We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, January 29. 2013
Food cranks update: From Sundance to Dunkin’ Donuts, the gluten-free craze shows no signs of abating
Many libs believe, deep down, that blacks and hispanics cannot make it in the modern world
Question of the Week: Which Department of the Federal Government Should Be the First to Be Abolished?
My vote goes to Dept. of Education. Not a federal responsibility.
Don't get paranoid, but why this? Obama Administration Repositioning Homeland Security Ammunition Containers
1.4 billion rounds of ammo? Maybe they are planning on disarming the criminals in Chicago.
“San Diego Chief of Police: We Can Disarm America ‘Within a Generation’”
No. You maybe can disarm the honest people, but not the crims
Kirstin Powers on Obama & Hillary’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview: “Was Something You’d Expect From State-Run Media”
Clinton backers launch ‘Ready for Hillary’ super-PAC in hopes of 2016 campaign
Malians celebrate, French-led forces clear Timbuktu
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"No. You maybe can disarm the honest people, but not the crims"
But we are all criminals now, so the answer is just, NO.
On the other hand, they are conveniently locating government resources (ammunition) for capture should it come to revolution.
Question: Wouldn't the "scary" cosmetic features on firearms such as the AR-15, such as adjustable stocks, pistol and other grips be the best to provide accommodations to Americans with disability?
Thus, those less fortunate would be able to not only enjoy shooting sports but also effectively embrace in their 2nd amendment rights as well as their natural right of self defense?
Is is right for the government to seek to deny members of a protected class effective self defense and accommodation for their less than perfect physical attributes?
Could this be why the DHS is seeking 7000 of the firearms for defense? Does it have a American with Disabilities Act component?
The bipartisan group of 8 senators presents an immigration reform proposal containing a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million who've illegally immigrated.
this is how we lose the battle before its begun. the illegals haven't "immigrated", they're here illegally. "immigrated" is a legal term that means legal permanent resident on the road to citizenship.
calling it "immigration" reform gives up the viable options of non-permanent nonimmigrant status for these illegals.
11,000,000 doesn't mean only 11,000,000. it means 11,000,000 plus another 30,000,000 husbands, wives, chilrun, brothers, sisters all eligible under some form of visa, some immediately, not all of whom are going to wait patiently in their third world forest peasant-style village but will sure as shi'ite show up here.
I am always surprised by our two party system's ability to only see 2 sides of a problem and thus only 2 opposing solutions. One needs to look between the extremes to see the connections. Sooo, what d'ya say we counter offer with this proposal to the libs:
no immigration for children whose mothers came running across the border to have their baby in this country. In exchange for which we give some opportunity to earn citizenship (millitary) for those who were born here previously illegally.
Second proposal. The population bomb and it is a bomb whether the republicons can acknowledge it or not--just like climate warming. There is climate change--the cause is uncertain. Getting back to those from south of the border. They are already here and already doing terrible destruction. So let's get the liberals really dedicated to a solution. You want to slow down population growth offer a carrot for reduced child bearing to incoming illegals. How about free education for first child, reduced for second, and none for the 3rd, etc.? That ought to rub all their sensitive spots!
Or, here is one--you want citizenship--2 babies and you get the operation!
Please let's not forget that BD is absolutely right--my family made this a good place. They had the courage to stand and defend in bad economic times and in war. Why can't the Mexicans get it right in their own country? Because they don't really want to make the effort. Fix your own place first. You s--- in your nest --don't come running north.
Oh btw, when is the African/American community gonna get smart and realize what this group is taking away from them as well?
denying second or third children public education benefits is an equal protection lawsuit waiting to happen, and, the 14A is the reason why any baby born in the US is a citizen.
However, just because the baby is a citizen isn't a bar to removing (deporting) the illegal parents (unless the parents are from somalia or some place like that).
I suspect the ruling mexican regime glad to see illegal immigration, its a like a steam dump valve. the people who might revolt are the ones leaving for the US.
Time to change the rule that a baby born in the US from parents who are not US citizens is automatically a citizen. This is a historical artifact that no longer serves the original intent.
its not a rule so much as it is a constitutional amendment.
if you think you can repeal part of the 14th amendment, good luck trying.
There's a population bomb brewing all right, but it is the opposite of what you think. China, Europe, Japan, Russia all face devastating population DECREASES within the next 50 years to a degree never experienced in human history outside major disease or external factor like volcano induced climate change.
The weather it is always changing, daily, over decades over milleniums. So what?
Undiagnosed gluten sensitivity probably killed as least two members of my family, but there were no tests at the time. Gluten ataxia attacks the brain (cerebellum), usually begins in mid-50s and it's a terrible way to die as the patient goes from a wide-gait imbalance to peripheral neuropathy to uncontrolled pitching and falling, usually resulting in frequent broken bones. The difficulty in swallowing causes aspirational pneumonia made worse when the muscles in the lungs stop working. Just so you know, five medical centers and all their specialists including U. Chicago, U. of Michigan and Mayo Clinic (MN) couldn't diagnose it (1988 - 2005) AND it's destruction can be halted on a gluten-free diet -- no pharma necessary.
I recent study concluded that most people with a gluten related health problem do not know they have a gluten related health problem. It also discovered that most people who choose a gluten free diet do not have a gluten related health problem but in fact suffer from the need to believe that they can improve their life, health, longevity with a diet fad. The problem is real the hype is . . . hype.
Your link with the name"...gluten-causes-ataxia-unstable-gait-or-poor-balance" demonstrates the problem with perception of diet related health issues. Gluten does NOT cause these problems!! It is genetic and your genes caused the problem. Cutting out gluten in your diet may alleviate some of your symptoms but it cures nothing and was never "the cause". Just as peanut allergies are not the fault of peanuts gluten allergies are not the fault of gluten. Most of us, perhaps 98%, are unaffected by gluten (or peanuts, or MSG or many of the other fad related bad foods). Just trying to put the problem in perspective and not trying to diminish the problem.
Fruit Juice: The Horror, the horror...
Shale Gas In Britain: The Horror, the horror...
Japan: Don't know about them, but there was that article about the Brit woman living very well on The Dole.
Zachriel must be sleeping late, today.
I can't understand why the medical insurance vs fines issue isn't more widely reported. There is an extremely strong incentive for employers to drop insurance and pay the fine. Saving thousands of dollars per employee per year. In the end it will get to single payer, but employers can't think about that. We (I own a small business) have to have cash in the bank.
the incentive to tell employees to go on the medical dole is so strong that I have to assume it was deliberate. $6,000 per employee for medical insurance. $2,000 fine. This is not a difficult decision.
Which Fed Department to close first, wow so many wonderful options to choose from, but I agree with the OP to start with Dept of Ed as that is clearly a local function and there is absolutely no data to support any type of return on the $billions wasted...in fact the correlation of $ to achievement seems to be inverse.
Re: Possible implosion of ObamaCare
I think the issue may be more complex than the article implies. Perhaps my current understanding of the law is wrong, but I thought in the case of large companies it is the company not the individual employee who must pay the tax (penalty) if the company fails to offer a health insurance plan to its employees. A large company is defined as one that has either 50 or more full-time employees or else a number of part-time employees whose aggregate working hours amount to the same thing as 50 full-time employees, i.e., a total of 1500 man-hours or more each week. (This is a new anti-fraud rule the IRS has recently said it will impose even though there appears to be no provision in the law that gives the IRS any such rule making authority. The IRS has simply asserted it has the authority.)
For other workers who fail to get health insurance, the tax penalty falls on them. The IRS is empowered by the Obamacare law to poll every American who files a federal income tax return whether or not they have health insurance. If the answer is NO, the IRS will assess that individual a tax as prescribed by law. However, as I recall, the law specifically DENIES the IRS any power to enforce collection of the penalty, so anyone who opts out cannot be forced to pay the tax the IRS assesses them.
The reason the Dems originally kept the penalty low was for political reasons, namely, they wanted to overcome any objection from young voters who would be forced to buy health insurance which many of them would not need, at least until they were much older and had families. The Dems in Congress are acutely aware that the law's provisions, as they now stand, encourages young adults not to buy costly insurance and either to pay the tax or else flout the law entirely. That's why there have already been calls for new legislation to increase the law's penalties for not buying insurance. So even before this hastily passed law goes into full effect, its many defects are becoming obvious and the rush has begun to patch the "mistakes" that were intentionally put into the original bill to ensure its passage. It's sausage making at its worst.
That isn't really what the 14th amendment says. The implication is that you are here legally. It was never decided by a Supreme Court that anyone sneaking across the border and having a child born here is ipso facto legal.
look, no one dislikes furriners more than me, but ...
14A "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." (emphasis added)
there's nothing in there that says Congress can decide that some persons born here are citizens and some who are born here are not. the Constitution says all are. the USSC hasn't ruled on this specifically, but that's how its been put into practice.
besides, you can still remove (deport) the illegal parents of a baby citizen, its done all the time. the kid can't sponsor the illegal parents until he or she is an adult.
That's the right way to do it, anchor babies notwithstanding. If the parents have to go on public assistance, and they're here illegally, send 'em all back, even the anchors.
Make it clear. You're here illegally, we're not paying you one thin dime. Make it on your own, or go home and take your kids with you.
"subject to the jurisdiction..." This implies you show up in front of a U.S. immigration officer and show papers and fill out forms and declare a date by which time you will leave the country. Can an "illegal act" negate that requirement and all is forgiven??? Can someone with "dirty hands" who has broken laws to get here and broken even more laws to stay here be treated like a honest immigrant?? What then would stop all 160 million Mexicans, and 1.1 billion Chinese and all 1.2 billion Indians from coming here? Is there no restriction, no law, no decision to stop it. My point was that all we need is to have a Supreme Court rule that indeed if you come here illegally and/or for the express intent of having a child norn here that you do not fall under this part of the 14th amendment. If that happens then that becomes the law of the land and anchor babies are a thing of the past.
Those "rifles" are actually full auto machine pistols. Short barreled, full auto arms which, being currently manufactured, are illegal for normal citizens to own under any circumstances. Despite the constitutional requirement that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".
"Arms" carried by the DHS must overwhelm "arms" carried by the citizens, apparently. I don't think the founders had that in mind.
Short barreled, full auto arms which, being currently manufactured, are illegal for normal citizens to own under any circumstances. Despite the constitutional requirement that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".
if you think that's a valid interpretation of the 2A, please, test it in court, buy a machine pistol and use that as your defense in a criminal prosecution.
this is why the grabbers call us gun nuts and paint us as lunatics.
Can't buy one, they're illegal.
If they had existed at the time the Constitution was written, do you think they would have been forbidden? Personally, I doubt it.