Friday, July 03, 2015

It's Called "Progress"

Somewhere under the rainbow....

Anything that sends the extreme right wing into a severe state of spastic apoplexy is indeed a beautiful thing. That photograph above is doing the trick nicely.

On the eve of our 239th celebration of Independence Day, in the wake of the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's signing of the Voting Rights Act, there's much room for some national reflection as we head into the Fourth of July weekend. This country is going through some milestone changes that are as unavoidable (and as inevitable) as the sun rise. 2015 will, I believe, be remembered in history for being just as pivotal in the nation's progress as 1963 was. That was the year that the American people gazed upon the chimes of freedom crashing. Try as they might, the picture before them could not be averted. A change was coming in 1963, and there was no way a rational person could deny it. 2015 is turning into that kind of year.

You say you want a revolution?

For all of President Obama's faults (and there have been many) he was custom-made for these transforming times. If at first he moved too gingerly for the tastes of a lot of us on the left, it appears that he's decided that the final year-and-a-half of his presidency will be an era that, a half century into the future, liberals will be remembering as the good old days. A raising of the glass and a tipping of the hat to the guy: He's had a great two weeks,

I was just thinking of the irony: Forty years ago I was a teenaged homophobe of the most pathetic variety. In 1977 at the age of nineteen, I found myself living in a fairly gay neighborhood in Philadelphia; that's when my attitude commenced to change. I actually made an effort to get to know a few of them and, wonder of wonders, they weren't half bad. In fact (at least from my experience) they're the best neighbors one could hope for.  Today I am a hard-core supporter of gay rights. I have evolved. Go figure.

We need to be patient with our conservative friends. Most of them will eventually get with the program. Most of them today will admit that the Voting and Civil Rights Acts were a pretty good idea in hindsight. It's the hard-core, Tea Party types that we need to write off. Don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to see the light. The NRA will rename their national headquarters after John Lennon before that ever happens, so forget it.

Here in Goshen we have something every Fourth of July called The Great American Weekend. I'm really going to celebrate this year. We all should.

Have a great American weekend, everybody.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY


Talk about your mind-bogging coincidences:

John Phillips
I not too long ago fiished reading Doris Kearns-Goodwin's latest book: a biography of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft - and the muck-raking journalists who defined that golden age of investigative journalism in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries. One sentence on page 178 stuck out. It described John S. Phillips, one of the founding editors of McClure's Magazine:

"Phillips lived in the city during the week so that he cou...ld be available day and night; on weekends, he joined his wife, Jennie, and their small children in Goshen, NY, a small town in the foothills of the Catskills."

That got me to thinking, I wonder if I could find out where this fellow lived. After a few minutes pondering this thought, my memory was jarred by a thunderbolt revelation: I know exactly where he lived - 48 South Street - THE HOUSE I GREW UP IN!!!

As the great Steven Wright once said, "It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."

Sheria Reid
UPDATE, 3:06 PM:

I received the horrible news a little while ago that my friend, Sheria Reid, author of the insightful blog, The Examined Life, died unexpectedly on Tuesday morning of a massive heart attack. If you've read my stuff with any degree of regularity over the last nine years, you'll know that I have quoted her and linked her excellent site a number of times.  She was a brilliant writer and a beautiful soul. Now please excuse me while I try to adjust to a world without Sheria Reid. This is going to take quite a bit of doing.

Here is a link to Sheria's blog:

She was as good as it gets.


At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anything that sends the extreme right wing" which in your case Tom is anything to the right of you.

At 10:41 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Boy Troll, The "extreme right wing" is 99% of the GOP right now. All the rational moderates are "too liberal".

Tom, So sorry to hear about your friend.

At 12:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which gives us some indication of how far to the left YOU are cry baby Mozart.

At 1:02 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Boy troll if you really were right about things you wouldn't have to steal screen names and plant viruses. Your heroes are flushing the 1st and 4th amendments, not to mention burning churches, and calling all Mexicans "rapists". I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you. Like I said, keep it up and look forward to computer problems of your own. That's going to make your Mom mad when she can't get to her recipes.

At 9:42 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Left is good, Right is bad. Is that so hard to understand?

Nobody can deny that SL is a like a thief and vandal on this site and any other Conservative here that approves and condones his actions is a coward.

At 11:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The next step for America is to rescind the 2nd amendment.

At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another voice from the left is heard. So much for diversity of the left.

At 7:39 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Sore loser clearly doesn't want to talk about how red states are flushing the 1st and 4th amendments. If those two are negotiable, why NOT the 4th?

At 9:12 PM, Anonymous John said...

>> it appears that he's decided that the final year-and-a-half of his presidency will be an era that, a half century into the future, liberals will be remembering as the good old days. A raising of the glass and a tipping of the hat to the guy: He's had a great two weeks,

...for who?
...and what??? Jamming through fast track authority???

However, the last two weeks saw the Pope's encyclical - now that was fantastic!

At 12:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday America!

At 1:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Francisco Sanchez allegedly gunned down Kathryn Steinle at San Francisco’s Pier 14 on July 1, Breitbart News discovered that Sanchez had been deported from the country five times. We also discovered another interesting tidbit–Sanchez has seven felonies, which means he faces 100 percent gun control 100 percent of the time.

He is completely barred from gun possession and prohibited from having the gun with which he allegedly shot and killed Steinle.

The fact that the allegedly had one anyway proves again that gun control does not affect the behavior of criminals, but it does place law-abiding citizens in a scenario where it is harder for them to get the guns they need for self-defense.

According to NBC Bay Area, “Sanchez has seven prior felony convictions, four of which were for drug charges.” The felony “convictions took place in states including Texas, Oregon and Arizona.”

But those convictions–and the resulting ban on Sanchez purchasing or possessing a firearm–appear to have done nothing to keep him obtaining one and, worse still, using it. Moreover, California’s expanded background check requirement, their state gun registry, and their 10-round magazine limit were powerless to protect Steinle.

And Donald Trump is the problem?

At 1:44 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Want me to scan the news to find a white guy that comitted murder? One need only look as far as South Carolina. NINE dead.. IN CHURCH...After being told it was BECAUSE they were Black.

Is one life worth more than another? Certainly not. But you can find a reason to make Trump appear like a genius, if you don't look at the rest of the country.

At 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scan the news for an illegal alien who has been been deported five times, has seven felonies and committed a gun crime, and tell us what you come up with.
Oh, and BTW the race of of the criminal isn't the point, (shocking I know to a liberal, everything is not race based) it's the fact that the laws in place NOW are not being enforced, IE gun control and immigration, that must have bounced off your race engaged brain. FYI, the criminal in this example was a Caucasian.

Try again cry baby.

At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Joe Cocker said...

Cry me a river Mozart!

At 11:51 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

The laws in place NOW mandate that law enforcement target ALL illegal immigrants the same instead of having them focus more attention on the ones that are an actual danger.

In the same way a single weather event doesn't prove or disprove climate change, a single incident involving a criminal who is also an illegal alien doesn't prove or disprove anything.

But then you don't seem to be the kind of person to be intellectually equipped to understand either of those explanations.

At 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BoyTroll/SoreLoser/AlSharptoon/Harry/Vanessa etc. associates contrarianism with intelligence.

At 3:38 PM, Anonymous James Hanson TM said...

Put a fork in it, Greece and their Socialist Central Planners are done.

The can will no longer be kicked down the road.

Socialism in Greece has run out of money from the other EU countries. The hard working Germans have had enough of subsidizing the Zorba The Greek loafers of Greece.

The Fat Lady is about to sing!

At 4:18 PM, Anonymous Sore Loser the pedophile said...

Put a fork in it, Greece and their Socialist Central Planners are done.

The can will no longer be kicked down the road.

Socialism in Greece has run out of money from the other EU countries. The hard working Germans have had enough of subsidizing the Zorba The Greek loafers of Greece.

The Fat Lady is about to sing!

At 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


How many examples of a crime committed by an illegal alien would you need to prove anything? How many crimes committed by a known felon with a gun would you need to prove that gun laws do not prevent crimes?

Your position, now support it with the numbers needed to prove to you.

At 7:40 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Sore Loser...: "The Fat Lady is about to sing!"

Please don't allow yourself to feel so enamored and proud. The United States will experience the same, and it's not too far down the road.

The dominoes are starting to fall...

(And don't think stuffing your money in a mattress will help. It'll have as much value as the paper it's printed on...once the BRIC nations get their way.)

At 10:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More "progress"

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.

And if they are scaled back how with the short fall be made up?

At 11:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's called progress,

Chicago 4th Of July Violence: 30 Shot In 8 hours Overnight, 7 Year Old Boy And Two Men Killed…

At 11:51 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous (Sore Loser) if gun laws have no effect on gun crime, as YOU maintain, why have any laws at all? Why not make Murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, etc. LEGAL because "criminals don't follow the law anyway".

Out of an estimated 9 million illegal Mexicans, you are going to get some who do bad things. The TRUTH is, like White people and those of every other color, the VAST majority are law abiding people just trying to make it to their next meal.

Your obsession with brown people shows YOUR true "colors", especially when the TRUE Terrorists are caucasions wearing White hoods, and the true CRIMINALS are wearing suits and ties, and taking everything they can, with NO fear or prosecution. In fact, they have made themselves the ultimate "Protected class". The own the Republican party.

At 11:55 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I don't have to dry Joe Cocker, Liberals have had several victories over conservatives the last couple weeks. Seems like it's ignorant bigots like you that are doing all the whining.

WHaaaaa!!! People I don't like are getting the same rights as me!!! WWHHHHAAA

WHHHaaaaa!!! Poor and working people get to keep their healthcare!!! Whhhhaaaa!

And so vindictive corporate insurance companies are cranking up the rates, so that ignorant conservatives can BLAME Obama.

At 12:04 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Really? In your Fixed Noise fuelled paranoia, you need "numbers" to prove that most people come here to work and raise their families, and not to rob, murder, rape and sell drugs?

It must be a really sad little island in that narrow space between your ears.

At 4:05 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Tom, first and most importantly, I am truly sorry to hear about the passing of your friend. My condolences go out to you, sir.

Second, redefining marriage was extra-constitutional at best. Frankly, I would like to have government completely out of the discussion (and law) when it comes to marriage. Obviously that won’t happen. Under this contrived SCOTUS decision, the same logic and arguments will now be used to justify polygamy and any other iterations of “marriage”. Basically we will have rendered what has been the bedrock of western civilization into a meaningless contractual term between whomever one desires to legally share his/her affections. Consenting adults absolutely should be free to do as they choose, but misappropriating the term and sacrament of marriage will have severe long term societal ramifications.

One of those ramifications will be the further erosion of many Americans’ first amendment rights to free exercise of their religious beliefs. It won’t be long until we see the pernicious push to have the federal government force religious institutions to perform gay “marriages” at the penalty of being fined or having their tax exempt status removed otherwise. After all, since this activist court now made this federal law, it can only be “legally” classified as discrimination if they do refuse to perform such “marriages”.

As for the execrable Obamacare decision, that was flat out un-constitutional. The law, as written, was explicitly clear that states were expected to set up health care exchanges in order to get federal subsidies. The Supreme Court once again decided to ignore the law as written and bail it out again in order to ensure that this egregious law stood that insisted I must purchase health insurance against my will at the risk of being fined otherwise. So much for my freedom!

And my leftist brothers and sisters think that they are not the ones eroding our constitutional rights… I sadly no longer recognize my country anymore.

Last, our President’s political taunting by lighting up the White House in rainbow colors only serves to further divide our nation. He doesn’t care about healing the divide. He cares about keeping political score. Ironic, considering he initially ran for president as a traditional marriage candidate.

At 6:29 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T. Paine, can you show us exactly in the constitution where marriage was defined at all? I must have missed that part. Can you tell us why SCOTUS was justified "constitutionally" to say corporations are people or that money = speech?

Like the rest of your conservative buddies, you call judges "activist" when they make a decision against you. How EXACTLY does giving EVERYONE EQUAL rights "erode" your hetrosexual relationship? Howe does it "erode" your religious freedom, unless you consider bigotry and discrimination a "constitutional right". Do you?

And it didn't say "States" (plural) it said STATE. Which means the federal government can tell the states what to do.

And how many Gay people do you know that would attend a church that hates them, let alone want to be married there? As usual, like a conservative you whine and cry about situations that have little or no chance of happening.

Of course, government officials charged with issuing marriage LICENCES to the GENERAL PUBLIC could be fired for refusing to do so, and rightfully so.

BTW, did interracial marraiges "erode your constitutional rights" as well?

Maybe you contemplate your "God hates fags" attitude over your dinner at Red Lobster wearing your clothing made of two different cloths. Do you have any daughters you'd like to sell? We need some work done around here, that is if you haven't stoned them all to death for being disobedient.

And what would Jesus have to say about your opposition to poor and working people getting access to healthcare?

As for The White house having colored lights in support of the end of discrimination,(which celebrates INCLUSION) think about WHY that particular LAW "divides" us. It's certainly not because our GOVERNMENT outlawed another form of discrimination.

At 6:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A 24-hour period last Wednesday and Thursday saw two cases of male illegal immigrants allegedly murdering women in two separate U.S. states: California and Texas. In both instances, the women’s murder could have been prevented by authorities had they enforced existing U.S. immigration laws and/or had the U.S.-Mexico border been functionally secured. The California murder involved an illegal immigrant who had been previously deported five times with seven felonies and the Texas murder involved an illegal immigrant who had been deported on four previous occasions. In the Texas case, local Laredo police had been called to the man’s house on at least three occasions over domestic disputes, yet they failed to contact Border Patrol about the man, according to federal agents.

Democrat party's real war on women, allowing our southern borders to violated.

De_Bill, let them come here, but make them do it LEGALLY, or do you not know the difference between legal and illegal?
Cry Baby Mozart, why dont you both make the same stink when a white person murders as you do when a illegal person murders?
"Out of an estimated 9 million illegal Mexicans, you are going to get some who do bad things" Or is because white lives don't matter?

That is not progress.

Is it because it doesn't fit the radical left wing race agenda template?

Most likely

At 2:34 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Keep calling me names Boy Troll, and I noticed that none of my actual reasonable issues were addressed.

9 PEOPLE SHOT DEAD IN A CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA. Did an "illegal" do that? NO. A WHITE guy did, and it COULD have been prevented with common sense gun laws.

Tens of millions of Mexicans in this country, legal and otherwise, and you think ONR or TWO of them committing a crime paints them ALL, yet WHITE AMERICANS commit crimes every day and I don't see you suggesting we are all murderers.

The VAST MAJORITY (way beyond population density) of serial killers and pedophiles are WHITE MALES. Think about that as you eat dinner tonight, thankful you don't have to pay $11 for a head of lettuce.

At 8:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet 52% if all murders in American are committed by African Americana.

Chew on that a while Cry Baby Mozart

At 11:10 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Anonymous,(Sore Loser, Boy Troll) that's not an accurate statistic. 52% of the ARRESTS maybe. PLus you have to take gang and other ECONOMICALLY motivated crime into account. When you have no other way to support yourself, you eventually turn to crime.

Think about it. In "Normal" life your best bet is a minimum wage job loading stuff in trucks, and you get treated like a minion.

In a GANG you can make thousands per day selling drugs and you get treated with great respect

Which do YOU choose?

Until we make the ability to climb the economic ladder available to everyone, we are going to have people that would rather be "outlaws".

Besides, they don't count those killed in needless wars as "murders" but if they did a LOT more White people like Bush, Cheney, and the CEO's of the "defense" would be rightfully on the list of "murderers". Add to that the number of people who have died because they can't get access to food, or healthcare and your numbers would sfhift dramatically

At 11:35 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, you are absolutely correct sir. Marriage is not defined in the constitution. In fact it isn’t even implicated anywhere within the document. That means that the federal government should not have ANY say over it whatsoever accordingly.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ~ 10th Amendment

In other words, at worst it should have been up to the states to decide the marriage issue, like it was previously. Frankly though, in my opinion, it should have been left up to the people and not even the states to determine and define marriage.

And yes, I agree with your second point too. SCOTUS has made many egregious and unconstitutional decisions over its history, from Dred Scott v. Sandford, Korematsu v. U.S., Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. New London, and let’s not forget the execrable NFIB v. Sebelius. All of these decisions either went against constitutional constraints or “found” rights that did not exist within the Constitution.

I may not like it when SCOTUS makes a decision that is contrary to my beliefs, but if they follow the Constitution in doing so, then I can accept that. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men. That is not what they did in King v. Burwell though or in the gay marriage decision.

With the Obamacare law, it spoke of exchanges to be “established by the state”; not by the “state or federal government”. Jonathan Gruber, one of the chief architects of this piece of dung law specifically stated "by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars....That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens." Does that sound to you like he was talking about the federal government setting up exchanges, sir? That certainly is not how the law is written so you are either not very familiar enough with the law or are being duplicitous, Mozart.

Even Chief Justice Roberts in his once-again inexplicable support of this travesty stated in his written opinion, “In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” In other words, he was going to depart from how the law was written by being an activist judge, usurping congress’ authority to draft legislation, and rewrite the law himself with the other progressives on the SCOTUS.

At 11:35 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Next, I also agree that one would think gay people would not want to go to a church that doesn’t condone their lifestyle, including seeking “marriage”, but then again we still have gay people suing private businesses for not providing flowers, photos, or cakes for their gay “wedding” instead of simply walking away and finding another business that will serve them in this case. This will absolutely be a compelling issue with churches too, now that this extra-constitutional law has been passed. People will sue churches for discrimination against them.

For the record, I do not hate people simply because they are gay. If I am going to hate someone because they are a sinner, I guess I am going to hate the whole world, starting with myself. That said, I am not going to condone sin either – even my own.

As for your ridiculous citing of Leviticus Jewish law, the eating of shellfish and wearing of certain cloths, etc. are all apart of ceremonial or civil Jewish law and not a part of moral Jewish law. (In fact, good Orthodox Jews still follow many of these laws today.) Those laws were superseded by Christ with his new covenant though. It is because of that that we can eat foods that the Jews deemed as unclean etc. That said, while civil and ceremonial law no longer hold sway over Christians, moral law has not changed for Jews or Christians. St. Paul speaks against homosexual acts accordingly in Romans.

God tells me to love my neighbor. Not my straight neighbor, but all of my neighbors, and I strive to do so, even though I sometimes fail. That doesn’t mean that I will support my gay friend or cousin in his sin though.

Government did not outlaw another form of discrimination as you asserted. It ratified an unconstitutional law which legally recognizes and redefines marriage between gay people, thereby eroding what has been the bedrock institution of our western civilization for millennia, all in the name of putting people’s sexual proclivities above those best interests of children, families, and society. We have taken one more step in our slouching towards Gomorrah accordingly, sir.

At 11:55 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

At the end of all this ridiculous arguing, the simple fact is marriage is a CIVIL contract, usually celebrated in a church or some religious setting, but religion is completely irrelevant to its legality.

Religious freedom certainly entitles people to their own privately held beliefs, but it also protects everyone else from having to conform to those beliefs if they don't share them.

Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

At 12:38 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T Paine, marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT and should not be subject to popular vote. Religion does not own it. And let's see a private business saying "I refuse to do business with anyone wearing a cross".

The backlash from the religious right through it's main conduit, Fox Noise, would be so great it would overwhelm everything else.

BIGOTRY should not be tolerated anywhere toward anyone, and the fight against it IS at the heart of our constitution.

And once again, had the Obamacare law said "established by the STATES (plural) you would have a gripe. But it said STATE (singular) meaning the federal government, as in "Separation of church and STATE" (remember that part of the constitution?)

You keep trying to get things your way. No wonder you are known as SORE LOSER.

At 1:16 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

De_Bill, I understand your contention and even agree to a certain extent. That said though, I wish our federal government would abide by the Constitution and stick to ruling ONLY over those issues which it has purview. As for marriage, as I said, I wish that was left to the people to administer. If a couple wanted to have a civil ceremony conducted by the local justice of the peace, then so be it. If a couple understood marriage to be the sacrament I believe it is and history and tradition have typical upheld for thousands of years, then their faith ceremony should be adequate without need for a civil license or approval.

As for your comments on religious freedom, I also agree. Nobody should be forced to conform with the religious dictates of another’s faith. That said, I should be allowed to live my life according to my faith, even in public places. Too many folks, especially those on the left espousing “tolerance”, would rather that I practice my faith on Sunday and in the confines of my church. I have a God-given and Constitutional right to exercise my religion freely – and not only in private, sir.

At 1:41 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, you can redefine marriage to include gay couples, polygamous couples, siblings, or what have you. That does not make it a marriage any more than calling a man, a woman. My own personal belief is that if gay couples want all of the civil rights of a married couple, then they should be free to do so through a civil ceremony. Words mean things though, and usurping “marriage” in an attempt to dilute and destroy its meaning in order to ultimately render the sacrament without religious purpose is a grave shame.

And frankly, I make it a point not to patronize existing businesses that are hostile towards my faith and beliefs today. I don’t wish those business owners harm or wish to shut them down. They have a right to their free speech just as much as I do. I simply will try to sway more people to my side of the debate, just as they will try to steer people to theirs. It is sad that we need to get so ugly in the debate in the process though.

And you are right that bigotry should not be something that our society tolerates, but that is something that we as a people need to educate our children and families towards by OUR ACTIONS. Passing laws outlawing bigotry will not remove the hatred in men’s hearts. Isn’t it usually the left that is always saying how we cannot legislate morality? We should treat each other with respect and dignity, even when we vehemently disagree. Those in government, such as our president, that wish to divide us by color, creed, or faith are doing a great disservice to our society accordingly. It needs to stop.

Next, you either skimmed over or simply chose to ignore my previous argument on the subject of “established by the State”. Please read it again sir. You are being disingenuous in your argument, and even the dissembling Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that he ignored the law as it was written. State, as it was applied in the context of the Obamacare law clearly meant the 50 United States.

Further, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention “the separation of Church and State”. This was a phrase Thomas Jefferson used in a letter to the Danburry Baptists. The fact that people think this is in the Constitution is a common misconception of our constitutionally-illiterate nation.

Last, I am not keeping political score. I am not “trying to get things my way”, sir. I am advocating that our God damned government actually follow the law and the United States Constitution as it was written and intended. I am not sure if that makes me a sore loser or not, as you are the first person to call me that though. Wouldn’t it be nicer and far more productive if perhaps we can discuss issues without devolving to juvenile playground name calling?

At 3:03 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"At the end of all this ridiculous arguing, the simple fact is marriage is a CIVIL contract, usually celebrated in a church or some religious setting, but religion is completely irrelevant to its legality."

I would say it a little differently. I would say it is a religious institution that has been a cultural & social bedrock for centuries. The family is inarguably a necessity for social and economic stability. That the government and other civil institutions have decided to bestow benefits and protect it historically does not mean it is owned by same. It means we as a society at one point valued it and determined to protect it.

The ignorance and lack of understanding is truly disheartening. We have become a society of blathering idiots redefining anything we want to suit our perverse notions of our being. We are no doubt circling the proverbial drain. Argue all you want against the truth - it never moves. You will only dash yourself to pieces on it.

It is neither progress nor regress - it is cultural digression.

At 3:53 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T Pain, WHO "defined" marriage in the first place? If it was the Bible, that is NOT a reliable source, nor is it in any way the law of the land. Just because YOUR are a bigot does not mean the rest of us have to live like you do. You don't like same sex marriage, don't get married to a person of the same sex. Very simple.

I would also ask you WHAT HARM does same sex marriage do to YOUR relationship?

Who are YOU to say what a "family" is?

THe founders were careful to put a "separation of church and state" in the constitution, because they had just won a revolution against a nation where among other complaints, the "Anglican church" was in charge of all the laws.

Same sex marriage does YOU no harm. Stop obsessing on it, grow up, and move on.

As for Obamacare it's helping tens of millions of people and the cost to the taxpayer is actually less than when the uninsured relied on ER's and State funded "Free" clinics. It was written by conservatives, Romney used it to great success in Mass. and the ONLY reason conservatives like you oppose it is because OBAMA supported it and got it passed.

This country is trying to move away from bigotry and persecution from greedy, corrupt and very "un Christian" conservative policies. If you want to continue to "dash yourself to pieces" on the rocks of your bigotry and ignorance, feel free. You will not be missed.

At 3:54 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

HarleyA, exceptionally well said! And in all aspects!

At 4:06 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T.Paine (sore loser) Our constitution is NOT based on religion, and anyone who thinks we are going to be a theocracy is delusional. If you want to be a bigot, fine, but get used to disappointment.

Your kind do NOT get to decide for the rest of us what "Family" or "love" is.

Remember what Jesus said about Homosexuality...NOTHING.

At 4:09 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 4:13 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Marriage is not the property of someone's personal choice of superstition.

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions
more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas

At 4:43 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions
more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas

So, we are saying that the concept of marriage has an absolute basis as do physics and geometry? Will SCOTUS be modifying those at some point?

At 4:44 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, marriage is an institution (a sacrament) defined by God. It preceded Christianity, even though Christ reaffirmed it. Numerous civilizations and nations throughout human history have affirmed it. Because of traditional marriage throughout the millennia, we have raised our children, provided for them and our families with far greater stability than would otherwise have been possible. Because of this basic institution of western civilization, we have been able to advance in all matters from science, art, architecture, medicine, and so on. Without this stabilizing and child-rearing institution, we would have had far more chaos, poverty, and war. Marriage has served our civilizations well for these thousands of years accordingly.

Now, in the past decade, we think we are so “enlightened” that we can cast aside the traditional meaning of marriage and twist its definition to support a politically correct agenda. I am not for ostracizing gay people or preventing them from being together in a committed relationship or civil union if that is their choosing. But I am not going to stand silently by as they co-opt and twist marriage into something it has never been.

You speak of tolerance, Mozart, but like the militant gay lobby, you have no tolerance for anyone that has the temerity to disagree with you. It is not enough that conservatives and traditionalists like me are willing to live and let live with our gay brothers and sisters, while not condoning their lifestyle. No… we must not only accept it, but we must celebrate it as you have. If not, then you will brand me as a bigot and a hater when nothing is further from the truth.

It is far easier to resort to these Saul Alinsky type tactics of name-calling in an attempt to marginalize me and those that think as I do. If you brand me as a bigot, then you aren’t required to address any arguments I present, do you?

As for what harm gay “marriage” does to me – well, there are two very important aspects of a sacramental marriage: a unitive one and a procreative one. The unitive function is the man and woman becoming one flesh in a loving union. This arguably can also apply to a same-sex couple. The procreative aspect is one that only a man and woman can achieve due to the complementarianism of biology. Obviously, this is something that a same-sex couple cannot achieve naturally.

And yet, gay couples do and will continue to adopt or have surrogate children. They want children and they think that society and the courts should not be so cruel as to deny them that. In other words, they are putting their own desires above that of their would-be children. But what of the right of the children to have a mother and a father? Regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary from the left, men and women truly are not irrelevant and interchangeable.

My latest article on my own blog is the reposting of a letter from a girl raised by her mother and her mother’s partner. She loves both of these women, but is saddened that she has grown up without a father, and even more so that she is taught that a man is not needed or wanted. When we break down the traditional family unit by perverting marriage to mean whatever two or more consenting people want it to mean, we erode that stability for our children. We weaken our societies accordingly. That is how gay “marriage” hurts me and all of society.

At 4:45 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

By the way, your fallacious argument saying that if I don’t like gay marriage, I should simply not marry someone of the same sex can also be used against you, sir. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. See?

You are correct that our Founders did not want a national religion or church as England had with the Anglican Church. That does not mean that they did not acknowledge and indeed ask for God’s guidance and blessings in official governmental matters. Even our founding document as a nation makes several references to God accordingly.

“Same sex marriage does YOU no harm. Stop obsessing on it, grow up, and move on.”
Mozart, your statement is illogical. Pedophilia does not harm me personally either, but I am in no way going to condone it and will seek to have those guilty of it punished to the greatest extent of the law. It harms children. It harms our society.

As for Obamacare, it has cost many more millions than what it has saved. I was told by our President that if I liked my doctor, I could keep my doctor. Well my doctor and several other friends, family, and acquaintances I know, can no longer see him. Many doctors will no longer accept Medicare or Medicaid. Many won’t accept insurance through state exchanges. How does this help the poor or any body else? I was told that my health care costs would go down by $2400 for my family annually. Instead they have gone up by nearly that amount for a lot poorer level of care. We need to make health care more affordable for everyone. Obamacare was not the way to do it. It was about governmental control; not about helping people.

I didn’t support it because it would not and does not work. Just like I did not support Romney with his version of it for his state. I don’t support it because it is NOT constitutional. We are no longer a nation of laws. Maybe that doesn’t worry you yet, but eventually a right of yours will be trampled upon that you do care about and then maybe you will change your mind, sir.

Call me a bigot and un-Christian if you wish, but I know that I have done far more to help my neighbors and family than most “caring” progressives ever will. And I don’t even care if the people I try to help are gay or liberal. But I am still a “bigot” because I don’t think just like you do, Mozart. So who is really the tolerant one, sir?

At 4:45 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"Marriage is not the property of someone's personal choice of superstition."

Sure it is. 5 people in Washington DC...

At 5:00 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“T.Paine (sore loser) Our constitution is NOT based on religion, and anyone who thinks we are going to be a theocracy is delusional. If you want to be a bigot, fine, but get used to disappointment. Your kind do NOT get to decide for the rest of us what "Family" or "love" is. Remember what Jesus said about Homosexuality...NOTHING.”

Mozart, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you simply wish to argue with juvenile tactics.

I, and every conservative I know, do not want America to be a theocracy. We simply want the nation to be governed by the Constitution. This is not happening anymore. And both parties are equally to blame for this.

I don’t want to tell you how to live your life, Mozart. Nor do I want you and activist judges or congress or our President via executive orders telling me how I must live mine. And yet, that is precisely what is happening. Sadly, it will become far worse before it gets better.

Last, you are wrong again about Jesus, my friend. Technically, the son of God did not say anything about homosexuality in the New Testament. He also did not say anything about pedophilia or necrophilia either, but I am absolutely certain He is against those too.

Further, from a theological standpoint from an orthodox Christian perspective, Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity. He is God. Read the first chapter of John’s gospel. Christ is God. The Bible is the inspired word of God. God spoke against homosexual acts in both the Old and New Testaments through His divinely-inspired authors. So Christ did indeed speak theologically-speaking against homosexual acts.

At 5:02 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

"Sure it is. 5 people in Washington DC..."

ROFL! Indeed HarleyA!

At 5:07 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Mozart T.Paine is obviously not SL as he has his own blog and is far more informed and literate than SL. Weather you are gratuitously insulting him or really believe they are they same person reflects very poorly on you.

I believe intelligent people should be respected even if their opinion differs from your.

At 5:46 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T. Paine IS a Pain and if he's not Sore loser by name he is by word and deed. The same court that gave us Citizens United gave us Same Sex Marriage and Obamacare. Why no outrage at money being speech or corporations being people? Why only outrage over decisions that HELP NON BILLIOINAIRES?

Stop defending this hypocritical clown.

Modern conservatives are doing more damage to themselves than any Supreme Court decision could.

Take your "jiggery pokery" to a place where they accept your type of "applesauce".
Like a Fox news or Limbaugh blog.
I asked for evidence of "harm" from same sex marriage, and to date all you do is deflect.

At 5:48 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

"Sure it is. 5 people in Washington DC..."

You do understand that those "5 people" represent a majority in the 3rd and co-equal branch of our government as described in the Constitution, right?

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives piss and moan about obeying the Constitution when things don't go their way, but they're happy as hell when it does.

How many conservatives complained when the Supreme Court SELECTED George W. Bush to be President?

It was decided same sex marriage is a CIVIL right, in the same way marriage is a civil contract religion is irrelevant.

At 5:54 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mr. Hansen, I appreciate your comment. I was unaware that SL (which I assume to be Sore Loser) was another reader/commenter on Mr. Degan's blog. Perhaps I should have read more of the previous comments and I would have seen that. Regardless, I am not whomever Mozart thinks SL is. I will gladly assign my own moniker of T. Paine to all of my opinions and stand by them. I am even open to having those opinions changed if someone can provide a good argument as to why I am wrong. Calling me names is not going to do the trick however.

I do not know what your opinions are or which way you tend politically, but I greatly appreciate your desire to have respectful debate. Thank you! Cheers!

At 6:01 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

E. Paine, you may not be "The" Sore loser, but you and your ilk are certainly ACTING like "sore losers".

MARRAIGE BETWEEN TO CONSENTING ADULTS IS A CIVIL RIGHT. (Only in the South do we worry about incest)



Get over it already.

At 6:03 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, I gave you a very specific reason as to why gay "marriage" is harmful. The fact that you are not reading it or skimming past it does not speak well for you in the debate.

I suspect you are someone that doesn't want to debate anyway. You want to go to someplace that is an echo chamber of your own thoughts and opinions. Anyone that disagrees with your "enlightened view" is a loser, bigot, or hateful evidently.

And how do you know I don't also deplore the Citizens United decision. You are merely assuming that since I support traditional marriage and despise the pernicious Obamacare law that I must accept every conservative position. While I do indeed agree with most of them for logical and historical reasons, I try to look at each issue individually. I might even agree with you on some issues. Would that horrify you?

At 6:22 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

T. Paine, I am a far Left Liberal and politics is my sport so to speak. I used to debate Conservatives quite a bit in the past on other blogs. But as far as I know I have never changed anyones opinion on any subject, but then again most people are highly partisan.

At 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's called "progress"?

A six-time-deported illegal immigrant is charged in the felony hit-and-run of an Arizona mother and her two young children. The man allegedly admitted to being high on marijuana while causing the severe lacerations to a five-year-old boy. The five-year-old and a two-year-old were both taken to an area hospital.

This tragedy comes within one week of two separate incidents involving previously deported illegal immigrants allegedly murdering women in two U.S. states: California and Texas. The California case involved a young woman in San Fransisco taking photos with her father on a pier when an illegal immigrant who had been deported five time prior allegedly murdered her. The Texas case involved an illegal immigrant who had been deported four time prior. Police say the man admitted to murdering his wife with a hammer.

At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mozart, I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you simply wish to argue with juvenile tactics."

Didn't take you long, T. Paine to figure that out.
That's why James Hanson told Mozart he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box.

At 8:42 PM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

"The shooting death of a woman on a San Francisco pier, allegedly by a convicted felon illegally in the United States, illustrates a disconnect between federal immigration officials who wanted him deported and local officials who ultimately let him go.

Francisco Sanchez, 45, a Mexican citizen deported from the United States five times and only recently released from U.S. prison after again getting caught sneaking into the United States, admitted Sunday he accidentally shot Kathryn "Kate" Steinle, 32, on July 1 as she walked on San Francisco's Pier 14 with her father and a friend.

The San Francisco District Attorney on Monday charged Sanchez with murder, and he's set to be arraigned Tuesday afternoon.

Federal officials say he should have never been walking the streets a free man. Federal officials released Sanchez in March from federal prison where he had served nearly four years for previous immigration violations."

Will Tom Degan do a rant about the innocent "White 32 year old woman" gunned down by a Mexican citizen deported from the United States five times and only recently released from U.S. prison after again getting caught sneaking into the United States? No we will hear crickets!

Does Nancy Pelosi have the blood on her hands of that white 32 year old woman? You bet that lying marxist bitch does!

Tom, A good book for you and your marxist friends like Mozart the cry baby to read is "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder" by Michael Savage.

Harry from Wallingford
IP Address

At 10:37 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

You don't hear "cricket's you hear the shaking of heads as you try and condemn 12 million people for the act of ONE.

I guess ALL white American men are serial killers now. Thanks Ted Bundy!

Is it inconvenient to mention this turned out to be an ACCIDENT?

Reading a book my "Michael Savage"? Why not just suggest something by Limbaugh or Beck? guys are really stretching.

At 11:12 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Marxist. The political theories of Karl Marx and Engals have nothing to do with Hillary who is a Neo liberal. And Neo Liberals are practicably related by blood to the Neo Conservatives.

So throwing the Marxist label around to present day politicians just makes you look uninformed and foolish.

At 11:49 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

DeBill -

"You do understand that those "5 people" represent a majority in the 3rd and co-equal branch of our government as described in the Constitution, right?"

It never ceases to amaze ME that people don't realize what it is that took place. The "right" to marriage was not at issue - never was. The definition of marriage was. Much like the personhood issue... the rights of a person were not the issue - the definition was. And, they got that wrong as well. They overstepped. Regardless of your sexual ethics, they got it wrong.

So, I am to take it that you are on board with the "Citizens United" decision, since all 5-4 decision are de facto legitimate based on your most recent reply...? Of course not. I'm sure you don't.

By the way, what did Jefferson think about the Supreme Court...? Any idea?

At 7:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's called "Progress".

An illegal alien from Mexico who was deported last year is accused of fatally shooting and burning a Washington woman and her son.

Prudencio Fragos-Ramirez, 25, was arraigned on Monday and is being held on $1 million bail for the murders of 18-year-old Maria Cruiz-Calvillo and her 3-year-old son, Luis Lopez-Cruz, the Tri-City Herald reports.

The pair’s burned bodies were discovered in a remote area on Thursday. The two had gunshot wounds, but the boy was likely still alive when the car was set ablaze, according to Franklin County coroner Dan Blasdel.

The American Dream of a home is slipping out of reach for millions of Americans, especially African Americans, as house sales hit a 20-year low, according to a new Harvard University study of the U.S. housing market.

Instead, house-poor Americans are shifting to rentals with such speed that many areas can barely keep up with demand.

Overall, home ownership, the cornerstone of the American Dream, is down to 63 percent, a far cry from the 69 percent registered in 2004. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University's annual "State of the Nation's Housing" report said current home ownership percentages rival that of 1993.

At 9:20 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Boy Troll, It's called "Progress"

When a KKK wannabe walks into a BLACK church, ANNOUNCES that he's killing people BECAUSE they are BLACK and open fires, killing NINE PEOPLE ON PURPOSE. When White cops are killing unarmed Black men for selling loose ciggies, or when a black man is allowed to die in the back of a "paddy wagon" and THAT after being falsely arrested, when a Black CHILD is shot dead by a White cop that had been fired from three other police departments for racial incidents and incompetence, or when black kids show up at a PUBLIC pool and after suffering racial slurs are chased and abused by WHITE cops, when Black churches are being burned, when, when, when...

Your "diseased rapist murderer" seems to have ACCIDENTALLY shot someone. Does that make it right? No, but let's stop acting like it's a crime wave. ONE incident does not justify Trump's racist remarks no matter how many times you repeat it.

If you want to tell an ACCURATE story, housing sales are actually UP from 2008 proving that Obama is growing the economy, and we all know it would be growing even fasted if the GOP congress would stop obstructing every effort in that direction.

You REALLY need to stop letting Limbaugh do your thinking for you. He's on his way out because sponsors are tired of his bullshit. You however, still seem to be unable to do anything but regurgitate his numbers, carefully spun to make it appear as if the economy has been failing under Obama. It's so transparently false it's pathetic you still try and sell it.

In the meantime, Red states are flushing the 1st and 4th amendments and you say nothing. Southern states are defending a flag of TREASON AND BIGOTRY and you say nothing, workers rights are being taken away and you say nothing.

Clearly you are unable to be educated. "Sharpest tool" indeed. You can't even think for yourself when trying to come up with a clever insult.

At 10:23 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

I am not really certain why we keep returning to the illegal immigration thread on this post, but I’ll play along.

Illegal immigrants are here in the United States ILLEGALLY. They are not “undocumented workers” any more than a drug-dealer is an “undocumented pharmacist”. Is it feasible to return untold millions of them to their countries of origin? No, probably not. What we should do is beef up e-verify and ensure that every business in America must check citizenship or visa status prior to hiring anyone. If they hire illegal immigrants anyway, they should be fined severely for the first offense and then shut down for the second. This would stop businesses from exploiting these poor people.

Those folks that are otherwise law-abiding should be given legal status so they come in out of the shadows. This will allow them to work, pay taxes, and social security.
They should NEVER be granted full citizenship with the rights to vote though, as they gave that right up when they illegally entered the United States. Of course, none of this will ever happen since the Democrats want to give illegals a “path to full citizenship” in order to further entrench their voting bloc. They are more concerned with power and their own political party then they are the welfare of the nation.

Any illegal immigrant that is caught committing a felony should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law here. When/if he finishes his sentence of incarceration, he should be returned to his country of origin. If he returns again, he should be put in prison for the remainder of his life. Of course that costs taxpayers money, but if we were serious about enforcing this, we would quickly see a huge reduction of those criminals trying to return to America.

We also should complete a border fence and loosen the rules of engagement for border patrol agents. In all fairness, we should reciprocate Mexico’s immigration
policies here. They are exceptionally strict. Of course when America does those same things, that makes us racist instead of just being smart in protecting our borders to ensure that those entering our country are doing so legally.

At 10:40 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

No, they finally got the definition of marriage RIGHT. Marriage is a CIVIL contract between two people, and isn't defined by either your privately held religious beliefs or you socially conservative prejudices.

At one time, narrow minded people also blocked the right of black and white people to marry. It's not a "right" to impose your personal beliefs on everyone else.

And no, I'm not "on board" with the Citizen's United decision, but I also don't think the Supreme Court should be abolished (that genius Bobby Jindal's idea) or that they didn't have the right to make the decision (the whiner's solution). It was a bad decision and in time, reality will prove that, and that decision will be revisited and changed, hopefully.

Do you think the same can be said for a decision that gives people the right to marry who they want and live their lives how they want without asking the approval of the narrow minded?

At 12:27 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

People like T Paine are conditioned by Fox news and RICH PEOPLE to believe that the poorest of the poor are "public enemy number one" while the uber rich steal all the nation's wealth and use it to buy politicians, who then allow them to write legislation making it easier to steal even more.

When we complain and try to stop it they call it "class warfare".

Who's done more damage to America. UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS who pick fruit and clean hotel rooms, or the Wall Street bankers that crashed our economy and got billions in bonuses for the favor, not to mention the fossil fuel barons that are destroying our environment for fun and profit?

Come on T. Paine...defend wall street and the fossil fuel industry. I dare you.

At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Joe said...

"People like T Paine are conditioned by Fox news and RICH PEOPLE to believe that the poorest of the poor are "public enemy number one" while the uber rich steal all the nation's wealth and use it to buy politicians, who then allow them to write legislation making it easier to steal even more."

Is this man on crack? He is so blind. It ain't no secret he will be voting for the biggest uber rich corrupt politican in America's history, Hillary Clintoon.

James Hansen is correct about this man not being the sharpest pencil in the box although he was not that sharp by saying Hillary was a conservative lol.

At 3:13 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I will be voting for Bernie sanders in the Primary and whomever gets the Dem nomination in the General.

Saying Hillary is "uber rich" is like saying Donald Trump is a good businessman.

To the average person the Clintons would SEEM "rich" but they are paupers compared to the Romney's the Adelsons, the KOCHS, even Bill Gates

Besides, it's not the MONEY that liberals are against, it's what one DOES with it.

Too may screen names for the Boy troll here. He should be limited to the same number of brain cells he has. ONE.

Notice that conservatives never mention that their states are flushing the constitution one amendment at a time? The only one they seem to care about is the 2nd and they pervert the meaning of THAT one!

They also think the flag of TRAITORS is more important than that of the USA.

At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is a religious ceremony and government never had any business regulating it.

At 4:01 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“No, they finally got the definition of marriage RIGHT. Marriage is a CIVIL contract between two people, and isn't defined by either your privately held religious beliefs or you socially conservative prejudices.”

De_Bill, respectfully, where in the heck does it say anything in the Constitution regarding marriage? It doesn’t; therefore, as per that same Constitution, it is an issue that should be addressed by the people or the individual states – just like it was before this extra-constitutional ruling. They had no legal authority to adjudicate upon the definition of marriage whatsoever. That is not a privately held religious belief or my own social conservative “prejudices”. That is a statement of legal constitutional fact, sir.

I too am not for Jindal’s idea of abolishing SCOTUS, but they absolutely do need to stop referencing foreign courts, public agendas, and political interests when they make their decisions. They should be addressing whether each case before them is of a constitutional matter. If it is, then it is within their purview and they should adjudicate their decision based on the United States Constitution. Evidently that simple task is beyond most of them, however.

If gay people wish to have a union with their partner(s) or whatever the case may be in order to show their love and provide what legal benefits arise from that, then so be it. It still ain’t marriage though.

At 4:28 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, you jump around from topic to topic too quickly to follow. You are like a fart in a skillet in that respect. Did you give up on the gay marriage issue since you have no reasonable rebuttal to my earlier points, and so now you are moving forward to your next diatribe, sir?

I am amused by your assumptions that I must get all of my news from Fox News and rich people. Actually I read and watch news from both right and left wing sources, and typically find the truth to be just right of center. I don’t hate the poor, nor do I hate the rich. I once was poor and now am middle class. I would like very much to one day be self-sufficient, if not rich. That said, I have made it a point to always help those less fortunate than me along the way with my work and with my treasure. That is often far more than I see many progressives doing. Many (not all) progressives think that if we tax the rich into oblivion and provide that money to the poor, then that is all that is required. Government will take care of the problem thereby eliminating the need for them to do anything personally to help (other than vote for such foolish and dangerous redistributionist policies and politicians.)

I understand the plight of many illegal aliens wishing to come to America in order to provide a better life for their families. Regardless of their coming here illegally, they should still be treated with the dignity and respect that is owed to all men and women. That doesn’t mean that we should condone that illegality or provide them a path to citizenship. Nor would I expect their countries to do so for me if I went their illegally. In fact, were I to do so in many Latin American nations, I would be thrown in jail and deported. I wouldn’t be able to hide out in “sanctuary cities” after committing numerous felonies. That defies common sense. Please tell me that you don’t support such nonsense.

As for Wall Street, many of the people there invest money from much of the middle class’s 401K’s so that they can eventually retire without having the government and taxpayers provide for them. Those that are corrupt there should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Instead they often end up working as the treasury secretary for Obama or perhaps they make other huge contributions to liberal politicians after destroying other nation’s currency. (aka George Soros). If a Republican breaks the law, I want him in jail. If a Democrat breaks the law, I want him in jail. If Hillary breaks the law dozens of times, as she has, I want her in jail. Instead, we will ignore her corruption and treachery and likely elect her to the White House because of our ignorance and stupidity. I could care less if a person is a Republican or Democrat. If they break the law, they should be punished accordingly. We need to stop worrying about political parties and keeping score and instead follow the rule of law and doing what is best for our nation.

Finally, the fossil fuel industry must eventually be phased out and replaced with better, cleaner technologies. Right now those technologies on such a large scale simply don’t exist -- certainly not in an economical fashion. If you want to really hurt the poor, continue doing what the left and President Obama has done by hindering coal production. Coal is responsible for the energy for millions and millions of poor people to heat and power their homes. They don’t have an alternative way to care for their home and family. Obama’s policies had caused oil and therefore gasoline prices to go way up for a time too. Whom do you think was most negatively impacted by that? The rich people? Or was it the poor people you claim to care about that were trying to fill their car to get to work?

At 4:38 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“It ain't no secret he will be voting for the biggest uber rich corrupt politican in America's history, Hillary Clintoon.”

Mozart, please tell me that Joe is wrong and you don’t plan to vote for the corrupt ill-gotten-super-rich Hillary, even in the general election. If so, then your consistency and credibility are shot, my friend.

And who gives a damn if Hillary’s corrupt millions are less than Romney’s or the Koch brothers. She got hers by getting “contributions” from foreign nations in exchange for favorable State Department decisions.
If Condoleeza Rice had done the same thing under President Bush, you would be screaming for her to be thrown into prison – and rightfully so! And I would agree with you.

Further, until the left starts following the Constitution, even when it comes to the “free exercise of religion”, you have no credibility pointing anywhere else on that issue.

As for the confederate flag, it should be removed from all government property, other than museums. If people wish to fly it on their private property, then that too is their right… at least for a little while longer.

At 5:14 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

T. Paine,. are you REALLY saying Hillary has more money than Trump? Than BUSH? Than the Koch Bros who have vowed to PERSONALLY spend a BILLION nationwide to buy elections? REALLY?

If Hillary wins the Dem nomination she has my vote, yes. The ONLY "scandals" she's involved with are made up by the GOP. That's already been proven by GOP INVESTIGATIONS!! The Clinton foundation has been cleared of any wrongdoing, but like BENGHAZI you conservatives just keep blathering. You must realize that you have no one close to beating her in a fair election. Who do you think you are fooling? Any one stupid enough to believe your BULLSHIT wasn't going to vote for her anyway.

And speaking of the constitution you whine about so much, where's the outrage when Florida and Wisconsin have violated the 1st amendment by BANNING the terms "Climate change" and "Global warming"? Where's the outrage when several states have violated the 4th amendment by forcing welfare recipients to submit to drug testing without cause? Almost as bad is that not only are they spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds to catch NO ONE but one governor owns a huge chunk of the labs who get to do the testing. Hmmm...go figure.

The 1st amendment also protects FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Who's right to practice religion is being violated?(Other than those who's churches are being burned by the KKK, if they are still alive to see it) There's a church on every street corner in America!(minus 7 now) Churches get to rake in BILLIONS of tax free dollars.

Oh and speaking of churches burning to the ground, you can't believe it's LIBERALS doing the burning can you?

Oh, and both Condi rice AND Colin Powell used personal e-mails while Sec of State. NO outrage from the right. See, it wasn't a "crime" until AFTER Sec. Clinton left office, and so far the raciest stuff they have found involves laundry lists and birthday messages.

Several embassies attacked under Bush and a few DOZEN people died. No outrage from the right.

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your hypocrisy.

But you keep whining because a politician has more money than you do. It was your "Citizens United" that made it impossible to get elected without large sums of money, but no outrage toward the SCOTUS from the right over that.

At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of the 61,529 criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors last fiscal year, more than 40%—or 24,746—were filed in court districts neighboring the Mexican border….Nearly 22% (13,383) were drug related, 19.7% (12,123) were violent crimes and 10.2% (6,300) involved white-collar offenses that include a full range of frauds committed by business and government professionals.

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to 3.1 million illegal aliens.

In 1990, Congress increased legal immigration by 40%, and granted amnesty to the illegal relatives of aliens who benefited from the previous amnesty.

10-20 million illegal aliens presently roam the U.S. The number of illegal aliens doubled in the 1990's.

Each year more than 1.3 million legal and illegal aliens settle permanently in the U.S.

For every 100 illegal aliens who find jobs in the U.S., 65 American workers are displaced.

Each year, more than 72,000 aliens are arrested for drug offenses in the U.S.

Illegal aliens constitute over 25% of the federal prison population. Think about that for a moment. This means that a group which comprises less than 5% of the population is committing 25% percent of the crime.

In some areas of the country, up to 12 % of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens.

In Los Angeles alone, 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total approximately 1,200-1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to 2/3 of all fugitive felony warrants (approximately 17,000) are for illegal aliens.

In Lake County, Illinois 1/2 of the murderers and 21.5% of all criminals now in jail are illegal aliens, costing the county an annualized rate of $4,056, 945.

Approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who have committed crimes and have been given a deportation order are at large in the U.S. and their whereabouts unknown.

In fiscal year 1999, expenses for incarcerating illegal aliens in state & local jails in Pennsylvania alone cost taxpayers $13.3 million. It has been established that the nationwide costs to states and localities for housing illegal criminal aliens is about $2 billion per year.

A 2011 report on the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on United States taxpayers found the following:

Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality

Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.

At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

Additionally, the estimated cost of illegal immigration to Indiana state and local governements is $608 million per year.

It is time to end the abuse of American generosity.

Some Progress!

At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get used to it T. Paine, Mozart has the IQ of a fart in skillet, much lest an attention span.
He jumps around because he cant argue his position he can only throw stuff at you in an attempt to get you to answer him and follow him down his liberal rabbit trail

At 7:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

La Raza that is having their big annual convention this weekend, Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley will be there.

Not a single Republican candidate bothered to accept the invitation.


Oh, and by the way, SoreLoserBoyTroll? Your services are no longer needed here. "T. Paine" is our new conservative. He's more polite and handsomer than you.

From here on we'll be debating him.

You can take your aliases, your viruses, your catchphrases and your weezell-zipper cut-and-paste jobs and exit the building.

At 8:12 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Notice how the Boy Troll avoids discussing how the GHOP is flushing the constitution? He avoids how the WHITE DOMESTIC TERRORISTS in the south are conservatives?

Notice how he leaves out how "illegals" pick our veggies and fruit? How they pay SALES TAXES on things they buy with the money, how "illegals" pay INTO Social Security but never take out?

And how much did BUsh's wars cost? Over a TRILLION and counting? How many American dead? Well counting 9-11 which could have been prevented about 20,000 Americans. How much did the Wall Street bankers take in from the crash?

Boy Troll, you can cut and paste spun numbers from your uncredited riech wing sites, you can call me all the names you want, and in the end, you are still just lying and deflecting and everyone here knows it.


At 8:15 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...


It took me less than 10 seconds to find the Boy Trolls source.

Looks like I was right. It doesn't even have the credibility of Drudge or the Blaze.

At 8:55 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

"Marriage is a religious ceremony and government never had any business regulating it. "

Umm, no. marriage is a CIVIL contract that can be OPTIONALLY celebrated in a religious setting.

You can have the most ostentatious wedding ceremony you want in a religious venue, but if you don't have a CIVIL marriage license, you're not considered to be legally married, and that's been a fact for a long time.

You can get married in a cathedral, a judge's chambers, justice of the peace office, or a Las Vegas wedding chapel by an Elvis impersonator, and as long as you have that civil marriage license, in the eyes of the law, all those marriages are equally legal.

There are legal benefits to married people that aren't available to people who live together without that civil contract. What would be your solution to questions like which couples get tax deductions, how surviving spouses inherit the estate created during their marriage, custody of the children, and who can be covered under a spouse's medical insurance, just to name a few examples.

Different religions have different practices and standards concerning marriage, how would YOU make a policy that is fair and applicable to all people without requiring a civil marriage license?

At 11:34 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Mozart, you really do need to carefully read what I write before responding, sir. I wrote “And who gives a damn if Hillary’s corrupt millions are less than Romney’s or the Koch brothers.” LESS… not more.

I would personally rather have a HONEST politician that is as far left as Bernie Sanders as president before I would vote for a corrupt Republican on the level of Hillary’s ethical and legal transgressions. It’s a damned shame the rest of America is too concerned about their favorite political party rather than our nation and would vote for Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin for president if they had a (D) behind their name.

And the fact that you think Hillary is innocent of the myriad of charges of corruptions, quid pro quo, and cover-ups speaks to the fact that you are one of those people that are cynically or naively looking the other way to put party above country. Shame on you, sir!

As for me “whining about the Constitution”, I sure as hell wish others would do the same. We have a lawless president usurping congressional power and ruling by executive order like a banana republic tyrant. We have a congress and a judiciary that are weak and spineless and refuse to hold him Constitutionally accountable, let alone themselves in their own duties. This republic will soon fall if we don’t restore it to the rule of law and not of men – if we don’t all start “whining” and caring about that Constitution.

Are Republican guilty of violating it too? Oh, hell yeah they are! And unlike other partisans, I am not willing to give them a pass either. They must be held accountable and removed from office as well.

That said, by and large, most of the transgressions against the Constitution and our Bill of Rights lately have all come from the left. It won’t be long until our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are seriously curtailed and infringed upon. Same with our 2nd and 4th amendment rights. That is the legacy of President Obama, Senator Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

At 11:54 AM, Blogger T. Paine said...

La Raza? Which translates to “The Race”… Hmmm… That would be branded as a racist group if it were comprised of only Caucasians, and rightly so. Why the politically correct double-standard? I am heartened to see that no Republican presidential candidates accepted invitations to this “racist” convention.

As for Judicial Watch, Mr. Anonymous chose a good reliable source. You discount them because they are conservative, but their mission is to hold accountable corrupt politicians and public figures via law suits, education, and amicus briefs in support of Constitutional issues. Why in the world should that be disconcerting to you? Do you support corrupt politicians thereby putting Judicial Watch at odds with yourself, Mozart? Oh wait – you said you would vote for Hillary in the general election, so I guess you are indeed at odds with them… and the truth, my friend.

De_Bill, I understand that in today’s twisted secular culture that marriage has already lost most of its meaning. I understand it is nothing more than just one more legal contract to most people, just like buying a house. That is precisely why divorce rates are around 50% and we have now further redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in that “contract”. Do you really think that will improve the status of what USED TO BE a religious sacrament, or that it will further degrade this societal bedrock institution, sir?

Your next question is a good one though. Please let me clarify. I do not think that the government on any level should be involved with issuing marriage licenses. It should not be up to them to grant “approval” to people wishing to get married. That said, once those people are married, either in a church in front of a priest or in a civil ceremony in front of Elvis, the state should recognize that “contract” or sacrament just as they would any other contract that two consenting parties enacted, thus providing all of the legal rights that the “contract” or sacrament of marriage implies from a civil aspect. The differing faiths or civil services can set their own standards as to who qualifies to get married under their jurisdiction. That would be my suggestion, anyhow.

At 2:02 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

Marriage has never been exclusively a "religious sacrament". People have always had the option of getting married in a secular setting.

You can thump the drum of your favorite superstition all you want, it has no influence on people's civil rights. Freedom OF religion is also freedom FROM religion.

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” -Sinclair Lewis

At 2:52 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

De_Bill, you are right and I fully acknowledge that marriage has not always been exclusively a religious sacrament, but it has nearly been so for thousands of years -- until the last several generations.

It is during these same last few generations that we have seen divorce rates sky-rocket, out of wed-lock births, and subsequent poverty for single mothers and their children with the corresponding increase in crime also become widely prevalent.

Whether those things were better held at bay in the past because of my “favorite superstition” or the benevolence of the fling spaghetti monster, there certainly does seem to be some causal effect from our society’s degradation of marriage today. Do you think further diluting marriage by the current SCOTUS redefinition of it will improve matters in our cynical society or make things worse, sir?

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for a theocracy or that everyone must believe in my faith. I respect and have and would defend others to believe differently or not at all. I simply think as Americans that we SHOULD strive to educate our children and future generations in the same moral and ethical Judeo-Christian values that our nation was founded upon. At the very least, we should explain the importance of history, civics, and the rule of law as established by our magnificent Constitution. Then, perhaps, we can once again hold our elected officials accountable when they stray from the dictates of just law.

When fascism comes to America it will it will be championed by those proclaiming to only want to help the poor and oppressed, while dismissing the Constitution in doing so, and thereby they will be oppressing others and impoverishing everybody’s liberty and prosperity. ~ T. Paine

At 3:10 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

If I were Greece, I would just self-identify as a solvent nation...

At 5:31 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Now THAT is funny, HarleyA! :)

At 6:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"When fascism comes to America...."

It already has. Police brutality is rampant. The military/corporate complex determines foreign policy. Warrant-less spying on Americans is reality. Racism has grown bolder since a black man won the White House. Our trade laws are written by corporations and enforced by politicians slurping at their trough. Corporations write into trade agreements immunity from legal recourse through our justice system.

Americans are so dumbed down they have no clue what neo-liberalism is.

Democracy for all intents and purposes, save public ballot initiatives, is dead.

Corporatocracy has replaced it. Politicians represent moneyed interests over the public's. Corporations, with limitless "free speech" cash are immortal, and amoral, super persons, unaccountable for their crimes and corruption. They have the loudest voices and the most representation. It's corruption is called "free speech". This is the sickness of the soul of America. And they blather about "American exceptionalism" while destroying or corrupting our representative republic.

None of this resulted from liberal policies, by the way. If gay marriage and social safety nets are fascism, then what we already have is way worse.

"This country is finished...You don't have rights. You have owners." - George Carlin

At 7:11 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

Dave, in a nation of over 300 million people and tens of thousands of police officers, sadly there are going to be those that abuse their authority and do evil things, just as teachers, politicians, and clergy sometimes do. Thankfully those that fail in their duties are the rare exceptions that are made to seem more prominent and numerous by our technologically connected world.

Next, large corporations do indeed have way too much sway in the forming of governmental policies and law. So too do unions. Citizens United did nobody any favors by redefining what “personhood” is. We could undo a lot of that harm by removing that ability as a “person” from corporations and unions. The right would scream about it from the corporation viewpoint though, just as the left would from the union aspect. But how are either of these two truly considered as “persons”?

Warrantless spying is indeed a fact in violation of our rights, which was expanded under G.W. Bush and continued under Obama.

Racism will always sadly be a part of life, but like police brutality, its occurrences are fairly rare now, and often overstated for political purpose. Americans have elected a man of color to the presidency, and then reelected him. If racism was truly as rampant as some would have us believe, that could never have happened. Sadly, it is the dividers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and even our president that are so quick to point out our differences rather than focus on what brings us together as Americans. When evil racists do come out from under their rocks to commit horrific crimes, we as a nation need to respond and overcome with love like the people did in Charleston, South Carolina, and not like the people of Baltimore.

Most Americans are indeed ignorant and dumbed-down, Dave. We have no sense of economics, history, civics, and our Constitution. Our constitution is a punch-line to some people, if they even understand what it is today. Bringing it up is construed as “whining about it”. Sadly, this cynicism seems to have spread to even our Supreme Court.

America is an exceptional place – even in its current state of degradation. In fact, if the doors were open to every nation in the world and the means were provided for all of the citizens of the world to immigrate to wherever they chose, do you have any doubt that we would not be a nation of 1 billion citizens instead of 330 million?

And that exceptionalism comes not from our government and the entitlements it can provide. Greece provided myriads of entitlements – right up to the point of national bankruptcy. No, our American exceptionalism comes from our liberty and the rule of law in the ideal that these are things afforded to all men and women -- and not by our government, but by our Creator, as stated by Thomas Jefferson’s pen in our Declaration of Independence.

We have cheapened that exceptionalism and dimmed that shining city on a hill that America was by ignoring our laws, not holding those in authority accountable, and denigrating or dismissing the morals and values that made America strong.

We need to have a president, congress, and justice system that follow the law and works to bring us together; not one that keeps political score and rubs the noses of a vast majority of Americans in the loss of a SCOTUS decision by illuminating the White House (The PEOPLE’S HOUSE) in rainbow lighting. How is that bringing us together, even if one agrees with the decision? Shouldn’t a president act more… presidential?

Yeah, conservatives are indeed the worst people in the world when it comes to their frailties and hypocrisy. In fact they are only surpassed by progressives in those regards. So why don’t we stop figuring out what is best for our political parties and instead worry about what is best for our nation? How about instead of trying to fix the blame, we work together to fix the problem?

At 9:08 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Racism will always sadly be a part of life, but like police brutality, its occurrences are fairly rare now, and often overstated for political purpose.

Fairly rare, or rarely reported and prosecuted?

Police brutality is rare in white America. Not so rare elsewhere. In fact it was a regular feature, and condoned, for two decades in Chicago.

Former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge was convicted on all three counts of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying about police torture. Special prosecutors had alleged that Burge led the torture of criminal suspects for two decades, coercing dozens of confessions.

Overstated? Really? Do you know any black people at all? How about Native Americans?

Americans have elected a man of color to the presidency, and then reelected him. If racism was truly as rampant as some would have us believe, that could never have happened


"If we were a racist nation, Barack Obama would not have been elected president of the United States twice. It's a math thing." - Steve Doocy FOX®

Sorry to see you parroting the FOX line. Note the false premise in both statements, and the same conclusion. Racists refuse to recognize racism, or twist the argument with a false premise.

At least you admitted it exists, though in an accusatory manner against liberal politics.

At 9:47 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

T. Paine, I was wondering if you had a chance to listen to Bernie Sanders or read his speeches. Also do you think any of the Republican presidential candidates would be a better president for America than Sanders?

At 9:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox has changed the rules about the debates.

It’s not going to be based on polls.

Now, the candidates have to do Financial Disclosure Forms with the FEC in order to get a spot on the debate.

They don’t think Trump will file, thus kick him off the debate.

At 10:54 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"You can thump the drum of your favorite superstition all you want, it has no influence on people's civil rights."
- DE Bill

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."



At 10:55 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

Ok - only one "Hmmmm" was necessary. Got carried away.

At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


If no white had voted for Obama would he have won?
So it was racism that swept him into office?

Racism is the last resort of debate for liberals. When all else fails play the race card.

That's progress?

At 11:45 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 11:48 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

They specifically used the word "Creator" so it would be up to the individual what or who he or she thought their creator was.

So we're right back to the concept that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion

Also, the Constitution rules this country, not the Declaration of Independence.

At 1:42 AM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"They specifically used the word "Creator" so it would be up to the individual what or who he or she thought their creator was."

Uh, no, they meant a personal Supreme Being. They meant God. "Its" don't endow others with rights. Moral agents with supreme power have the prerogative to endow rights. Without God, we are fully free to make up our own rights, with the only arbiter being the coercion of the collective sovereign. You seem to be engaging in some strange gymnastics here to make a point that cannot be made.

Believe what you want to believe but you can't say silly things like God (my favorite superstition) had nothing to do with our rights. He had EVERYTHING to do with them. Foundational concept. Now, we're free to cast it aside (and we just did), but don't deny it existed at the time.

At 11:10 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The Declaration and Constitution are not religion based. Sorry, Jesus didn't write the Constitution. The United States is NOT a "Christian nation".

Yeah, there was a reason Christianity and Jesus are absent from the Declaration. The signers were not of the same beliefs.

Look at what comes before the "creator" line:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The slave owners who signed didn't seem to include slaves as part of "all men are created equal" did they? Women weren't mentioned either. Why aren't women equal?

Apparently "all men" wasn't meant to include all humans. A "more perfect union" was needed and acknowledged. We can't amend the declaration, but thankfully we can, and did, amend the Constitution.

It won't happen again. Corporations are now "men created MORE equal".

Just like Natures Law and "the Creator" intended, apparently.

At 12:15 PM, Anonymous HarleyA said...

"The Declaration and Constitution are not religion based."

The Declaration most certainly is - inarguably. Constitution is not explicitly - agreed.

"Sorry, Jesus didn't write the Constitution. The United States is NOT a 'Christian nation'."

I don't think I made any of those claims. And, if you'll go back and follow the conversation, you'll better understand what my argument is.

At 12:34 PM, Blogger De_Bill said...

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, and
ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very
formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."
--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his
abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to
Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade
of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson

Gee, it doesn't sound like the principal author of the Declaration of Independence was much of a fan of mixing government and religion, was he?

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams

By all means, keep selling the fiction the United States is a "christian nation", you have demonstrated how comforting your favorite fiction is for you.

At 1:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The fact remains Christianity was not mentioned. That is for a reason. So you may say it was "religion based" all you like but you can't say it was "Christian based".

So what religion is it based on? If the Declaration is religion based, it is also Humanist based. This is how the document is so flexible.

Is it a religion that says we are created by Nature's law? To many "Nature's God" may just be "Mother Nature". As you said, "personal supreme being". They were vague for a good reason.

Nature's law, Creator etc. were the only recourse to higher authority than the Crown. The Crown held to the the divine right of kings so the Declaration held to the divine right of men.

What other argument could they possibly have made against divine right of kings?

You fight fire with fire and "God's will" with "God's OTHER will".

God or no God, religion or no religion, nature's law rules, and that was indisputable. They knew this.

Except now, as Republicans deny the effects of air pollution. Screw science and nature, it's about "Corporatocracy law" now.

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson

TJ didn't get your message.

At 3:29 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“Police brutality is rare in white America. Not so rare elsewhere. In fact it was a regular feature, and condoned, for two decades in Chicago.”

Dave, how is this possible? Chicago has been run by Democrats for generations. Obama’s own former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel is the mayor there. Certainly there shouldn’t be any police brutality under HIS watch.

“Overstated? Really? Do you know any black people at all? How about Native Americans?”

How do you know that I am not black, Dave? My dearest friend is black, and my likely future son-in-law is also black. But the real question is, why does the color of my, my friends, or my family’s skin pigmentation even matter? That is the whole point. I don’t look at a person of color and see an “African American”. I see an AMERICAN! I try to judge people, as Dr. King dreamed, by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. I wish our president and “reverends” such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would do the same. (Full disclosure: I am not black, not that this matters.)

And for the record, please do explain how Obama won the presidency (twice) if a majority of Americans, including evil white Americans, did not vote for him? Are you privy to some Democratic ballot tampering that enabled him to win? (I shouldn’t joke about that, since that is not outside the realm of possibility.) Vote early, vote often has long been a cliché in Chicago Democrat politics. Is it a coincidence that Obama hails from there? :)

Moving on, Mr. Hansen, I have been aware of Bernie Sanders for a while. He is a self-described socialist and rightfully so. It is interesting the three “issues” he chooses to run on, according to his web site: The environment & climate change, income inequality, and getting money out of politics.

I agree that we need to be far better stewards of our environment, but Mr. Sander’s way of going about it will devastate our economy and hurt everyone, particularly the poorest amongst us. I agree with getting big money out of politics, and think we should start with Hillary as a good example of this. As for income inequality, that is nothing more than pitting the poor against the rich in class warfare. The economy is not a zero-sum game. I am not harmed by how many billions Bill Gates or the Koch Brother have. Using this inequality as a pretext for socialistic redistribution does nothing to help the poor. I think there are some huge issues that Mr. Sanders has missed on his campaign web site, such as terrorism, the economy, and education. That said, I think he is still a serious candidate and honest as far as politicians go. Because of that, I would much prefer that he be the Democrat candidate over the corrupt and evil Hillary. Sanders would provide for a good and decent debate of ideas against whomever the GOP nominates. Ideas and debate over which ones are best is precisely what America needs right now!

I am personally undecided whom I want for president at this point. I know I will not be voting for progressive Republican “moderates” like Huckabee, Graham, or Jeb Bush. We certainly don’t need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. We will see as time moves on, who seems to be most in tuned with capitalism, and more importantly, following the United States Constitution.

At 3:47 PM, Blogger T. Paine said...

“Also, the Constitution rules this country, not the Declaration of Independence.”

The Constitution SHOULD rule this country. Apparently it hasn’t for some time now though. The Obergefell decision and the King v. Burwell decision are further proof of that. That said, the Declaration was our founding document as a nation and laid down the very first principles of our nation. The Constitution enumerated those duties that our three co-equal branches of government had. They were to follow and perform those duties as described and NOTHING more. As President Obama said, the Constitution is a list of negative liberties. He meant this because it was designed to constrain government, which he seems to lament. Instead government has overstepped its powers today under the guise of the “welfare clause” and others to mean that they can do whatever they wish. And We The People, have left them get away with it. We have, consequently, gotten the government we deserve.

Next, the United States is not explicitly a Christian nation; however, it absolutely was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Myriads of letters and statements from our Founders clearly substantiates this fact.

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention] ~ Alexander Hamilton

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses] ~ Patrick Henry

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

I tremble along with President Jefferson. God may not smite us with His wrath, but being the gentlemen He is, I think He will certainly step back and let us have the nation we seem to want and to suffer the consequences of our own actions accordingly.

At 4:41 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I guarantee the next president will be a corporatist. Sanders would be taken out if he got too popular.

“Rabid Right wingers are shooting people in churches.”

Really? I doubt that this punk Dylan Roof understood anything about politics – left or right.

Racism is political. He made the remark often spewed by the Right about “wanting their country back”. He is a radical Right terrorist.

How about the Tennessee Unitarian Church killer? He was out to kill liberals. Not political?

The Right wrongly thinks only Muslims are terrorists. That is very much like racism too.

Ask your black friend about police brutality in any large city.

Aid to the poor is evil? Really? How about the lack of good jobs, as we witness the failure of de-regulated capitalism and global corporatism? Did you see my post on fascism’s arrival? All from the Right, abetted by corpo-Dems. Please check it out.

Liberals claim success by showing how many people are on their entitlement programs. Conservatives show success by showing how many people no longer need those same programs.

More FOX propaganda points. How about something we haven’t hear repeated ad nauseam? Liberals claim success when we all benefit from good jobs and a fair economy. And they are losing. Should I repeat that?

Racism is an epithet used as a final resort in a debate by liberals often times these days, and usually when they are losing the argument.

What, losing the argument that racism and hate groups expanded since Obama won? Yeah, we hear this dogma on FOX ALL the time. More koolade, buddy.

I’m afraid your tone is becoming accusatory and dogmatic.

And who started the war on unions? If unions were not targeted men would not be fighting desperately for their jobs and benefits. They didn’t go looking for a fight. It was taken to them.

But rejoice, the war on unions, and the American worker, has been won by the radical Right. They will go down in history with communism and fascism in their rabid destruction of worker rights.

I have already admitted to the behavior of a small minority. You, along with the radical Right, judge, and punish, them ALL by the actions of a few. Have you ever seen a non-violent picketing union man clubbed onto the ground by corporate cops? This happened to my brother. I’m sure he would have preferred spit. Just his luck to encounter one of the “extremely rare” brutal cops.

It seems only equitable that they prove they aren’t using it for illegal drugs.

You mean it’s equitable that we all lose our Fourth Amendment rights by presumption of guilt until proven innocent? We owe employers an honest day’s work, not our bodily fluids. This is authoritarianism, not freedom. If someone screws up and seems intoxicated, then test them. Fair enough? Freedom lost that round.

At 4:44 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

MSNBC has never thrown the equivalent of the ‘FOX Tea Party’ rallies. Fact. Tingle or no tingle, remember “We’re ALL Neocons now!” on “Mission Accomplished day”.

“Equivalent rallies”? I’ll believe that when I see it. Did the equivalent rallies get as much coverage as the Tea Party? Did MSNBC hold anti-Bush rallies? LOL! Facts please. I think you’re clutching at ideological straws, buddy. Your false equivalence has been established.

NPR has become dependent on corporate money as the Republicans slashed their budgets again and again.

Out of the 259 total NPR board members, 194—or 75 percent—have corporate backgrounds. Many of these board members are executives in banks, investment firms, consulting companies and corporate law firms. Some of the elite corporations include Verizon, Bank of America and Citigroup.

Just who’s “free speech” are we talking about here?

NPR and PBS were originally public funded to be independent. That was before being gutted by Republicans and allowed to taken by corporate coup. Now the Corporation for Public Broadcasting depends on private contributions to receive matching federal funds. David Koch has donated upwards of $23 million to public television. And when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a tote bag or a coffee mug – you get to dictate the on-air programming.

Do you understand NPR/PBS is significantly funded and by corporations and wealthy individuals? They have lost their independent voice. “Citizen Koch” is a documentary about money and politics, focusing heavily on the uprising that took place in Wisconsin in 2011 and 2012.

Could PBS show it? No. Censored by…guess who? Koch is on the board of flagship PBS station WGBH. What are the chances NOVA can be free to show the impacts of climate change?

The New York PBS station offered — by its president, Neal Shapiro — to David Koch last year to respond with an on-screen written statement immediately following a critical portrait of him contained within the "Park Avenue" program that dealt with the huge disparity of wealth among New Yorkers living on different ends of that avenue.

Koch money is also dictating choices at public universities:

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it's not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires don't meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations.

So much for public education.

October 3, 2002:
Appearing on Fox News, National Public Radio correspondent Mara Liasson says of Democrats McDermott and Bonior's trip to Iraq: "These guys are a disgrace. Look, everybody knows it's 101, Politics 101, that you don't go to an adversary country, an enemy country, and bad-mouth the United States, its policies and the president of the United States. I mean, these guys ought to, I don't know, resign."

April 7, 2003
—Embedded NPR reporter John Burnett recounts the news he has learned from a "top military official.... the first solid confirmed existence of chemical weapons by the Iraqi army." According to Burnett, an army unit near Baghdad has discovered, "20 BM-21 medium-range rockets with warheads containing sarin nerve and mustard gas."

National Politburo Radio? Don’t be absurd. You lose credibility with your far Right dogma. It was more like National Pentagon Radio in 2003.

Funny how the Right forgot all about 2003.

I didn’t. Many of us were called a traitor for not drinking the Bush/Cheney koolade.

At 5:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Next, the United States is not explicitly a Christian nation; however, it absolutely was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Slavery, brutality, theft, and the mass extermination of indigenous peoples.

I am personally undecided whom I want for president at this point. I know I will not be voting for progressive Republican “moderates” like Huckabee, Graham, or Jeb Bush. We certainly don’t need another Clinton or Bush in the White House. We will see as time moves on, who seems to be most in tuned with capitalism

How about Ted Cruz? He seems tuned in with capitalism, i.e. rigging the game:

Ted Cruz must not have a lot of confidence in his new book, A Time For Truth. Rather than let the book makes its way to the top on its own, he and his publisher Harper Collins resorted to sneaky tactics to ensure high sales. They paid people to buy the book.

In essence, The Times accused Cruz’s publisher of trying to buy its way onto the bestseller list by having a firm like Result Source hire thousands of people across America to individually purchase a copy of A Time For Truth, in the hope that some of those retailers are on the secret list of booksellers who report their sales to the Times, or that the aggregate purchasers will simply be too high for the Times to ignore.

Conservatives are furious with The New York Times, saying it should be okay for the presidential hopeful to buy his way onto the Bestseller List. The NYT, however, says they have “uniform standards” they follow and these standards don’t include enticing book consumers with cash.

A Time for Truth? Hardly.

At 7:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ted Cruz must not have a lot of confidence in his new book, A Time For Truth. Rather than let the book makes its way to the top on its own, he and his publisher Harper Collins resorted to sneaky tactics to ensure high sales. They paid people to buy the book.

Have you looked into Ms.Clinton's book sales?

capitalism, i.e. rigging the game: vs socialism destroying the game

At 8:24 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Thank you Mr. Paine for enlightening us!

Most of us here at Tom's blog vote for the politician who promises us the most free stuff from the blood, sweat, and tears of others and have no clue about the Constitution.

Thanks again!

At 8:38 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

T.Paine you just heard from SORE LOSER who likes to post under my name. An all around nasty guy that is a total waste of time to respond to.

At 8:53 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Homeland security

After the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, a domestic terrorist bomb attack that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Biden drafted anti-terrorist legislation, which was ultimately defeated. He later claimed publicly on several occasions that the USA PATRIOT Act – which eased restrictions on the Executive branch in the surveillance and detention of those suspected of terrorism or facilitating it – was essentially a duplicate of the anti-terrorist legislation he had drafted years earlier.

I just want to let it be known that the US PATRIOT Act, that Dave Dubya always rants about, was the brain child of Joe Biden!

At 9:03 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Tom, Spare the rod, spoil the blog!

At 8:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom, Spare the rod, spoil the blog!

James, Tom has admitted he doesn't even bother reading the comments here. "I have a life" he says. Yeah, I guess that booze doesn't drink itself.

I read a variety of blogs, and the real smart writers take an interest in the comments. They will respond and participate, and if anyone attempts bullshit like stealing names, becoming abusive and posting viruses, they get banned.

But Tom doesn't give a fuck. Spoiled rich kid. He doesn't give a shit about the people who read his blog and try to have discussions.

Here's when I lost respect for him: he wrote a loving tribute to the young lady who passed away. He said at the beginning of the comments section that he wouldn't tolerate any off-topic posts. This is a very special piece. Any off-topic postings will be immediately deleted. he said.

And then here's what followed:

At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
The poem's last two lines:

"The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace"

How would you do this with ISIS?
At 7:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Do liberals resent the rich?
At 7:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Since the topic is random thoughts, how do you determine which posts are random and which ones aren't?

For example is this random?

The Colorado business owned by Hispanic Americans that plans to hold a “white Appreciation Day” was shut down unexpectedly and everyone forced to leave on Friday evening.

The Washington Times reported that Rubbin’ Butz BBQ, owned by Edgar Antillon, has received major backlash for daring to show his appreciation for white Americans, and on Friday, credible threats were made against both Antillon and his establishment, forcing him to close his business and leave the building for several hours.

Does the left hate whites?


At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More so called "progress".

Prudencio Fragos-Ramirez, 25, was arraigned on Monday and is being held on $1 million bail for the murders of 18-year-old Maria Cruiz-Calvillo and her 3-year-old son, Luis Lopez-Cruz, the Tri-City Herald reports.

The pair’s burned bodies were discovered in a remote area on Thursday. The two had gunshot wounds, but the boy was likely still alive when the car was set ablaze, according to Franklin County coroner Dan Blasdel. …

Fragos-Ramirez was last deported in 2014 but had re-entered the country illegally. He has a rap sheet that includes charges for DUI and driving with a suspended license.

Thank you Mr. President Obama for protecting us from ALL enemy's both domestic and foreign.

At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More "progress".

Friday, July 10, 2015 06:45PM
Federal immigration officials tell ABC11 a second illegal immigrant suspected of causing a serious wreck this week will not be allowed out of jail.

Earlier this week, the I-Team covered the return of Efren Roblero to the streets of Wake County.

Roblero is accused of driving drunk and causing a crash that injured two people over the weekend. He managed to post his $75,000 bond and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials approved his release from jail.

Now, another illegal immigrant, Antonio Arellano, is accused of hit-and-run causing serious injury, driving without a license, and reckless driving.

The woman he allegedly hit spoke to ABC11 Friday from her hospital bed at WakeMed where she is recovering from surgery.

Thank you Mr. President Obama for protecting us from ALL enemy's, both domestic and foreign.

At 7:49 AM, Anonymous Harry from Wallingford, CT said...

Axelrod: Obama Misled Nation When He Opposed Gay Marriage In 2008

"Barack Obama misled Americans for his own political benefit when he claimed in the 2008 election to oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, his former political strategist David Axelrod writes in a new book, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

The insider’s account provides the clearest look yet at Obama’s long-established flip-flop, one of the blemishes on his record as a progressive. The admission of Obama’s embrace of deception also calls into question the President’s stated embrace of a new kind of politics in 2008, when he promised to be unlike other politicians who change their views to match the political winds."

Yeah that sounds like progress and the "embrace of a new kind of politics" to me lol.

So why should we be surprised that the White House colors change just like the head chameleon who lives there?

At 7:09 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

The "stupid" from our conservatives here is getting pretty deep...

The Boy Troll is going to obsess on every crime committed by a Mexican to the exclusion of all else, while his GOP heroes continue to tear apart the constitution.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home