOT converting is so high it more than justifies the expense of converting to renewables. No actual data, just the old “Cause I said so”. It plays off the human tendency to think “hell yes, that makes sense”, without ever knowing the real values.

              A similar trick was pulled on people in the NW a decade or so ago regarding Steelhead and Salmon recovery. People were asked if they would pony up another 50 to 60 dollars per month on their utility bill to pay for RECOVERED runs of Salmon. They overwhelmingly said “hell yes”.

              Problem was there was no basis for the 50 to 60 dollar estimate. It was just pulled out of some Academics backside. Sure there was an “analysis”, but it failed to even address KNOWN future predicted demands and projected price increases that were independent of any Salmon Recover plan. And of course the cost of “recovery” was grossly UNDERSTATED.

              My own personal bias is against Wind. Even if It were the cat’s meow to replace hydrocarbons, I can’t stand what those things have done to the wide open vistas I enjoyed until now.

              • We agree on the government interference and on the ugliness of windmills. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, wind and water were the main sources of power. Wood was used for heat and cooking. Then coal became the fuel of choice, plenty of energy but dirty and labor intensive. I remember heating our home with coal. I played in the coal bin. Black is the word. I remember the smoke, ash, and the smell. I know what a clinker is. Then petroleum became our major source of energy. Cleaner, less labor, cheaper. We heated with oil for many years. Then natural gas became available. Still cheaper, cleaner and even less labor intensive. Gone was the fuel oil tank in the basement and the associated smell. That is the history of energy in the modern era, dirty to clean, expensive to cheap, labor intensive to labor free. All of this was accomplished with minimum government involvement. I see no reason why this trend will not continue. Government involvement only drives up the cost and diverts efforts to nonproductive solutions.

                Gasoline cars succeeded because they could travel far on a tankful of gas and it only required minutes to refuel. Electric cars of the day (early 1900’s) only got 40 miles to the charge and took hours to refuel. Not much has changed except now I have to subsidize my neighbors electric car.

              • T-ray,
                Again you ply some bizarre personal experience of shoveling your own coal to be the same as a coal turbine. It ain’t. I know, I helped build one. It is located on top of a coal mine.

                Black is not the word. The whole plant is shiny. It is not labor intensive. Massive machines do the work. Ash is not a problem, unlike your home heater, these operate at massively higher temperatures, ensuring a very clean burn. The coal is pulverized to a fine dust to ensure a superior burn at very high temperatures. There is very little smoke, modern plants have scrubbers etc. What you see is almost all water vapor.

                Oil came to be the major source of energy, not because it replaced coal turbines, but because it is transportable and energy DENSE. Hard to shove a steam-coal turbine in a car or plane. Oil for heat is supplied where coal turbines cannot be economically built, because OIL/GAS IS TRANSPORTABLE. You can’t shove coal down a pipeline.

                History of energy moves toward more CONCENTRATION (Density), PORTABILITY, and LESS EXPENSIVE. The move to “green” energy confounds each of these features, it is not concentrated (not dense), it is not portable and it is very expensive, thus it will FAIL if attempted beyond mere home-hobbyists and specialty conditions.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                T-Ray. The house I grew up in had a metal door for coal to be shoveled into the basement. We had natural gas heat, but I always thought that it must have been a tough way to keep the house warm in the winter. It was built before the advent of insulation (which my parents finally had blown in), which would have made it even harder. Using a wood burner is time consuming enough (even with the modern more efficient ones like ours), trying to keep a three story house that was no insulated must have been quite a task back in those days.

                I have to agree that the green energy movement is nothing more than feel good enviro-nut nonsense. It’s just not feasible to think that wind/sun can do the job like coal/natural gas. Like I told JAC, I looked into it in depth for my area, it’s simply not cost effective to go green. I will simply put a natural gas adaptor on our generator and go from there. Hope you have a great day too 🙂

              • Once again BF you make assumptions about my knowledge and prove yourself to be the arrogant SOB that you are.

            • That may be true that I’m arrogant, but I am equally almost always right. Sorry your feeling got hurt. (Not)

  48. gmanfortruth says:
  49. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    Good grief man, take the time to understand what is being discussed before you jump the shark.

    “JAC,
    Wrong again.
    The 30’s data that is included is the grossly manipulated values, not the raw values. To claim ERRONEOUS data is included thusly makes your case is irrational.”

    GMan was claiming that the 1930’s was somehow missing from the graph. The accuracy of said data was not in question and he raised no such concern. He was clearly misreading the graph because the 1930’s occurred between the two values on the X axis.

    Nothing more complicated than that.

    As for the “effect” of the corrections you mentioned, per the documents I read these adjustments actually RAISED the supposed average temp of the 1930’s, thus REDUCING the Anomaly for this period. I find this claim interesting in light of your other comment that ships recorded higher temps than what the buoys would record. The adjustment to the ship/buoy data resulted in “warmer” average temps, not cooler.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    BF

    Serious question on the Climate change stuff.

    Do you happen to know what the REASON was for using a period of around 1950 to 1984 for the BASE PERIOD, which is then used for all the ANOMALY graphs and data???

    I have never seen the argument presented as the why this period is used for the Base Period. Although I would think the base period would not matter, except in how the VISUAL impact of the graphics could sway people who don’t understand what they are seeing.

    Anyhow, was just wondering if you knew what reasoning was presented for using this period.

    Along the lines of using actual data, I have no problem with correcting records to reflect distortions. But I have always questioned the use of Anomaly rather than actual data to show changes over time. Averaging averages does not create a more precise prediction. That is the essence of what happens in this process, near as I can tell.

    One other question. What is your take on the AGW Scientists claim that warming has continued but the Ocean absorbed the increased temperatures. Thus the land plus ocean temps show a total increase. I know what my thoughts are but curious as to yours.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Do you happen to know what the REASON was for using a period of around 1950 to 1984 for the BASE PERIOD, which is then used for all the ANOMALY graphs and data???

      If I recall, it was during this period that we were in a 30 year cool period. Remember all the propaganda about the new ice age coming? It is also sort of convenient that satellite images of the arctic and anarctic sea ice began at the end of the cool period, then claiming that ice is melting when they begin at a time when ice is likely abnormally high. I used that argument (the ice images) and the AGW crowd can’t comprehend what it means. Anyway, that sudden drop in temps , as your top graph shows, does concern me. If that part of the graph is fairly accurate, we are fixing to deal with some cold times ahead. That’s a bummer. Have a good day 🙂

    • I want to know what the average temperature of a habitable planet is supposed to be. I also want to know how many habitable planets we are using to determine the average temperature. I also want to know how many other habitable planets have had their temperature/climate affected as a direct result of the inhabitants. I want to know if the direct result was good or bad. But, alas, the Earth will be swallowed by the Sun in another 5 billion years anyway. 🙂

  51. gmanfortruth says:

    Since the AGW discussion really started with Obama’s choice of picking Alaska to lay out his fear porn (aka LIES) about Climate Change, maybe reviewing what he said would be handy: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/obama-predicts-planet-beyond-repair-climate-change-speech

    ROFLMAO! This clown is living in a Hollywood movie script, not reality. Stating that Alaska’s temperature is going to rise 6 to 12 degrees by the end of the Century is the stuff of fantasy. He must have simply pulled it out of his ass, because there is no basis for which to go by (since all the models have been wrong so far). Stronger storms? Where? At the movie theater and on Scy Fy channel, he must be a Sharknado fan 🙂 As our socialist loving Italian would say OY VEY!

  52. gmanfortruth says:

    JAC, CNN is changing the rules for debate to allow Carly to play with the establishment. As expected.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I am visualizing one of those spy movies where young people are exposed to films of the “hated ones” over and over and over again. Until their minds are trained to act the way the puppet master wants.

  53. Dale A Albrecht says:

    So Congress will cave on the Iran nuclear treaty. Big news that Obama wins a big diplomatic victory. The only thing he wone was getting enough votes 34, so that a veto can not be overridden. My bet is that McConnell will not even try now and will not even pressure Obama to veto it and get on record….Last night Congress dropped any effort to cut funds to PP because as McConnell said, we don’t have the votes to override the assured Obama veto….Isn’t this just the opposite of what the GOP said they’d do. Make Obama veto a bill and make him that a firm stand..keep challenging him. Get the DEMS to take firm stands. All hot air and BS. What little faith I had in the Feds is gone. Even the BS in the State. A law sometime in the past said that if the FAA signed off on a windfarm, ALL State, Local and other Federal agencies are to be bypassed and ignored with the contruction of a windfarm. Our allegedly GOP government just wrung their hands and said there was nothing they could do the law is the law. Change the F!!!! law. No, to much money changed hands.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      So I guess having 66% of the nations people representatives AGAINST the treaty is a great victory for the administration, only by a parlimentary rule. The supreme arrogance of the administration. Just like the ACA. Was and always has had a negative polling with the nations people, but yet it marches on. Only because Congress can not override a veto, yet the majority of congress vote to get rid of it or changes etc. The saying of a government of the people, by the people, for the people is sheer BS.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Don’t forget the PEOPLE’s opposition to TARP and the Stimulus.

        • The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people’s voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives–decisions made by a minority, or by one person–are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.

          Tommy Jefferson

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Same guy who proposed all legislation be tabled for one year to allow the “passions” of the majority to wane and more reasonable heads to prevail.

            A Republic cannot function based on “majority” vote. If this were to come to pass it would no longer be a Republic but a Democracy. Something even Jefferson feared.

            • Rock and the hard place time. Do you really prefer Justice Kennedy as Ubersturmfuhrer?

              Note Jefferson talks of a “process” . That, to me is pretty obviously representative government.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Yes, it is a conundrum. I laugh at your suggestion that I would prefer Kennedy or any SCOTUS for that matter.

                The question is how do you limit the Wizards to just reviewing Constitutionality and not “interpreting”. Seems to me there needs to be a way to negate the SCOTUS more easily than an Amendment. It takes 2/3 of Congress and the States to overturn the opinion of 5 people.

                Of course, it would help if the elected legislators took the Constitution more seriously as well.

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    I learned something last night. Did you know there is a SEPARATE “Hispanic” Chamber of Commerce??

    The leader of this group met with Trump day before yesterday to discuss Trump’s rhetoric and to see if the “Hispanic” Chamber of Commerce would return to renting Trump venues for their national events. Per THE MAN, it aint’ happening.

    Aside from the question as to why there is a separate National Chamber of Commerce for Hispanic owned businesses, you will love this little CLAIM by the leader of this group.

    Per him, NOBODY can win the White House without getting at least 50% of the Hispanic vote. Got that?? The winner will have to get 50%+ of this single demographic in order to win. Doesn’t matter which candidate or from which party.

    I think that pretty much sums up the reasons we have seen the Dem and Rep. party siding with the idea of Amnesty for all those ILLEGAL ALIENS in the USA. And why they seem to push for a thing called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” which is code for “We want more Hispanic immigrants than European immigrants”.

    • Like their white, honkie, MF, counterparts they just want more cheap labor to exploit.

      When you think about art imitating life or vice versa, think back to “Godfather II”. The poor Italian immigrant, stuck in a Ghetto, not knowing the language or customs was routinely exploited by the Mafia. Once his children broke the tie to the past, partially because of WW 1 and 2, partially because of homogeneous public education and partially because the door got shut in the 1920’s, the following generations were no longer beholding to the Dons.

      This Hispanic immigration with bi-bilingualism will NEVER be able to break free if things continue this way.

  55. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Headline news….A U.S. official says five Chinese warships have moved into the Bering Sea near Alaska after participating in a naval exercise with Russia. “The Peoples Liberation Army’s Navy” At least the author got part of the article correct with one major fault and not knowing global geography. But then again since Carter I’m sure schools do not teach anything about Taiwan. And only regognize one China. A bit like the Fox commentator about McKinley and misdating a war and with whom by 70 years.

    On 29 September 1999, The USS Brewton 1086 a Knox Class Frigate, was sold to Taiwan under the Security Assistance Program, where she was renamed ROCS Fong Yang (FFG-933). She is currently in active service.

  56. We are about to start our own revolution……

    Ballots for the 2016 election…….not bilingual.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Can’t wait.

      Colonel, it is OK to move up to the front page. We’ll let ya play with the rest of us.

%d bloggers like this: