Liberty Disappearing in the Name of Tolerance

Tolerance is supposed to mean that opposing points of view can coexist without one being coerced by the other. The new tolerance seems to mean punishing people who do not subscribe to the new social order and endorse Gay Marriage and other left wing social agenda items. Please read this link to see the loss of freedom. A sample is below to pique your interest.
On Aug. 12, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating, in effect, that boys be allowed to use girls’ restrooms in the state’s public schools. The bill, part of an effort to advance “transgender rights,” says every student can “use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” The new California law applies to sports teams as well as locker rooms and bathrooms, and obviously undermines privacy and parental rights. A week later, on Aug. 19, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill banning therapy for state residents younger than 18 who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction. With a flick of his pen, Christie usurped authority from parents in deciding the care their children should receive. Shockingly, one therapy specifically permitted is assistance for minors in “transitioning” from male to female or from female to male. New Jersey became the second state with such a ban. A few days later, the first one — California — had its law upheld as the 9th Circuit Court ruled against the rights of parents. In other cases, prior bad decisions were re-enforced. On Aug. 22, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony — even though doing so would violate the photographer’s religious beliefs. New Mexico’s highest court, deciding an appeal, ruled against photographer Elaine Huguenin. The justices concluded that neither freedom of speech nor free exercise of religion protect someone from being forced to provide services for an event that is utterly contrary to his or her conscience. Never mind that other photographers could have shot the ceremony; “the price of citizenship,” one justice explained, required Huguenin to ignore her religious convictions. To avoid such a negative court ruling, a bakery in Oregon simply decided to close shop. After the bakery declined to bake a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries notified the owners that they were being investigated.
The Brave New World seems too weak to stand on its own in the marketplace. It seems we need to sacrifice diversity and liberty to bring it about. It is time for Americans to say no to the new rulers or one day they will not be allowed to do so.

44 thoughts on “Liberty Disappearing in the Name of Tolerance”

  1. Boo-hoo. Your freedom to tell other people how to live is being abrogated.

    Just for accuracy’s sake, the bill does not say anything “in effect.” It either says things or it doesn’t. That’s just a cheap way of finding a worst-case-scenario to use as a straw man.

    As for gay-conversion therapy, I can speak to its wonderful effects. A young man of my acquaintance was sent for such therapy a few years ago. Upon his return home he committed suicide. A year later, so did the father who sent him off for the therapy.

    You won’t find any statistics showing two people dead from gay conversion therapy, but dead they are. You people are just so full of lovingkindness I could puke.

  2. Nobody on October 1, 2013 at 13:46 said: “As for gay-conversion therapy, I can speak to its wonderful effects. A young man of my acquaintance was sent for such therapy a few years ago. Upon his return home he committed suicide. A year later, so did the father who sent him off for the therapy.”

    If I go outside and see that the pavement is wet and it is raining, I conclude that wet pavement causes it to rain?

    Now we know why the guy thought he was gay… He was a mess and from a troubled family.

  3. Nobody on October 1, 2013 at 13:46 said: “Boo-hoo. Your freedom to tell other people how to live is being abrogated.”

    By definition, the bill involves messed up people using OTHER PEOPLE’s rest rooms.

    They can do anything they want in their own private, personal bathroom.

    The whole point here is that gays and confused people want to FORCE other people to conform to their problems.

  4. “The whole point here is that gays and confused people want to FORCE other people to conform to their problems.”

    That’s funny Jon, because you’re a very confused person and I deal with your problems every time I post on this blog.

  5. Falcor

    You only deal with problems that you choose. It is your choice to personally attack Jon for his point of view so don’t lay the blame on him. Such immaturity!

  6. Falcor, we are talking NOT about ordinary, garden-variety homosexuals but those who are — truly, literally — confused about their gender identity, who want to change their mind from time to time about whether they are a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.

    The topic of the post is not men who are attracted to men or women who are attracted to women or even people who are attracted to everyone.

    The post refers to a man who – regardless of whom he is attracted to — believes he is a woman, or a woman who believes he is a man.

    That really has N O T H I N G to do with homosexuality. If my wording was unclear, I apologize and I should have said it more clearly.

    A homosexual man knows he is a man but is attracted to other men. A homosexual woman knows she is a woman but is attracted to other women.

    We are not talking about homosexuals, at least not ordinary homosexuals.

    We are talking about men who are confused about being biologically male and women who are confused about being biologically female.

    That is a fundamentally and dramatically different issue. Just as conservatives warned that one thing would lead to another, we are not in a completely different realm of sexual confusion. This is not about homosexuality.

  7. However, the fundamental divide is between social revolutionaries FORCING other people and society in general to conform to their personal struggles.

    It is a fundamental reality that those who are crying repression are actually TOTALLY FREE to do whatever they want, but are complaining about their desire to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to conform to their desires.

    If a man wants to think he is a woman, he is absolutely free to do that.

    But it is a radically different question as to whether the rest of society is OBLIGATED to rearrange itself to accommodate this confused individual.

    He can do whatever he wants. He does NOT have the right to force everyone else around him to rearrange and reorganize their behavior to suit him.

    That is the core of the liberal social re-engineering project:

    Lie about whether a minority has any restrictions, but then try to FORCE the rest of society to be rearranged to suit the minority, while lying about what is really going on.

  8. The fundamental question is if I, being a man, want to pretend I am a woman (believe I don’t personally)….

    DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR to accommodate my gender confusion?

    That is even what the liberals are arguing, but they want to obscure it and hide it.

    If I run a restaurant and you being a man want to pretend to be a woman, can you FORCE ME to play along with your gender-bending?

    If I run a restaurant, and women who are customers in my restaurant are faced with men going in and out of the ladies’ room, and they don’t feel comfortable, then I can lose business and — since restaurants are often operating on slim margins — I can lose my entire business.

    TRY THIS: Go to a Hooters restaurant. When the waitresses go to the ladies room, follow the scantily-clad waitress into the ladies room and explain that you feel like a woman today. Do you think there could be a problem?

    Fast food restaurants often have young teenagers working there, who might be 16 year old or 17 year old girls working after school. So how about if a 30 year old man follows the 17 year old teenage girls into the ladies’ room, claiming that he is feeling like a woman today?

    Can you see how liberals have lost their minds? “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first drive mad.” — ancient Greek playwright.

    Romans 1: “22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

  9. “Now we know why the guy thought he was gay… He was a mess and from a troubled family.”

    I knew them. You didn’t. I realize it’s against the blog rules, but you, sir, are an asshole. I hope you experience a fraction of their pain.

  10. “By definition, the bill involves messed up people using OTHER PEOPLE’s rest rooms.”

    The word you’re looking for is “public” accommodations. Your inability to deal with transsexuals is your problem, not theirs.

  11. As usual, you have nothing but your own perverted ideas to point to as problems. Transsexuals are not interesting in spying on other people in restrooms. You, apparently, can’t stop thinking about it.

  12. As for gay-conversion therapy, I can speak to its wonderful effects. A young man of my acquaintance was sent for such therapy a few years ago. Upon his return home he committed suicide. A year later, so did the father who sent him off for the therapy.

    The rates of suicide and serial killing and so forth among gay and gender bent people are usually higher no matter what anyone else does. In gay friendly places where people like to play pretend about things, they’re high. In places that gender stereotypes tend to be forced and people can’t play with them or act up or out as much, they’re still high.

    If you’re really interested in helping people then you’ll need to focus on reality. As it stands you’re saying that people can have sex conversion therapy that’s “successful” but that they can never successfully change their feelings or desires relative to the opposite sex.

    Why you find yourself arguing something that nonsensical relative to basic biological and cultural facts then you probably need to try to take a closer look at reality. Because “sex in the city” and “blue state” entertainment in the city aside, it invariably always catches up to people or their posterity.

    As far as the pathos of life goes… I can cite numerous stories of people that sought sex conversion therapy killing themselves or killing others later. I’m curious, what would you conclude from those stories?

    Perhaps sex conversion therapy should be illegal, given that it’s apparently unsuccessful and/or dangerous in many cases?

  13. Can you see how liberals have lost their minds? “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first drive mad.” — ancient Greek playwright.

    Romans 1: “22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

    Here is where we’re at.

    Just an opinion.. but you should probably stop trying to die on every hill manufactured over a fiscal cliff on Capital Hill in order to drag people as dumb as Nobody and Americans out of their foolishness and so forth. Let the dead bury their dead. Let the Empire die and the possible inversion between the so-called support of “blue states” and epicenters of paper ponzi for the “red states” that produce real goods and services begin. (Because the blue states are supporting the red states for as long as everything is priced in petrodollars controlled by people in cities… didn’t you know?)

    Just an opinion, I could be wrong.

    At least it’s all entertaining, what with the increasingly hot potato of who gets the blame for the abject failure of modern politicians to stand up to the Money Power and so forth.

  14. Bread and the transexual circuses aside. Render unto Ceasar what is his.

    It’s usually just increasingly worthless copper anyway. Not that people even bother with some form of integrity based on physical limitations in the real world anyway. What people would really need would be leaders with integrity creating money out of nothing and spending it into existence on infrastructure for the public good and so forth. What they get, bread and circuses or Barney Frank and bathrooms created to accommodate the circus acts of transexuals.

    It sure would be nice to have some buried power lines or a grid that’s safe from solar flares of the sort that electrocuted telegraph operators in the past and so forth. But anyway, if anything happens…. at least gender bent people won’t be crying themselves to sleep or killing themselves because they didn’t know which bathroom to use, huh?

    There again, if the Golden Dawn in Greece is any measure as to what happens when things begin to go down due to corrupt politicians and bankers (no matter how hard people work in the real world and the real economy)… then gender bent people and people like Nobody won’t really be as concerned about bathrooms anymore.

  15. “Now we know why the guy thought he was gay… He was a mess and from a troubled family.”

    Yes, just like Christine O’Donnell’s lesbian sister Jeannie, messed up from a troubled family. Why does Christine’s messed up sister Jeannie think she’s gay?

    There are still no examples of transgendered people committing sex crimes against other people when they’re allowed to use gender identity friendly bathrooms.

  16. Nobody on October 2, 2013 at 10:08 said: “Transsexuals are not interesting in spying on other people in restrooms. ”

    But if I SAY I am a transsexual — what’s the proof? — then I can go in to the girls’ dressing room at the public swimming pool and look at teenage girls changing into their bikinis, taking showers, and taking off their bikinis?

    As usual, liberals can’t think things through.

    How do you know if someone is truly a gender-confused individual or not?

    If I am NOT, but I SAY I am, then I can follow the Hooters’ waitresses into the women’s restroom at Hooters?

    HOW ABOUT THIS? IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T “FIX” IT.

    Why are we changing anything at all?

    For crying out loud. Men’s and women’s bathrooms are working just fine. Is there anything that liberals can resist tinkering with?

    BTW, they are not “transsexual” because this would mean they are transcended beyond sexuality. They would be nonsexual, having no identity as either male or female. That’s what “trans” would mean

  17. Again, this is not a real-world problem. It’s one that exists in your head, apparently because you can’t stop yourself from thinking about how to sneak into the women’s room.

    And you don’t get to decide what they’re called. Sorry. I realize you’re a legend in your own mind, but to the rest of us you’re just an incompetent out-of-state lawyer with a permanent crush on Christine O’Donnell who lost to his own client in court. You don’t get to decide anything here in the real world.

  18. “As it stands you’re saying that people can have sex conversion therapy that’s “successful” but that they can never successfully change their feelings or desires relative to the opposite sex.”

    I said no such thing. I pointed out my anecdotal experience with gay-conversion therapy. Where you jump with your conclusions are your responsibility.

    The issue is actually parental control of their children, and whether parents have the right to seek to control their children’s sexuality. Once you drag in religion, you’re just flogging for your perspective. Nobody else will or should take you seriously.

  19. anonymous on October 2, 2013 at 12:19 said: ““Now we know why the guy thought he was gay… He was a mess and from a troubled family.” Yes, just like Christine O’Donnell’s lesbian sister Jeannie, messed up from a troubled family. Why does Christine’s messed up sister Jeannie think she’s gay?”

    We know that homosexuality is development, NOT genetic.

    How do we know this with absolute certainty? If homosexuality were genetic, the genetic variation would have to OCCUR at some point in human evolution or history.

    If there were a genetic basis for homosexuality, that genetic variation would have to arise at some point in time.

    But we know that did not happen because homosexuality is distributed evenly throughout all of humanity, apparently at a uniform rate in all ethnic groups, all geographic regions, and all times in history.

    So we know that homosexuality is developmental within the individual — not genetic. So it can occur anywhere at any time, in any ethnic group.

    Furthermore, the function of evolution is to weed out traits that do not promote maximum reproduction. The trait of homosexuality would decrease — not necessarily eliminate, but decrease — the rate of reproduction among those carrying the gene. Reproduction would NOT be zero, necessarily. But reproduction rates would be lower, even if only slightly lower. So the function of evolution, if you believe in that, would tend to eradicate the genetic variation for homosexuality from the human population — due to lower reproduction rates. It might take dozens of generations, perhaps a hundred generations, but the lower reproduction rates would decrease the genetic variation from the human population.

    But we do not observe any change in the incidence of homosexuality over time, throughout history. We do NOT observe decreasing rates of incidence, resulting from lower reproduction rates for those carrying the gene.

    So we know that it has to be a developmental variation which can arise anywhere at any time among any ethnic group in any geographic region in the world.

    Because humans develop over a very long period of time from infancy, compared with most animals, a person who develops in a certain way may BELIEVE that their desires are hard-wired. But those reactions have developed over such a long period of time, and are buried so deep in their emotional development, habits, and thoughts, that people cannot tell the difference (easily).

    Why are (for example) Asian people attracted (more) to other Asian people? There is NO genetic basis for this — it is developmental. Simply because they (probably) grew up around Asians, they developed emotionally to be attracted to familiar traits.

    By contrast, scientific experiments show, if a person is adopted into a different ethnic group. Let’s say a Chinese person is adopted by an African (Black) family and grows up surrounded only by Black Africans his whole life, experiments prove that the Chinese adopted child will IMPRINT developmentally to be attracted to Black Africans — NOT to other Chinese people.

    We know that people IMPRINT sexual attraction as they develop and grow up.

    Now, with regard to the homosexual who committed suicide and his father committed suicide. That’s one damned messed up family. Even if we can imagine the homosexual committing suicide, if the father commits suicide, too, that’s one really messed up family.

    Normal people don’t commit suicide no matter WHAT. Jewish prisoners in Naxi death camps in Nazi occupied Europe kept trying to live and overcome their horrible torment. It isn’t normal to react to problems by committing suicide. So you have TWO family members who commit suicide. There be something wrong there.

    Now, what about Christine O’Donnell’s sister Jennie?

    Your question ASSUMES that the cause is always the same. I never said that. I said that homosexuality is developmental, not genetic. And the guy who committed suicide and his father did, too, indicates something really wrong in that family.

    That does NOT suggest that everyone develops in the same way for the same reason.

    A person can develop attraction to the same sex for NO visible reasons noticeable to anyone from the outside. A person viewing the situation from the outside might not see any observable reason.

    I know Jennie personally, and quite well. She is a very sweet, thoughtful, sensitive, warm, and friendly woman.

    A friend of mine (a guy, my former boss) was very interested in dating Jennie, and I had to let him know that wasn’t going to happen. He was still interested anyway. (I did let Jennie know, since I BELIEVE IN LETTING PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS, even if I strongly suspect what their decision is going to be. Some people can’t handle that, and get totally confused when I make sure that someone is able to make their own decision, not have me guess.)

  20. The issue is actually parental control of their children, and whether parents have the right to seek to control their children’s sexuality.

    As far as a governor like Markell that’s so focused on bathrooms that he apparently can’t put two and two together as to why the wealth that generates the civilization that surrounds him exists (including the bathrooms)… apparently it’s an issue of abject stupidity.

    Because it’s generally all an expression of fossil fuels for now. When people don’t have cheap energy and cheap credit or don’t live in “blue state” cities created by looting the wealth of others, issues like which bathrooms transexuals should use aren’t even debatable.

    To think that the cheap tolerance typical to liberal Boomers is sustainable is as absurd as they’ve become. They can’t even pass a budget for the year, let alone build a sustainable form of civilization.

    Once you drag in religion, you’re just flogging for your perspective.

    I’m dragging in biology, math and physics.

    For example, where is the energy and the petrochemical pharmaceuticals coming from for the estrogen treatments that transexuals need when they decide that they feel like a woman (perhaps due to estrogen pollution)? Etc.

    Apparently you’ve lost your grasp on reality and would rather focus on entertainment, like most Boomers. But there’s no utopia of tolerance somewhere just over the rainbow and beyond the horizon in reality with this stuff. Once you waste and squander enough of the wealth and “integrity” and moral capital built up in America, there will have to be a “Golden Dawn.” Occultists already know this. It’s a group mind thing in the cultural petri dish. They call it the egregore. Maybe there’s a reason that the bankers that own the system are ultimately into the occult.

    Nobody else will or should take you seriously.

    I didn’t say anything about religion. The reason that you can’t take me seriously is because you’ve apparently want to substitute entertainment (the circus of transexual bathrooms) for reality (the fact that the petrodollar can’t last forever). Maybe you should produce your own reality show?

    If people had an infinite source of energy and technology then they could transcend sex. But they don’t, so they/you can’t… even after you’re done playing pretend about bathrooms or whatever else.

    Anyway, plenty of people take me seriously. But nobody should take you seriously… I mean, seriously. Meanwhile, apparently the governor of Delaware’s big concern is transexuals or .1% of the population and so forth while Bieber drives by in his $100,000 car and graduates of the university work as waiters to pay off their student loan “debt”/money. Karma? I guess if the governor is too dumb to actually do anything that would benefit and help 99% of the population then he has to play pretend about helping .1% that would be crying themselves to sleep each night about bathroom bullies, etc.

    They estimate the number of post-op women in the US to be 32,000 and obtain a figure of 1:2500 male-to-female transsexual people. They further compare the annual incidences of SRS and male birth in the U.S. to obtain a figure of 1:1000 MTF transsexual people and suggest a prevalence of 1:500 extrapolated from the rising rates of SRS in the U.S. and a “common sense” estimate of the number of undiagnosed transsexual people. –Wikipedia

    Interesting to note that many lesbians hate transsexuals and probably don’t want them in their bathrooms as a result. After all, it can be viewed as an attack on the gender stereotypes that they’ve incorporated into their identity. Etc.

    Again, not that any of that really matters. As this is usually the stuff that decadent people often begin to entertain themselves with before there’s a “correction” rooted in things like biology, physics and math (aka reality).

    Either you have an infinite source of energy and technology and don’t have to pay any attention to little things in life like biological facts or the physics and math of the energy and wealth that goes into entertainment and the theatrical production of the show or your don’t. And Americans… don’t.

    One has to wonder how long the military industrial complex is going to last, at this rate. Generally thanks to Boomers… that apparently think they’re going to get their healthcare in Obamacare. As far as the MIC goes, they’ll probably need to make sure that no one is crying themselves to sleep each night because they didn’t know which bathroom to use at the Pentagon now that they’re asking and telling.

  21. It’s a different anony who referenced OD’s sister above – I have no opinion on that.

    It’s been an interesting thread though. My opinion is ‘gender’ options – are going overboard and headed downhill. When one goes into a bathroom, it isn’t to socialize, meet anyone, look anyone over or even have eye contact. Restrooms are for reason #1, or unfortunately reason #2, and to wash one’s hands, then get the hell out of that likely unsanitary public space.

    But to continue with the ‘desires’ of those with less typical sexual identities, considering ‘gender’ options is a never ending slope to never,never land. For example, those who are attracted to same or different sex children. So do they need age defined rest rooms as well. Are young men rest rooms needed because some dirty old men think young men are cute? Old women think young guys are easy targets – cougar restrooms. How about delinquent boys who want to ‘be around’ easy girls in stalls? “Yeh officer, ah feels like a woman today.” How about Sandusky, other ‘coaches.’ I remember grade school kids saying of the gym teacher, ‘if he/she comes in the shower room, cover yourself quick.’ Also the ‘she/he’ swim instructor at the Y. The point is – there are more options than space for rest rooms. I’d say, 2 sets of bathrooms are enough for all genders to take a #1 or #2. Ladies rooms have stalls with locks. Perhaps that’s all men’s rooms need. Take the urinals from public display then both ladies and men’s rooms are equal and private, with locked doors while dressed down.

    Put a sign on the wall, finish your business, wash your hands and leave the premise. The expense = a sign.

    Since when is it too much to tell people what a public rest room is really for. We’re talking about a place for #1, #2, not a nightclub. Leave people alone and get the hell out of that nasty place already. Anything ‘strange’ going on, tell the authorities.

    I once saw a man following a woman from shelf to shelf at the public library. Then he would put his face on the floor , slide along and try to sneak a peak. Told the librarian, who said they have 5 or 6 such cases hanging around. So what next? A special section in libraries for whatever peak a boo ‘sexual preference’ crawling around on one’s face is called? No. Public rest rooms are for #1, #2 – library are for finding library materials. It’s that simple.

    The law can’t categorize what anyone/everyone is thinking – and build special rooms and fixtures to accommodate free-for-all toilet room fantasies.

    The best that can be done is, to make sure everyone leaves the kids alone. People with male junk, head for the men’s room. Got lady parts – the ladies room. Kids, adults see anything strange going on -tell the authorities. It’s not the place to develop one’s sexual personality or wonder why.

    We’re talking about a place for #1, #2, not a nightclub. Leave people alone, expect to be left alone. Don’t forget to flush and get the hell out of there already.

  22. ….Brown signed a bill mandating, in effect, that boys be allowed to use girls’ restrooms in the state’s public schools. The bill, part of an effort to advance “transgender rights,” says every student can “use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

    Nothing is more emblematic of the absurdity of ‘liberal’ society than this quote. The 97% of normal people are supposed to fall all over themselves to appease the freakish 3%. Ridiculous.

    Of course, we have the Treasury printing fiat currency and the Fed buying the debt, so no ‘liberal’ suicidal policy surprises me.

  23. Rick on October 3, 2013 at 08:23 said: “Nothing is more emblematic of the absurdity of ‘liberal’ society than this quote. The 97% of normal people are supposed to fall all over themselves to appease the freakish 3%. Ridiculous.”

    Actually, Rick, it is much smaller than 3%. About 3% of the population is homosexual. But homoexuals are NOT confused about their biological identity – simply attracted to the same sex. Homosexual men know they are men, but are sexually attracted to other men. Homosexual women know they are women, but are sexually attracted to other women.

    We are talking about a very, very, very, tiny miniscule minority of people who are men but feel they are women or are women but feel they are men.

  24. Nobody on October 2, 2013 at 12:39 said: “Again, this is not a real-world problem. It’s one that exists in your head, apparently because you can’t stop yourself from thinking about how to sneak into the women’s room.”

    When you are talking about passing laws, and the coercive power of government including to reshape society YOU HAVE TO THINK THINGS THROUGH.

    So you pass a law saying that men have a right to go into ladies and girls restrooms, which includes changing rooms at private and public gyms, public swimming pools, etc.

    WHICH men? You have to think it through. WHO is in this category?

    But liberals don’t think things through. Ever. It’s all about their FEELINGS — not about results.

    So if you pass a law saying that someone who feels like he is a man can go in and watch the teenage girls change into their bikinis….

    HOW do you define much less control who qualifies?

    That’s part of what is wrong with liberal policies: They are half-baked, sloppy, ill-considered, poorly thought out.

    So if someone can self-declare their desire to go into the girls’ room at the gym, you assume that people will always TELL THE TRUTH. So you imagine a world in which men who feel like women should feel like using the girls’ changing room at the public swimming pool, and you assume that this will only apply to those who you imagine.

    But people lie. What makes you think people will tell the truth?

    So your response is “What me worry?” (Alfred E. Neumann).

    You don’t think there are perverts anywhere in society? You don’t think that any guy will put on a hidden camera and go in to the ladies room at the public or private gym or to the female changing room at the swimming pool and take photographs covertly of teenage girls changing?

    THE POINT IS liberals don’t think things through. Liberals come up with crazy ideas, leap off a cliff based on pure emotion in a logic-free zone, and don’t consider the consequences.

  25. Nobody on October 2, 2013 at 12:39 said: “Again, this is not a real-world problem.

    That was ironic.

    You know what a real world problem is going to be, once you and ignorant governors are done with the circus act of making people feel good about their bathrooms?

    The absence of cheap credit and cheap fuel or a natural disaster putting pressure on old infrastructure that won’t hold up and so forth. Etc.

    Bread and circuses.

    And more entertainment…

  26. Of course, we have the Treasury printing fiat currency and the Fed buying the debt, so no ‘liberal’ suicidal policy surprises me.

    What’s the Fed? It’s the private banking families incorporated into the private banking cartel and the hidden/occultists on 33rd Liberty Street and so forth.

    Why do you suppose that they’re still creating money/debt out of nothing for corrupt politicians and buying the “debt”?

    They could withdraw cheap credit to see what emerges from the bowels of the body politic at any time. So what’s the hold up? I think it may be the guns and the internet and all the talk of false flags. They’re scared to complete the cycle and it seems like the timing is off.

    There was Occupy. And then there’s the veterans and the militias forming. How much training does the DHS have and who works for who, again?

    It seems to me more and more like the Tea Party is a joke, though. They better check again as far as what the Masonic founders were rebelling against for the sake of their own interests.

    The patriotic Tea Party wants to try to “save” the INTERNATIONAL banker’s money/debt in a world in which bankers keep awarding themselves multimillion dollar bonuses for creating money/debt out of nothing. Even when they run out of their ability to create money out of nothing and need to be bailed out?

    I could be wrong. Maybe you can show me where I’ve gone wrong in focusing on the fact that the money you’re trying to “save” or avoid spending is being created out of nothing and so forth, Moseley. It’s possible. But it seems to me that austerity is for losers, like the poor Greeks. (You know, Greek peasants actually work just as hard as anyone else in the world.)

  27. I find it hilarious in a very sad way that the author has just returned from serving his country in Afghanistan, to receive no paycheck, in a nation whose government is shutdown by radical conservative extremists, and all he can find to discuss, are three isolated incidents of non gays threatened by anti discrimination laws.

    Talk about putting ones head in the sand.

    Me? I would be outraged at the Republican Party if I were in your shoes for destroying the most wonderful nation God has ever put on earth…. Instead, the entire universe revolves around… .. gays…

    And to save another comment I’ll tack this on. Would it be right for a Southern Baptist in 1970 to keep blacks out of his congregation because “God” told him they were a subspecies and below all human dignity? Or should the laws of the USA apply? As go blacks, so go gays.

    Welcome back…. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  28. Kavips
    “Me? I would be outraged at the Republican Party if I were in your shoes for destroying the most wonderful nation God has ever put on earth”

    I’m wondering why you would be outraged at the Republican Party. Believe me, I’m no fan of the republicans but in this issue, Harry Reid shut down the government by defeating THREE House bills that would have kept the government funded and everybody except Obama happy.

  29. Harry Reid cast one vote. I realize you despise democracy, Mr. Ayotte, but that’s how the system works.

    Meanwhile, John Boehner refuses to put a clean bill to a vote in the House, because he and everyone else knows it would pass.

    Why do you hate America?

  30. Nobody on October 4, 2013 at 10:25 said: “Meanwhile, John Boehner refuses to put a clean bill to a vote in the House,”

    Why should the House give the President a blank check without ensuring that there are conditions that will improve the country’s financial picture?

    It is irresponsible for the House to vote to keep spending money without alos working to bring things into better management.

  31. Actually, no, Jon. It is irresponsible for the House to shut down government. My piece brings it home. No checks for Delaware’s Air National Guard days after landing from duty in Afghanistan, because some knucklehead thinks it is irresponsible to pay these people.

    What is responsible is to put the clean bill on the floor and let people vote as they wish. If someone thinks voting yes is irresponsible, they can vote no. Their conscious is clear. What is irresponsible is not putting the clean bill on the floor because you know you don’t have the votes to stop it…

    I’d like to see you explain to these soldiers, America’s best, why your broken philosophy is far more important than them putting their lives on the line for our country, and not get paid….

    You and anyone supporting Republicans in the House, are the utmost irresponsible citizens ever born in this nation.

    And Don. Instead of defending the actions of those in Washington, you should be raising cane too against them, for you in IPOD are the true voice of Conservatism now. Why should Sussex County fall in line behind Republican losers when they can have their own Representatives Independent and loyal to them? Sort of a Sussex Bernie Sanders, but conservative. IPOD should be gearing up to offer a serious Congressional contender who is a real Sussex Conservative and not some fancy pants with double lined stitching, working from behind a desk in Greenville….

  32. Isn’t it the prerogative of The House of Representatives to control the purse strings? It’s part of the balance of power isn’t it?

    If the voting populace doesn’t approve, they will vote people out, and the process will continue. The system is specifically designed so that monumental changes don’t happen overnight if there is disagreement.

    If people want this healthcare tax, it will happen eventually.

  33. kavips on October 4, 2013 at 23:06 said: “No checks for Delaware’s Air National Guard days after landing from duty in Afghanistan, because some knucklehead thinks it is irresponsible to pay these people. … I’d like to see you explain to these soldiers, America’s best, why your broken philosophy is far more important than them putting their lives on the line for our country, and not get paid…. ”

    Well, if they are the Delaware National Guard, why isn’t Delaware paying them?

    Or, if the deal is that the Federal Government reimburses the States for using the State National Guard, okay, fine. Let Delaware pay them, and then get reimbursed later.

    However, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative already voted to pay all of the soldiers and military costs.

    Harry Reid REFUSES to allow a vote on paying the salaries of our military.

    So you agree that Harry Reid — and Harry Reid’s “Pet” Chris Coons — are being irresponsible, Kavips?

    MEANWHILE, we are trying to debate the proper role of a “clean” continuing resolution in the proper functioning of our government.

    Oh, hell no. The proper role is that the President proposes a budget (under the Budget Control Act). The budget has to come from Congress, but the Congress by statute requests a proposal from each of the Federal Departments and agencies to work off of.

    Then the Congress passes a budget.

    Then the Congress passes 13 separate appropriations bills, I believe corresponding to 13 Congressional committees, dividing up the funding for the various departments and agencies into 13 different groups. That is by statute and convention.

    So there shouldn’t be any continuing resolution, clean or conditional.

    So you are trying to analyze whether one dysfunctional situation is more correct than the alternative dysfunctional situation.

    The only correct thing to do, making the best now of a bad situation, is for the US House to pass 13 individual appropriation bills and send them to the US Senate.

    There is nothing about any continuing resolution in the Constitution and I don’t think the Founders had ever heard of such a thing, as far as I know.

    So there is no reason that the US House cannot send 13 different continuing resolutions to the US Senate covering the 13 different appropriation bill groupings.

    Nowhere is it written that there has to be only one continuing resolution for the entire government. In fact, one continuing resolution for the entire government is rather strange, bizarre, and outrageous if you stop to think about it.

  34. kavips on October 4, 2013 at 23:06 said:

    Actually, no, Jon. It is irresponsible for the House to shut down government.

    The House isn’t shutting down the government. The US House sent 3 different versions of a continuing resolution funding the entire government to the US Senate.

    The US Senate voted NO on funding the entire government — 3 different times.

    One of those versions was conditioned on defunding Obama Care. BUT ONLY ONE.

    Alternative versions fully funded the entire government including fully funding Obama Care but was conditioned on postponing Obama Care for 1 year so that it could be ready to be implemented properly without causing harm and a train wreck — as we are seeing.

    The US Senate voted NO — NOT to fund the entire government.

    A third version passed by the US House fully funded the entire government including fully funding Obama Care, but required everyone to be treated the same under Obama Care, and not give Members of Congress and their staffs and Federal employees special preferences.

    The US Senate voted NO — NOT to fund the entire Federal government including funding Obama Care.

    IMAGINE THIS, KAVIPS:

    If ObamaCare is good, why isn’t Obama covered by ObamaCare? Why is President Obama exempt from ObamaCare?

    Members of the Obama Administration are not covered by ObamaCare, which they are pushing on the rest of us.

    Does that sound right to you?

  35. “However, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative already voted to pay all of the soldiers and military costs.

    Harry Reid REFUSES to allow a vote on paying the salaries of our military.”

    This is once again Moseley, completely inaccurate. That law was passed days ago, the Military is being paid.

    The Shutdown has effected training pretty significantly, but not the actual salaries of Active Duty military members.

  36. No Jon, the only responsible thing to do is for the House to pass a clean resolution to open the government. Republicans have really outdid themselves this time, and if they push us over the debt ceiling which Boehner now says won’t happen, it will the the end of Conservatives in national politics…

    The Republican House is the problem, and the Republican House needs to change Negotiating with these Republicans is like negotiating with Hitler. Better to have gotten rid of them at the earliest possible convenience, and our economy sans Republicans would now be flourishing….

  37. kavips on October 5, 2013 at 14:46 said: “No Jon, the only responsible thing to do is for the House to pass a clean resolution to open the government”

    WHY is that? Why is giving the Democrats everything they want the only right course of action?

    If your brother wants to borrow $10,000 — after borrowing money from you on 20 previous occasions — the only responsible thing to do is to demand CHANGES In his life and his circumstances so that you are confident that he will use the money and the 21st chance to get his life back on track.

    It is irresponsible to keep extending more and more money without any restrictions and requirements aimed at restoring things back on to a sustainable track.

    It is not responsible to give a drunk $100 knowing that he is probably going to buy more liquor.

    When I worked in downtown DC, I bought gift coupons from McDonalds. So when beggars asked for money on the street, I gave them coupons for FOOD at McDonalds. Most of them were very appreciative and happy. One guy took the coupon, looked at me and said plaintively.. “Man… A man needs a drink!!!”

    No, it is absolutely irresponsible to continue spending on an unsustainable path without taking some action to restore fiscal sanity.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    kavips on October 5, 2013 at 14:46 said: “Republicans have really outdid themselves this time,”

    YOU WISH. The polls show that 25% blame Republicans, 24% blame Obama.

    So this is not turning out as Obama and the Obama-nauts hoped.

  38. Republicans have really outdid themselves this time, and if they push us over the debt ceiling which Boehner now says won’t happen, it will the the end of Conservatives in national politics…

    If it is the end of the Right then it’s probably merely the equivalent of a controlled demolition for False Profits Inc. like the Two Towers of the Right/Left collapsing on 911.

    You could read False Profits into it by Paul Ryan’s “hidden hand” pose, etc. That’s the theory with explanatory power. There’s no way that people like Ryan don’t understand that bankers are creating all the money/debt that they’re supposedly so concerned about… out of nothing. Democrats? That might be debatable. Maybe some of you are dumb enough to believe that the banker’s system is worthy of the full faith and credit that you idolize in the State.

    The State or the bank.. all the world is a stage for some… so is it time for Lady Liberty to try to shake her spear yet? Dude looks like a lady.

    Almost six trillion is owed to the Fed. It was created from thin air and should be repaid in kind. Just make a digital notation like they did. The same applies to the nearly $16 Trillion they gave to other banks during the 2008 crisis.
    Tony Blizzard, a Patriot veteran, writes that the only way to escape enslavement is to throw them all out and create our own medium of exchange.
    Blizzard: “While the federal liars play their “how to keep borrowing” game, … (borrowing the medium of exchange into existence), know that there is absolutely NO NEED for any national government to EVER borrow money, much less “credit” (debt), as national governments are the rightful agents to CREATE the nation’s money. It is not a right to be handed, free of charge, to a cartel of criminal private bankers such as the Federal Reserve.
    “Moreover, government-created money is properly NOT loaned into existence at all but SPENT into circulation for legitimate government projects, there to stay and oil the economic wheels and cogs.”
    It is comical to see… John Boehner championing the cause of debt reduction. Like all politicians, he has advanced the Illuminati agenda- getting the country deeper into debt. As Matt Taibbi shows in “The Crying Shame of John Boehner” (Rolling Stone, Jan 2011) the Speaker built his career by being a conduit for public money going to big corporations. Default? Don’t Put it Past Them!

    The Republican House is the problem, and the Republican House needs to change Negotiating with these Republicans is like negotiating with Hitler.

    You realize that this is merely like a pendulum and the symbol of the fasces already hang in Congress, right? Enjoy your victory, until you’re flattened by the hammer that flattens the Right swinging back to flatten the Left too. As that’s the most likely scenario, provided no one does anything about the whole paradigm.

    Better to have gotten rid of them at the earliest possible convenience, and our economy sans Republicans would now be flourishing….

    No it wouldn’t. Not until local leaders create money out of nothing in order to stimulate the economy instead of Democrats partnering with an international private banking cartel to create money out of nothing to spend on shrimps on treadmills, etc.

    You already had the Democrats in charge and all they did was illustrate that they’re degenerate oligarchs, as they partnered with bankers to create more debt/money to trickle down on themselves. (When they weren’t spending the rest of their time exempting themselves from laws that they passed for their peasants.)

    Name a major banker that was put in jail by the criminals in Obama Inc. for their crimes. Was Obama too busy assassinating sixteen year old Muslim peasants without trial to detain a few bankers without trial?

    I hear that the entertainer in chief’s golf courses are still open, even as they’re trying to shut down private parks. I’m not sure that this is going to play out the way that you and Marketing.gov Inc. apparently think it will. Maybe it will.. but it might not. Not that it really matters, given what the Republicans stand for.

  39. Isn’t it the prerogative of The House of Representatives to control the purse strings? It’s part of the balance of power isn’t it?

    Supposedly.

    Although the people that control the purse strings and the availability of tax revenues denominated in petrodollars created out of nothing and so forth… are ultimately bankers. That’s probably why we don’t have much representation in how “our” money is being spent. “No taxation without representation!”

    We’re a long way from that now, probably because no one feels the pinch given all the wealth that’s been created… until they do.

    Perhaps a new slogan: “No money creation without representation!” ??? Rather than trying to force peasants to buy into more paper ponzi systems and so forth, it probably would have been best to just have money created out of nothing and spent into existence on healthcare directly. That still wouldn’t have very good results. But it would be better than having bankers creating huge amounts of debt/money to lend to the American sheeple at interest.

    But we owe it to ourselves to pay our debts.

  40. The Money Power are the banking families and their control grid, including the Banking Cartel, which is one massive consolidated block. To solve the situation we need to get rid of the banks and print some interest-free credit, while managing the volume properly. The money supply should grow and shrink parallel to economic activity. With local democratic control of credit allocation. This would solve all three main problems with money.
    If we do that, we would end the Money Power, war, the depression, Transnationals, poverty, the Jewish Question, environmental destruction, wage slavery, the war on the family and the degeneration of the public domain. Simply by starving the beast and empowering the many.
    It would vastly increase the standard of living of the great majority of mankind. It would foster an unprecedented cultural, scientific, political, economical, environmental and spiritual rebirth. Link

    I don’t agree with the utopian tone. But there’s more than a “nugget” of truth in this and the rest of the growing populist* media online.

    I.e. it’s the decentralized social fabric that is a nation’s gold standard. But if metaphoric hobbits can’t so much as agree on a property line as an increasingly sinister all seeing eye looks down upon the scene, then I don’t know. Or if Dorothy doesn’t realize that her “silver slippers” aren’t the real source of wealth or the way back home after she’s done traveling the mythological yellow brick road of gold… then, I don’t know.

    *It’s interesting that the decentralized nature of the technology tends to match the philosophy of decentralization. It’s like a a central banker’s nightmare, along with the globalists and oligarchs that tend to serve them.

Comments are closed.